Category Archives: Religious freedom

citizenship, Divorce, Equal Protection, family law, Fundamental Rights, morality

Suffer the Little Children: Cohabitation and the Abuse of America’s Children

Leave a comment

579590_533120923370330_43863117_n

by W. Bradford Wilcox,  April 22nd, 2011 –  The Witherspoon Institute / Public Discourse

Blogger’s Commentary:    The direct connection between rising rates of unmarried cohabitation and the entrenched stronghold of unilateral divorce has been repeatedly chronicled in recent years.    The much trumpeted “declining / levelling divorce rate”  attributed by both proponents and justified critics of the “no-fault” laws  to easy, unilateral divorce is unmistakable.   But what is a bit more mistakable is the fact that the divorce rate decline has ALSO been shown to be directly linked to the rise in unmarried cohabitation.   This is important context for the excellent, informed piece that follows about impacts of both evils on innocent, defenseless children, courtesy of the national family law system.    

Jesus’ Commentary:   (Amplified Bible)  “Temptations (snares, traps set to entice to sin) are sure to come, but woe to him by or through whom they come!

 It would be more profitable for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were hurled into the sea than that he should cause to sin or be a snare to one of these little ones [lowly in rank or influence].     Luke 17:1-3

Cohabitation does not serve the “best interest” of children, regardless of what the courts say.

In just one month last year, Tyari Smith Sr. of suburban New Orleans shot and killed his 2-year-old son, Tyari Smith Jr., and his girlfriend, Marie Chavez, because she was considering leaving him and heading back home to California. A week later, 4-month-old Aiden Caro was thrown into a couch by his mother’s boyfriend, Samuel Harris, when Harris could not get him to stop crying. Shortly thereafter, the Louisville baby stopped crying forever. The next week, in Gaston, South Carolina, 5-month-old Joshua Dial was shaken by his mother’s boyfriend “in a manner so violent that the baby immediately lost consciousness and suffered severe brain trauma,” according to local police reports. Joshua died soon thereafter.

Are these tragic cases of fatal child abuse around the nation in one month just random expressions of the dark side of the human condition? Not according to a recent federal study of child abuse and neglect, the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect.

This new federal study indicates that these cases are simply the tip of the abuse iceberg in American life. According to the report, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are about 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents. Likewise, children living with their mother and her boyfriend are six times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. In other words, one of the most dangerous places for a child in America to find himself in is a home that includes an unrelated male boyfriend—especially when that boyfriend is left to care for a child by himself.

But children living with their own father and mother do not fare much better if their parents are only cohabiting. The federal study of child abuse found that children living with their cohabiting parents are more than four times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than their peers living in a home headed by their married parents. And they are three times more likely to be physically, emotionally, or educationally neglected than children living with their married biological parents. In other words, a child is not much safer when she is living in a home with her parents if her parents’ relationship does not enjoy the legal, social, and moral status and guidance that marriage confers on relationships.

This latest study confirms what a mounting body of social science has been telling us for some time now. The science tells us that children are not only more likely to thrive but are also more likely to simply survive when they are raised in an intact home headed by their married parents, rather than in a home headed by a cohabiting couple. For instance, a 2005 study of fatal child abuse in Missouri found that children living with their mother’s boyfriends were more than 45 times more likely to be killed than were children living with their married mother and father.

Cohabitation is also associated with other non-fatal pathologies among children. A 2002 study from the Urban Institute found that 15.7 percent of 6- to 11-year-olds in cohabiting families experienced serious emotional problems (e.g., depression, feelings of inferiority, etc.), compared to just 3.5 percent of children in families headed by married biological or adoptive parents. A 2008 study of more than 12,000 adolescents from across the United States found that teenagers living in a cohabiting household were 116 percent more likely to smoke marijuana, compared to teens living in an intact, married family. And so it goes.

One reason that children do not tend to thrive in cohabiting households, besides the abuse factor, is that these homes are much more unstable than are married households. One recent University of Michigan study found that children born to cohabiting parents were 119 percent more likely to see their parents break up than children born to married parents. And, as anyone who has children can attest, children do not do well when they are exposed to changing routines, homes, and, especially, caretakers.

This growing body of new research has been deliberately ignored by the ACLU, which has been engaged in a longstanding legal campaign to gut state laws designed to support and strengthen marriage as the preferred relationship for the bearing, rearing, and adoption of children. This month in Arkansas, for instance, the ACLU convinced the Arkansas Supreme Court, in Cole v. Arkansas, to strike down a state law that prohibits cohabiting couples from adopting or fostering children. The ACLU argued that the Arkansas law violated federal and state constitutional rights to privacy and served “no child welfare purpose at all.” The Arkansas Supreme Court bought this argument, ruling that the Arkansas law, Act 1, violated cohabitors’ “fundamental right to privacy… to engage in private, consensual, noncommercial intimacy in the privacy of their homes.”

But what about the rights of the children in Arkansas to be raised in a safe and stable home? The state of Arkansas argued, rightly, that cohabiting homes are no place for children in need of safe and stable homes. Infants, toddlers, and older children who have been given up by their parents, or who have been removed by the state from the custody of their parents, need safe and stable homes above all else. And the latest federal study provides yet more evidence that households headed by cohabiting couples are not likely to supply good homes for such children. Apparently, none of this mattered to an Arkansas Supreme Court keen to put adults’ desires ahead of children’s needs.

Thankfully, the family news from the states has not been all bad this month. On Monday, Arizona governor Jan Brewer approved a law that gives married parents preference in the adoption process in her state. Arizona thereby joins a number of other states—such as Mississippi, Utah, and Virginia—that privilege married couples in the adoption process.

Let’s just hope that the courts in Arizona and these other states do not fall prey to the ACLU’s ongoing campaign to disconnect parenthood from marriage. Because—as study after study tells us—children are more likely to thrive and to simply survive when they are raised in an intact, married home. This is no small social fact, given that the primary purpose of family law is not to serve the desires of adults but rather the “best interests” of children.

W. Bradford Wilcox is Director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow of the Witherspoon Institute. He is also an adoptive father.

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall  |  Lets Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

www.standerinfamilycourt.com 

 

 

Church Discipline, Discipleship, Divorce, Marriage Restoration, morality

How One Local Church Let A Young Family Down Due to Tainted Denominational Doctrine

Leave a comment

th

by:  standerinfamilycourt.com

“You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men.” – Matthew 5:13

“The fear of man brings a snare, but he who trusts in the Lord will be exalted. “ –  Proverbs 29:25

“But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.   I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality.”   – Message to the Church at Thyratira, Revelation 2:20 

 

She was a 30-something never-married daughter in a large and important family in the small congregation.   He was a civilly-divorced father of a young son.   Let’s call them Jack and Jill,  not their real names.   They met online, dated briefly and then moved in together.   Soon Jill was expecting a child whom they learned would be born a special-needs child.    Jack and Jill  were enveloped in the loving, accepting arms of the body of Christ in that fellowship, and somewhere along the way, one of the men led seeker Jack to the Lord.

 

Even though the word of God clearly states that Jack already has a covenant wife we’ll call Jane (Romans 7:2; 1 Corinthians 7:39),  the senior pastor agreed to wed Jack to Jill, probably out of very understandable empathy for the special-needs child about to be born, but also because the official position paper of the denomination set up that expectation of its pastors back in the early 1970’s when it was redrafted to accommodate church members who would be impacted by the legalization of unilateral divorce.

 

This conscientious pastor required every couple getting married in this fellowship to undertake Christ-based premarital counseling.   While there was no indication that this pastor knew about their cohabitation,  by this time there was obvious “probable cause” to ask a few questions in the course of the required sessions, but never did this pastor require Jill and Jack to separate and live apart for a time before the wedding.   There simply wasn’t time if the child was to be born into wedlock.   The official position paper on divorce and remarriage of this denomination  advises extensively on such matters, claiming God “permits” the divorce of covenant spouses on either of two purportedly “biblical” grounds commonly asserted by Protestant denominations, seminaries and national ministries (they all do so while brushing aside the compelling words of Jesus in Luke 16:18,  Matthew 5:19,32 and Matthew 19:6),  This denominational position paper then goes so far as to egregiously claim that God “exits” the original covenant in order to form a “new covenant” with remarriage partners whom Jesus unmistakably said were committing adultery.   My bible says God exits the marriage covenant only when one of the spouses dies.

 

[The Protestant church has traditionally misapplied three scripture passages in an effort to find “biblical grounds” to allow remarriage after a civil divorce:   Deuteronomy 24:1-4,  Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:15.    An honest analysis of context, culture / audience,  and inconsistency with the vast body of clearer scriptures which contradict such interpretation,  makes “biblical grounds” justification pretty tenuous and the inferred leap to remarriage completely unjustifiable.   Discussion deferred to a future post.] 

 

Little is known about the circumstances of Jack’s covenant marriage with Jane, the mother of his young son, or of his manmade divorce from her, a matter Jesus Christ would almost certainly find a pithy way to say is biblically irrelevant in God’s eyes.   (This church and its denomination would say that if Jack and Jane didn’t happen to be believers when they married, and Jack came to the Lord after getting divorced from Jane, he has “biblical grounds” to remarry.)   Nevertheless, a very pregnant Jill walked down the aisle of that church one Sunday, right after services, and legalized her fornication with Jane’s covenant husband Jack, as solemnized by Jill’s pastor.

