For years, social conservatives have been fighting to prevent certain people from getting married. But they’re waging a parallel battle, too: Trying to keep married couples together.
In cooperation with the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage, socially conservative politicians have been quietly trying to make it harder for couples to get divorced. In recent years, lawmakers in more than a dozen states have introduced bills imposing longer waiting periods before a divorce is granted, mandating counseling courses or limiting the reasons a couple can formally split. States such as Arizona, Louisiana and Utah have already passed such laws, while others such as Oklahoma and Alabama are moving to do so.
If divorces are tougher to obtain, social conservatives argue, fewer marriages will end. And having more married couples is not just desirable in its own right but is a social good, they say. During his presidential campaign, former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) emphasized finishing high school and getting married as cures for poverty. “If you do those two things, you will be successful economically,” he declared at a 2011 event in Iowa.
A legislative movement against divorce may seem like a non-starter in a country where half of married couples avail themselves of this right, but as with legal challenges to Obamacare and the rise of the tea party movement, today’s fringe idea can quickly become tomorrow’s mainstream conservatism.
Divorce has long been a cultural touchstone in America. Social conservatives regularly advocate a return to a more traditional system of divorce — namely that it be extraordinarily difficult to get. For example, the only way an Alabamian could get a divorce under the state’s original 1819 constitution: “No decree for such divorce shall have effect until the same shall be sanctioned by two thirds of both Houses of the General Assembly.” Even a battered wife — who, of course, couldn’t vote — would have to petition her all-male state legislature and get supermajority approval before being freed from matrimony.
In 1969, California became the first state to legalize no-fault divorces — permitting divorce without requiring proof of wrongdoing such as adultery — in the Family Law Act, signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan. Within a decade, 45 other states had joined California. By 1985, 49 states had legalized no-fault divorce; New York did just four years ago .
No-fault divorce has been a success. A 2003 Stanford University study detailed the benefits in states that had legalized such divorces: Domestic violence dropped by a third in just 10 years, the number of husbands convicted of murdering their wives fell by 10 percent, and the number of women committing suicide declined between 11 and 19 percent. A recent report from Maria Shriver and the Center for American Progress found that only 28 percent of divorced women said they wished they’d stayed married.
Yet the conservative push for “divorce reform” is finding sympathetic ears in statehouses, where Republican lawmakers have regularly introduced bills to restrict the practice. Their rationales range from the biblical (God bemoans divorce in Malachi 2:14-16) to the social (divorce reduces worker productivity) to the financial (two households are more expensive to maintain than one). Leading conservatives such as Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) have also argued that marriage is a solution to poverty.
Is there anything social conservatives don’t want to meddle in? Now it’s someone else’s marriage. The divorce rate in this country is about 50%. Additionally, about 50% of all Americans are married. The statistics aren’t really all that good. However, is this situation a problem and, if it is a problem, is the social conservative meddling a fix?
For starters, couples can’t just decide to get a divorce, in most states, and go do it. Is making divorce difficult a way to protect children or is it a way to make certain their parents REALLY hate each other? Any delays in divorce make the process more expensive. Adding additional financial burden can’t be good for anyone.
Let’s ask that all important question: Does marriage really protect children and ensure their well-being? I would say emphatically NO. I believe good relationships between parents help children to grow in a relatively stress free environment. Marriage does not have to be a part of this good relationship. The government cannot legislate good relationships. Any attempt to prolong marriages that are destined to fail is simply more interference from the social do-gooders who want less government intrusion in you life. Go figure.
They say they want less government involvement in every one’s lives – but when they get the chance to do something, the first thing they do is try and get more into everyone’s lives by pushing topics such as this. Look at the most recent ‘family values’ Congressman to be caught – McAllister – he gets caught smooching with a staffer on video – she gets fired, he gets the FBI to investigate the video leak and he does not resign. But he stands on principle on his other positions.
Getting a divorce may have become too easy – as I know people who say well, I am going to get married and if it does not work out, I will just get a divorce – and future spouses are too forgiving to those who have multiple spouses/divorces – Gingrich, Rush, Giuliani, etc
The sad thing is, Gingrich, Rush and Giuliani could buy their way out of multiple divorces.
