Tag Archives: citizenship

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.

citizenship, family law, marriage

“Shout-Out” to Family-Friendly Legislators – Thanks!

Leave a comment

Springfield IIby standerinfamilycourt  9/29/2014

Last week I posted about HB1452, which would considerably harshen Illinois’ unilateral (“No-Fault”) divorce law, going against the recent trend of some states to start reigning in unilateral divorce due to the generally poor outcome for families.   (Much touted, quite the opposite delivered).

Shamefully, HB1452 passed 90-17 in the Illinois House of Representatives on April 10, 2014, and will be taken up in the Senate during the veto session which commences tomorrow.   I previously detailed the harmful aspects of this bill.    Today, I’d like to extend gratitude to the brave minority of representatives who  put families first and voted NO.     Although belated, I am also mailing each of them a personal note of thanks along with a copy of the letter I’m currently writing to my state senator.

A hearty round of applause, and muchas gracias to:

John E. Bradley (D),  Marion, IL

Adam Brown (R), Champaign, IL

John M. Cabello (R), Loves Park, IL

John D. Cavaletto (R), Salem, IL

Katherine Cloonen (D), Kankakee, IL

Jerry F. Costello (D), Red Bud, IL

C. D. Davidsmeyer (R), Jacksonville, IL

Brad E. Hallbrook (R), Charleston, IL

Josh Harms (R), Watseka, IL

Jeanne M. Ives (R), Wheaton, IL

Dwight Kay (R), Edwardsville, IL

David R. Leitch (R), Peoria, IL

Frank J. Mautino (D), Spring Valley, IL

Bill Mitchell (R), Decatur, IL

Thomas Morrison (R), Palatine, IL

David Reis (R), Olney, IL

Keith Sommer (R), Morton, IL

The results clearly show that standing in the gap for families is a bi-partisan issue.    (With marriage redefinition occurring in 2013 in Illinois and taking effect six weeks after this family law vote, it’s also fascinating to note that two of the three openly homosexual legislators in the Illinois House chose to vote “Present” instead of “Yes”.   Since a significant portion of the bill is about child welfare arrangements, and so much is said about the challenges of gay parenting, this is even more interesting.)

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall

– by standerinfamilycourt.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

Equal Protection, family law, Fundamental Rights, Religious freedom

Our Story (7 Times Around the Jericho Wall) – Part 1

1 Comment

by Standerinfamilycourt.com

Courtroom photo

Part 1:  FROM PETITION TO DECREE

In one of the “collar counties” of the Chicagoland area, there sits the massive new 3rd floor north wing of the county courthouse. The spacious hallway is lined with eight or so family law courtrooms, each with a hanging electronic agenda (docket) where dozens of sets of names per day scroll by, hundreds per day altogether.    Against everything in my deepest biblical convictions, this profound disgrace had not escaped us, of having our family name scrolling across that docket for a dozen or more days over the past 18 months.   My born-again husband decided 10 years ago that God had someone “better” for him, and when I found the evidence, I chose what I believe is the only biblical course of action. I chose to stand, pray and fast for our covenant marriage, staring down Satan who was devouring the once-strong husband of my youth in order to bring spiritual death to him. For seven years it was a back and forth spiritual battle as my husband went to work overseas and installed the other woman in his firm with the consent of his employers.   He came home often and stayed long,  clearly not committed to that other relationship.   We tangled over the issue only once or twice, on occasions when he asked me to initiate divorce and I told him it wouldn’t change anything except to make me disobedient to God, too.    I’d still have a husband for life who was running from God, whether or not we were divorced in men’s eyes (only).

 

You see, I disagree with my Pentecostal denomination’s position on divorce and remarriage, and I do not agree with the oft-heard doctrine of “biblical grounds” for divorce based on the 2 or 3 scriptures that most Protestant denominations have long taken out of context in order to give betrayed Christian spouses two “exceptions” that allow them to remarry with the Churches’ blessing (these misapplied scriptures are Matthew 5:32, Matthew 19:8-9 and 1 Cor. 7:15).    My denomination’s official position paper on this topic was revised in 1973, in the wake of many states passing the “no-fault” law that created unilateral divorce, because that legislation meant there was no longer any effective way to legally defend the marriage covenant about which the Most High commanded, “Let no man separate”.   Based on my understanding of all the New and Old Testament scriptures as a whole, I can only conclude that God created permanent lifelong marriage and stopped there – done.   Man sinfully created divorce at Satan’s behest, the first ancient attempt to redefine marriage to humanly, rather than divinely, cope with adultery and abandonment.

