Arguments Against Legalizing.... Divorce?

[CatholicWhovian]

My country, the Philippines, is currently one of the two countries remaining in the world which does not legalize absolute divorce. That’s why the odd title.

Recently our senators have rejected a proposal to legalize divorce. However their reasons for rejecting such a proposal are far from rational:

MANILA, Philippines – Senators have rejected a proposal to legalize divorce in the Philippines despite surveys showing majority of Filipinos agreed to legalize “irreconcilably separated” couples.

Senator Serge Osmeña III said he will also reject a divorce law for fear that his wife, Bettina Lopez, may use it against him.

“I cannot favor a divorce law. My wife might use that against me,” Osmeña said in a text message on Tuesday.

Acting Senate minority leader Vicente Sotto III said any proposal to legalize divorce will unlikely pass both in the Senate and the House of Representatives which remains dominated by male lawmakers.

“That’s unlikely. In the Lower House, lawmakers there might face their wife’s fury if they try to pass it,” Sotto said, adding that he will personally reject the proposal.

Senator Nancy Binay, one of the only five lady senators, said the government should find ways to strengthen and empower the Filipino families instead of legalizing divorce in the country.

“Besides, there is already legal remedy, which is annulment, for couples who have problems,” Binay said.

Senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. said there is no reason for him to support the divorce legalization.

“No. I love my wife. I do not want to divorce her,” Marcos said in a text message.

Marcos is married to Louise Cacho Araneta. They have three sons – Ferdinand Alexander III, Joseph Simon and William Vincent.

However one of our senators who is in favor of legalizing divorce in the country had a good argument in favor of legalization:

On the other hand, Senator Pia Cayetano said she is open to discuss the divorce law.

“I am of the belief that there is nothing to be proud about (the fact) we are the only country in the world that still doesn’t have divorce, that we are self-suffering, that we allow women, or men, for that matter, to stay in horrible relationships and possibly not even be good parents to their children, simply because our laws does not recognize they should live separate lives,” Cayetano said in an interview with reporters.

Cayetano is the chairperson of the Senate committee on youth, women and family relations.

This is scary. Those in favor of divorce in my country have better arguments than those trying to bar legalization. So do any of you guys have any sound, rational arguments against legalizing divorce? I know this sounds crazy since the hot-topic issue in the rest of the world is same-sex marriage, but this issue is as controversial and decisive in my country as same-sex marriage is in the US.

I fear this debate might go the same way with what happened when the country debated the RH Bill where there were stupid people on both sides of the debate: those in favor for villainizing the opposition, and those who aren’t in facvor having irrational arguments to defend their case.

 

[Seraphignatius]

It is within the states rights not only to withhold relief from the consequences of ones moral failings, but to punish moral failings which are detrimental to the public good.

The family, and therefore marriage, is the foundation of society and preeminently a matter of public good.

It requires a grave moral failing of one or both parties for a marriage to be irreconcilable.

Therefore the state is not obligated to act against the interests of the commonwealth by promoting or enabling the destruction of the family through divorce.

 

[Usige]

While those that oppose it have not been articulate, if I understand it they are saying that their wives (and by extention many women ?) do not support divorce so that is why they wont.

That being said, the principle reasons for opposing divorce for irreconcilable differences can be boiled down to a couple things:

1. 
   *]Divorce destabilizes the foundation of marriage by making it less certain in the future. You can no longer count on it being a life long union, but as a open ended contract that can be canceled by either party on demand.
   *]It promotes the idea that marriage is simply a legal contract.
   *]Divorce can lead to less discernment for potential spouses. When divorce is a possibility it is easier to say “I’m not sure about this, but let’s give it a try. We can always divorce if it doesn’t work out.”
   *]Once marriage is devalued into just another type of contract, it opens up the possibility of all sorts of other definitions for marriage (gay marriage, polygamy/polyandry, etc.)
   
   If you want to see the fruits of divorce, just look to how the whole concept of marriage has deteriorated in the Western hemisphere.

 

[WillyAL]

Therefore the state is not obligated to act against the interests of the commonwealth by promoting or enabling the destruction of the family through divorce.

By the time a couple is headed down the road to divorce, the family in question has already been destroyed. It makes no rational sense to force such a couple to stay together.
Usige;12862551[*:

It promotes the idea that marriage is simply a legal contract.