 

For a while, all seemed to be well in the ongoing household of Jack and Jill.   Jack’s young son was in church regularly with Jack and Jill.  The little girl born to them was as precious as the day is long, a blessing to the entire fellowship.   Jack seemed to be growing spiritually for a couple of years, and he joined the Sunday morning worship team.   Soon another baby was on the way.   However, as Jack grew ever closer to the Lord, it wasn’t long before the wheels all fell off the marriage wagon very suddenly and without warning.   Tragically, the new baby was born into an estranged home.

 

I have to confess to having no firsthand knowledge of exactly what went wrong, other than the external restlessness that came over Jack.   I only know that when God is beginning to lead a man by His spirit from within, things start to be laid bare and it would be unusual after being born again, being sealed on the inside with the living and active Holy Spirit, if Jack’s heart wasn’t drawn back to his covenant wife Jane, with whom he was still under the power of the indissolvable one-flesh relationship and of the covenant presence of God.   Jack may not yet be aware today of what exactly is making him restless.    That may take some time and working through more confusion, but the day of full recognition will eventually dawn for Jack.   Contrary to what this denomination teaches, God’s character is incapable of breaking holy covenant under any circumstances, and when He says He “hates” divorce, He uses a very strong Hebrew word for “hate” meaning violent revulsion, provoking retribution.    God actively fights for covenant marriages, and man’s divorce decree is meaningless to Him unless it is rectifying the civil legalities of an immoral subsequent union.

 

Meanwhile, it seems doubtful that a brand new believer,  hungrily digging deep into the word of God, and being discipled by the men in the church who are (wrongly) counseling him that his current non-covenant marriage is the righteous union, wouldn’t become very spiritually confused if it was actually the powerful Holy Spirit pushing him from within, toward reconciliation with his covenant wife as a wholesome and necessary milestone on his discipleship journey.    Yet the church members here would paint this move of God as “fresh sin”,  instead of redemptive repentance, because they fundamentally misunderstand covenant and how profoundly the marriages of our youth symbolize the Godhead in God’s design.   Nowhere would the pastor’s enabling role in cementing this broken family situation ever be called into question unless the Holy Spirit convicts this pastor’s heart supernaturally.

 

Though the wheels fell off Jack’s non-covenant marriage wagon, I pray that the spirit of God miraculously holds the wheels on Jack’s discipleship wagon, and that the Lord will send him a godly mentor who harbors no mistaken theology or conflict of interest.

 

After a brief stand, Jill chose not to stand in the way of a civil divorce.   It was wise and profitable for her to let go of the husband who was never rightfully hers, despite the children born from him.     I pray separately for her, that God will provide abundantly for her and the little girls, and in right timing, send her a godly, never-married or widowed husband after first preparing her heart to win that husband God’s way (instead of the world’s way which too often includes sexual entrapment).    I pray that Jack will still be the dad his little girls deserve, and if he reconciles with his covenant wife, God will give Jane a big heart for them.

 

I pray a misled and mis-taught pastor will learn from his part in this very brief marriage.   Even so,  it hasn’t been long since he again married an older widow in the fellowship to somebody else’s covenant husband on denominationally-contrived “biblical grounds” (i.e., that an estranged wife obtained a man-made civil divorce in order to legalize her adultery, and the discarded Christian husband was unwilling to take a biblical stand as a modern-day “Hosea”).   But what did Jesus say?    Luke 16:18 “ …and the one who marries a [spouse] who has been divorced from a [spouse] commits adultery.”    Jack and Jill’s divorce is an actual picture of the only true biblical grounds for divorce, and divorce that requires either celibacy while Jane is alive, or remarriage only to Jane.   Jill is scripturally free following her civil divorce to marry a never-married or widowed man, but not another divorced man.

 

There is a very small remnant of pastors out there who take God at the fullness of His word and in the fullness of His unchanging character.    Some of them minister under the same unscriptural denominational doctrine as this particular pastor, but they shepherd with biblically-correct conviction, elevating the truth, as it comes from the Holy Spirit, over any denominational mandates that conflict with the direct and plain word of God.   They ask all the right discerning questions when approached to do a wedding.   They flatly decline to solemnize any wedding that Jesus would call adultery according to Luke 16:18.    When otherwise biblically-eligible couples are cohabiting, they require them to separate for an agreed time, to denounce, repent and refrain from fornication, preferably moving in with people who will hold them accountable during this period until the wedding.    If the relationship is adulterous, that is, if either partner has the husband or wife of their youth still living, the couple is counseled to permanently sever and seek to be reconciled to their covenant partners, honoring their marriage vows in celibacy until the Lord intervenes and makes that possible.   Unrepentant fornication and adultery is still dealt with by biblical church discipline in these select few local congregations for the sake of the souls of those involved and all those watching.   These pastors understand deeply that violation of covenant marriage vows is spiritually lethal to the witness of the entire congregation (loss of “saltiness”) and to the next several generations of the impacted        famil(ies) , due to the evil soul-ties created.

 

None of this is easy or popular, but Standerinfamilycourt believes dealing biblically with sanitized adultery is what is going to be required to restore God’s blessing, favor and protection to His church and our nation, turning back the twin threats of virulent Islam and hostile atheism that are steadly leaching away the democracy and liberty God once gifted to our nation.     A liberal pagan Federal judge went so far as to call out this permissive hypocrisy  in his ruling which overturned Idaho’s homosexual marriage law  (Latta v. Otter, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, October 7, 2014):  “If defendants [Governors of Idaho and Nevada] really wished to ensure that as many children as possible had married parents, they would do well to rescind the right to no-fault divorce, or to divorce altogether.  Neither has done so.”    Jesus would concur.

 

When God allowed the Assyrians and Babylonians to invade / exile Israel and Judah,  it wasn’t because of the widespread sin of the people that caused Him to finally lose His divine patience.   It was the failure of the priestly class to lead righteously, or to confront and lay hold of their absolute authority under God to eradicate that widespread sin, instead of becoming complicit in it.   Church leadership failed to function as the purifying authority He expects.   The devastating loss of the kingdom and self-rule was God keeping the adverse half of His conditional promises in Deuteronomy 28.

 

Standerinfamilycourt believes what we are seeing today in our utter defeat as the body of Christ goes up against the violent, demonic cultural and international forces, is a repeat of this very dark chapter in Israel’s history as a nation.    I’m being blunt because I believe there is still time for the church in the U.S. to do something about it, after repenting from her heart and on her face before the God of Angel Armies.

In a recent broadcast, women’s discipler Nancy Leigh DeMoss  of the ministry Revive our Hearts.com captured very powerfully the issues around a church remaining faithful under circumstantial pressure and potential legal barriers; full-on obeying God’s word,  not neglecting church discipline to purge biblical disobedience in the body of Christ if we want to win battles that are too big for us against physical and spiritual foes.   The fear of man paints such things as “private matters” but God, whom we ought to be fearing more than we fear the opinions or retribution of man,  has a very different opinion!

https://www.reviveourhearts.com/radio/revive-our-hearts/door-hope/

In dire times like these, the biblical heroes of old always confessed their nation’s sin as if it was their own, and vicariously bore the shame of that corporate sin as if they personally deserved the shame.    They were rewarded with a mighty move of God on their nation.  Examples are found in Daniel, Moses, Nehemiah and Ezra, among others.    Ezra, the quiet, studious prophet who led the successful rebuilding of the demolished temple of God, found out while on his face before the Lord that he needed first to purge all of the immoral and prohibited marriages within the fellowship before the Lord would be with them in their appointed, anointed task of rebuilding the temple.   His fasting prayer seems an appropriate wrap-up to this post….while being careful to point out that in God’s eyes, the only legitimate function for civil divorce is to correct biblically-unlawful marriages:

EZRA Chapter 9

[…and I fell on my knees and stretched out my [c]hands to the Lord my God; 6 and I said, “O my God, I am ashamed and embarrassed to lift up my face to You, my God, for our iniquities have [d]risen above our heads and our guilt has grown even to the heavens. 7 Since the days of our fathers to this day we have been in great guilt, and on account of our iniquities we, our kings and our priests have been given into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity and to plunder and to [e]open shame, as it is this day. 8 But now for a brief moment grace has been shown from the Lord our God, to leave us an escaped remnant and to give us a peg in His holy place, that our God may enlighten our eyes and grant us a little reviving in our bondage. 9 For we are slaves; yet in our bondage our God has not forsaken us, but has extended lovingkindness to us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us reviving to raise up the house of our God, to restore its ruins and to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem.

10 “Now, our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken Your commandments, 11 which You have commanded by Your servants the prophets, saying, ‘The land which you are entering to possess is an unclean land with the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations which have filled it from end to end and with their impurity. 12 So now do not give your daughters to their sons nor take their daughters to your sons, and never seek their peace or their prosperity, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it as an inheritance to your sons forever.’ 13 After all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and our great guilt, since You our God have requited us less than our iniquities deserve, and have given us an escaped remnant as this, 14 shall we again break Your commandments and intermarry with the peoples [f]who commit these abominations? Would You not be angry with us [g]to the point of destruction, until there is no remnant nor any who escape? 15 O Lord God of Israel, You are righteous, for we have been left an escaped remnant, as it is this day; behold, we are before You in our guilt, for no one can stand before You because of this.”

