For Better or for Worse

[hurting]

Your mother had *no reason whatsoever *to file for dissolution? If that is true, why was her divorce some kind of salvation?

You’ve seen this “save” people, but I’ve seen the people with the spouse who just got tired of the difficulties of marriage or who found someone whom they fancied more than their spouse and their family responsibilities who just up and left. Took their half of the stuff and walked out, just like the Prodigal Son. Have you seen the children of marriages like that, the ones who mother* just up and left them behind*? Have you seen the spouses with decades of marriage who were not told their spouse even wanted a divorce until that spouse had already resolved unilaterally to dissolve the marriage? What kind of marriage is that? That is no salvation. That is an unearned trip through hell.

The money is not the first fraction of the expense of a unilateral divorce. I’m not saying that unilateral divorce is never in order, but it has gotten way out of hand. There needs to be a substantial reason for divorce–to be honest, it would be fair if society wanted that even if both parties just “get tired” of being married, since those parties were quite happy to take the legal benefits of marriage for as long as the arrangement was convenient to them–and if the parties don’t think that way, then they really need to ask themselves whether they want a civil marriage contract worth the paper it is written on. What stake does society have in giving legal benefits to a relationship so tenuous as that?

“My spouse could decide to take half the assets and earning capacity we’ve accumulated since our marriage and walk out any day, with no warning and for no reason” does not sound like it is worth much to me. It leaves every married person entirely vulnerable to abandonment, no matter how innocent or even how exemplary they have been as a spouse. (And please, let no one say that an exemplary spouse is never abandoned. Heaven forbid, because that simply is not true.)

Unilateral divorce is not the problem - it’s unilateral ‘no-fault’ (more properly categorized as deep pockets fault or if you prefer, man’s fault) with residual fault-based alimony and nearly lead pipe cinch presumptive maternal physical custody of children that make the situation a true travesty. Indeed unilateral divorce in the case of true abuse is warranted and just however rare its righteous application may be.

 

[EasterJoy]

Unilateral divorce is not the problem - it’s unilateral ‘no-fault’ (more properly categorized as deep pockets fault or if you prefer, man’s fault) with residual fault-based alimony and nearly lead pipe cinch presumptive maternal physical custody of children that make the situation a true travesty. Indeed unilateral divorce in the case of true abuse is warranted and just however rare its righteous application may be.

This is a good clarification to make. Of course if one spouse seriously offends against the other spouse, then yes, most of the time the divorce filing will be unilateral. You’re almost never going to get someone bent on abuse to let go of their victim voluntarily. In that case, of course it is permissible for one spouse to file for a divorce that the other one does not want.

By fault, I also do not mean culpability. I mean a compelling reason. It may be that the reason is something that the spouse being left cannot help.

 

[EasterJoy]

Exactly. This is precisely why the Church should get out of the state-sponsored marriage business all together. Net-net, the state’s involvement produces more heartache and detriment to sacramental marriage than benefit.

It does not have to be that way. Through most of history, the existence of civil marriage has given important legal protection to children and legal support for chastity and fidelity between men and women. After all, if we were in a situation where civil society pretended that married life was an artificial construct in which the government had no interest whatsoever, where would our marriage statistics be then? We need good marriage laws, not none at all!

That is not to say that there is anything wrong in countries where civil marriage and sacramental marriage are more clearly two separate things. I am saying that Christians have a civic duty to encourage secular laws that are reflective of natural law, just as we have a duty to make secular government moral and just in other respects.

 

[hurting]

It does not have to be that way. Through most of history, the existence of civil marriage has given important legal protection to children and legal support for chastity and fidelity between men and women. After all, if we were in a situation where civil society pretended that married life was an artificial construct in which the government had no interest whatsoever, where would our marriage statistics be then? We need good marriage laws, not none at all!

That is not to say that there is anything wrong in countries where civil marriage and sacramental marriage are more clearly two separate things. I am saying that Christians have a civic duty to encourage secular laws that are reflective of natural law, just as we have a duty to make secular government moral and just in other respects.

EJ, I am a pragmatist. We are far past the point in Western society where the Church, even were it willing, could meaningfully influence the secular realm of marriage and have been so for going on three generations. The state will always have a rightful place in protecting the interests of minor children, hence that remains a massive point of risk for persons contemplating marriage.

