Item from the Smart Marriages Archive, reproduced in the Divorce Statistics Collection
Marriage reform: Don't restore fault

Tuesday, February 22, 2000

After several years of futile attempts to save marriage in Michigan, the
Legislature is still trying.For that, lawmakers deserve credit. Even so,
we have yet to see a satisfactory legislative solution that would both
save marriages and diminish the conflict that tears people apart.

The latest effort comes from state Reps. Lauren Hager, R-Port Huron, and
Doug Spake, D-Adrian. It avoids the pitfall of a controversial bill four
years ago that sought to repeal Michigan's no-fault divorce law. Instead,
this legislation would allow couples to choose a "covenant marriage,"
binding the partners to bypass the no-fault divorce law. In doing so,
they would submit to mandatory pre-marriage and pre-divorce counseling. A
divorce, under that option, could only be granted if one spouse proves
the other is at fault for ruining the marriage.

Another lawmaker, Rep. Joanne Voorhees, R-Grandville, plans to introduce
legislation next month that would repeal the no-fault law. Grounds for
divorce would have to be established unless both parties wanted the
divorce. If one party wanted out, but could not establish fault, that
party would give up more in the division of assets.

We are not inclined to support either legislative approach, though there
is some merit in the first.

The "covenant" approach is a bit naive, like preaching to the choir. In
Louisiana, which has a similar law, only 1.5 percent of couples opted for
a covenant marriage in 1998. Those who choose the option are committing
themselves to little more than what any couple commits to when they
pledge their troth to each other "until death do us part."But we do like
mandatory counseling and have supported that in previous legislative
efforts.Anyone about to marry, or divorce, should have an objective party
offer them counsel. Even if they are determined to divorce, two spouses
need a clear understanding of the consequences of the breakup - for
example, a long-term relationship with the Friend of the Court.

However, we oppose the requirement of establishing fault in order to get
out of a marriage. And that, of course, is the centerpiece of the
proposed Voorhees approach.

The problem we see is this: Divorce results from a failure in the
relationship. It is difficult enough under no-fault for people to go
through a divorce and get on with their lives, for the parties often
engage in contentious negotiations over property and child custody and
support. However, restore the mandate of assigning fault in court, and
you propel these failed relationships from the category of benign to
malignant. Each spouse is forced to think about the other in a way that
emphasizes and exaggerates his or her weaknesses. And that, of course,
can wreak a devastating effect on children.

Is it in the state's interest to strengthen marriage as an institution?
Yes, for the state regularly deals with the wreckage of failed marriages
in courts, schools, social ills, and many other ways.

However, the state achieves no great breakthrough by creating a greater
burden of evidence for those who want out of a marriage. The state's role
should be to affirm marriage by public policies that encourage it and
protect it.

It should not be the state's role to impose on people by law more than
that which, after love has died, only personal commitment can impose.

-The Jackson Citizen Patriot

| Smart Marriages Archive | New Divorce Statistics and Studies Blog | Older Divorce Statistics Collection Archive |