 

As was the case with Ezra’s fellowship, compromise and outright disobedience by church leadership to God’s clear instructions can be messy and ugly to clean up before watching worldly eyes,  but  this still does not let our church leadership off the hook for carrying through with the cleanup, nor does it justify that the immorality remain hidden, because it is a fallacy that it will remain hidden.    Cleanup is the unavoidable cost of restoring both the integrity and Spirit-led potency (salt and light) among the culture that God expects of His church, and especially of its leadership.    Ezra’s fellowship readily obeyed because they saw exactly what was at stake in the survival of Judah as a nation.    There was an ugly, public sending away (restitutional divorcing)  of over one  hundred pagan wives and their children that probably caught immense cultural “flak” among the nations from whence those wives originated–flak that would far exceed anything the church would likely experience from an equivalent move today.    The bible tells us in Ezra chapter 10 that this sending away included 17 pastors’ wives,  6 church board wives, a worship leader’s wife and 87 wives from the rest of the congregation and all their children.    It would have been far better to obey God upfront;  to not have the massive cleanup to face at the cost of public scandal / church shrinkage.    Nevertheless, the nation of Judah fully and promptly embraced the publicly painful program of restitution and repentance — and their Divine reward was the dramatic healing of their land for ceasing and purging all life ways which misrepresented God in His holy, sacred covenant with all of them (and with all of us) .  Neither is God likely to give the American church a “pass” on this one.

 

Related post: Rev. Al Mohler

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

Connection of Unilateral Divorce to SSM, Equal Protection, family law, Fundamental Rights, Spiritual Warfare

Breaking the Silence: Redefining Marriage Hurts Women Like Me – and Our Children

4 Comments
579590_533120923370330_43863117_n
by on September 22nd, 2014,  Witherspoon Institute / The Public Discourse

 

The push to present a positive image of same-sex families has hidden the devastation on which many are built. We must stand for marriage—and for the precious lives that marriage creates.

Every time a new state redefines marriage, the news is full of happy stories of gay and lesbian couples and their new families. But behind those big smiles and sunny photographs are other, more painful stories. These are left to secret, dark places. They are suppressed, and those who would tell them are silenced in the name of “marriage equality.”

But I refuse to be silent.

I represent one of those real life stories that are kept in the shadows. I have personally felt the pain and devastation wrought by the propaganda that destroys natural families.

The Divorce

In the fall of 2007, my husband of almost ten years told me that he was gay and that he wanted a divorce. In an instant, the world that I had known and loved—the life we had built together—was shattered.

I tried to convince him to stay, to stick it out and fight to save our marriage. But my voice, my desires, my needs—and those of our two young children—no longer mattered to him. We had become disposable, because he had embraced one tiny word that had become his entire identity. Being gay trumped commitment, vows, responsibility, faith, fatherhood, marriage, friendships, and community. All of this was thrown away for the sake of his new identity.

Try as I might to save our marriage, there was no stopping my husband. Our divorce was not settled in mediation or with lawyers. No, it went all the way to trial. My husband wanted primary custody of our children. His entire case can be summed up in one sentence: “I am gay, and I deserve my rights.” It worked: the judge gave him practically everything he wanted. At one point, he even told my husband, “If you had asked for more, I would have given it to you.”

I truly believe that judge was legislating from the bench, disregarding the facts of our particular case and simply using us—using our children— to help influence future cases. In our society, LGBT citizens are seen as marginalized victims who must be protected at all costs, even if it means stripping rights from others. By ignoring the injustice committed against me and my children, the judge seemed to think that he was correcting a larger injustice.

My husband had left us for his gay lover. They make more money than I do. There are two of them and only one of me. Even so, the judge believed that they were the victims. No matter what I said or did, I didn’t have a chance of saving our children from being bounced around like so many pieces of luggage.

A New Same-Sex Family—Built On the Ruins of Mine

My ex-husband and his partner went on to marry. Their first ceremony took place before our state redefined marriage. After it created same-sex marriage, they chose to have a repeat performance. In both cases, my children were forced—against my will and theirs—to participate. At the second ceremony, which included more than twenty couples, local news stations and papers were there to document the first gay weddings officiated in our state. USA Today did a photo journal shoot on my ex and his partner, my children, and even the grandparents. I was not notified that this was taking place, nor was I given a voice to object to our children being used as props to promote same-sex marriage in the media.

At the time of the first ceremony, the marriage was not recognized by our state, our nation, or our church. And my ex-husband’s new marriage, like the majority of male-male relationships, is an “open,” non-exclusive relationship. This sends a clear message to our children: what you feel trumps all laws, promises, and higher authorities. You can do whatever you want, whenever you want—and it doesn’t matter who you hurt along the way.

After our children’s pictures were publicized, a flood of comments and posts appeared. Commenters exclaimed at how beautiful this gay family was and congratulated my ex-husband and his new partner on the family that they “created.” But there is a significant person missing from those pictures: the mother and abandoned wife. That “gay family” could not exist without me.

There is not one gay family that exists in this world that was created naturally.

Every same-sex family can only exist by manipulating nature. Behind the happy façade of many families headed by same-sex couples, we see relationships that are built from brokenness. They represent covenants broken, love abandoned, and responsibilities crushed. They are built on betrayal, lies, and deep wounds.

This is also true of same-sex couples who use assisted reproductive technologies such as surrogacy or sperm donation to have children. Such processes exploit men and women for their reproductive potential, treat children as products to be bought and sold, and purposely deny children a relationship with one or both of their biological parents. Wholeness and balance cannot be found in such families, because something is always missing. I am missing. But I am real, and I represent hundreds upon thousands of spouses who have been betrayed and rejected.

If my husband had chosen to stay, I know that things wouldn’t have been easy. But that is what marriage is about: making a vow and choosing to live it out, day after day. In sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, spouses must choose to put the other person first, loving them even when it’s hard.

A good marriage doesn’t only depend on sexual desire, which can come and go and is often out of our control. It depends on choosing to love, honor, and be faithful to one person, forsaking all others. It is common for spouses to be attracted to other people—usually of the opposite sex, but sometimes of the same sex. Spouses who value their marriage do not act on those impulses. For those who find themselves attracted to people of the same sex, staying faithful to their opposite-sex spouse isn’t a betrayal of their true identity. Rather, it’s a decision not to let themselves be ruled by their passions. It shows depth and strength of character when such people remain true to their vows, consciously striving to remember, honor, and revive the love they had for their spouses when they first married.

My Children Deserve Better

Our two young children were willfully and intentionally thrust into a world of strife and combative beliefs, lifestyles, and values, all in the name of “gay rights.” Their father moved into his new partner’s condo, which is in a complex inhabited by sixteen gay men. One of the men has a 19-year-old male prostitute who comes to service him. Another man, who functions as the father figure of this community, is in his late sixties and has a boyfriend in his twenties. My children are brought to gay parties where they are the only children and where only alcoholic beverages are served. They are taken to transgender baseball games, gay rights fundraisers, and LGBT film festivals.

Both of my children face identity issues, just like other children. Yet there are certain deep and unique problems that they will face as a direct result of my former husband’s actions. My son is now a maturing teen, and he is very interested in girls. But how will he learn how to deal with that interest when he is surrounded by men who seek sexual gratification from other men? How will he learn to treat girls with care and respect when his father has rejected them and devalues them? How will he embrace his developing masculinity without seeing his father live out authentic manhood by treating his wife and family with love, honoring his marriage vows even when it’s hard?

My daughter suffers too. She needs a dad who will encourage her to embrace her femininity and beauty, but these qualities are parodied and distorted in her father’s world. Her dad wears make-up and sex bondage straps for Halloween. She is often exposed to men dressing as women. The walls in his condo are adorned with large framed pictures of women in provocative positions. What is my little girl to believe about her own femininity and beauty? Her father should be protecting her sexuality. Instead, he is warping it.

Without the guidance of both their mother and their father, how can my children navigate their developing identities and sexuality? I ache to see my children struggle, desperately trying to make sense of their world.

My children and I have suffered great losses because of my former husband’s decision to identify as a gay man and throw away his life with us. Time is revealing the depth of those wounds, but I will not allow them to destroy me and my children. I refuse to lose my faith and hope. I believe so much more passionately in the power of the marriage covenant between one man and one woman today than when I was married. There is another way for those with same-sex attractions. Destruction is not the only option—it cannot be. Our children deserve far better from us.

This type of devastation should never happen to another spouse or child. Please, I plead with you: defend marriage as being between one man and one woman. We must stand for marriage—and for the precious lives that marriage creates.

Janna Darnelle is a mother, writer, and an advocate for upholding marriage between one man and one woman. She mentors others whose families have been impacted by homosexuality

Discipleship, Marriage Restoration, Spiritual Warfare

IN DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE

Leave a comment

D Wingfield SF

by Dennis Wingfield of Rejoice Marriage Ministries

This past week, I was chided for only sharing 90% of my marriage restoration story. I was really taken aback by the comment. My marriage difficulties have been an open book. I have shared from my heart for 15 years, often reliving the pain of our divorce. The very first Standing Firm devotional came out on October 2, 1999. This was the very day that my wife and I together, after our marriage was restored, witnessed the marriage of our only daughter. I have been challenged to share the last 10% of my story. I pray that God will use all that I say for His glory and for your benefit so that you may believe all that God has to say to you.