Some poor woman being beaten senseless can’t. The harder it is to divorce, the more expensive it becomes.
I agree. Less government unless it is your personal business. Then the self-righteous zealots dive in, up to their necks.
Their hypocrisy makes me sick.
I’m married … may well remain so … but wouldn’t do it again. It’s an archaic thing.
Marriage is exactly like an employment contract. It can go on happily for decades, but it can also be over quickly when either party wants it to end. No law can or will change that. Nor should it.
We collectively need to work out a more rational approach to this. It may be as simple as highly recommending, or even requiring, some type of prenup agreement between the parties.
Have you ever told your wife how you feel Rick? Maybe she could solve your problem with that “archaic thing.”
However, is this situation a problem and, if it is a problem, is the social conservative meddling a fix? – No, which is one reason I’m not a social conservative.
Is making divorce difficult a way to protect children or is it a way to make certain their parents REALLY hate each other? – don’t know, don’t care to find out
Does marriage really protect children and ensure their well-being? – I would say emphatically YES. Just look at statistics, they speak for themselves (crime rate, lifetime earnings, education, etc… of kids growing up in single parent homes)
Does making divorce easier/quicker fix anything, no. Does making divorce harder/longer fix anything, no.
I don’t think it is marriage that protects children. I think it is a solid relationship that really protects the children.
Marriage is no guarantee that fathers don’t run around, gamble away the grocery money or beat the mother senseless.
Children who grow up in two parent families tend to beat the odds more than kids growing up in a one parent home.
LOL! Yeah, I thought the same thing… too funny.
“Marriage is exactly like an employment contract.” and “It’s an archaic thing.” – Holy $hit man, if my wife heard me say that…. well, I don’t know what she would think, say or do.
The only thing I will agree with your statement is this – “but wouldn’t do it again”. In my mid 30’s but have been with my wife a little over 20 years. Couldn’t imagine every being ‘married’ to an other woman.
Good for you. But is there some reason a marriage certificate or ceremony is needed to help that relationship to continue?
It’s a phony construct. It is almost meaningless, except in that it typically serves to penalize the high earner if either party bails on the marriage.
Two stable parent figures helps children. Do they need to be married? No.
The world is full of people who spoke reams about how happy they were to be married to their partner, and how much meaning the marriage gave to their life, that ended up divorced.
Life’s a long song. Those of you who don’t agree with my perspective yet may yet come to agree with it.
Meanwhile all I really say about the matter is, don’t get married without a prenup. I myself did not get burned badly in this way. But I COULD have, and I see it happen to other guys. There is no reason in the world to ever get married without a prenuptual agreement.
What marriage gives to a man : the illusion that they are engaged in a permanent relationship, which mirrors the parent-marriage that either set the tone for their childhood, or which didn’t but was longed for. A fairy tale context on which to project absolute love, the type of “family” love that we all long for to varying degrees.
What it takes when it goes bad, in the absence of a prenup – for the higher earner – half of not only everything you are, but everything you’ll ever be. If your wife gets tired of you and leaves you, to grow or whatever, and makes less money than you and chooses to assert herself, it’s as if half your future is ripped away from you.
You have been warned. I didn’t quite go through this, but came close enough to the flame to see the light.
As to my wife’s opinion on this, she knows how I feel. We both remember that it was my idea to get married, not hers.
I think marriage is a noble goal for the sake of children. Beyond that, it’s a bad idea. It’s playacting. Long-term, society is going to figure this out and move beyond it.
Oy vey, those are the type of thoughts you sometimes keep inside your head Rick.
Marriage without a prenup is like stopping by a roullete wheel and betting half of everything you own. With no anticipated payoff. And half the time you’re going to walk away with half your stuff gone, wondering why it was you wanted to play that wheel?
I’ll go a step further on this – as we all know that I like to take my posts towards a level of discomfort. You know the old maxim about newlyweds and beans in a jar? It was relevant in past eras when people didn’t have a lot of sex before marriage. The idea was that every time a couple “made love” in the first year, or maybe first two years of their marriage, they should put a bean into a jar. After that, for the rest of their lives, whenever they made love they should take one out. the jar would never run out of beans.
