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”.

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