Blessed are those whose ways are blameless, who walk according to the law of the Lord. Blessed are those who keep his statutes and seek him with all their heart—they do no wrong but follow his ways. You have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed. Psalm 119:1-4

You see, dear Stander, Satan is not pleased with those who stand for the truth, beauty and goodness of God’s plan for marriage. If he cannot destroy us, he will go after our children. Satan was not pleased with my stand for the healing of my marriage. Satan was not pleased with the miracle that God performed in raising my marriage from the dead. Truth be told, neither is he is pleased with your stand. He will attack you with everything he has. Marriage is good in the eyes of the God and Satan wants to destroy it. Standing is hard. There is no easy road to marriage restoration. It is not for the faint of heart. But Jesus is Lord and He is bigger than any of these problems. He brings victory from defeat. When you stand firm on the commands and promises in God’s Word, miracles happen, today, here and now.

Now, to borrow American radio icon Paul Harvey’s line, here is “the rest of the story”…

When Therese and my daughter came home in May 1998, Therese was still civilly married to another man. We sold our family home and purchased a bigger house near where our daughter was attending high school. Therese and I lived in separate bedrooms, like brother and sister, since her second union was not legally dissolved. During the next two years, our reunited family shared the marriage of our only daughter and the birth of our first grandchild. My daughter, son-in-law and grandson lived with us so they could save money for their first house. It was awesome having a newborn in our home again. Therese and I only had one child and I wanted more. Being able to share so closely in the life of our new grandchild was a very special time for us.

Two years after Therese came home, she was experiencing difficulty negotiating the stairs to the upper level of our home. Therese taught aerobics for 20 years and having shortness of breath was unusual. Tests revealed that scar tissue from cancer radiation she received as a teenager was constricting the function of her heart and one lung. On May 8, 2000, Therese went into the hospital for surgery to remove the scar tissue. The operation was unsuccessful and Therese spent the last four months of her life in the hospital.

Two days after Therese entered the hospital, the divorce to the other man was finalized. On the same day, the daughter of this man lay dying in the same ICU, just a few doors down from my wife. She had been struck by a tree that was being cut down after a severe thunderstorm. God gave me the opportunity to pray with this man that night. His first wife had died from brain cancer. Life is hard, dear Stander. The other person in your wife’s life is also a broken human being trying to fill the gaping hole in his heart with worldly pursuits that will never satisfy. Only God can fill the God-sized hole in every human heart. Pray for the other man who is also in need of God’s mercy.

After my wife’s death, I received no support from family or friends in grieving the loss. I was told countless times “She wasn’t your wife, so why don’t you just get over it?” I could accept Therese’s death. But I could not accept the worldly view of our marriage, that I was somehow deranged for believing in the sanctity and permanence of marriage. Therese and I never had a chance to remarry in the eyes of the world. However, in God’s view, we were still married. Just because Therese ignored our covenantal marriage for a season does not mean that it ceased to exist. A civil divorce had no effect on our marriage in the eyes of God.

God created marriage; man created divorce. I did not have the opportunity to “remarry” Therese. In the end, it didn’t matter except to those who do not understand God’s view of the marriage covenant. God knew I was married and His opinion is the only one that matters.

Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Mark 12:17

Being a visual person (engineer by training), I made the following graphic to show our marriage in the eyes of God and society. Also shown are what God has to say about marriage and divorce from Holy Scripture. God said it; I believe it. I stand for God’s truth about marriage.

100414 devo

God alone is the Creator of marriage and the laws that govern it. Since the dawn of creation, God designed marriage to be permanent, exclusive and fruitful (Gen 1:28, 2:24; Mt 19:5; Mk 10:9). Moses permitted divorce and remarriage as a concession to the sinfulness of Israel under the Old Covenant (Deut 24:1-4). It is clear: divorce is contrary to God’s will and plan for marriage: “I hate divorce, says the Lord” (Mal 2:16). Since it is forged by God Himself, it cannot be broken by any authority, civil or religious.

Divorce and remarriage are prohibited in the New Covenant instituted by Jesus by His very death on the cross. Why is Jesus’ teaching on marriage, divorce and remarriage such a source of controversy among Christians? To divorce and remarry is to commit adultery. Jesus says, “Whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery” (cf. Mt 5:32). What? You say that your Bible says, “except for adultery.” The Greek word used in the Septuagint porneia, means “unlawful marriage” or incest. This word is used two other times in the New Testament, both referring to incest. (To understand biblical text, all of Scripture must be taken in account when analyzing the meaning the original author intended.) To divorce in this situation does not break a true marriage because a valid marriage never existed in the first place. Do you doubt what God has said about marriage, divorce and remarriage in His Word? Who is man to deny or change what God has clearly laid out in Sacred Scripture? Jesus says, “Why do you doubt?” (Mt 14:31). Yes indeed, why do so many doubt God’s Word on marriage?

So this is the other 10% of my story, dear Stander. I have laid it all out for you. Undoubtedly, some will take offense at what I have written. So be it. God said it; I believed and obeyed it. Who am I to go against God’s Word? In the end, God blessed me with a restored marriage. And I am forever thankful for that. In closing, I offer one more scripture passage to encourage you:

Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts. As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater, so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it. You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands. Instead of the thornbush will grow the juniper, and instead of briers the myrtle will grow. This will be for the Lord’s renown, for an everlasting sign, that will endure forever.” Isaiah 55:6-13

May God’s will be done in your life and your marriage.

dennis_sig

 
Church Discipline, Discipleship, morality, Spiritual Warfare

Divorce — The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience

Leave a comment

by Dr. Albert Mohler, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Evangelical Christians are gravely concerned about the family, and this is good and necessary. But our credibility on the issue of marriage is significantly discounted…

[Downloadable PDF]Wedding Cake Pulverized

Mark A. Smith, who teaches political science at the University of Washington, pays close attention to what is now commonly called the “culture war” in America. Though the roots of this cultural conflict reach back to the 1960s, the deep divide over social and moral issues became almost impossible to deny during the late 1970s and ever since. It is now common wisdom to speak of “red” states and “blue” states and to expect familiar lines of division over questions such as abortion and homosexuality.

In the most general sense, the culture war refers to the struggle to determine laws and customs on a host of moral and political issues that separate Americans into two opposing camps, often presented as the religious right and the secular left. Though the truth is never so simple, the reality of the culture war is almost impossible to deny.

And yet, as Professor Smith surveyed the front lines of the culture war, he was surprised, not so much by the issues of hot debate and controversy, but by an issue that was obvious for its absence — divorce.

“From the standpoint of simple logic, divorce fits cleanly within the category of ‘family values’ and hence hypothetically could represent a driving force in the larger culture war,” he notes. “If ‘family values’ refers to ethics and behavior that affect, well, families, then divorce obviously should qualify. Indeed, divorce seems to carry a more direct connection to the daily realities of families than do the bellwether culture war issues of abortion and homosexuality.”

That logic is an indictment of evangelical failure and a monumental scandal of the evangelical conscience. When faced with this indictment, many evangelicals quickly point to the adoption of so-called “no fault” divorce laws in the 1970s. Yet, while those laws have been devastating to families (and especially to children), Smith makes a compelling case that evangelicals began their accommodation to divorce even before those laws took effect. No fault divorce laws simply reflected an acknowledgment of what had already taken place. As he explains, American evangelicals, along with other Christians, began to shift opinion on divorce when divorce became more common and when it hit close to home.

When the Christian right was organized in the 1970s and galvanized in the 1980s, the issues of abortion and homosexuality were front and center. Where was divorce? Smith documents the fact that groups such as the “pro-traditional family” Moral Majority led by the late Jerry Falwell generally failed even to mention divorce in their publications or platforms.

“During the 10 years of its existence, Falwell’s organization mobilized and lobbied on many political issues, including abortion, pornography, gay rights, school prayer, the Equal Rights Amendment, and sex education in schools,” he recalls. Where is divorce — a tragedy that affects far more families than the more “hot button” issues? “Divorce failed to achieve that exalted status, ranking so low on the group’s agenda that books on the Moral Majority do not even give the issue an entry in the index.”

But the real scandal is far deeper than missing listings in an index. The real scandal is the fact that evangelical Protestants divorce at rates at least as high as the rest of the public. Needless to say, this creates a significant credibility crisis when evangelicals then rise to speak in defense of marriage.

As for the question of divorce and public law, Smith traces a huge transition in the law and in the larger cultural context. In times past, he explains, both divorce and marriage were considered matters of intense public interest. But at some point, the culture was transformed, and divorce was reclassified as a purely private matter.

Tragically, the church largely followed the lead of its members and accepted what might be called the “privatization” of divorce. Churches simply allowed a secular culture to determine that divorce is no big deal, and that it is a purely private matter.

As Smith argues, the Bible is emphatic in condemning divorce. For this reason, you would expect to find evangelical Christians demanding the inclusion of divorce on a list of central concerns and aims. But this seldom happened. Evangelical Christians rightly demanded laws that would defend the sanctity of human life. Not so for marriage. Smith explains that the inclusion of divorce on the agenda of the Christian right would have risked a massive alienation of members. In summary, evangelicals allowed culture to trump Scripture.

