|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What came first marriage breakdown or divorce law
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
This comes out of this Hell thread, where IngoB has been discussing the concept of marriage and divorce. It started as a Dead Horses concept, but this particular comment caught my eye:
quote:
IngoB: Sigh. No, I didn't. I've pointed out that the law, by introducing "no fault divorce", has made divorce of a marriage essentially equal to the breakup of any other romantic relationship between people. There is now no special privilege of marriage that would increase its permanence before the law and possibly against the current will of one of the partners. If one wants to dump the other, then one can. My argument was that this change actually has changed how people treat marriage: how they get into it, what they expect living it, and obviously how they get out of it. On average, across the population. You may disagree with this suggestion, but that was my point. And we were discussing the influence of ideas on marriage as a whole, we were not discussing any specific marriage.
Now my response was:
quote:
Um - in the UK there is no such thing as no fault divorce. The nearest that you get is an agreed divorce between the partners after 2 years living apart, otherwise the grounds are adultery, unreasonable behaviour and desertion (and 5 years living apart for a divorce not agreed by both partners). In the UK, as per Office of National Statistics figures for 2011 (the most recent I could find), is 42% of all marriages end in divorce.
How does that play with your assertion that no fault divorce has affected the way people go into marriages?
To which IngoB said:
quote:
A comparative study to say the USA would be fascinating. I note from the more detailled stats that half of the divorces granted to men, and a bit less than a third to women, indeed relied on separation (thus the "nearest you can get" to a no fault divorce). I include in this the 5 year one, because the no fault divorce precisely does not care if one of the partners wishes the marriage to continue.
Was there a significant change of law at some point in the UK? If so, it would be instructive to see what happened to the stats there.
I started responding in Hell and thought it was an interesting enough thought, and not that Hellish so I'd bring it here.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Looking at the changes in UK law the divorce laws have changed gradually over the last century and I doubt there will be any one moment that can be identified. The law has followed what has been happening in society, rather than leading it.
The first big change to the Victorian divorce laws was a private members bill in 1923 which was in response to people fighting divorces under the previous divorce law when a number of reasons had to be proven and the numbers of people living in sin were perceived to have risen as divorce was too difficult to achieve. This followed the First World War. That law allowed divorce on the grounds of adultery. Hence all the set up adultery cases in Brighton hotels which were well enough known to feature pretty heavily in plays and books (I'm sure PG Wodehouse wrote about it, along with Sayers and quite a few other authors I've read). Under that law there had to be proof of the adultery so the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937 ended that farce by not insisting on proof of adultery and also allowed divorce on the grounds of cruelty, desertion and insanity
The next big reform was the 1969 Divorce Reform Act. That was enacted because all divorces had to requested by the "innocent" party, so that party could indefinitely block a divorce, and this act allowed guilty parties (the adulterer or person who had deserted the marriage) to petition for divorce. Since then there have been some amendments to allow for undefended divorces to go before a magistrate without witnesses, just statements.
Looking at the tables of figures (in the quoted post by IngoB above) Table 1 shows the figures for divorces granted 1858 to 2011 overall the number of divorces increase from 24 to 117,558. Some of that is going to be affected by population figures and the rates of marriage. The most divorces occurred in 1993, when there were 165,018 divorces. There seem to be big changes around the world wars and since the 1969 Act:
- 1918 (1,111) cf 1917 (703), 1916 (990), then up to 1920 (3,090)
- 1939 the divorce numbers jump to 8,254, rising to 10,012 in 1943, 29,829 in 1946, peaks at 60,254 in 1947, dropping to 43,698 in 1948;
- 1972 (119,025) shows a big increase on 1971 (74,437) , which might be linked to the 1969 legal changes
Since then the divorce numbers continued rising to 1993, when they've dropped back to roughly 1972 figures.
Does this prove IngoB's thesis that it's the fault of the divorce laws that marriage is no longer the Christian marriage of old?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
Curiosity, sorry I have to take you to task here on your Anglo-centric approach. There is no such thing as UK law when it comes to divorce law. Scottish private law is a distinct creature and its separateness was enshrined in the Treaty of Union.
No fault divorce was introduced in Scotland on 1 January 1977(from memory).
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Did that change the divorce rate in Scotland?
