Divorce imposes a huge human cost, especially on children. Every divorce is the destruction of a small civilization. Children of divorce are three times as likely as those from intact homes to be expelled from school or to have a baby out of wedlock as a teenager, six times as apt to live in poverty and are much more likely to be incarcerated according to the Institute for American Values.
However, statistics do not reveal the pain of divorce, which is always tragic for children. Michael Reagan, the adopted son of Ronald Reagan and Jane Wyman, wrote of his parents’ divorce:
“Divorce is where two adults take everything that matters to a child – the child’s home, family, security, and sense of being loved and protected – and they smash it all up, leave it in ruins on the floor, then walk out and leave the child to clean up the mess.”
Ironically, his father, as Governor of California, signed America’s first No Fault Divorce Law four decades ago. It swept the country in the early 1970's. Divorces had alreadydoubled in the 1960s, but soared after No Fault from 639,000 in 1969 to 1,036,000 by 1975.
President Reagan later told Michael that his signing the first No Fault Divorce Law was his “greatest regret” in public life.
Before Reagan signed the law, to get a divorce one spouse had to prove the other was guilty of a major “fault” such as adultery or physical abuse. If there was no alleged fault and both wanted the divorce, one might accuse the other of adultery while a spouse remained silent, This collusion was denounced by feminists and attorneys. “No Fault” was considered a reform, because no fault had to be alleged to get a divorce. One person simply asserted the marriage had “irreconcilable differences,” and always got it.
However, as No Fault swept the nation, what was not adequately considered was that the divorce is
opposed in four out of five cases by the other spouse. What was entered into by two people voluntarily is being terminated by one spouse acting unilaterally. No Fault Divorce actually violates the Constitution. The 5th and 14th Amendments guarantee that “no person be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” How can there be “due process” if the spouse who wants to save the marriage always loses? That is unjust.
The system is fairer in Britain and France. If one spouse wants a No Fault Divorce, and it is opposed by a mate, the couple must live apart five years in Britain or six years in France. That allows much time for reconciliation. However, 32 states have no waiting period, allowing no time for reconciliation. No wonder our divorce rate is three times higher.
There are economic consequences to these numbers. On average, each divorce involves one child, which makes that family eligible for welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and many other subsidies. The Heritage Foundation estimates that each divorce costs taxpayers $20,000, or $20 billion a year with a million divorces annually. Each of the 1.7 million unwed births cost another $20,000 each or $34 billion.
Most states are facing yawning budget deficits for the fourth year in a row. According to the Center on
Budget and Policy Priorities, state budget gaps total $112 billion for fiscal year 2012. Why? The recession is one reason. However, America’s high divorce rate and the failure of millions to marry are the driving force behind soaring state and federal deficits.
An anti-marriage bias lies behind\these trends. State law – such as No Fault Divorce - promotes divorce. A Parental Divorce Reduction Act, being considered by 13 states, would require a year’s waiting period before any divorce becomes final. Also, couples would be required to take Pre-filing classes to learn the impact of divorce on both children and adults. And they would attend Marriage Education classes to learn how to resolve conflict amicably. That’s a double strategy to reduce divorce.
Similarly, states discourage marriage. State law assumes an unmarried mother of a child is a single parent needing big subsidies. However, in more than half the cases, she is cohabiting with the father, and has the benefit of his income as if she were married. In effect, the state is subsidizing couples to cohabit, rather than to marry. And if a cohabiting couple marries, they lose most subsidies. No wonder the marriage rate has plunged 31% in only 19 years.
It is time for states to promote and preserve marriage – not divorce and cohabitation.
Mike McManus is President of Marriage Savers.
Last modified on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 09:00