An even greater tragedy is the collapse of church discipline within congregations. A perceived “zone of privacy” is simply assumed by most church members, and divorce is considered only a private concern.

Professor Smith is concerned with this question as a political scientist. Why did American evangelicals surrender so quickly as divorce gathered momentum in America? We must ask this same question with even greater urgency. How did divorce, so clearly identified as a grievous sin in the Bible, become so commonplace and accepted in our midst?

The sanctity of human life is a cause that demands our priority and sacrifice. The challenge represented by the possibility (or probability) of legalized same-sex marriage demands our attention and involvement, as well.

But divorce harms many more lives than will be touched by homosexual marriage. Children are left without fathers, wives without husbands, and homes are forever broken. Fathers are separated from their children, and marriage is irreparably undermined as divorce becomes routine and accepted. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin, but it is sin, and it is a sin that is condemned in no uncertain terms.

Evangelical Christians are gravely concerned about the family, and this is good and necessary. But our credibility on the issue of marriage is significantly discounted by our acceptance of divorce. To our shame, the culture war is not the only place that an honest confrontation with the divorce culture is missing.

Divorce is now the scandal of the evangelical conscience.

Church Discipline, citizenship, Discipleship, Marriage Restoration, Prayer, Spiritual Warfare

Could We Ever Get the “No-Fault” Genie Back Into the Bottle?

Leave a comment

genie-bottleBy Standerinfamilycourt.com

This blogger has a new companion Facebook page Unilateral Divorce is Unconstitutional.   Like anyone advocating for an unpopular-but-just cause, I’m acquainted with many like-minded men and women who believe God created marriage only, and man / Satan created the dissolution of marriage, in utter rebellion against God.   Those of us who are “divorced” in men’s eyes from the husband or wife of our youth, are still very much married in God’s eyes, since He’s the party who will never exit a covenant union nor allow a non-covenant relationship to prosper.   Men and women who have been standing for years, are believing God for the restoration of their stolen and ruptured marriages.

Note:  standerinfamilycourt.com  recognizes that the remainder of this post may offend some Christians and others who are in subsequent civil marriages following a civil divorce, and may offend some pastors who have officiated these unions under the official but errant policy or position of their church body.    Our intent is not to offend or judge – the Protestant church has taught an unbiblical doctrine on this matter ever since the Reformation, which has gone mostly unchallenged.   As Jesus himself directly pointed out to an offended crowd, Judaism’s similar error goes all the way back to the days of Moses.   We apologize for the emotionally distressful impact of what we have to say, but not for speaking the truth of God that others need to hear for the good of society as a whole.    Our prayer is that individuals in that situation would hear from the Holy Spirit on this matter and that pastors whose practice is to officiate adulterous remarriages (where a covenant spouse is still living, born again or not, remarried or not) would repent before God for offending an unbreakable covenant to which the Lord of Hosts, the God of Angel Armies remains a party, regardless of any godless act of fallen human government.

One of the hopes for both this blog and for the facebook page is that our constitutional challenge case would develop a following and possibly even build to a class of Illinoisans with a direct common interest in the outcome of this case.   What if my prodigal suddenly repents in the middle of the proceedings?   God is in control, and is ardently pursuing him!   If there were multiple parties with legal “standing” to our constitutional challenge, the cause shouldn’t die or the case become moot if marriage reconciliation occurs for one family or another who come along as a party to the case.   There is no question that such an event must take priority over any other cause – wholeness in our families is just too irreplaceable and impacts too many generations to forgo for any public cause. Then, too, winning this battle in Illinois would only mean the same thing would need to happen in 49 other states plus the District of Columbia, since there’s no national fix to this national tragedy.  God needs to raise up many others with the gutsy resolve to walk the very expensive and emotionally-draining, lonely path He assigned to me in this state.

 

So I’ve been pondering why fellow standers seem mostly reticent to embrace the overthrow of unilateral divorce in the courts?   One possibility that occurred to me is the covenant husband or wife of their youth has entered into a non-covenant marriage with an adultery partner.   Is it possible that many standers fear that if the law changes, their spouse will not be able to exit that adulterous civil contract?

 

The husband of my youth is also under duress to marry the other woman now that he has obtained his “piece of paper”,  so I’ve definitely wrestled with this issue myself.   He’s being compelled to legalize his adultery with someone who has been divorced for some 30 years and who has grandkids just like we have grandkids from our 40 year covenant marriage.   Standers are spiritual warriors who have the audacity to pray that the 30 years of divorce will be bridged and that prodigal spouses in that other family will exit their adultery and allow God to restore their covenant marriage according to His will and way.   I recently shared on Unilateral Divorce is Unconstitutional a glorious story about God doing just that, restoring a marriage after 28 years of divorce!   – “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.” Mark 10:27

 

This last nugget from the word of God is why I came to understand that I mustn’t fear that what’s good for the country as a whole might work out badly for my particular family, should the Lord remove the profuse thicket of (prayed-in) Hosea style thorn bushes currently restraining my prodigal from legalizing his adultery.   The spiritual battle of standing for restoration of a covenant marriage has always been about fighting on one’s knees, and this dilemma is just another aspect of the same.

 

We must understand that the falsehood we’ve been sold as “no fault” divorce is actually a one-way street that in reality amounts to unilateral divorce – the two are always mentioned interchangeably but are in no way the same.   My prayer is that the overthrow of this divorce mill regime will eliminate unilateral divorce, but preserve a true “no fault” option available by mutual petition only.   Where there’s no mutual petition, the party seeking the divorce will have to prove traditional fault.   Yes, this will likely make it harder, slower and costlier than it is today to get out of some non-covenant marriages, but there are several possibilities for the God of all creation to move and overcome such circumstances:

(1) there may be some kind of substantial abusive behavior in a home built on such a shabby foundation which included premarital adultery, such that there would be provable cause-based grounds

(2) God will reignite the eros, phileo and agape between the adultery partner and their own covenant spouse, in response to our prayers for their family, such that there develops a mutual “no-fault” agreement to exit the non-covenant marriage

(3) since repeal of unilateral divorce would be a slow state-by-state process, the Lord might move the non-covenants to another state where unilateral divorce is still available

(4) in His sovereignty, God removes the life of an interloping non-covenant partner. (God spells divorce “D-E-A-T-H”.)

 

Even in the natural, the outlook for an adulterous remarriage, or any second or subsequent marriage for that matter, is not so good.  If a 40 year lifetime of shared pursuits and experiences can be so easily discarded, what’s the prognosis for a so-called “significant other” who wasn’t quite significant enough not to be lied to, hidden from family and cheated on over a period of years?   How much trust, security and confidence could there be in a relationship that was birthed in selfishness, theft and treachery?

 

“Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”   Matthew 7:26-27

 

God has been working in me uniquely and individually to believe Him in all circumstances that there’s no way He will promise and not fulfill (Numbers 23:19), even at the most hopeless points in the journey – when I’ve been losing in court, and treated as the wrongdoer by the human judge, slandered in a shrill chorus by both that judge and opposing counsel.   And when to my dread, I can’t avoid enraging the man I love and escalating the conflict with every new development in this long contest of spiritual wills.   God still leads me beside the still waters as promised, and will prepare a table before me in the presence of my enemies (abundant vindication), in His timing and His orchestration.

It took time and much grief to get the nation into this messy situation in the first place.  Purging this evil from our society is also going to be messy, but before a holy God, we really have no choice.    He will pour out sufficient grace to get us all through it, glorifying Himself beyond all we could ask or imagine.   He is able.

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

 

 

 

family law, marriage, Religious freedom

Dr. Helen Alvare: Uphold Conscience Protection: Religious Freedom’s Contribution to the American Experience and Threats to its Survival

Leave a comment

Freedom of Religion According to the Illinois Constitution

SECTION 3. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession
and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be
guaranteed, and no person shall be denied any civil or
political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his
religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby
secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or
affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify
practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.

In addition to the above, Illinois has enacted a Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) which provides that a law, even if it applies equally to all citizens, cannot strip away or punish the right to act on one’s religious conscience or refuse to act because of conscience, unless there is a compelling government interest at stake, and unless the government has selected the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.    Recent Federal cases have defined a compelling government interest well beyond just a legitimate purpose – for example, Korte v Sebelius  stated that the interest must be of the highest order or urgency and be of surpassing importance, and there must be a close fit between the government interest and the means chosen to implement it.

Can we really say that the state’s interest in assuring  individual sexual autonomy surpasses the rights and interests of one’s established family?   Is it really such that the government has a compelling interest in guaranteeing individual autonomy to the extent that there is to be no economic penalty in renouncing family commitments?     If so, there is indeed a close fit in punishing all religious and moral objectors who stand in the way.    But if some of the other lofty ideals piously stated in the “no-fault” law are truly the government aim, then the fit between ends and means has been proven by a 37 year track record to be sorely lacking!    Further, several 2013-2014 rulings in Federal court have suggested that state enablement of  sexual autonomy falls short of being a compelling government interest.    (Korte v Sebelius; Robichaux v Caldwell; Borman v Pyles-Borman)

Without conscience protections, the free exercise of religion is not possible.    Discrimination by family courts against religious objectors to unilateral divorce via bias in matters of procedural due process,  child welfare outcomes and property division is against the letter of Illinois law  and must not be tolerated.