From the perspective of the state, that’s exactly what marriage is - a legal contract. If the Church, or any religious group, wants to establish marriage rules for it’s members, it’s free t do so. But to expect the state to enforce those rules on others makes no sense.

 

[ThankUJP2]

Does Filipino law mandate that married people “stay in horrible relationships and possibly not even be good parents to their children, simply because our laws does not recognize they should live separate lives” as Senator Cayetano states?

Or rather, can a married couple in the Philippines choose to live apart (separate) in the case of physical violence or some other gravely serous issue? Many relationships can be reconciled in time, through true effort. The promotion of divorce only adds error to the legal code for a culture growing more self centered, and of a “disposable” view. This trend does not lead to either good parenting or a successful society.

In any case, the Senator’s argument sounds like a thinly veiled pretense for divorce for convenience… Jesus said that although Moses gave the Jews a decree of divorce it was due to the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning is was not so. He did not give us Christians any decree of divorce, but rather gave the fullness of His revelation. I’ll happily take the latter.

It seems like the Senator’s simplistic view of the family also doesn’t take into account the effect upon the child’s (or children’s) relationship with each parent. As long as mommy or daddy is free to live in a state of adultery then they will be free to give the kiddies a such wonderful happy childhood. Its all for the kid’s sake… sigh Puhleeese

 

[Usige]

From the perspective of the state, that’s exactly what marriage is - a legal contract. If the Church, or any religious group, wants to establish marriage rules for it’s members, it’s free t do so. But to expect the state to enforce those rules on others makes no sense.

That is only true in a western secularist viewpoint. Not all governments are secular or accept pluralistic definitions of marriage. We are talking about a government that still sees marriage as something defined by divine law.

From the jaded secularist viewpoint, what is the purpose of a specific marriage contract? Why not treat it like any and every other contract? Why give it any special status if no one can agree on what marriage is? If marriage does not have a universal definition and is anything the signatories personally want, then marriage contracts are all deficient as they do not detail specific rights and duties of the contracting parties. No contract lawyer worth their salt would allow their client to sign a “marriage contract” that is so ripe with legal pitfalls and ambiguities.

Giving the skimpy contractual obligations in most marriage licenses, marriage is not a simple legal contract. It assumes some basis of shared understanding on what marriage is. Unfortuantely those that support the legal contract only concept have utterly destroyed that common understanding and therefore the whole basis of civil marriage has been rotted from the ground up.

 

[St_Francis]

I would say as long as there is a legal way to protect oneself in the case of a separation (for example, a separated spouse spends too much money on credit and the debt then belongs to both of them), that divorce is not necessary and leads to the negative consequences mentioned above.

In the US, first we had divorce, which was very difficult to get and in some states required evidence of infidelity (hence detectives bursting open doors and taking pictures in very old movies). Once we started moving toward irreconcilable differences, then to no-fault divorce, we had moved to points destructive of marriage.

As to Ms Cayetano’s remarks, we heard the same sort of thing here in the US, and to me, this is ridiculous. Married people are adults and ought to start acting like adults. Are there differences? Of course! But adults work these things out, not just abandon their families or kick someone out of the family!

 

[Seraphignatius]

By the time a couple is headed down the road to divorce, the family in question has already been destroyed. It makes no rational sense to force such a couple to stay together.

I’m not discussing saving that particular instance of the family. It may well be that they are truly irreconcilable and will have to live apart, but it is destructive to the family as an institution to permit them to go beyond separation into divorce; which gives their instability social permission even as it renders society itself unstable.

 

[Christy_Beth]

Having gone through a nasty divorce years ago, I know how hard it can be. When the judge put out his “findings,” (He divorce decree was put out later) he said that for me to return to my ex would be “cruel and inhumane.” We were married only 3 1/2 years. But it felt like a lifetime for me. We did have one child, for whom he had to pay child support. But he bucked that for a long time. The only good that came of that was that he was still in the Army and he knew that I’d write his Company Commander if he didn’t pay it, or give me other problems.

I think our problem was that we rushed the matter. Looking back, I had my doubts before we got married. But I found myself thinking that once we were married we’d come to some agreement on certain things. That didn’t work. To him and his family I wasn’t family. And they believed that if I wanted anything, including groceries, I’d have to get out and get a job. Problem being, we had only one car. So it had to be in walking distance. I did look for a job, but that didn’t help. Oh, and he had affairs with 8 different women that I know of during the time we were married. Yet, I got kicked out for not being good enough.