Keeping that in mind, I invite every man to do the math on how much money they contributed to a household in their marriage. Include half the rent if you payed it all, food, clothes, everything. The math gets fuzzy if children are involved, but give it a shot. Then divide that by an estimate on how many times you had sex. See if it compares to the price of a hooker. I am not at all sure what the going rate on that is these days, really, but maybe around $200 a pop?
I say this not to promote prostitution. But just to cast dispersion on the institution of marriage and the illusion of romantic love.
(BTW if you want a good soundtrack for my post I’d recommend playing this in the background – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyAaNCQ-K-c).
If you think you’re not paying for that illusion of perfect love, you’re fooling yourself.
In the end all there is between two people is friendship, and/or animal attraction. And sometimes a mutual interest in children’s welfare, and in raising them. To think that a relationship is permanently bonded because of a ceremony or a piece of paper is deluded.
Back towards topic, if social conservatives really want to keep marriages together in this day and age, they need to get real.
Council men and women to accept affairs outside of marriage, not to get upset about them. Run promo campaigns aimed at women “A man is a man – don’t lose your head if you’ve got the ring”.
Run promo campaigns aimed at men about the cost of divorce and how “it’s cheaper to keep her”.
And most of all, women need to follow Mona Charen’s advice and stop trying to have their own careers. Remember that women came from a man’s rib, not the other way around, and that the Bible is very clear about the proper role of women – they are to remain in the background while the men run this world.
Maybe social conservatives should start running ads on porn sites? With a “better to marry than to burn” theme? In between the lonely single woman webcams popping up on screen left, and the dehumanizing porn site ads popping up on screen left, give the user a chance to click on an angry John the Baptist chastising them for wasting their seed outside a family structure?
John could be raging that if you keep looking at this stuff you’ll go blind … or maybe catch an STD … better to click on this link and be redirected to ChristianMingle.com .
Easy there big fella.. your quickly approaching a line you don’t want to cross.
@Peterson
I think if you have been with your wife over 20 years and you are now in your thirties, I can safely suggest that you and she are really best friends then.
That’s a great foundation.
@Rick Bentley
Rick, where would this blog be without you. I am enjoying the various male perspectives on this subject.
I would not assume that women don’t have similar thoughts.
I have advised both men and women who are contemplating divorce to suck up all the notions about the kids, the dog, the cat, the house, the furniture, guilt and to think about one thing. Money. If you are the higher income earner, you are going to get screwed. If you aren’t, make sure you get your fair share.
How many people would NOT be still married if they could get out of losing their shirts for the rest of their life? It’s pretty much a forever situation.
Listen to Rick. Prenup. It sounds so mercenary and unromantic. Who cares?
Yes Moon, it’s great foundation and she is my best friend. I don’t have issue with that, what I do have an issue with is what this line insinuates “If you think you’re not paying for that illusion of perfect love, you’re fooling yourself”.
That kind of talk face to face usually ends up with one person holding a steak on his eye in a reclined position for the rest of the night.
Well, this IS a blog. You and Rick don’t know each other so I wouldn’t personalize it.
I was actually trying to compliment you. Just from what you have said,. it sounded like your wife really was your best friend. Good for you. Not everyone can make that claim.
46 years so far. A wartime marriage in which the contribution of the distaff side to the partnership has been priceless and always will be. I came out of Vietnam on a medevac plane. The first Navy Nurse assigned to my case wound up with a lifetime position. I am a lucky man.
Does Mrs. Wolverine feel like she is in Leavenworth? Just kidding!!!
Talk about a tour of duty!!!!
@Wolverine
Yes you are.
Congratulations.
May my marriage last as long.
Peterson, why would that sentiment make you angry, when I wasn’t talking about you in particular? Something must bother you deeply at the subconscious level.
Wolverine, congratulations. What you have is something succeeding generations saw, and mostly wanted. But which has become more and more difficult to maintain as time goes on. I submit that it’s at the point now that even if that is what a person wants, they should open their eyes and realize they probably aren’t going to have a lifelong companion.