On the other hand, entrenched unilateral divorce proponents within the judicial and legal community seem to be in the very business of protecting the acts of licentiousness of  offender spouses who file divorce petitions, and of rewarding practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.    This is turning Section 3 of the Illinois Constitution on its head in utter tyranny.

It is against this backdrop that I offer the commentary of Dr. Helen Alvare of George Mason University, Washington D.C.

Witherspoon Inst Pub Discourse

“….It appears that lawmakers are responding more to cultural and media elites who express overt hostility to religion, or they are simply confused about the true meaning and purpose of marriage and the family…..

…the expansion of state power, combined with a “creeping” notion of human or civil “rights,” also jeopardizes religious freedom today. Government regulation has spread to nearly every sphere of life and thus imposes more constraints upon a wide variety of religious ministries. At the same time, “rights” language is increasingly applied to human “wants” rather than “needs.” It is used to promote individualism and particular ideologies, rather than universally recognized attributes of human life or dignity. This increase in regulation, combined with “rights creep,” leads directly to refusals to grant religious exemptions, on the ground that people have human “rights” to consensual sexual expression with any other person, or to kill an unborn child, and that “rights” do not permit exemptions for the sake of conscience.’

Read the full article:  http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/08/3800/

Helen Alvaré is an associate professor at George Mason University School of Law and a senior fellow of the Witherspoon Institute.

citizenship, family law, marriage, Religious freedom

Illinois HB1452: Family-Toxic Law Stealthily Seeking to Become Vastly More So!

Leave a comment

 

Heads up, Illinois!             You will not read a word about this in the liberal mainstream media, and (sadly) neither will you hear about this even from the pro-family organizations of this state, nor the alternative Christian media.    The impact on your family, and your children’s families will be devastating if this bill is allowed to quietly pass into law this fall,  as predicted by the Illinois State Bar Association,  after the legislature reconvenes October 1.

I surely don’t mean to “diss” the hardworking, diligent family champions such as the Illinois Family Institute, who work absolutely tirelessly “as unto the Lord” to hold back much toxic social-engineering legislation each year with a limited budget, not to mention having to deal with the less-than-biblical sensibilities of some of their larger donors who rather prefer the current system of church-blessed serial monogamy (based on “biblical grounds”, of course! )  To their huge credit, IFI was instrumental in 2013 in rallying the faithful of this state from south to north, east to west to nearly stop a well-funded freight train of media and big-government support for (further) redefining marriage in Illinois.   Theirs was unquestionably one of the best-organized efforts I’ve ever observed, and their events were, every one of them, purely to God’s glory!    I’ve corresponded more than once with IFI’s leadership about HB1452 and they were cordial and gracious, assuring me they were working diligently behind the scenes in Springfield, but it “wasn’t  time yet” to inform the public about a bill that is taking deadly aim against the persistent remnants of the traditional family in this state, and which hardly anyone in the general public is even aware of.

Despite IFI’s off-the-record assurances, this bill passed in the state house and was referred to the state senate as the 2014 spring session wound down.   An appalling number of conservatives voted for it in the total absence of any public pressure or visibility.   (My state rep was absent that day.)

So with no media or family advocacy coverage, and no mention whatsoever by my own state rep (a conservative), how did I ever find out about this legislation?   I was sitting in the cafeteria of our county judicial center just about a year ago, having lunch with my attorney during a break from defending against the civil charge of “irreconcilable differences” brought by my husband of nearly 40 years against me and our suddenly “irretrievable” marriage.    Despite being assigned a very biased judge, we were having some limited early success in bringing admissible evidence against each of the 4 or 5 points the current law uses to define “irreconcilable differences”.    Mr. W looked at me and told me, “Mrs. V, you know that’s all about to change”.    He went on to explain that the 2 year required separation period was about to be reduced to 6 months, and there would no longer be any space allowed in the law to bring a defense against allegations of “irreconcilable differences”.

Respondent Meme

Even the rankest criminal has the constitutional right in our country to bring evidence to defend himself or herself, and (by extension) defend the integrity of his or her family, but not so for those who stand in the way of unfettered narcissism and sexual anarchy.    To be fair, Illinois was in the tiniest minority of states in seeking to give families space to reconcile – this law will simply imitate the vast majority of other states who already crush familes and subjegate the parental, conscience and property rights of non-offending spouses with lightning speed.    Up to now, Illinois also boasted of a substantially lower divorce rate than most states, as high as it is, but that’s about to radically change, too.

It’s important to understand that very much like the original wave of unilateral (“no-fault”) divorce legislation 40 or so years ago, there is and was no public outcry or broad demand for it.    It was simply foisted unsought on the public by a consortium of feminists and the legal profession,  including some with substantial personal conflicts of interest.   My imminent divorce appeal gave me reason today to try and find out which organizations or special interest groups are actually backing this bill.   I called the office of the sponsor, Rep. Kelly Burke to inquire, and was told it was supported by only one backing organization,  the Children’s Rights Council.    Rep. Burke’s staffer then volunteered, “DHS, the ACLU and the Illinois State Bar Association hold no position”.   REALLY?     Actually, aside from the marriage-assassination provisions, there is a lot in the bill related to child welfare (if you can call massive government intrusion into parental rights without the slightest proof of fault “welfare”), hence the lone backer.

I can only conclude that the media collusion / censorship that affords this bill its stealth makes it unnecessary for various bar groups with a substantial vested economic interest to risk showing their colors to the public.   No opposition is expected or planned for.   They do not expect you to call your state senator and urge them to oppose this bill.    By design, they do not expect you and I, their constituents, to even know about it.   They don’t fear any meaningful opposition from the usual champions of the traditional family whom they know aren’t willing to publicly clean up their own heterosexual house first before protesting in front of someone else’s homosexual abode.    As my religious freedom / constitutional attorney recently put it, “it’s not a very sexy fund-raising cause”.   Sometimes the very best of us forget that nevertheless God is watching and grieving.     Could it be that this is a reason He’s not giving us more traction against the tsunami of homofacism that is steadily stealing our religious liberty, and (ultimately) our democracy?

Those who don’t like to read long blogs can probably jump off now, but for the inquisitive (and patient), I’d like to share and comment on a few of the points and attitudes in the draft legislation.   You are entitled to know whether your legislators are actually representing you well.

13 (750 ILCS 5/102) (from Ch. 40, par. 102)
14 Sec. 102. Purposes; Rules of Construction. This Act shall
15 be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying
16 purposes, which are to:
17 (1) provide adequate procedures for the solemnization and
18 registration of marriage;
19 (2) strengthen and preserve the integrity of marriage and
20   safeguard family relationships; 
21 (3) promote the amicable settlement of disputes that have
22   arisen between parties to a marriage;
23   (4) mitigate the potential harm to the spouses and their
24   children caused by the process of an action brought under this
HB1452 Engrossed – 15 – LRB098 02948 HEP 32963 b
1 Act, and protect children from exposure to conflict and
2 violence legal dissolution of marriage;
3 (5) ensure predictable decision-making for the care of
4 children and for the allocation of parenting time and other
5 parental responsibilities, and avoid prolonged uncertainty by
6 expeditiously resolving issues involving children;
7 (6) recognize the right of children to a healthy
8   relationship with parents, and the responsibility of parents to
9   ensure such a relationship;
10 (7) acknowledge that the determination of children's best
11   interests, and the allocation of parenting time and significant
12   decision-making responsibilities, are among the paramount
13   responsibilities of our system of justice, and to that end:
14 (A) recognize children's right to a strong and healthy
15 relationship with parents, and parents' concomitant right
16 and responsibility to create and maintain such
17 relationships;
18 (B) recognize that, in the absence of domestic violence
19 or any other factor that the court expressly finds to be
20 relevant, proximity to, and frequent contact with, both
21 parents promotes healthy development of children;
22 (C) facilitate parental planning and agreement about
23 the children's upbringing and allocation of parenting time
24 and other parental responsibilities;
25 (D) continue existing parent-child relationships, and
26   secure the maximum involvement and cooperation of parents
HB1452 Engrossed – 16 – LRB098 02948 HEP 32963 b
1 regarding the physical, mental, moral, and emotional
2   well-being of the children during and after the litigation;
3 and
4 (E) promote or order parents to participate in programs
5 designed to educate parents to:
6 (i) minimize or eliminate rancor and the
7   detrimental effect of litigation in any proceeding
8   involving children; and
9 (ii) facilitate the maximum cooperation of parents
10 in raising their children;
11 (8) (5) make reasonable provision for support spouses and
12 minor children during and after an underlying dissolution of
13 marriage, parentage, or parental responsibility allocation
14 action litigation, including provision for timely advances
15 awards of interim fees and costs to all attorneys, experts, and
16 opinion witnesses including guardians ad litem and children's
17 representatives, to achieve substantial parity in parties'
18 access to funds for pre-judgment litigation costs in an action
19 for dissolution of marriage;
20 (9) (6) eliminate the consideration of marital misconduct
21 in the adjudication of rights and duties incident to the legal
22 dissolution of marriage, legal separation and declaration of
23 invalidity of marriage; and
24 (7) secure the maximum involvement and cooperation of both
25 parents regarding the physical, mental, moral and emotional
26 well-being of the children during and after the litigation; and
HB1452 Engrossed – 17 – LRB098 02948 HEP 32963 b
1 (10) (8) make provision for the preservation and
2 conservation of marital assets during the litigation.
3 (Source: P.A. 89-712, eff. 6-1-97.)

