For those who haven't heard, Oklahoma's very own Sally Kern, the one who said that homosexuality was a bigger threat to the nation than terrorism (I'd still like to see the statistics she was drawing from to reach that conclusion), has introduced a new bill attacking divorce. Groups across the state (and nation) simultaneously rolled their eyes and cried out, "Ban divorce! Shut up, Sally!"
But let me set the record straight. Here are the facts:
1. Sally Kern is NOT attempting to ban divorce. Restrict it, yes, but not ban it. Anyone who tells you that she's making divorce illegal doesn't know what they're talking about. Also, the restrictions are only on divorce filed on grounds of incompatibility. Divorce in the cases of extreme cruelty, drunkenness, gross neglect of duty, etc. is still up for grabs. So is divorce in the case of adultery, abandonment, impotency, fraudulence, imprisonment, and insanity.
2. For divorce on grounds of incompatibility, Kern gives three restrictions: (1) if there are minor children from the marriage, (2) the couple has been married for 10 years or more, and (3) one party files a written objection.
Here is where I'm going to draw the line between the facts and my opinion, because I do have to comment somewhere.
Ignoring the blatant intrusion into people's lives (other than to quickly comment upon it as I just did), Kern seems to miss several points here. Minor children should not grow up in a home where parents do not get along. While divorce can have severe impacts upon a child, growing up in a home with two people constantly fighting is worse. Imagine what the child goes through when his/her parents go through a bad divorce. Now put that child in that home until he/she is 18. Which is worse? Rates of depression and suicide go up for children when their parents divorce - BUT they also shoot up when in a home that is not comfortable.
Couples who have been together for ten years or more are not more likely than couples married less than ten years to "just get through it," according to anything that I have seen. So why place a restriction on that? My grandparents filed for divorce long after their kids had grown up and moved out (well after ten years of marriage) because they realized that they didn't love each other anymore and wanted the chance to live separate lives. I don't understand why this is wrong.
One party filing a written objection is also not grounds to remain in a marriage. To be married in Oklahoma (and the United States), both parties must be in agreement to do so. One person doesn't just get to say, "Oh, make this person marry me," and it happens. So why should it happen that way in divorce? A (major) problem that has been brought up with this particular part of the proposal is that it would allow an abuser to keep an abusee in a relationship against their will. While divorce on the ground of extreme cruelty is still open, this is a valid point in psychological abuse. "Extreme cruelty" is typically applied to sexual or physical abuse - not psychological abuse, which is just as damaging. What shames me is that Sally Kern is proposing getting rid of an out that women have to get out of psychological abusive situations at the same time that countries like France are attempting to make it easier to do so.
As someone I greatly respect said, "It should be harder to get married than to get divorced." The Catholic Church requires that couples receive marriage preparation before marriage can happen - and this is a great idea. One of the largest reasons for the increasing divorce rate is that people rush into marriage before they are ready and then discover that, "Oh, hey, we're incompatible." Instead of trying to make it more difficult to get a divorce, why not strongly encourage people to go through more preparation before marriage?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think there should be any ban or restriction on divorce whatsoever. In fact, I think it's the second worst idea I've ever heard. Incompatibility is just as valid an excuse as adultery (or whatever). Why should two people who dislike each other remain married? What good could possibly come from that?
ReplyDeleteMy parents were married for ~10 years before they divorced, and obviously I was a minor at the time. I didn't find out until later that my house was violent because my parents never fought in front of me. I just knew that it was a frigid, tense environment and I hated it. As I look back on it and ignore the violence factor, my parents NEEDED to split for the health and happiness of all of us. Divorce isn't necessarily a bad thing. I don't think people realize that.
Why should there be a restriction on divorce for couples married ten or more years? Just because they've been married longer means their marriage is somehow more valuable? Or what?
The absolute worst idea I've ever heard is allowing one party to file a written objection that would seemingly stop a divorce. This makes me irrationally angry. Like you said, it would allow abusive relationships to continue. I'm very close to someone in a psychologically abusive relationship and I can tell you firsthand how damaging it is. Why would we allow this cycle to continue? I honestly think that would lead to higher suicide and/or murder rates in marriages. Is that better than just allowing a couple to split?
I'm in favor of banning marriage as a legal institution altogether. (I'm sure I'll catch some flak for saying that.) Marriage as a religious institution is fine with me, but since we fight so much over divorce, the definition of marriage, what you have to do to be married and who exactly can be married, why make marriage a legal institution? If you keep it as a legal institution, I think a minimum of a year of premarital counseling should be required by law and marriage should be open to everyone INCLUDING HOMOSEXUALS.
To say that I dislike Sally Kern is a gross understatement. I want to know where she gets her (insane) ideas from and what, if any, logic she uses to justify her claims. I also want to stick her in any of the aforementioned restricted-divorce marriages and see how she likes it. Maybe then she would keep her face out of everyone's business.