A large majority of Christians, including a disturbingly high percentage of putative Catholics, profess not to believe the immutable teachings of the church as it relates to abhorrent practices such as abortion. This is to say nothing of society as a whole. As such there is no hope of changing the secular world. We must be in it and not of it.

 

[EasterJoy]

EJ, I am a pragmatist. We are far past the point in Western society where the Church, even were it willing, could meaningfully influence the secular realm of marriage and have been so for going on three generations. The state will always have a rightful place in protecting the interests of minor children, hence that remains a massive point of risk for persons contemplating marriage.

A large majority of Christians, including a disturbingly high percentage of putative Catholics, profess not to believe the immutable teachings of the church as it relates to abhorrent practices such as abortion. This is to say nothing of society as a whole. As such there is no hope of changing the secular world. We must be in it and not of it.

This is true, with the exception that we have duties that 1st century Christians did not have. We have been given the influence of being citizens in a democracy, we have been given the influence of citizenship in a place that allows us to speak out in public, and we must exercise those powers in defense of the truth. We must use what influence we have to bring about a truly just governance of our homelands, as well as just action by our homeland in its interactions with other countries.

To the one to whom more is given, more is required. We have been given political influence, and we are required to use it in service of the good, to the best of our ability. As Mother Teresa is quoted as having said: God did not call me to be successful. God called me to be faithful. But yes, we also have to accept that there will probably be limits on our successes. We can only do what we can do. As long as we do it, we can let go of what we cannot do.

BTW, I would not give up entirely on the possibility of public opinion changing. We live in times when attitudes are fluid. What has changed for the worse can change for the better, then, particularly since the ideal of a stable marriage is something that most people still want for themselves.

 

[Rence]

You are splitting hairs here. Any attempt to protect one’s assets in the manner you described violates the spirit of the prohibition against pre-nups the Church generally upholds.

If that were true, they wouldn’t be allowed, but the Church allows them. As long as they don’t have anything to do with the future of the marriage, they’re allowed.

How does protecting one’s earning potential by way of a “no alimony” clause differ substantially from protecting existing assets.

You couldn’t specifically mention “alimony” in a prenup acceptable to the Church because it would apply to a time after the marriage ended.

However, existing assets brought into the marriage usually are retained by the person who owned them previously anyway in most states. The Church frowns on prenups but also accepts them, especially when children from the previous marriage are involved, and whose inheritance is protected by such agreements.

For example, my mother’s second husband had many assets, but he also had seven children and 23 grandchildren. So in one example: He retained a condo after they were married, which he intended to hand down to the oldest grandson. In his trust and will, they were to be handed down to said grandson. In the prenup, to further protect his grandson’s inheritance, it was stated that the condo would continue to be the sole ownership of the husband. Likewise, my mother inherited a family building from her father. Her mother was still living in one of the apartments, and I was living in another apartment in the same building. She didn’t have a will yet at the time of the marriage, but in the prenup, it was stated that the building was wife’s property before the marriage and ownership was to be retained by her when they got married (even if marital assets were used to change said property).

Alimony, OTOH, was instituted so that a spouse (usually a woman with children) could not just be dumped out into the streets (though I know of men who, due to circumstances at the time of divorce, were awarded alimony).

All such protections imply a causal event whether stated or not; the break-up of the marriage.

Actually, the way they are written, it also prevents a spouse from selling, distributing or otherwise changing the property of the other spouse, regardless of whether there was a divorce or not. It doesn’t always have to end in divorce. For example, my step father couldn’t try to get my mother to sell the building that was to be handed down to me. Nor did my mom have anything to say about the condo that my step-dad wanted to hand down to his grandson, even if marital assets were used to repair, change, maintain said properties.

Another example: my mom and her hubby had many CD’s. Some were held in joint. Some were held individually. When my mom had a stroke, and was incapacitated, her hubby tried to cash out a CD that was only in my mom’s name. He could not. Of course, the CD was only in her name, but the prenup (which stated that anything held individually was owned by that individual, and not part of marital assets - even if it was obtained after the marriage) backed it up.

The language I’ve seen in the Church’s teachings say that pre-nups to protect inheritances are OK? Why would a “no alimony” pre-nup, which would definitely protect the inheritance of children of a failed marriage be viewed unfavorably by the Church?