 

In the above excerpt, I took the liberty of bolding the lofty aims of those-who-know-far-better-than-us.    When a law is being judged for its constitutionality which intrudes on fundamental rights, the following questions are supposed to be asked:

(1) is the law absolutely necessary to achieve the stated objective?   (2) does it actually achieve the stated objective?                                            (3) is there a less intrusive way to achieve the stated objective?

All of these questions seem laughable at best in the context of forced divorce-on-demand.

I also italicized the portions that to me flaunt the arrogance of  these sponsoring legislators, as if the existing law wasn’t presumptuous enough!     Marriage (and the moral right to stay married,  absent a pattern of destructive behavior toward the marriage) is a fundamental right.    That right is given by God, not government.  Intrusion by the government into the life of the family in the absence of proven wrongdoing, at the sole request of the offending spouse and over the objection of the non-offending spouse, in order to supervise the conduct of the family is beyond arrogant – it’s heinous and unconscionable!   I find it hideous that these smug legislators then consider us and not themselves to be the very source of the problem!     The disgusting result, all too often, is that the “improvement” the court has engineered turns out to be exposure of the children to an immoral cohabiting relationship with a boyfriend or girlfriend who then abuses the children while their non-offending, non-custodial parent , thanks to the legislative wisdom of disregarding marital misconduct, is left helpless to do anything about it.    That offends God:

“In body and spirit you are his.    And what does he want?  Godly children from your union.”    Malachi 2:15 

Sec. 401. Dissolution of marriage.
5 (a) The court shall enter a judgment of dissolution of
6 marriage when if at the time the action was commenced one of
7 the spouses was a resident of this State or was stationed in
8 this State while a member of the armed services, and the
9 residence or military presence had been maintained for 90 days
10 next preceding the commencement of the action or the making of
11 the finding:
12 Irreconcilable differences have caused the irretrievable
13 breakdown of the marriage and the court determines that efforts
14   at reconciliation have failed or that future attempts at
15   reconciliation would be impracticable and not in the best
16   interests of the family.
17 (a-5) If the parties are separated for 6 consecutive
18 months, which period may commence prior to or after the filing
19 of an action for dissolution of marriage under this Act, there
20   will be an irrebuttable presumption that the requirement of
21   irreconcilable differences has been met. ; provided, however,
22 that a finding of residence of a party in any judgment entered
23 under this Act from January 1, 1982 through June 30, 1982 shall
24 satisfy the former domicile requirements of this Act; and if
25 one of the following grounds for dissolution has been proved:
HB1452 Engrossed – 23 – LRB098 02948 HEP 32963 b
1 (1) That, without cause or provocation by the
2 petitioner: the respondent was at the time of such
3 marriage, and continues to be naturally impotent; the
4 respondent had a wife or husband living at the time of the
5 marriage; the respondent had committed adultery subsequent
6 to the marriage; the respondent has wilfully deserted or
7 absented himself or herself from the petitioner for the
8 space of one year, including any period during which
9 litigation may have pended between the spouses for
10 dissolution of marriage or legal separation; the
11 respondent has been guilty of habitual drunkenness for the
12 space of 2 years; the respondent has been guilty of gross
13 and confirmed habits caused by the excessive use of
14 addictive drugs for the space of 2 years, or has attempted
15 the life of the other by poison or other means showing
16 malice, or has been guilty of extreme and repeated physical
17 or mental cruelty, or has been convicted of a felony or
18 other infamous crime; or the respondent has infected the
19 other with a sexually transmitted disease. "Excessive use
20 of addictive drugs", as used in this Section, refers to use
21 of an addictive drug by a person when using the drug
22 becomes a controlling or a dominant purpose of his life; or
23 (2) That the spouses have lived separate and apart for
24 a continuous period in excess of 2 years and irreconcilable
25 differences have caused the irretrievable breakdown of the
26 marriage and the court determines that efforts at
HB1452 Engrossed – 24 – LRB098 02948 HEP 32963 b
1 reconciliation have failed or that future attempts at
2 reconciliation would be impracticable and not in the best
3 interests of the family. If the spouses have lived separate
4 and apart for a continuous period of not less than 6 months
5 next preceding the entry of the judgment dissolving the
6 marriage, as evidenced by testimony or affidavits of the
7 spouses, the requirement of living separate and apart for a
8 continuous period in excess of 2 years may be waived upon
9 written stipulation of both spouses filed with the court.
10 At any time after the parties cease to cohabit, the
11 following periods shall be included in the period of
12 separation:
13 (A) any period of cohabitation during which the
14 parties attempted in good faith to reconcile and
15 participated in marriage counseling under the guidance
16 of any of the following: a psychiatrist, a clinical
17 psychologist, a clinical social worker, a marriage and
18 family therapist, a person authorized to provide
19 counseling in accordance with the prescriptions of any
20 religious denomination, or a person regularly engaged
21 in providing family or marriage counseling; and
22 (B) any period of cohabitation under written
23 agreement of the parties to attempt to reconcile.
24 In computing the period during which the spouses have lived
25 separate and apart for purposes of this Section, periods during
26 which the spouses were living separate and apart prior to July
HB1452 Engrossed – 25 – LRB098 02948 HEP 32963 b
1 1, 1984 are included.

 

The vast sea of stricken language above is the removal of any option or requirement to prove fault, or have fault proven as a condition of goverment intrusion into marital privacy and the  conduct of the family.    The italicized arrogance is that the court [ i.e. government intrusion] will determine whether or not reconciliation attempts have failed, and whether reconciliation is in the best interest of the family.   In reality, God decided both of these issues a very long time ago but government here seeks to put itself in the place of God.

Many who are blessed with healthy marriages may be reading this and wondering if the fight against government interference with the family is worth the energy.   I say it is if you are a taxpayer who ever held out a hope that state and federal governments would one day be able to balance their budgets again.    I submit that divorce-on-demand is a key reason why this will never be the case again unless unilateral divorce is repealed or overturned nationwide.    Pastors in the inner city minority communities have watched poverty grow as family law disintegrated into the moral abyss.    Part of it is consequential and part is God’s judment as promised.

“Look, I am sending you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord arrives.   His preaching will turn the hearts of fathers to their children, and the hearts of children to their fathers.  Otherwise I will come and strike the land with a curse.”

All citizens, and especially the entire community of believers should be in the face of their legislators about this law.    Instead of further corrosion of marriage and family, we can insist that faultless divorce be by mutual consent only, and that consequences be restored for destructive behavior that seriously undermines the integrity of the marriage.   As a constitutional matter, we should be demanding that only  under such proven circumstances may a government entity intrude itself into a marriage.

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce

– by standerinfamilycourt.com

 

 

 

 

marriage, morality, Religious freedom

So WHAT IF We Couldn’t Get Divorced?

2 Comments

In response to the blogger on yahoo! Aug. 21, 2014……

I think what’s really being asked is, what if one spouse could no longer unilaterally divorce the other spouse without cause (and without economic consequence) simply because modern civil government believes the spouse who wants out  “deserves to be happy”?      Divorce against God’s will goes all the way back to Moses – at least, and such all-or-nothing debate seems a bit pointless.    It would actually take far less than an all-out divorce ban to radically improve our nation’s security and prosperity.

Perhaps a more productive question is: “What if uncontested, mutual-consent divorce became the only ‘faultless’ divorce available?”

Here’s my take on that:

1) Basic Constitutional rights would be restored to the “Respondent” for the first time in 40 years in some states.

2) God’s hand of blessing would return to the United States after His long season of withdrawing Divine protection from prolonged political, social and economic hard times.

3)   The suicide rate for men and teens would decline precipitously.

4) Substance abuse and abortion rates would decline precipitously .

5)  People would see more of their pastors and counselors, and would take their advice more seriously.

6) The poverty rate would decline sharply and government budgets would be balanced again without raising taxes.

7) The homosexuality rate, particularly rebound lesbianism, would decline.

8) Pornography use would decline.

9)  Individual couples would retire substantially wealthier.

10) In time, we’d see an end to mass shootings in public places like day care centers, schools, malls and places of employment.