 

[switalabe]

I thought the arguments against legalizing divorce were much better than the arguments for legalizing divorce, in the snippet that the OP shared.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I guess I don’t feel qualified to really give an opinion because I don’t know what if any legal protections and procedures exist for abused spouses and children and if there’s any way to keep an alcoholic or a drug user from harming the family.

In kind of a hypothetical, in general way though, I oppose having divorce be illegal. I’ve seen far more drug abuse, physical and sexual abuse, and shameless adultery situations than I have casual divorce. I’m against the government claiming to know more about abusive situations than the people in those situations.

 

[St_Francis]

By the time a couple is headed down the road to divorce, the family in question has already been destroyed. It makes no rational sense to force such a couple to stay together.

It is simply not true that a couple headed down the road to divorce has already been destroyed. First, maybe they wouldn’t head in that direction if the divorce did not seem like the easier way out of their problems. Second, many couples reconcile after they have had some time apart to consider their situation. Third, many more would pribably reconcile if one or both hadn’t gotten in with a very aggressive lawyer.

[From the perspective of the state, that’s exactly what marriage is - a legal contract. If the Church, or any religious group, wants to establish marriage rules for it’s members, it’s free t do so. But to expect the state to enforce those rules on others makes no sense.

From the standpoint of the state, the family is the foundation of the continuance of that society which it represents. Hence the state has a stake in encouraging stable families and helping couples stay together rather than fly apart.

Unfortunately, in our everything goes world where what the adults want counts more than anything else in the whole wide world, we now have a situation in which the only contact which can be broken with no negative consequences is marriage, the most important contract of all. The buyer and seller of a used car have more protection than a spouse.

So now in the US, any spouse can abandon or kick out the person he or she promised to love and care for til the end of their lives, on a whim. Over a fit of pique.

And all this is possible because so many fell for the precise arguments you are making without taking the time to examine them with a little common sense.
[/quote]

 

[St_Francis]

I guess I don’t feel qualified to really give an opinion because I don’t know what if any legal protections and procedures exist for abused spouses and children and if there’s any way to keep an alcoholic or a drug user from harming the family.

In kind of a hypothetical, in general way though, I oppose having divorce be illegal. I’ve seen far more drug abuse, physical and sexual abuse, and shameless adultery situations than I have casual divorce. I’m against the government claiming to know more about abusive situations than the people in those situations.

The main thing about divorce is that it allows each spouse to remarry. Legal protections for people with bad spouses can be instituted without allowing divorce. Divorce complicates any situation.

While you may have seen more bad situations which really warranted a change. I have seen plentt of situations which were the results of one going to counseling which played up resnetments (not uncommon when the counselor hears only one side of the story); plenty where a spouse simply wanted to resume dating, usually with a particular person in mind; or just general aggravation with the difficulties of marriage.

Many of these situations would resolve themselves if the “easy out” of divorce were impossible.

 

[Havard]

If there were no civil divorce, how would people who have received decrees of nullity be able to get married under civil law? The Church would consider them single, but the state would consider them married.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

At least in the US, divorce is not usually an “easy out”.

More to the point, why is solving martial problems the business of government? I think that too many times we look to the government as a source of control rather than the other way around. Love and marriage are personal matters, not civil ones, and marriage and vows are a personal/religious matter. The Catholic church holds couples to their vows, and that’s great (I truly believe that). But civil government shouldn’t enforce religious vows and contacts.

That would be like trying to have the police keep a cloistered nun in a convent even if she wants out. Yes, she made a promise, but it was a religious one and the government has no place trying to enforce it. Or expecting the government to enforce Sharia law. Sure, if a Muslim is bound by it and chooses to break the rules they will be held accountable by their church. But should the government really prevent him from eating pork?

 

[Sunbreak]

Many of these situations would resolve themselves if the “easy out” of divorce were impossible.

No, the situations do not resolve themselves. If someone is fooling around and wants to marry someone else, staying in the marriage does not resolve the situation. It just means the parties are living a lie.

 

[St_Francis]

No, the situations do not resolve themselves. If someone is fooling around and wants to marry someone else, staying in the marriage does not resolve the situation. It just means the parties are living a lie.