 

Jesus stated God’s position in this matter very succinctly: “from the beginning it was NOT SO [i.e. Moses unilaterally allowing divorces due to necessity created by evil circumstances]….I tell you, whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

 

In November, 2012  my unrepentant husband broke the stalemate and filed a petition citing “irreconcilable differences”.   About 6 months later, I found out the woman who was trying to supplant me had suddenly been barred in April, 2012 from my husband’s work country because she had been living there illegally and she got caught after 5 or 6 years.   (I had prayed persistently that, as in the book of Hosea, God would put thorn bushes in their path and wall them off so they could not find each other, and it seems He had granted my prayer.)  Since the only existing “irreconcilable difference” was the adultery under my husband’s control, but not mine,  my husband’s “evidence” involved a certain amount of perjury and slander which I bore up under as the papers piled up.    I hired a Christian attorney after obtaining a list of referrals from the Christian Law Association and doing some probing interviews. There are plenty of Christian attorneys out there who are biblically illiterate and don’t see any biblical conflict with divorce in general or unilateral divorce (“no fault”) in particular.   My husband, in fact, hired just such a person to represent him.   Since the Lord had supernaturally given us a large sudden cash blessing years ago as the affair was starting, and this cash had remained idle in our bank account for several years,  I was afforded the rare privilege of being able to challenge and contest the truth of the grounds in a court trial.   Most other families have little financial choice other than to allow their God-sealed covenant marriages to be bulldozed by the amoral legal system and voluntarily split up the assets that God gave, for Kingdom purposes, to a one-flesh entity.

 

I didn’t realistically expect to win against the grounds charges in that trial because the law precludes that.   However, I did expect to have equal protection in court to bring the testimony and facts in my case to the same degree as my husband, and to state God’s point of view from the witness stand.   To God’s glory, I was able to do the latter, but to my utter shock, I found all of my constitutional protections tossed to the side by court rules designed to assure only one outcome in every case.   Still, God showed up with many miracles getting around some of those court rules, and to everyone’s surprise, we walked out still married on numerous occasions.   That phase of the trial cost me just over $18,000 in legal fees, and it gave me space I would not have had otherwise, to make the truly shocking discovery that my husband had been spending $50,000-60,000 per year on this affair from business and foreign bank accounts and charge cards I had no visibility of.

 

Soon after the judge ruled that we had undergone “irreconcilable differences” and gave us a deadline to “agree” on the division of our property to avoid a second, even more expensive trial, another piece of bad news showed up in my attorney’s office.   My husband’s retirement assets were only about 40% of what mine were, due to the extent of his financial misconduct, therefore he was going after my retirement assets in his settlement request,  as the amoral law of our state egregiously permits.   I am now 58-1/2 years old.   I do not believe in remarriage while my covenant husband remains alive, and would have insufficient time to make up the $200,000 this provision would confiscate from my account before I would need to retire. Outrageously, our state divorce law specifically states that marital misconduct cannot be considered by the court in dividing assets.

I was reluctantly forced to gather bank and credit card statement evidence, along with my husband’s expense reports to prove the extent of the financial dissipation,  and would be forced to bring scandalous public testimony about my husband and the smarmy details of his adultery into the courtroom, in order to protect my retirement funds from the unilateral divorce law. It literally made me sick to my stomach.

 

In other words, the law in all but a dozen states allows guilty petitioners to financially profit from their own gross misconduct by bringing a divorce petition,  if their spouse does not do so first, which may be against the non-offending spouse’s  conscience biblically. Not only that, but the courts go out of their way to protect those guilty petitioners against any fault-based consequences, regardless of the economic harm that it does to the innocent spouse.  Bow to the Baal of disposable marriage covenants, or suffer the consequences!   I will defer the long, tedious details of how that played out in our case to a future post, because I want to close by getting back to the Jericho Wall….

 

On several of my occasions to sit in court awaiting the start of our proceedings, I watched heartbroken as several horrible post-divorce disputes over children burst into the courtroom on an emergency basis. Each violent and abusive, heart-rending occasion gave me an opportunity to pray in the spirit for each of these families, for the salvation of each husband and wife, for the protection of the children, for the salvation of adulterous and abusive boyfriends or girlfriends with whom one or the other of the parents had taken up cohabitation. I don’t think I observed a single case where remarriage stability had risen from the ashes of those dissolved marriages.  I sat in tears of intense gratitude to the Lord for shielding our children from all this, and giving my husband and me 31 years of happy marriage before He permitted Satan to attack, time enough for them to be on their own and in solid marriages of their own.  I wondered if anyone would be praying for these families, had I not happened to be in the courtroom, sitting in my own pool of tears. I observed one embattled young father in whom I saw the obvious marks of seeking to be a good father, but beyond exasperated in his response to the court barring him his God-ordained role, and barely containing his seething rage. I believe God is going to hold judges and governments accountable for this some day! I prayed outside with one young mother and encouraged her about what she could accomplish on her knees to help her estranged husband become a better man, and become the dad her kids deserved. I was growing to hate this destructive law more with every case I witnessed, crying out to God each day.