 

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce

– standerinfamilycourt.com

 

 

 

Equal Protection, family law, Fundamental Rights, Religious freedom

10 Lies that Keep Unconstitutional Divorce Laws Propped-Up in State Legislatures

2 Comments

US Const

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and counterpart clauses in each state constitution guarantee the right to the free exercise of religion for both spouses by stating that Congress / state legislatures may make no law that establishes a state religion or prohibits the free exercise thereof.  This free exercise is far more than belief, worship or expression – it is the right to act upon conviction,  make life decisions according to those convictions and do so without losing other constitutional protections,  such as the 14th Amendment which protects property from seizure without due process and guarantees equal protection under the laws. Additionally, the Federal and state versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) passed in the 1990’s require government authorities to prove a “compelling” government interest in enforcing laws against individuals claiming a religious objection, and to use the least restrictive means to enforce the law if the first burden of proof is met by that governing authority.   For example, states that create immoral incentives rewarding the unilateral dissolution of marriage by petitioners who are adulterers, homosexuals, addicts, etc., by providing that marital misconduct not be considered in dividing the marital property or in child custody decisions are probably violating RFRA, as well as the 14th Amendment

This is very important to followers of Christ who believe several things about both marriage and divorce that directly conflict with U.S. divorce laws. It is also important because followers of Christ believe they must obey God first in all things if what He commands about the order of society (“What God has joined let man not separate”) stands in conflict with civil laws.   A follower of Christ who believes it is a violation of God’s law to file a divorce petition even when they know their spouse is engaged in various acts destructive to the marriage will often be discriminated against by unilateral divorce laws because they are seen as “condoning” the behavior and not taking “prudent action” even when that action would be against their biblical conscience.   Unilateral divorce laws that do not allow marital misconduct to be considered in dividing property are certainly not a “least restrictive means” of enforcement since several U.S. states do allow the consideration of maritial misconduct for that purpose.   Under most state laws, such a position can result in serious loss of financial abuse protections that would otherwise be available to them, and result in confiscation of even their retirement benefits late in life, in violation of the 1st and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

So, does the state have any compelling government interest in enforcing unilateral divorce laws that discriminate against spouses who take biblical stands for the permenance of their marriage? Does the state have even a compelling government interest in elevating the interests of the “Petitioner” while totally subjugating the constitutional rights of the “Respondent” where religion is not involved?

Here are some arguments the state has relied upon to pass and enforce civil laws that suspend the constitutional rights of “Respondents” who have had the civil charge of “irreconcilable differences” or “irretrievable breakdown” brought against them with no effective right of defense in Family Law Court:

  1. THE LIE: “Unilateral divorce is needed to keep battered or mentally abused spouses from being trapped in a bad marriage”

THE TRUTH: Returning to the fault-based system that balances the constitutional due process owed to both spouses should not unduly burden a battered or abused spouse in obtaining a divorce for cause. However, the definition of each of the various categories of abuse needs to be specifically and objectively defined, and can no longer be vague or subjective, as was too often the case in the past. Battered and abused spouses should then have no problem bringing clear and objective evidence to prove their case, and it is unlikely this was really an issue before unilateral divorce was enacted. Even so, society is better served if the biblical prescription for this situation is promoted. The biblical prescription calls for physical separation, with ongoing marital faithfulness by the offended spouse, and holding out the possibility of reconciliation if the misconduct can be treated and resolved.

See 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.

  1. THE LIE: “The ‘majority’ of divorce cases are uncontested, so the few cases that are contested don’t matter enough to justify a change in the law”

THE TRUTH: Recent studies show that in 80% of divorces there was a spouse objecting and morally opposed – this is a clear majority of cases contested, or would be contested if finances permitted. The coerciveness of this law and the lack of financial means to contest a divorce petition, that most families face, serves to give a false picture.

 

  1. THE LIE: “ ‘No-fault’ divorce only applies to couples who mutually agree to end their marriage”

THE TRUTH: In a cunning game of “bait & switch”, this misrepresentation was advanced in the earliest states to enact the new law. Two states actually did enact laws to this effect, but in California the uncontested piece was removed from the final version, and in Texas, it was enacted but ignored by the legal community. In all states, unilateral forced divorce is imposed on contesting spouses.

  1. THE LIE: “If we go back to fault-based divorce, we would just go back to the ‘bad old days’ when two people who both wanted a divorce had to perjure themselves to make up charges against each other

THE TRUTH: This argument is so illogical that it’s amazing anyone could be gullible enough to buy it. It’s like swinging a sledgehammer to kill a gnat.   All it would have taken to deal effectively with that situation is offer a choice of UNCONTESTED-only “irreconcilable differences”, or if a spouse morally objects to divorce, continue to require proof of fault-based grounds.   At least one state did exactly that (Texas), but the entrenched interests in the legal profession did not carry it out in that fashion after it was so enacted sensibly by the legislature, so Texas ended up with unilateral divorce like all the other states eventually did.

 

  1. THE LIE: “Unilateral divorce reduces the level of acrimony and perjury in a divorce case”

THE TRUTH: If anything, a law that strips one spouse (the moral objector) of all their constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion and conscience in raising their children, protection of contract rights from impairment by ex post facto laws, their right to equal protection under the law, and the right to protection of their property (not to even mention…their children) from seizure and confiscation without due process of law cannot credibly be represented as “reducing acrimony”.   If there is any “reduction” in the level of acrimony, it’s come merely from shutting people out of court altogether due to the unconstitutionally high cost of contesting an action that’s become nearly impossible to defend against.  The fact is, if there are children involved, the acrimony is not reduced, it’s only postponed until after the divorce, when big money is perpetually spent to bring issues back to court – making divorce very lucrative for the legal profession for years after the divorce.  In contested and uncontested cases, perjury also abounds no differently than before to conceal assets, exaggerate grounds allegations, thwart financial dissipation claims, etc.

 

  1. THE LIE: “If marital misconduct is considered in any aspect of a settling a divorce case, it clogs up the court system”

THE TRUTH: Given that 80% of “respondents” are divorced against their conscience, will and choice, enforcing real consequences for the petitioner’s willful, destructive acts against the marriage in both the division of property and the determination of “best interest of the child” would probably start driving down the number of divorce petitions the same way that they skyrocketed when all the economic and parental consequences were foolishly removed by law.  What factually clogs up the court is the ease and lack of consequences for the wrongdoer in bailing out of their marriage and family responsibilities, sometimes serially.  When an adulterous spouse can no longer dissipate thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars in pursuing an affair and then be awarded a chunk of the innocent spouse’s larger pension / retirement just for bringing the divorce petition, the courts would dramatically unclog.  The following states were wise enough to discern this, and have enacted divorce statutes that consider marital misconduct in dividing marital property: Alabama, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming. (Several additional states consider marital misconduct for child custody and alimony determination.)

 

  1. THE LIE: “Since unilateral divorce was enacted, the suicide rate among depressed wives has declined by 20%”

THE TRUTH: Whether or not this is objectively true, it’s also important to look at the endangerment and suicide rate in the children of the dissolved marriage. A reliable longitudinal study came out in 2012, the New Family Structures Study by Mark Regnerus of the University of Texas at Austin that sheds objective light on this argument by every type of living and child rearing arrangement.  Another factor that needs to be weighed and measured is the spouse and child endangerment that occurs when the stability of marriage is traded for subsequent cohabitation with violent and abusive unmarried partners – does the allegedly-reduced suicide rate among unfettered petitioners actually offset the incidence of murder, rape and battery that is the reality for women and children, post-divorce?

 

  1. THE LIE: “Unilateral divorce laws serve society by reducing the level of immorality when unhappy spouses are freed to remarry who they wish”

THE TRUTH: Grim divorce statistics from second, third or forth marriages, far and away higher than the 1st marriage divorce rate, cast considerable doubt on this argument. People are only truly happy when they unselfishly live for the good of others. Unhappy spouses tend to be self-focused people, which only reinforces their unhappiness. People who deal with their own issues before blaming their spouse tend to stay married and don’t tend to remain unhappy. Unilateral divorce laws have clearly increased the level of immorality in our society by reducing the marriage rate, by increasing unmarried cohabitation, rebound-lesbianism and generational sin that results when children aren’t reared well.  Given the economic incentives under the unconstitutional laws, combined with the acceptance of unmarried cohabitation, unilateral divorce has often encouraged deliberate spouse-poaching, the targeted breakup of a home.  Love is a decision, but emotions come and go.  Long-married couples all know that one falls in love with their spouse in a new and different way many times over throughout the course of their marriage.

  1. THE LIE: “The potential threat of unilateral divorce has a good effect of making couples work harder to keep their marriages healthy”

THE TRUTH: Most people do not actually know that so-called “no fault” divorce is not by mutual consent, so this argument is doubtful at best.  The fastest-growing rate of divorce is among couples married 30 years or more, thanks to Viagra and emptying nests, as well as the common perception, even among allies of covenant marriage, that empty-nest marriages are more expendable than marriages with children.  In an increasingly immoral society, couples are in danger of working overtime to safeguard their marriage so that they no longer can feel relaxed and secure in it, the whole point of marriage.  To the extent this assertion is true, it is probably not attributable to fear of the law itself but to fear of the skyrocketing rate of divorce that the immorality of this law actually drives.  Repealing unilateral divorce would, over time, have a far more beneficial effect on the stability of marriages and society.

 

  1. THE LIE: “Going back to the old fault-based system will overwhelm the courts”

THE TRUTH: See #6 above. This might be true for a short time due to the current high number of cases, but it would eventually dramatically reduce the number of divorce petitions actually filed, and most likely make petitioners who would otherwise file with unclean hands more willing to try meaningful counseling, clergy, etc., because they usually cannot prove any allowable grounds. Especially true if nebulous grounds such as “mental cruelty” were objectively defined in the law by specific behaviors and had to be proven with corroboration by a licensed counselor after “x” number of sessions. “Going back to the old fault-based system” is probably an exaggeration anyway, because there are endless creative possibilities for family-friendly measures to accompany the legal change needed to restore respondent and petitioner to a level playing field of due process, including enhancements such as counseling and conflict management / communication coaching.

 

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall  |  Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce

– by standerinfamilycourt.com

Let's Repeal No-Fault Divorce!