This comes from a discussion with IngoB who has said that the introduction of non-fault divorce is what has changed marriage to being an unChristian institution.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
I dont have the stats but I am sure it did. Pre 1977 the grounds were adultery, desertion, cruelty, insanity and habitual drunkenness.
Post the Divorce(Scotland)Act 1976, adultery and desertion remained. Cruelty became unreasonable behaviour (including habitual drunkenness!). The novelty was irretrievable breakdown of marriage, proved by living apart for 2 years (if both parties agreed, one had to petition and the other consent) or 5 years if only one party wanted the divorce. In 2006, these periods were shortened to 1 year and 3 years.
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would think your point that the law tends to follow social shifts is broadly correct. Otherwise, you are in the odd position of arguing that the change in law caused increasing breakdowns in marriage, leaving the change in law floating in some strange non-social realm.
As to what these social shifts are, oh wow, let speculation run riot. You could cite the previous changes which turned women from non-persons into persons within marriage; an increasing moral laxity; sexual permissiveness; short termism; the commodification of marriage by capitalism; the rise of hedonistic culture, blah blah blah.
One of my memories from the 50s is that of married couples who seemed desperately unhappy, but found it difficult to get divorced. I suppose some people prefer that scenario?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
GRO statistics Scotland - Excel table linked from that page.
Looking at the numbers before and after the dates for the enactment of legislation allowing for no fault divorces the figures are:
1974 7,221
1975 8,319
1976 8,692
1977 8,823
1978 8,458
1979 8,837
1980 10,530
1981 9,895
1982 11,284
The number of divorces peaks in 1993 at 13,262, and drops to 9,862 in 2011. (In 2006 the number of divorces is 13,012)
Can you explain how those figures demonstrate a big increase in the number of divorces following the introduction of no fault divorces?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Curiosity killed ...: the numbers of people living in sin were perceived to have risen as divorce was too difficult to achieve.
That's your answer right there. Divorce laws are merely a response to things that were already happening in society. Perhaps you could argue that they accelerated a process of changes in how we perceive marriage, but in my opinion this was already a train that couldn't be stopped.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
Since the 1950s, there has been a significant drop in female suicides in the young-middle-age range and upwards. Okay, maybe something to do with the fact that the impulsive head into the gas oven option is no longer instantly available. But commentators seem to put it down, at least in part, to the fact that women are no longer stuck in impossible and life-sapping marriages. Of course, the impossible-to-live with men who previously had a domestic slave at home to bully and abuse are now being left in their droves, with consequences for them.
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
would love to belong
Shipmate
# 16747
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
GRO statistics Scotland - Excel table linked from that page.
Looking at the numbers before and after the dates for the enactment of legislation allowing for no fault divorces the figures are:
1974 7,221
1975 8,319
1976 8,692
1977 8,823
1978 8,458
1979 8,837
1980 10,530
1981 9,895
1982 11,284
The number of divorces peaks in 1993 at 13,262, and drops to 9,862 in 2011. (In 2006 the number of divorces is 13,012)
Can you explain how those figures demonstrate a big increase in the number of divorces following the introduction of no fault divorces?
No, the figures dont show a big increase post 1976. I might guess that during the 1960s, maybe earlier even, divorces on the existing grounds, particularly adultery and cruelty, less so desertion which had a period fixed of, I think, 3 years so more difficult to manipulate, were passed through the court without too much examination. If one party, usually the wife, alleged cruelty or adultery, and the petition wasn't defended, as it rarely was, the Court of Session, although obliged in terms of law to be satisfied by proof that the grounds genuinely existed, nodded it through. Thus, de facto, divorce was there for the asking even though de jure based on fault grounds.
[ 22. August 2013, 13:04: Message edited by: would love to belong ]
Posts: 331 | From: Lost and confused | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Legal divorces in England increased continually from the mid-19th century (when there were 4 a year!) to the 1980s then went up and down a bit till about ten years ago and is now declining (perhaps because fewer couples are legally married in the first place) The increase was more or less smooth with three blips when there was a sudden jump, in 1918, 1945, and 1970.
The proportion of women seeking divorce also increased over the period from about a third to more than three quarters, with sudden drops in 1940s and late 1910s.
The 1970 increase followed the introduction of separation as a ground for divorce, which instantly replaced adultery as the most common ground and more or less drove out desertion entirely.
(Numbers from the book "The Road to Divorce" by Lawrence Stone, and from the website of the Office of National Statistics)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...
