Outcomes of No-Fault Divorce

[Ernie]

This is a thread to discuss the outcomes of No-Fault Divorce.

When no-fault divorce was first made law in various states, there was a spike in divorce. Likely some who wanted to get out of a marriage but couldn't, due to needing to convince a judge, now had an opportunity to do so that they didn't have before.

Following these no-fault divorce laws, divorces decreased. The decrease likely had something to do with the reason just mentioned but the sanctity of marriage view also decreased at the same time, which led to greater co-habitation outside of marriage.

This article in favor of non-fault divorce points to some of these things.
https://msmagazine.com/2023/05/24/no-fa ... publicans/

For the record, I don't think God intended for civil governments to police marriage and divorces. I think that civil government is only responsible to police violence and neglect.

Please be kind to each other in this thread, while discussing this topic.

[Josh]

Civil governments do end up having to handle disputes between people where children are involved, which is most of why family courts exist. (Even if no marriages or divorces happen, this still comes up.)

However, civil involvement in marriage is a recent thing... it used to be the exclusive domain of the (generally established state) church. They decided who could get married and who couldn't and if marriages were legitimate or not. I should note this did not work out in the favour of Anabaptists who were treated like their marriages were illegitimate.

[Ernie]

With the OP backdrop,

I wonder how much money has been paid to lawyers in the US since no-fault divorce became legal in the 1970's and 80's for custody issues, etc.

What if Americans had continued to keep a high view of marriage, even if the courts decided to get out of the marriage recording business.
(The courts still decided to record marriages, even though they instituted no-fault divorce. They could have gotten out of the recording business altogether.)

With a high view of marriage, I'm guessing that some marriages (not all) could have been salvaged. Some money and resources that was spent the last 50 years to help people live apart from each other, could have been used to help them reconcile. (I am aware that reconciliation would not happen in many cases if people were not surrendered to God.) But what about the situations where marriages could have reconciled had there been a high view of marriage in the country?

[Ernie]

Civil governments do end up having to handle disputes between people where children are involved, which is most of why family courts exist. (Even if no marriages or divorces happen, this still comes up.)

However, civil involvement in marriage is a recent thing... it used to be the exclusive domain of the (generally established state) church. They decided who could get married and who couldn't and if marriages were legitimate or not. I should note this did not work out in the favour of Anabaptists who were treated like their marriages were illegitimate.

I think it is good if faithful churches recognize marriages within the church. I'm not sure that there is benefit in civil governments and non-faithful churches recording and policing marriages. Outside of a faithful church, simply determine who the biological parents are and hold them accountable if there is abuse or neglect.

[Ken]

Civil governments do end up having to handle disputes between people where children are involved, which is most of why family courts exist. (Even if no marriages or divorces happen, this still comes up.)

However, civil involvement in marriage is a recent thing... it used to be the exclusive domain of the (generally established state) church. They decided who could get married and who couldn't and if marriages were legitimate or not. I should note this did not work out in the favour of Anabaptists who were treated like their marriages were illegitimate.

This is not true.

The state has been involved in marriage since Roman times and before. The Romans had very strict laws about marriage and inheritance.

During most of the Christian era from Constantine up through the reformation there was no separation between church and state and so when the Catholic Church administered marriages they were doing so on behalf of the state. It was a legally binding civil contract as well as religious.

In France, civil marriage was implemented before the French revolution so that protestants could get legally married outside the Catholic Church and after the revolution, it simply became a legal contract with religious conditions removed.

In the US, marriage has ALWAYS been a legal contract with state-issued licenses going back to colonial times. Massachusetts started issuing marriage licenses in the 1600s. And by the 19th Century it became common for judges, magistrates, or justices of the peace to administer marriages and issue marriage licenses.

And for that matter, common law marriage has legally existed in the US since colonial times. And going back before that in England. No church is involved there.

[Josh]

Roman society had complete fusion between religion and the state. The emperor was considered a god.

That’s why I said established state churches controlled marriage… they were part of the state. And that’s a terrible argument for why states should be in charge of marriage now.

[Judas Maccabeus]

This is not true.

Actually, it is. That was one of the problems that Anabaptists had in Germany, and in an earlier time Switzerland. Only the clergy of the state church could preform marriages, the children were regarded as illegitimate. If you don't believe me, I can find the place in one of our histories where it discusses that problem.

In some cases, particularly in the Palatinate, Mennonite couples were denied permission to marry at all, largely because the secular rulers did not want to see the Mennonite population expand. Reduce the formation of new families.

Pity even more the couple who were not both from the Mennonite church. Unless they agreed to have the mennonite partner submit to baptism of the state church, that could not get married at all.

[Ken]

This is not true.

Actually, it is. That was one of the problems that Anabaptists had in Germany, and in an earlier time Switzerland. Only the clergy of the state church could preform marriages, the children were regarded as illegitimate. If you don't believe me, I can find the place in one of our histories where it discusses that problem.

In some cases, particularly in the Palatinate, Mennonite couples were denied permission to marry at all, largely because the secular rulers did not want to see the Mennonite population expand. Reduce the formation of new families.

Pity even more the couple who were not both from the Mennonite church. Unless they agreed to have the mennonite partner submit to baptism of the state church, that could not get married at all.

You mistake what I am saying.

I'm not saying the church wasn't involved. It has been involved in marriage since the dawn of time.

I'm quibbling with the statement that "civil involvement in marriage is a recent thing". It is not. Civil authorities have licensed and regulated marriage since Roman times even if the actual marriages were performed by the church or other religious authorities. Here in the United States the civil authorities began licensing and regulating marriage and divorce as early as the 1630s. Every state in the nation has had laws regarding marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. on the books since colonial times. Many of them having nothing to do with religion such as anti-miscegenation laws. That is the very definition of "civil involvement in marriage"

In fact the laws you refer to in the Palatinate were actually examples of civil involvement in marriage. It was the State that was mandating Catholic weddings. If it was simply a religious issue then there would have been no issue whatsoever with Mennonites marrying how they wanted.

[Ernie]

I request that we get back to the OP, and take other discussions to a different thread.

[Ken]

I request that we get back to the OP, and take other discussions to a different thread.

In your your original post you stated:

For the record, I don't think God intended for civil governments to police marriage and divorces. I think that civil government is only responsible to police violence and neglect.

Except that civil governments have ALWAYS regulated marriage and divorce going all the way back to Biblical times. Even if performed in churches, civil governments have always regulated (policed) marriage and divorce. Including in the ancient Rome of Jesus and Paul. And that has certainly been the case in the US since early colonial times.