Because alimony can only be awarded if there is a divorce. One can’t get alimony if they are still married. So you can’t mention the word “alimony” in a prenup of a Catholic. However, I’m sure there are other ways you could write it in that would be acceptable.

I’ve seen it done only one time, but the couple wasn’t even Catholic, and the conditions were odd. In a friend’s prenup, the wife had her own bank account, and the husband was to put a certain amount of money in it monthly as long as the wife lived, and the account was always to be the property of the wife. The way the prenup was written, if there was a divorce, he would have to keep paying her that money into that account. Again, they weren’t Catholic, and they did have a prenup that spelled out conditions in case of a divorce. But, he was a millionaire, kind odd to begin with, and just gifted that to her in their prenup. I would think a Catholic, non-millionaire would be a bit more suspicious of that one though

 

[Rence]

Your mother had *no reason whatsoever *to file for dissolution? If that is true, why was her divorce some kind of salvation?

No, not on the divorce papers. On the divorce papers, it was “irreconcilable differences”. She didn’t even bother mentioning the drugs, alcohol, his refusal to contribute financially, his cheating, or his abusive behavior. She saved all that for the diocese, and she obtained an annulment shortly after that.

You’ve seen this “save” people, but I’ve seen the people with the spouse who just got tired of the difficulties of marriage or who found someone whom they fancied more than their spouse and their family responsibilities who just up and left. Took their half of the stuff and walked out, just like the Prodigal Son. Have you seen the children of marriages like that, the ones who mother* just up and left them behind*?

I’ve been the child of a marriage that was never valid, whose father stuck around to abuse us for years until I was 18 years old, had enough, and kicked him out myself. I’m still somewhat angry with my mom for not leaving him when my bother and I were babies. I understood she was afraid of him though…I can’t sympathize with someone whose parent just up and left, because for a lot of kids, sticking around is worse.

Have you seen the spouses with decades of marriage who were not told their spouse even wanted a divorce until that spouse had already resolved unilaterally to dissolve the marriage? What kind of marriage is that? That is no salvation. That is an unearned trip through hell.

Yes, I’ve seen that a few times too, and it’s better, and much healthier, if the wronged spouse goes on with their lives. If the other spouse decided it’s over, it’s pretty much over. It takes two to make a marriage work.

The money is not the first fraction of the expense of a unilateral divorce. I’m not saying that unilateral divorce is never in order, but it has gotten way out of hand. There needs to be a substantial reason for divorce–"

And what about situations in which the marriage was “over” years ago, but one of the spouses won’t let the abused spouse go? Like my father? He used to threaten my mom that if she left, if she filed, if she did anything, he’d take us kids to another country and she’d never see us again. That he would kill her or beat her. She didn’t have a mark on her. It was her word against his. Sorry that some people abuse the system, but I’m grateful my mom, and other women, are not held hostage in toxic “marriages”, by spouses who have to have their cake and eat it too (they’ll have their affairs, they’ll not contribute, etc. but they don’t want to let their spouse go for some obscene reason only they understand).

“My spouse could decide to take half the assets and earning capacity we’ve accumulated since our marriage and walk out any day, with no warning and for no reason” does not sound like it is worth much to me. It leaves every married person entirely vulnerable to abandonment, no matter how innocent or even how exemplary they have been as a spouse. (And please, let no one say that an exemplary spouse is never abandoned. Heaven forbid, because that simply is not true.)

That’s better than nothing. There was a time before all these laws when men, deciding to trade in their older model for a newer one half the age, could just up and leave, with the wife not getting a dime, or a place to stay — or they would have to put up with the husband’s affairs and poor behavior because they had nowhere else to go and no money of their own. The laws are in place for a reason, and are mutually protective.

 

[hurting]

This is true, with the exception that we have duties that 1st century Christians did not have. We have been given the influence of being citizens in a democracy, we have been given the influence of citizenship in a place that allows us to speak out in public, and we must exercise those powers in defense of the truth. We must use what influence we have to bring about a truly just governance of our homelands, as well as just action by our homeland in its interactions with other countries.

To the one to whom more is given, more is required. We have been given political influence, and we are required to use it in service of the good, to the best of our ability. As Mother Teresa is quoted as having said: God did not call me to be successful. God called me to be faithful. But yes, we also have to accept that there will probably be limits on our successes. We can only do what we can do. As long as we do it, we can let go of what we cannot do.