Love waxes and wanes. Plenty of married couples have survived adultery.

The main issue is not their staying together, tho. The main issue is that they not re-marry. In the US, in some places. marriage has become simply going steady with a party. It’s just like dating–people marry, divorce, and “start over.”

 

[St_Francis]

At least in the US, divorce is not usually an “easy out”.

I lnow women women who have gone to counselors and left good marriages because the counselor was interested in helping the woman find self-fulfillment rather than to help her keep her marriage going. I knew a woman who ran into an old flame and deserted her family. All these women went to special women’s centers where the people were there for the express purpose of guiding women through the process of kicking the husband out of his family, getting any necessary state aid, and getting a no-fault divorce. The husband has to hire a lawyer while paying a new set if expenses and child support.

More to the point, why is solving martial problems the business of government? I think that too many times we look to the government as a source of control rather than the other way around. Love and marriage are personal matters, not civil ones, and marriage and vows are a personal/religious matter. The Catholic church holds couples to their vows, and that’s great (I truly believe that). But civil government shouldn’t enforce religious vows and contacts.

The government, as Was explained earlier in the thread, has an interest in the family. It is not control when the government enforces a contract–that is one if the purposes of government.

That would be like trying to have the police keep a cloistered nun in a convent even if she wants out. Yes, she made a promise, but it was a religious one and the government has no place trying to enforce it. Or expecting the government to enforce Sharia law. Sure, if a Muslim is bound by it and chooses to break the rules they will be held accountable by their church. But should the government really prevent him from eating pork?

If the nun signed a contract saying she would pay back food and rent if she left, the government would enforce that.

But the government is the institutional arm of the society. Society has an interest in its continuation, so society has an interest in the family. Maintaining strong, stable families is part of the common good of society. Enforcing contracts is also part of the commin good of society.

What you propose would be giving more protection to storeowners against shoplifters than parents and children would have against a deserting spouse, even tho divorce and desertion by parents (in the cases when there is no marriage) are the number one reason for poverty and crime.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I lnow women women who have gone to counselors and left good marriages because the counselor was interested in helping the woman find self-fulfillment rather than to help her keep her marriage going. I knew a woman who ran into an old flame and deserted her family. All these women went to special women’s centers where the people were there for the express purpose of guiding women through the process of kicking the husband out of his family, getting any necessary state aid, and getting a no-fault divorce. The husband has to hire a lawyer while paying a new set if expenses and child support.

That’s a pretty…creative summary of the typical divorce proceeding And when it comes to marriage and divorce, it’s best to remember that you never know what goes on behind closed doors. No matter what’s been told to you, you never really know the whole story. Marriage is just too private. And you also don’t know what these women said to the counselors or how the counselor responded.

The government, as Was explained earlier in the thread, has an interest in the family. It is not control when the government enforces a contract–that is one if the purposes of government.

My “contract” didn’t say anything about lifelong commitment. My vows did. Big difference.

If the nun signed a contract saying she would pay back food and rent if she left, the government would enforce that.

But they aren’t going to enforce her vows. They aren’t going to make her stay in the convent or refuse her a marriage license. Big difference.

But the government is the institutional arm of the society. Society has an interest in its continuation, so society has an interest in the family. Maintaining strong, stable families is part of the common good of society. Enforcing contracts is also part of the commin good of society.

YES!!! 100% I do believe that the government should try to help families. I think that mandatory premarital counseling (the couple could choose secular or religious), mandatory pre-divorce counseling( secular or religoud), state subsidized marital counseling, parenting classes, and in- home help for struggling parents and marriages, and so many other things could be offered even on the local level (and much could be taken on by charities and well-regulated nonprofits). Classes in high school on household management, parenting, and marriage for students who don’t plan on going to college and who would like to start families early. Tax incentives that increase for every 5 or 10 years of marriage. Lots of possibilies are out there.

I just don’t think that forcing people to stay in abusive or harmful marriages is good for individuals or society. Its counter productive and unethical.

What you propose would be giving more protection to storeowners against shoplifters than parents and children would have against a deserting spouse, even tho divorce and desertion by parents (in the cases when there is no marriage) are the number one reason for poverty and crime.

This question is just silly. Its apples and oranges. Though there are actually legal protections in place for deserted spouses and especially children.

 

[St_Francis]

I assume, since you wrote your responses within the text box that you are not interested in a response.