The next big reform was the 1969 Divorce Reform Act. That was enacted because all divorces had to requested by the "innocent" party, so that party could indefinitely block a divorce, and this act allowed guilty parties (the adulterer or person who had deserted the marriage) to petition for divorce. Since then there have been some amendments to allow for undefended divorces to go before a magistrate without witnesses, just statements.
...
Does this prove IngoB's thesis that it's the fault of the divorce laws that marriage is no longer the Christian marriage of old?
Canada is an interesting case study. The definition, regulation and granting of Divorce was given to the Federal Government in the British North America Act on the grounds that it was so serious that it belonged at that level, and it was supposed to be rare.
However, Parliament did not adopt a uniform Divorce Act until 1968. Prior to then divorce was granted under provincial law through continuation of pre-Confederation practices. That meant that all provinces except Quebec and Newfoundland adopted the English Act of 1858.
If you wanted a divorce in Quebec or Newfoundland, you had to apply to the Senate to get a private bill passed granting your divorce. The House of Commons then passed these without debate. It was very expensive and cumbersome.
The usual reason for a private divorce bill was adultery. It became common for a "private investigator" to observe a prearranged "liaison" between the husband and his mistress, duly report the fact to the Senate committee and then the divorce petition would be granted. It was a total farce and a lie.
The CCF/NDP them made a stink about this lie and the lack of uniform support provision for wives and children in the mid 1960's. It was the start of divorce reform. The first uniform Divorce Act was passed in 1968 and updated in 1985.
It is quite clear that marriage breakdown comes before divorce legislation.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spiffy
Ship's WonderSheep
# 5267
|
Posted
I find the history of the Nevada divorce ranches absolutely fascinating. The fact people were willing to travel such long distances and spend weeks away from their lives just to get divorced is pretty telling, at least in my mind.
And anyone who is under the assumption that marriages didn't break down before divorce law was introduced really needs to go back and reread the statistics on annulments in the Medieval Era in Europe. Also, bastardry because if you think cheating on your spouse isn't a mark of a monogamy breakdown you're kind of adorable in your naivete.
--------------------
Looking for a simple solution to all life's problems? We are proud to present obstinate denial. Accept no substitute. Accept nothing.
--Night Vale Radio Twitter Account
Posts: 10281 | From: Beervana | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
The only ground for divorce here since the Family Law Act 1975 came into operation is irretrievable breakdown of marriage as evidenced by 12 months separation. Until then, the 1959 Act allowed for a whole raft of grounds, including desertion, adultery, drunkenness and cruelty, but also including 5 years separation. I don't have time now to look at statistics, but I'd be surprised if there had been a variation in the divorce rate much different to that in comparable countries.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
This seems like asking, which came first the chicken or the McNugget Happy Meal?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I am pretty certain that IngoB's assertion that the changes in the divorce law that allowed no fault divorce were not what changed the nature of marriage away from the proper Christian / Catholic marriage he's been describing in Hell, if it ever existed. The list of societal changes as given by quetzalcoatl was undoubtedly far more influential and certainly in England and Wales the law followed those changes, as demonstrated by the 1923 Act following the effects of World War 1. The only time that divorce numbers peaked after a change in the law in the last 160 years, rather than before, was in the 1970s when the 1969 Act allowed both parties, not just the "innocent" party, to petition for divorce.
But past experience of debate with IngoB tells me that any debate has to be backed with facts and figures.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But past experience of debate with IngoB tells me that any debate has to be backed with facts and figures.
Where appropriate...
To be honest, I find it somewhat difficult to extract direct meaning out of the numbers discussed here. Changes are certainly not at the "blatantly obvious" level. Here is a meta-study coming to the following conclusions:
- No-fault divorce did increase the divorce rate.
- Divorce law, however, is not the major cause of the increase in divorce over the last 50 years.
- The effect of no-fault divorce laws on the overall divorce rate appears to fade with time.
- For couples of a given match quality, no-fault divorce may have resulted in a permanent increase in divorce risk.
I wonder if that is acceptable here as a reasonable enough summary?