BTW, I would not give up entirely on the possibility of public opinion changing. We live in times when attitudes are fluid. What has changed for the worse can change for the better, then, particularly since the ideal of a stable marriage is something that most people still want for themselves.

The Church does not need the influence of the secular to practice its sacraments. Let civil marriage be practiced like any other contract. That is to say, absent such an agreement, there is no agreement (no common law marriage). This is actually possible and indeed likely to happen (the reality of homosexual marriage has essentially obviated the very concept on its own). The Church leadership in this country in particular would never be up to the task. This is a group by dint of its own weakness willingly cooperated with the most pro-abortion President in this country’s history and had the temerity to wonder how that same President might deign to demand that the Church acquiesce to his demands for them to pay for contraception.

We absolutely can choose to be of the world and not in it.

 

[hurting]

If that were true, they wouldn’t be allowed, but the Church allows them. As long as they don’t have anything to do with the future of the marriage, they’re allowed.

You couldn’t specifically mention “alimony” in a prenup acceptable to the Church because it would apply to a time after the marriage ended.

However, existing assets brought into the marriage usually are retained by the person who owned them previously anyway in most states. The Church frowns on prenups but also accepts them, especially when children from the previous marriage are involved, and whose inheritance is protected by such agreements.

For example, my mother’s second husband had many assets, but he also had seven children and 23 grandchildren. So in one example: He retained a condo after they were married, which he intended to hand down to the oldest grandson. In his trust and will, they were to be handed down to said grandson. In the prenup, to further protect his grandson’s inheritance, it was stated that the condo would continue to be the sole ownership of the husband. Likewise, my mother inherited a family building from her father. Her mother was still living in one of the apartments, and I was living in another apartment in the same building. She didn’t have a will yet at the time of the marriage, but in the prenup, it was stated that the building was wife’s property before the marriage and ownership was to be retained by her when they got married (even if marital assets were used to change said property).

Alimony, OTOH, was instituted so that a spouse (usually a woman with children) could not just be dumped out into the streets (though I know of men who, due to circumstances at the time of divorce, were awarded alimony).

Actually, the way they are written, it also prevents a spouse from selling, distributing or otherwise changing the property of the other spouse, regardless of whether there was a divorce or not. It doesn’t always have to end in divorce. For example, my step father couldn’t try to get my mother to sell the building that was to be handed down to me. Nor did my mom have anything to say about the condo that my step-dad wanted to hand down to his grandson, even if marital assets were used to repair, change, maintain said properties.

Another example: my mom and her hubby had many CD’s. Some were held in joint. Some were held individually. When my mom had a stroke, and was incapacitated, her hubby tried to cash out a CD that was only in my mom’s name. He could not. Of course, the CD was only in her name, but the prenup (which stated that anything held individually was owned by that individual, and not part of marital assets - even if it was obtained after the marriage) backed it up.

Because alimony can only be awarded if there is a divorce. One can’t get alimony if they are still married. So you can’t mention the word “alimony” in a prenup of a Catholic. However, I’m sure there are other ways you could write it in that would be acceptable.

I’ve seen it done only one time, but the couple wasn’t even Catholic, and the conditions were odd. In a friend’s prenup, the wife had her own bank account, and the husband was to put a certain amount of money in it monthly as long as the wife lived, and the account was always to be the property of the wife. The way the prenup was written, if there was a divorce, he would have to keep paying her that money into that account. Again, they weren’t Catholic, and they did have a prenup that spelled out conditions in case of a divorce. But, he was a millionaire, kind odd to begin with, and just gifted that to her in their prenup. I would think a Catholic, non-millionaire would be a bit more suspicious of that one though

You missed my point on the ‘protection of inheritance’ provision. You also missed the larger point that essentially all prenup’s bear an implicit separation of the resources of the marriage that are at odds with the spirit of sacramental marriage.

 

[hurting]

No, not on the divorce papers. On the divorce papers, it was “irreconcilable differences”. She didn’t even bother mentioning the drugs, alcohol, his refusal to contribute financially, his cheating, or his abusive behavior. She saved all that for the diocese, and she obtained an annulment shortly after that.

I’ve been the child of a marriage that was never valid, whose father stuck around to abuse us for years until I was 18 years old, had enough, and kicked him out myself. I’m still somewhat angry with my mom for not leaving him when my bother and I were babies. I understood she was afraid of him though…I can’t sympathize with someone whose parent just up and left, because for a lot of kids, sticking around is worse.