Peterson, even at risk of a fist fight, I’ve got to invite you to DO THE MATH. WE DO ALL PAY FOR IT. (Whatever “it” is. I could be talking about sex, or about the illusion of romance). Except for a few really good looking guys who have the women paying for it.
Let’s say a higher earning male pays a whole $1500 mortgage for 10 years. And pays for 80% of a 2-person food budget – let’s say $800 a month. let’s say he pays for another $400 a month in clothes and entertainment spending that he would not have were he living alone.
Let’s assume that over the course of this 10 years the couple has sex 100 times the first year, 80 the next, then 60, then 40, then down to 20 times a year. (Mileage may vary. Those are not my totals).
That would be $810 a pop.
How about just shacking up?
The man might come to look back on this in the future and think “wow that was f***ing stupid.” Particularly if the woman leaves him and is rewarded with some similar amount of money in perpetuity, to main her “standard of living”. Which was initially given to her, by him. Which seemed like the thing to do. Because they were “married”.
Much healthier setup I think to say “this is mine, and whoever wants to hang out with me is welcome to my hospitality. If you choose to leave me (abandon?), you’re not entitled to it. Or, if I decide I’d rather hang out with someone else, I can stop giving it to you.”
Children complicate the lines of this argument. But I submit to you that at base, the dynamics are the same. One person opening up their veins and giving their blood to the other person, hoping – sometimes in vain – that the other person will stay with them forever and not leave them alone.
Sometimes people want them to go but they won’t go. They want their comfort.
People hate change.
I think you would get more agreement if you opened it up to the more modern idea that sometimes women are the higher wage earners. The system can work both ways.
I know someone who has been paying alimony for decades–not chump change either.
I don’t think alimony is paid nowadays, at least in most cases. Should it be when a spouse cannot earn a living for themselves? I think that has to be determined on an individual basis.
The concept of alimony is past its due date. The default scenario in a divorce should be you split what you have, and no one has a claim on future earnings.
But until the laws find their place, prenups should be the order of the day. Let’s spread the word. Not being prepared to handle a divorce is like flipping a coin and not being prepared for it to come up heads.
“I think you would get more agreement if you opened it up to the more modern idea that sometimes women are the higher wage earners. ”
Absolutely. I think its mostly men who end up paying spousal support though.
I don’t think most guys would ever file for spousal support even if they could. It’s extremely unmanly. I think you have to turn in your man card on that one.
I have had many friends who ended up having to split their retirement right down the middle. No, it isn’t spousal support but it can be a huge chunk of change. I have also known women to pay spousal support to a couple of real dogs. They weren’t rich either, they just made significantly more than their spouse.
“turn in your man card.” Ha! Good one.
Let’s put it this way. I’d sooner dress up as a female, with lipstick and wig, and walk out onto the street wearing a sign that says “I’m a pretty girl” than I would go through life living on an ex-spouses money just because she married me. And, the dressing up scenario is not something I want to do. (Not on my bucket list).
I’m not into gender stereotypes, particularly. But THIS goes beyond the pale. The one positive thing we are socialized into about being a man is to take responsibility for yourself.
Do I have a low opinion of women who leave a marriage and take alimony? Yeah.
It depends on circumstances. I have known a couple of folks who really aren’t able to support themselves because of disability.
Greeting cards for the new millenium :
“Happy Valentine’s Day! Thanks for hanging out with me.”
“Happy Birthday! Here’s hoping for another few good years between us”.
“You’re a Bargain at any Price … Happy Anniversary”.
Rick, those are hilarious.
Now let’s stick a few kids in there. How does that alter the scene?
I have seen many kids in my life who in some way have been affected by divorce.
Well, I’m not making any argument against child support. I think that’s structured roughly the way it should be – whatever your standard of living is, your kids are entitled to some chunk.
Kids are affected by divorce, but I think most people who went through this say they were happier their parents split and stopped fighting in front of them.
Divorce is bad, but marriage is the root cause! Let that not be forgotten.