While it would have been highly convenient for my point if there had been a massive effect on divorce rates, I would say that the absence thereof is not totally deadly to it either. For example, it could simply be that I've been too pessimistic / cynical about couples and about their uptake of "dumping" opportunities. That is to say, just because the law has removed barriers to treating a marriage like any old romantic relationship does not mean that this new "freedom" is widely used. Nevertheless, some effect seems to be visible. It could also well be that attitude changes induced by the law simply get swallowed up by the bigger trend that has let to the overall large increase of divorces, whatever may be the cause of that. The law change may simply not be distinctive enough from a more general change to result in much motion.
At any rate, it certainly seems that "no-fault divorce" as such has been at most a minor contributor to rising marriage instability. So to make it a big ticket item, as I did in the initial post quoted in the OP, appears wrong by the actual numbers. I should have checked the numbers first, I usually am a bit more careful. While I don't like being wrong, actually it's kind of nice to be wrong about this one though... good on married couples, basically.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The effect of no-fault divorce laws on the overall divorce rate appears to fade with time.
Sort of the way the effects of the breaching of a dam on downstream flow volume fades with time.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
The number of folk using no fault divorce provisions (agreed divorce between the partners after 2 years living apart and 5 years living apart for a divorce not agreed by both partners) does not reflect the number of folk going through a no fault divorce but rather reflects the number of people who chose to avoid the pain for either or both parties of claiming adultery, unreasonable behaviour and desertion. Indeed unreasonable behaviour can also be used to avoid the pain of claiming adultery where the parties dont want the embarasement of still being married whilst at least one of them is living with someone else for 2 or 5 years.
In my view all divorces should be recorded without stating the reason (and be automatic where both parties agree). Why add to the pain by labelling?
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The effect of no-fault divorce laws on the overall divorce rate appears to fade with time.
Sort of the way the effects of the breaching of a dam on downstream flow volume fades with time.
Yes, that analogy would make good sense of the data. But where's the increasing volume of water coming from that is doing the dam-busting?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I think there is a reasonable argument to be made that acknowledging the possibility of marriage breakdown can make that breakdown more likely. If you know that backing out is available as a last resort does that not make it less likely that you will make the changes and accommodations necessary early in a relationship and hence will store up problems further down the road? I don't want to cast aspersions on the intent of those who have suffered through a divorce but I can't help wondering if even subconsciously the availability of divorce affects how we live our married lives.
On the other hand as someone who is still happily married to their first (requited) love I don't have any experience of how and why relationships break down. Even among my family there are perhaps a dozen or so marriages and only one divorce (and that largely a result of one partner wanting children and the other not) so I've rarely experienced it even vicariously.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The effect of no-fault divorce laws on the overall divorce rate appears to fade with time.
Sort of the way the effects of the breaching of a dam on downstream flow volume fades with time.
Yes, that analogy would make good sense of the data. But where's the increasing volume of water coming from that is doing the dam-busting?
To maintain a marriage, our generation has to maintain the relationship for the longest period in history. In other ages death came quicker. People change. More strain, more breaks.
Husbands and wives no longer economically dependant and we are richer anyway. Both parties can survive financially after divorce.
Women are more independent (and don't have to suffer in silence any longer.)
We believe we will be forgiven our sins or even that it is not a sin to move on. We tend to believe in serial monogamy rather than lifetime monogamy.
Society does not condemn those who have separated or divorced and the church has either lost its power to condemn or is just more likely to forgive.
Sexual revolution and condoms.
Muti-culturalism - exposure to other societies which do not necessarily believe in one lifetime partner.
etc etc
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Well, here are a few pictures:
Australian divorce rates, US divorce rates and UK divorce rates.
The added lines in the US one sort of make a point: while clearly something insane happened from 1960-1980 in all three countries, something with an impact considerably worse than WWII, it looks a bit like overall the numbers are slowly returning to an underlying, roughly linear trend.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The effect of no-fault divorce laws on the overall divorce rate appears to fade with time.
Sort of the way the effects of the breaching of a dam on downstream flow volume fades with time.
Yes, that analogy would make good sense of the data. But where's the increasing volume of water coming from that is doing the dam-busting?
It was blown by dynamite at the request of those no longer willing to be held by it, since the cultural understanding of marriage had shifted to such a point as it no longer seemed wise or charitable to force people to remain in dead marriages.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
On the other hand as someone who is still happily married to their first (requited) love I don't have any experience of how and why relationships break down.