Yes, I’ve seen that a few times too, and it’s better, and much healthier, if the wronged spouse goes on with their lives. If the other spouse decided it’s over, it’s pretty much over. It takes two to make a marriage work.

And what about situations in which the marriage was “over” years ago, but one of the spouses won’t let the abused spouse go? Like my father? He used to threaten my mom that if she left, if she filed, if she did anything, he’d take us kids to another country and she’d never see us again. That he would kill her or beat her. She didn’t have a mark on her. It was her word against his. Sorry that some people abuse the system, but I’m grateful my mom, and other women, are not held hostage in toxic “marriages”, by spouses who have to have their cake and eat it too (they’ll have their affairs, they’ll not contribute, etc. but they don’t want to let their spouse go for some obscene reason only they understand).

That’s better than nothing. There was a time before all these laws when men, deciding to trade in their older model for a newer one half the age, could just up and leave, with the wife not getting a dime, or a place to stay — or they would have to put up with the husband’s affairs and poor behavior because they had nowhere else to go and no money of their own. The laws are in place for a reason, and are mutually protective.

Domestic relations law in the U.S. does not approach anything that resembles mutual protection.

 

[EasterJoy]

No, not on the divorce papers. On the divorce papers, it was “irreconcilable differences”. She didn’t even bother mentioning the drugs, alcohol, his refusal to contribute financially, his cheating, or his abusive behavior. She saved all that for the diocese, and she obtained an annulment shortly after that.

I’ve been the child of a marriage that was never valid, whose father stuck around to abuse us for years until I was 18 years old, had enough, and kicked him out myself. I’m still somewhat angry with my mom for not leaving him when my bother and I were babies. I understood she was afraid of him though…I can’t sympathize with someone whose parent just up and left, because for a lot of kids, sticking around is worse.

Yes, I’ve seen that a few times too, and it’s better, and much healthier, if the wronged spouse goes on with their lives. If the other spouse decided it’s over, it’s pretty much over. It takes two to make a marriage work.

And what about situations in which the marriage was “over” years ago, but one of the spouses won’t let the abused spouse go? Like my father? He used to threaten my mom that if she left, if she filed, if she did anything, he’d take us kids to another country and she’d never see us again. That he would kill her or beat her. She didn’t have a mark on her. It was her word against his. Sorry that some people abuse the system, but I’m grateful my mom, and other women, are not held hostage in toxic “marriages”, by spouses who have to have their cake and eat it too (they’ll have their affairs, they’ll not contribute, etc. but they don’t want to let their spouse go for some obscene reason only they understand).

That’s better than nothing. There was a time before all these laws when men, deciding to trade in their older model for a newer one half the age, could just up and leave, with the wife not getting a dime, or a place to stay — or they would have to put up with the husband’s affairs and poor behavior because they had nowhere else to go and no money of their own. The laws are in place for a reason, and are mutually protective.

I don’t know where you live, but in the US the divorce laws have lost most of their “protective nature”.

 

[EasterJoy]

The Church does not need the influence of the secular to practice its sacraments. Let civil marriage be practiced like any other contract. That is to say, absent such an agreement, there is no agreement (no common law marriage). This is actually possible and indeed likely to happen (the reality of homosexual marriage has essentially obviated the very concept on its own). The Church leadership in this country in particular would never be up to the task. This is a group by dint of its own weakness willingly cooperated with the most pro-abortion President in this country’s history and had the temerity to wonder how that same President might deign to demand that the Church acquiesce to his demands for them to pay for contraception.

We absolutely can choose to be of the world and not in it.

I’m not ready to throw in the towel just yet.

 

[Rence]

You missed my point on the ‘protection of inheritance’ provision. You also missed the larger point that essentially all prenup’s bear an implicit separation of the resources of the marriage that are at odds with the spirit of sacramental marriage.

No, I didn’t miss your point. I just don’t agree with you, and apparently neither does the Church. People do get married in the Church, with a prenup allowed, as long as the prenup does not put conditions on the future of the marriage.

 

[Rence]

Domestic relations law in the U.S. does not approach anything that resembles mutual protection.