 

After one hearing which my husband did not attend, my attorney and my husband’s attorney stood in the broad hall outside the courtrooms and argued for some 30 minutes over whether or not my husband obtained and used a certain credit card (hard evidence literally in my attorney’s hand that he did have this card; opposing counsel’s insistence that he did not). The spirit of the Lord came over me and inspired me to circle the hall seven times, praying in the spirit for the heaven-initiated demise of this immoral unilateral (“no-fault”) divorce law, passing under each of those scrolling electronic dockets with the names of hundreds of local families Satan was attacking through this evil system. It was a big hall, and I wondered if I’d really make the full seven circuits before the attorneys finished arguing with each other. I trusted God that since the Holy Spirit was telling me to do it, He would stop time until it could be completed, and indeed He did! I asked the Lord for this to be the start in the heavenly realms of the restoration of our nation and the turning back of His wrath on our nation since the mid-1970’s when our government decided it was OK to desecrate God-owned marriage, and to legalize the murder of unborn babies. A generation later, the latter abomination is clearly changing from coast to coast as God is bringing mercy and grace through technology as well as through favorable court rulings. I built the faith that day in the hall of the county courthouse to believe He intends to do the same with the lifelong marriage covenant which He ordained and with which governments destructively interfere.

 

Our individual story is still unfolding. Closing arguments in the property division trial have been submitted in writing after a series of bench rulings punishing me for my Christian stand taken in the courtroom. I will publish more details as they unfold and as further decisions or rulings occur. I am writing this account after later reading in a reliable publication that 80% of the divorces under U.S. “no-fault” proceedings or petitions occur over the moral objection of one of the spouses. That immediately tells me that only 20% of our outrageously high incidences of family destruction at the hands of local government is even potentially necessary. I’d say that the bulk of this mutually consenting 20% likely entails mostly adulterous, non-covenant second, third, and fourth marriages in which God was never a part.

 

In the Old Testament book of Joshua, chapter 6 gives the detailed account of how the Lord gave His seemingly nonsensical instructions for bringing this formidable wall around the city down so that the rest of the Promised Land could be taken and the nation of Israel could be born. These walls were reputedly 45 feet wide at the base and up to 40 feet tall, counting the 12-15 foot base. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/06/the-walls-of-jericho.aspx#Article Jericho was the oldest fortified city in the world, where these walls had been established and stood for at least 3,000 years before God ordained that they come down. Clearly, only an act of God could ever bring them down. Clearly those walls stood in the way of what God wanted to do to build a nation, and it had to come down for that reason. The seven-circuit march, the trumpet blast and the shout were symbolic of what God was going to do by His supernatural power through ordinary, obedient human vessels. We learn from the Bible that the reputation of God’s people preceded them from earlier victories and caused the Jericho inhabitants’ hearts to “melt like wax”. Similarly, judges are afraid of what would happen if they ruled fairly in contested unilateral divorce cases, so they are seeking legislation to make existing laws even more unfair to the party morally opposed to the divorce or victimized by it, and they are seeking to unlawfully apply recent changes in the law retroactively to cases filed before the statutory effective date of the law, hoping to deter future contesters, especially religious objectors, and hoping there won’t be an appeal.

 

In our case, we are already preparing for the likelihood there will be an appeal, and most likely, a constitutional appeal. In a handful of states long ago there have been prior constitutional appeals, but it doesn’t appear there’s been one attempted in Illinois so far. Two or three came in the early 1970’s and a couple more came approximately 15 years ago in distant states. My attorney and I were told by constitutional attorneys that we will need to lose on all of our many non-constitutional points before the constitutional challenges will even be addressed by an appellate court…pretty disheartening in terms of overturning the law! The state appellate and supreme court opinions in the early cases are illogically dismissive of all the constitutional arguments made, while the dissenting opinions appear to be far more developed and thoughtful. Because the state has always won so far, none have advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court, which typically declines to hear heterosexual marriage cases that lack a civil rights issue or a multi-state conflict. The states have built through case law and court operating procedures a fortified wall around unilateral divorce that insulates and exempts it from the requirement to observe constitutional protections for divorce defendants / respondents…a fortified wall of 40 years’ standing that only God can sovereignly bring down, but I firmly believe He wants to bring down. The good news is that He typically uses the powerless to do such things for His glory!

Our Story, 7 Times Around the Jericho Wall – Part 2

Our Story, 7 Times Around the Jericho Wall – Part 3

No Day in Court for (Stander) “Jane Doe”, Our Story – Part 4

 

Let's Repeal No-Fault Divorce!