This interesting and hopeful story may shed some light.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Digging a bit further, this is really interesting (all based on UK data). In particular take a look at the pictures on page 8. They basically show that there has been no change at all in the divorce rates for marriages that have lasted at least 10 years since the 1960s. See right picture. Instead all of the variation in the overall divorce rate is due to the first ten years of marriage, in particular due to the first five years of marriage! See left picture.
So basically we seem to have had a severe crisis in selecting suitable marriage partners since the 1960, a crisis that is now slowly fading. Whereas the chance of divorce once the marriage is well established has been in steady state for decades.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
It always bothers me when the focus is on the divorce rate, rather than on the rate of happy marriages. You can have a zero divorce rate and have a very high percentage of miserable marriages. or you can have a high divorce rate and high rate of happy marriages.. or somewhere inbetween... but it seems to me that the factor which is really of interest is the number/percentage of happy marriages, rather than the number of divorces.
I realise that it's much easier to measure something like divorce (fairly objective) than "marital happiness". but it seems to me that by focusing on divorce we are looking for the keys under the light rather than where we lost them... in other words, we're using divorce as a surrogate for what we really care about, but it's not a very good one.
I have been divorced. I have also been married for many, many years to someone who I probably should have divorced years ago.. and in fact separated from for a lengthy stretch. But I'm now happily (more or less) married to that man (my second husband). I stuck out the hard bits. But it was quite a long shot, and the fact that it payed off for me (sort of) doesn't mean I'm better off. it just means that I'm not worse off NOW. If I'd divorced my second husband when it made sense, who knows what my life might have been like. while I don't know if it would be happier or not at this point, I do know that it would have been happier THEN. I lived through years and years of hell before things finally got better.
why didn't I divorce then? mostly because of a sense of double failure. having one marriage fail (even though there were all sorts of valid reasons) I just felt a strong desire to make this one work. That's only one factor. I really don't know all the factors but at least part of it was that it's just a pain in the patty. even with no-fault. even when I know he would not have contested anything. even when there were no real property issues. even thought it would have been as simple a divorce as possible, it was still just emotionally hard. I don't know how typical I am, but it seems to me that this idea that just because it's "easy" to get a divorce means that people take marriage lightly is laughable. no one I know of who has been through a divorce married with the thought that they could always get out. Not one of them WANTEd a divorce even when it happened. not one divorced because they "fell out of love". True the reasons may not have been what is traditionally viewed as "fault" (adultery, abuse), but all lived through a period of hell before finally making the break.
Perhaps even though it's not conscious, the availability of a relatively easy divorce does make some people choose that option when perhaps if they'd worked at it harder it would have in the end worked out for them (as in my case)... but I would not wish it on anyone. and the likelihood that it does eventually work out is not all that high, I think.
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
This myth about breakdown in marriage is obviously widespread. I've just heard Jonathan Sachs come out with similar comments on Sunday where he has been talking about the breakdown of marriage and the secularisation of society as being part of the breakdown of trust and institutions in wider society. Hmmph
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
This myth about breakdown in marriage is obviously widespread.
I have looked at the graphs IngoB provided. What they do not seem to show is how many of the divorces each year are of people who had already been divorced, once, twice three times and so forth. It may very well be that most couples continue stay married but that the numbers of those with multiple divorces has increased.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
The figures IngoB produced on the longevity of marriage are interesting, and his comments. There's been a lot in the press this summer here with the rates of divorce for over 60s rising and it would be interesting to know how many of those marriages really were long standing marriages and how many were more recent remarriages
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The figures IngoB produced on the longevity of marriage are interesting, and his comments. There's been a lot in the press this summer here with the rates of divorce for over 60s rising and it would be interesting to know how many of those marriages really were long standing marriages and how many were more recent remarriages
I'm sure that's right, given the higher failure rate of second and subsequent marriages.
It occurs to me that another reason may be that the 60+ cohort is all that remains from the heyday of marrying, which I seem to remember was 1974. It rose to that point, and has been tailing off ever since. You could get a steer on that one if you could find the figures for 10 years ago, and see if the effect extended into the next youngest category.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
This myth about breakdown in marriage is obviously widespread. I've just heard Jonathan Sachs come out with similar comments on Sunday where he has been talking about the breakdown of marriage and the secularisation of society as being part of the breakdown of trust and institutions in wider society. Hmmph
Indeed. People don't get divorced because they don't trust an institution. They get divorced because they no longer love their partner.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
The state of the economy will affect the number of divorces, but it may be impossible to factor in / out. Breaking up is expensive. I've known several people in relationships of varying intimacy and duration who had made the decision to split, but were holding off -- sometimes in secret, sometimes not -- until they could find an apartment / buy a car / get a job / whatever. I guess this is just more sad evidence of how heterosexuals have destroyed holy matrimony.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... So basically we seem to have had a severe crisis in selecting suitable marriage partners since the 1960, a crisis that is now slowly fading. Whereas the chance of divorce once the marriage is well established has been in steady state for decades.