I know a couple women in their sixties who are on polar opposites of this marriage issue. One was married in her twenties, divorced her husband after a few years, raised her child alone and has dated the same man for several years. She and her female friends go out for happy hour every Friday as they have for the last last decade or so. They are all professional women and swear they will never marry again. They like having a relationship with their male friends/lovers but want a quiet place of their own as well. Separate but equal. No issues over toilet seats, clothes thrown on the floor, who should repair the door, etc.
The other woman, also a professional, mother and a conservative, firmly believes in marriage as she has been married five times. She wonders why the first woman hasn’t managed to get a man’s ring on her finger and until this happens “it can’t be a serious relationship”.
The one who remains unmarried has money. The multi-married one always gets married when finances get tight. However, she’s never done the math to see that it’s cost her far more in money and emotions to tie and untie the knot.
5 times … now that’s a persistent delusion.
And a refusal to do a little self examination…
Very interesting thread, mostly because of Rick’s posts, which I don’t feel comfortable commenting on for various reasons other than to congratulate him on his candor.
I’ve been married for 30 years, and I actually love my wife more today than the day I married her, but the nature of that love is different now than it was then. People change over the years, and sometimes (often?) people change in ways that destroy the relationship. Maintaining a relationship is a full-time job, and some folks just don’t want to put in the effort. Maybe they know what they’re doing and it’s better just to end it. Who knows.
I do know that making it harder to divorce is like making drugs harder to get for a drug addict. The latter won’t cure that addict of his addiction, and the former won’t change the divorce rate appreciably. You have to address the personality and societal factors that support and enable the behavior.
This has been a very interesting thread, I agree. Rick also probably said a lot of things others were thinking.
I think people stay together because of money also. Let’s all face it, “marriage” is a legal contract between two people. The relationship is what’s good or bad.
I also have known people to divorce and remain roommates. I also know people who never divorce and who simply move on and have relationships with others, quite openly. Again, they are money ahead to stay married.
Thanks middleman. Not too much sadness here really – still married, getting along well these days. But my travails have given me a much less naive perspective about what marriage is and what “love” is.
To me, the difference between friendship and “love” is sexual attraction.
I don’t think there’s much hope to change personalities or societal factors or human nature. Better to adapt towards the way people are. And redefine our concept of marriage.
I have to think on that one….the difference between friendship and love is sexual attraction. I am not sure I am comfortable with the word love in there. Why can’t we just call sexual attraction what it is, sexual attraction. I have had sexual attraction for people I really dislike or people you don’t even know. You can also have sexual attraction for people who are friends. Go back to Peterson with his wife being his best friend. I think you have to be careful on that one to look at the basis of the relationship. Otherwise, it could be a good way to ruin a decent friendship.
My father used to say that marriage should be a five-year renewable contract. He said it when he was mad at my mother. Theirs was probably a typical marriage for their generation – not many people divorced. But the renewable contract idea might have some benefits. It might make people think twice about the number of children they have or the financial commitments they make to mortgages, school loans, etc. They might actually behave more civilly if they knew that “escape” existed. They would have to evaluate their relationship more frequently.
I really think that Censored is on to something. It would keep people on their toes if they wanted their relationship to continue.
My parents should have divorced. They didn’t. I do think it was a generational thing–to not divorce. There was some loss of status in it. However, my parents almost danced with delight when my brother and his first wife divorced. It makes no sense. In fairness, I believe my father was undiagnosed bi-polar. My mother should have given him the heave-ho though.
Maybe it was money. I do think money keeps a lot of people together. (notice the recurring theme here)
“I have had sexual attraction for people I really dislike”
Yeah we can all name a few people like that … to me Michelle Malkin looks sexy and pouty while she’s on TV promoting books that justify WW2 internment camps. Evil, but cute. With that crazed look in her eyes …
God, Rick, I haven’t slummed it that badly. Michele Malkin??? That brings out a giant EEEEEWWWWWWWWW. I think Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are both attractive women but I am not sexually attracted to them. I don’t think there is a male counterpart to either.
I think John Edwards is nice looking but he is evil. I wouldn’t say I was ever sexually attracted to him. I never met him in the flesh. Clinton–now that’s another story but I like Clinton.