Your opinion reflects on your situation, I’m sure. As does mine. I’m more than just A-Okay with the domestic laws in the US, because they saved the victims that I have known. I concede that it’s not always easy, and in fact, it’s a struggle for some, but mostly I’ve seen mutual protection.

 

[Rence]

I don’t know where you live, but in the US the divorce laws have lost most of their “protective nature”.

I’m sure you have your reasons for thinking that in the US the divorce laws have lost most of their protective nature, but I disagree.

I think one of the reasons why we disagree (correct me if I’m mistaken), is that you think that one spouse should be able to keep an unwilling spouse in a marital contract that they no longer want, and against their will, because the reasons for the unwilling spouse aren’t sufficient from your perspective. It seems to me that you want the law to protect the interests of the spouse who is trying to hold on to the marriage (especially for religious reasons), despite the refusal of the unwilling spouse. But that’s not mutually protective either.

 

[hurting]

I’m sure you have your reasons for thinking that in the US the divorce laws have lost most of their protective nature, but I disagree.

I think one of the reasons why we disagree (correct me if I’m mistaken), is that you think that one spouse should be able to keep an unwilling spouse in a marital contract that they no longer want, and against their will, because the reasons for the unwilling spouse aren’t sufficient from your perspective. It seems to me that you want the law to protect the interests of the spouse who is trying to hold on to the marriage (especially for religious reasons), despite the refusal of the unwilling spouse. But that’s not mutually protective either.

Rence,

You again miss the point…

Marriage is unlike any other contract in the first place. The ‘unwilling’ spouse certain has no moral right to destroy the marriage (and the financial wellbeing of the primary beneficiaries attached thereto) except in the most narrow of circumstances. EJ has argued that this logic carry forward to the legal arena (where it used to prior to no-fault divorce).

Any legal arrangement that allows a participant thereto to walk away from his/her obligations absent any compelling reason AND demand that the other partner to the agreement continue to perform in any way is patently unfair and bound to incentivize bad acting. That is the situation we have today.

 

[hurting]

I’m not ready to throw in the towel just yet.

I’m as hardheaded and idealistic as they come, but it seems like a bridge too far…

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m as hardheaded and idealistic as they come, but it seems like a bridge too far…

Again: We’re not called to be successful. We’re called to be faithful. We are to do what we ought to do, and let God take care of the results.

I’m willing to believe there are a variety of interpretations about how to do that. I’m fond of a quote that my pastor has repeated to me, from **A Man for All Seasons:

The Duke of Norfolk: Oh confound all this. I’m not a scholar, I don’t know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can’t you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!

Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

 

[Rence]

Rence,

You again miss the point…

Marriage is unlike any other contract in the first place. The ‘unwilling’ spouse certain has no moral right to destroy the marriage

No, I’m not missing the point. I don’t agree with you when you say that an unwilling spouse has to held hostage in a marriage they don’t want, and that they don’t have a “right” to end it because they don’t have a good enough reason for you. That doesn’t mean I am missing the point. That means I don’t agree with you. Of course they have a right to end it. The person without a right, is a person trying to hold another hostage in a situation that has evolved into poison and try to drag everyone down with them. Thankfully, the law is there to help them so that they’re not prisoners of a bad mistake.

No one is stopping the “wronged” spouse from living a life completely within the confines of Church rules and laws. That doesn’t change the fact that the unwilling party no longer wants to be married to them.

 

[hurting]

No, I’m not missing the point. I don’t agree with you when you say that an unwilling spouse has to held hostage in a marriage they don’t want, and that they don’t have a “right” to end it because they don’t have a good enough reason for you. That doesn’t mean I am missing the point. That means I don’t agree with you. Of course they have a right to end it. The person without a right, is a person trying to hold another hostage in a situation that has evolved into poison and try to drag everyone down with them. Thankfully, the law is there to help them so that they’re not prisoners of a bad mistake.

No one is stopping the “wronged” spouse from living a life completely within the confines of Church rules and laws. That doesn’t change the fact that the unwilling party no longer wants to be married to them.

Rence,

You conflate legal and moral/ethical rights. While essentially all spouses have a legal right to end a civil marriage in this country with no reason whatsoever, only spouses who have experienced a grievous, narrowly defined wrong may divorce per the dictates of the RCC.

It is not just from a legal standpoint that a spouse can unilaterally end a marriage for no reason whatsoever and still retain ANY of the benefits of that marriage. It is certainly sinful beyond that.