|
|
 |
| Mike McManus has written
the nationally syndicated column, “Ethics & Religion” since
1981. He is President and Co-Founder with his wife, Harriet,
of Marriage Savers, a non-profit organization that has
helped the clergy of 223 cities to create Community Marriage
Policies that have reduced divorce and cohabitation rates
and increased marriage rates. This is his first book to call
for a political solution to America’s divorce rate, which is
the highest in the world. |
Reviews and Comments
McManus - Ethics & Religion
How to Cut America's Divorce Rate in Half
October 8, 2008
Column #1,415
by Mike McManus
In four out of five divorces, one spouse opposes it, according
to Frank Furstenburg and Andrew Cherlin in their book, "Divided
Families."
Yet the unwilling spouse is always forced into divorce due to
"No Fault Divorce" laws in 49 states. It is called No Fault,
because one does not have to prove a spouse is guilty of faults
- adultery or physical abuse - but can claim "irreconcilable
differences" and always get the divorce.
That's unfair to a spouse who believes the marriage IS
reconcilable.
And it is tragic for their children. In "Twice Adopted:" Michael
Reagan described his pain when his parents, Ronald Reagan and
Jane Wyman, divorced: "Divorce is where two adults take
everything that matters to a child - the child's home, family,
security and sense of being loved and protected - and they smash
it all up, leave it in ruins on the floor, then walk out and
leave the child to clean up the mess."
 Ironically,
California Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the first No Fault Law in
1969. Years later he told Michael that it was his "greatest
regret." No Fault laws quickly swept the nation. The number of
divorces soared 63 percent from 639,000 in 1969 to 1,036,000 by
1975.
Clergy bless 86 percent of marriages, who often quote Jesus:
"What God has joined together, let no man put asunder." Since
1970 America has put asunder 43 million marriages involving 41
million children.
No Fault is also unconstitutional. The 5th and 14th Amendments
to the Constitution guarantee that "no person be deprived of
life, liberty or property without the due process of law." Yet
how can there be "due process" if the spouse opposing the
divorce always loses?
Therefore, I've written a short book, "How To Cut America's
Divorce Rate in Half: A Strategy Every State Should Adopt." (See
www.MarriageSavers.org.) My answer is simple. I argue that
couples with minor children should be required "to obtain
written mutual consent for the dissolution of their marriage,"
unless fault is proven.
Why? The state knows that children are best brought up by their
own married parents. Children of divorce are three times as
likely as those from intact homes to be expelled from school, to
get pregnant as teens, are five times as apt to live in poverty
and up to 12 times as likely to be incarcerated.
Present law is "rigged to destroy families, not to preserve
them," I argue. It favors the person least interested in giving
children a secure home. Reforming No Fault to require Mutual
Consent would give an equal voice to the spouse most committed
to children and the marriage. This would not save every
marriage, but both legal experts and religious leaders agree: "I
believe this change in the law could cut the divorce rate in
half," said Rev. Richard Cizik, V.P. of the National Association
of Evangelicals, in a book endorsement.
"That would spare 500,000 children from seeing their parents
divorce each year, and save $50 to $100 billion in taxpayer
funds. This is an issue which should be taken to those running
for state or federal offices in this election year."
What would Mutual Consent mean in practical terms? A process of
negotiation would commence. A husband tells his wife that he
wants a divorce. She might reply "No, I won't agree to it. We
have two kids. You made a marriage vow `for better for worse.'
Let's go to a Marriage Encounter to improve our marriage."
He might then say, "I am in love with my secretary, but I want
to be fair with you, so I will give you my equity in the house."
She could respond, "But I don't earn enough money to pay the
mortgage. I could sue you for divorce on grounds of adultery,
but I'll forgive you. Give up this woman, and let's heal our
marriage." He'd then have to decide whether to offer alimony as
well as the house, or to give up the other woman.
"By giving a spouse who wants to save the marriage an equal
voice with an unhappy mate, many marriages could be restored,
perhaps saving most of them," asserts Evansville IN Catholic
Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger.
Divorce Attorney John Crouch, President of Americans For Divorce
Reform, explains "The law would guide people to postpone the
divorce decision until they had worked out the details of how
the divorce would actually work. A large proportion of divorces
would be avoided altogether. Divorces would be fairer to both
parties with less legal fees. I believe it could reduce divorce
rates as much as 50 percent.
"Changing the rules about ending a marriage would prevent a lot
of marriages from breaking down in the first place. They would
not only influence the decision to divorce, but the behavior and
choices that lead to divorce."
Copyright (c) 2008 Michael J. McManus. |
