Questions About Marriage

[Quicksilver264]

With all that is going on around same-sex Marriage, I have a larger question as to why certain aspects of Marriage in general have been left alone. Being the unwilling participant in a no-fault divorce, much has come to my mind.

1. Williams v. North Carolina: The Supreme Court held that as long as one spouse established legitimate residency in a State, filed for divorce first in that State, then that State’s divorce law is what was applied. This was in response to a migratory divorce to Nevada to circumvent North Carolina divorce law.

Ultimately this case is what led me to finally give in, even though my State had a 2 year waiting period for no-fault divorce. I was threatened by my ex-wife where she would move to Nevada, establish residency in 6 weeks, and leave me without ANY protections of my State’s waiting period. The absolute legal and financial nightmares potentially resulting from that gave me no other choice.

1. Covenant Marriage: Passed in 3 States as a solution to no-fault divorce, it was posited by Katherine Spaht as a barrier to “Migratory Divorce”, and the choice of law provision could be used to win hefty judgement against spouses who failed to comply to take “all reasonable steps to preserve the Marriage”. However, examining the case law, there have been many, many cases where even though one spouse remained living inside a Covenant Marriage State, the other spouse was able to file for divorce in another State, thus removing all protections of waiting, counseling, and choice of law granted by Covenant Marriage.

No Legislator, Judge, or family organization has stood up to this because of the potential for States to be forced to recognize a type of Marriage that is not allowed in their State (a.k.a same-sex Marriage). In fact Katherine Spaht and other Legislators of Covenant Marriage have refused to reply or even acknowledge questions about this fact.

1. No-fault divorce: If protecting Marriage is the ultimate goal, how come there haven’t been ballot initiatives like the same-sex ones aimed at eliminating no-fault divorce?

I guess ultimately I am asking if we as Catholics want to protect Marriage, but also take the position of “State’s Rights” and Federalism, how do we reconcile the ability of States to define Marriage and divorce as they see fit with the possible ramifications of Williams v North Carolina and the failure of Covenant Marriage in the interstate forum?

As long as at least one State has extremely lax divorce laws, no spouse anywhere truly has the benefits and protections of long waiting periods and restrictions against no-fault that were granted by their own Legislature. But isn’t forcing another State to recognize a type of Marriage against their own Statutes just as bad?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

1. No-fault divorce: If protecting Marriage is the ultimate goal, how come there haven’t been ballot initiatives like the same-sex ones aimed at eliminating no-fault divorce?

I don’t think that making no-fault divorce illegal would stop people from getting divorced any more than the prohibition of alcohol stopped intoxication. If two people are *stuck *with each other and want to be away from each other and have the means to do so they will probably find a way to do so. This some times happens in modern times in which two people can’t afford a divorce and so instead one or both decides to do their own thing, establish new (sexual) relationships, but legally remain married to each other. I’ve got a friend separated but not divorced from her husband. They live in different states, and while passing through he stopped by to introduce the lady that he now wants to spend the rest of his life with.

I also wonder that if people could only get divorced if there was a fault then would people then go out and intentionally do something that would cause a fault (or produce false documentation of one) to gain their freedom.

 

[Quicksilver264]

The perfect example was raised by Beverly Willet. Before NY enacted no-fault reform, this woman was able to prevent a divorce under NY laws. However, simply by moving less than 8 miles, the husband was able to skirt around a NY Judge’s ruling that the Marriage was not irrevocably broken. A NJ Judge then entered a divorce, and that was that.

And there are many examples of this very same thing with Covenant Marriage. This now becomes a huge problem with respect to forcing states to accept the Marriage laws/rulings of another State versus same-sex Marriage. Where is the line, and if people are intent on preventing Marriage from being redefined, “Migratory Divorce” effectively sets Marriage at the lowest common denominator at the State with the least restrictive divorce law.

Ms. Willet’s Story is MY story essentially, only it was the threat of my ex-wife moving to Nevada and having a divorce in less than 2 months, versus my State’s waiting period of at least 2 years. Her own lawyer even touted this to me, knowing that if she withdrew her divorce petition, in order for me to stay under my State’s law, I would then have to refile for divorce and become the Plaintiff.

After a lengthy trial [In New York State], the judge dismissed all of my husband’s charges. But he was still determined. He moved across the Hudson River to New Jersey to establish residency. Within a year’s time of living there, he would be allowed to sue me again under that state’s no-fault law. Without the funds to keep fighting what was now the inevitable, I gave in. A year later, we had a second trial on financials, and our property was divided. When our divorce became final, my husband and I had been married for over a quarter of a century.

thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/08/28/no-fault-divorce-my-fight-to-save-my-marriage.html

 

[Michael19682]

Quicksilver264:

I guess ultimately I am asking if we as Catholics want to protect Marriage, but also take the position of “State’s Rights” and Federalism, how do we reconcile the ability of States to define Marriage and divorce as they see fit with the possible ramifications of Williams v North Carolina and the failure of Covenant Marriage in the interstate forum?

I admit that I don’t know the current makeup of the Supreme Court along religious lines or that it matters because trying to guess the overall outcome of court battles at that level can be like being invited to a pot luck dinner. The answer I would give is that it is a political balancing act based on stopping the spread of laws inimical to the traditional catholic views on marriage and life. Better to bring the servings to the table one by one than risk dropping the whole platter on the floor and leaving everyone hungry. The concept is called strongholds.

As long as at least one State has extremely lax divorce laws, no spouse anywhere truly has the benefits and protections of long waiting periods and restrictions against no-fault that were granted by their own Legislature.

Again politics. To prevent strongholds from becoming too strong and from thence spreading their influence into a death grip. Good for you if you are Catholic and like marriage the way it is, terrible if you do not. Separation of Church and State.
The only way to be happy is to maintain a good marriage.

But isn’t forcing another State to recognize a type of Marriage against their own Statutes just as bad?

Why do you ask this question?