Matt Krause is a deeply religious man who feels that people too easily divorce. That is clearly understandable view and probably speaks well of his own marriage. However, Krause is also a Texas state representative and wants to make that decision more difficult for his neighbors. He has introduced bills that should more divorces more expensive and more time-consuming and thus more difficult for couples to secure. This is a point where libertarians and some conservatives part ways. As someone with strong libertarian tendencies, I recoil at the government enforcing moral codes on a couples in making it difficult for them to divorce after they have made that difficult decision within her marriage or families. He would specifically bar no-fault divorces to protect the sanctity of marriage.
The Fort Worth Republican would more than double the amount of time a couple must wait to finalize a divorce from 60 days to 180 days. There is no reason for such a delay other than to make things for difficult for such couples. However, it is the elimination of no-fault divorces that is most problematic. Currently, all 50 states offer no-fault divorce. Indeed, in 17 states and the District of Columbia, you can only file for divorce on no-fault grounds. Absent such an option, couples would have to accuse each other of being cruel or adulterous or being felons. That will make divorces nastier and only deepen the harm for these families. Studies have indicated that the rise of no-fault divorces has seen a corresponding decrease in suicides by wives as well as abuse allegations.
I am sympathetic with the notion that couples need to work out problems in the interests of their families. However I have seen many broken marriages and seen the parents adopt positive attitudes in their separation to protect their children. The option of a no-fault divorce makes such amicable divorces possible and I believe that it is far better for the children than arbitrarily lengthen the period for divorces and force parents to level charges against each other in order to be allowed to go their separate ways. That is a matter for them and their families. They may be religious or non-religious. They may share Krause’s moral or may not share those morals. It is their faith, their marriage, their lives. Not Krause’s.
Krause ran for office as someone who would bring his faith to his public office. He is the son of a Baptist pastor and his mother is a teacher of the Castle Hills First Baptist School (from where he graduated). Krause attended San Diego Christian College and is a graduate in the very first graduating class of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University School of Law in Lynchburg, Virginia. He then opened a Texas office of Liberty Counsel. He is entitled to his views and clearly reflects the views of a majority of his constituents. However, he would rightfully object if other religions sought to impose their moral code on this family or try to make family decisions more difficult to reflect their own moral codes. I am all in favor of Krause campaigning to educate couples to resist the temptation to divorce and to try to resolve differences in the interests of their children. It is his use of public powers that is problematic for those of us who prefer to keep the government out of our homes and private affairs.
What do you think?
Krause’s recommendation comes from a noble place and there needs to be some protection for the spouse that was given no choice in the matter; however I don’t see no-fault going away anytime soon. There needs to be major revisions concerning family law and it shouldn’t be to control those who are divorcing. The attorneys need to be held accountable to a code of ethics. Judges need to justify their judgements within orders and certain procedures should be automated without a hearing, like spousal support and child support. The more hearings, the more financial burden and more stress results.
To those who say the government has no business in personal lives well then this bill is for exactly that! It will keep the government OUT of a legal martial binding contract between two people if only one of them wants out. With unilateral no fault divorce the innocent spouse has no grounds for rebuttal or legal due process rights because the law itself is a no fault law. The opposing party always loses guaranteed and has no legal recourse to ensure a financial and physical future long term of stability. When children are a part of the divorce it is even more horrific. Why should children have their lives sacrificed so one of their parents can trade in one life for another life selfishly? They should not be subjected to all the negative effects of divorce and there are numerous negative effects of a unilateral forced divorce. If a spouse wants out there is nothing another can do to keep them remaining in the family home but at least the family left behind will be LEGALLY protected by being married through spousal support indefinitely (and of course child support) if we get rid of unilateral no fault divorces. No fault unilateral forced divorce violates the Liberty rights of innocent spouses and children. It’s actually unconstitutional. For those complaining this bill is outrageous – they must have been born about twenty years ago or so and not know enough about this legal topic. Prior to 1970 NO state had the unilateral no fault divorce law and divorces were not common. A spouse could divorce for LEGAL fault and that legal fault divorce is still in existence today. If you want a “get of marriage free pass” then don’t get married and sign a legal binding contract you can’t fulfill.
The American taliban is alive and well
Fishwings fancies ‘the Taliban’ were in charge of state legislatures in 1962.
Why should people stay together, no matter how unhappy they are? One’s private life is no affair of the state’s.
Moreover, what gives Krause the right to impose his moral views on others? Clearly, the man is living in a world of unreality of his own making. His position is as absurd as Comstock’s was.
Why should people stay together, no matter how unhappy they are? One’s private life is no affair of the state’s.
Joint decisions are atypical in divorce proceedings (about 20% or so per Wallerstein). That aside, if you fancy you can make yourself ‘happy’ with a change of scene which requires running roughshod over a half dozen others, experience is likely to teach you that there’s one consistent element in all your dissatisfying relationships.
For richer, for poorer, and all that. We used to be a nation of adults. This combox is evidence toward the proposition that we are no such thing anymore.
If you and your spouse are in a fight-to-the-death, then a No Fault divorce would hardly be appropriate, anyway. Taking your statistic at face value, the 20% who desire to part amicably should be chained to the 80% who don’t?
Again, about 20% of all divorces arise from some sort of mutual agreement. In the other 80%, one party abandons another who is not on board with marital dissolution. This business about ‘couples making a decision to…’ is humbug.
Couples in the 20% minority are not ‘chained’ to the other 80% in any circumstance; that’s your evening cocktails talking.
FWIW, a lot of family law was set into place back in Old Babylon. Here are a few blurbs from The Code of Hammurabi:
There is a lot more at the link, but this is probably way too long a comment as it is. The point is, for all the libertarians, is that even back at the beginning of Human Civilization, people were not just free to zip in and out of relationships at will. Because doing that didn’t work, and was destructive to very notion of civilization.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
We don’t know from this that “it didn’t work.” We just know what Hammurabi thought. And the king gets to make the rules.
And anyway, I’m not sure that ancient Babylon would compare well to modern civilization. Back then, “ethnic cleansing” was the typical way to solve political and jurisdictional disputes.
Bad idea.
I agree that divorce is one of those gray areas in ethics where people should be allowed legitimate disagreement. I understand the desire to keep families together by making sure that divorces are not casual. But, with the no-fault overturn, I agree that divorces could become very acrimonious and so bad for the children and also the couple. So, I find this idea wrong on both the grounds of religious freedom and also utilitarian concerns about the parties involves.
They’re already acrimonious.
Well, all divorces are difficult and arise from tension between the couple, but I think the point of the article was that removing the no-fault divorce requires all couples who want a divorce to find legitimate cause for divorce. A lengthy court proceeding for every divorce will create acrimony.
Well, all divorces are difficult and arise from tension between the couple,
That’s rather like telling people in London during the blitz that the corpses and the rubble and the explosions ‘arose’ from ‘tensions’ between Britain and Germany.
Too many Calvinists running this outfit.
Mr. Krause found what he hopes will become his promise to build a wall. He’s a smart cookie.
Dr. Peterson’s video should be in high school health classes IMO