The renewable contract seems like a valid basis for a modern marriage to me. Indeed, some prenups stagger out how much a spouse is compensated according to length that the relationship continues, and contain renewal clauses.
Palin isn’t attractive to me. Maybe she was a little bit in 2008. But she’s been losing her looks.
My top 3 sexiest evil women would be Malkin, Elizabeth Hasselbeck (more dumb than evil), and Omarosa. My fantasy is to bang them so hard and rock their world to the extent that Malkin would write an angry column about it, and Haselback would cry. (Can’t think of an Omarosa joke).
Rick, by societal factors I meant things like we should stop breaking up huge numbers of families with racist drug laws and stop deporting family members and de-bunk this idea that there’s a perfect person out there for you and you should keep trying until you find the person who “completes” you. If one wants to keep families and marriages together, these things might work better than trying to force folks to stay married through the law.
Many books (fiction and non!) have been written about the nature of love, so I’ll only say that love takes many forms, from romantic to platonic to sibling and on and on. Love is a moving target, and the only one that can identify it is the one that feels it. I don’t think sex actually has much to do with love.
Probably more true for men than women.
I think ouch, Moon, but probably true.
Except for a couple of people who have contributed to this thread, I’m glad I’m not a part of their marriages. I cannot imagine a loveless marriage–it must be somewhat like masturbation. Staying because of money or convenience seems senseless to me. Life is too short to be miserable. Feeling the necessity for a pre-nup seems to be a formula for failure; i.e., we’re going into this marriage but neither of us expect it to last. Why do it then? Why not just rent a room for the weekend (if you can last that long) and say, “Adios” on Monday morning? Screw the idea of progeny–let someone else worry about that.
I think that this discussion is more of an exploration. In today’s litigious times, I think a pre-nup is a pretty good idea.
When looking at the marriage/divorce rate and at the wake failed marriage leaves behind, some of these ideas being tossed around don’t seem as callus or mercenary as they sound.
I don’t know if my paternal grandparents were married or divorced. My mother didn’t know either because my father wouldn’t talk about it. All I know is they weren’t living together when my father was in college. In fact, my grandmother was being squired around by some male friend. (from being told) My grandfather died when I was 4 or 5. The same old man was still in the picture. My grandmother would never marry him. Yes, she was Catholic. No I don’t know anything else about it or how to find out more. I would love to know.
Totally disagree about deportation (the only way to keep some semblance of sovereignty) and drug laws (which protect children from larger exposure to drug use).
George, don’t knock masturbation. It’s sex with the person we love most. (Woody Allen).
Increasingly I see marriage in similar terms to masturbation. An illusory practice that we undertake, based in fantasy.
God, am I glad I am not Mrs. Bentley.
“I don’t think sex actually has much to do with love”
I think that love is :
The attempt to recreate the feeling of parent-child attachment, that pure love feeling that we experienced from our parents when we were children, with a partner. Usually it is an outgrowth of sexual attraction.
I think it might be very irrational like. “Like” is rational. You can tell why you like someone. Love is irrational like. You can’t really tell why you love someone.
Ok Rick. Every had a pet or friend that you really loved where sexual attraction had nothing to do with the issue?
No, not that as a man I would use the word “love”.
As I examine my life, looking backwards and thinking from time to time, I think that with the women I felt a “love” feeling for, it was because I thought they could fill an existing emptiness or fill a role that related to something missing. I think that feeling really has psychological roots in trying to recreate the family structure that was present (or missing) in childhood.
And when I think to the relationships I had, and the irrational portions of the way the women related to me … they were usually projecting issues with their father onto me. And it was obvious to me, but not at all to them.
Rick, wow! I am speechless.
There’s all kinds of love. I love my (male!) cat. I love my Mustang GT (all 420 horsepower). I love my sister and brother and parents. Love is not just in relation to sex. It’s still love. I love America- the people, the west, the east, the desert, the mountains. Love love love!!
I just re-read an essay entitled “Phoenix Rising.” It’s about a woman with extraordinary fight and spirit in her and the man who stood by her. Love. Read it.
Wolfy, are you talking about the essay I wrote? If so, I will post it.