I blame the "passionate lifelong romantic soulmates having window-shattering sex into their 90s" model of marriage.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What is holy matrimony? How does heterosexuality destroy it?
This heterosexual (mainly, very mainly, for now, but don't ask me about my dreams and more) destroyed matrimony twice with weakness and ignorance. And their bitter fruits. I mean weakness and ignorance don't cover it. Or they do in the Biblical sense. They cover much evil euphemistically. I was vile to my first wife. Foul. Desperately needy to the point of irreversible verbal abuse. That drove her away in a year or so. With my firstborn son. That long eh?
I was vile to my second wife after seven years of perfect, atoning abstinence,, cooling off too. Weak and ignorant. Still. Fancy that eh? That took 26 years. I got less vile, learned by suffering - especially that of my wives and children that cannot be undone - but not enough. Too little to late and I truly believe that although I could redeem the first marriage with going back, that I would never say the things I said and I would be infinitely wiser and stronger and kinder and saner, one can never tell even given that and looping back from now to the beginning of my second marriage that would be even more open, for other reasons. It takes two to tango. With broken legs all round.
That my children, my stepson love me and want to see me, some of them, is a true miracle greater than any charismatic claim.
I have been given ... taken a third, final chance by, in providence to make a partner happy. Until encroaching morbidity, senility and death. And yes I'm ashamed at that profligacy and know full well that whatever one does not resolve one brings and I'm old and deeply grooved in my feeling and thinking and responses.
My 83 year old mother's visit today exposes that.
There are times when I think how dare I have been so selfish as to inflict myself on another, when no matter what is redeemed and understood and has been learned from has left me fragile and I will become a burden ... well I've started a private Penzu journal, it'll be a bequest to SOF.
What came first is our desperate, broken, fragile, murderous, innocent, vile, feckless, howling, contingent humanity.
In the grace of God which includes the provision of repentance, learning, divorce, remarriage.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The figures IngoB produced on the longevity of marriage are interesting, and his comments. There's been a lot in the press this summer here with the rates of divorce for over 60s rising and it would be interesting to know how many of those marriages really were long standing marriages and how many were more recent remarriages
When my parents divorced after 41 years of marriage, it was not the longest marriage that my mother's solicitor was involved in ending; he certainly gave her the impression that it was not uncommon (and, apparently, nearly always initiated by the wife).
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Back in my solicitor days, we handled a divorce for a woman who could not face the prospect of her husband's forthcoming retirement. The marriage had never been happy, but his job meant they were mostly apart, which had made it bearable. I think they had been married for about 40 years.
[ 26. August 2013, 07:40: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Legal divorces in England increased continually from the mid-19th century
The interesting statistic should be convictions for bigamy. I imagine that one dropped like the proverbial.
quote:
Originally posted by Merchant Trader:
The number of folk using no fault divorce provisions (agreed divorce between the partners after 2 years living apart and 5 years living apart for a divorce not agreed by both partners) does not reflect the number of folk going through a no fault divorce but rather reflects the number of people who chose to avoid the pain for either or both parties of claiming adultery, unreasonable behaviour and desertion. Indeed unreasonable behaviour can also be used to avoid the pain of claiming adultery where the parties dont want the embarasement of still being married whilst at least one of them is living with someone else for 2 or 5 years.
There's also the element of cost. Years and years back, I was a solicitor's office dogsbody, and whereas the two/five years' separation were easy-peasy to write (in fact, I was bored enough that I wrote a macro to do most of those ones), the other reasons — and adultery in particular — were an awful lot more work.
The other things that two/five years' separation pushes out are all the wonderful reasons for which a marriage may be voidable (non-consummation, lack of consent, mental disorders, sex changes, venereal disease, and the wife being pregnant by someone other than the plaintiff (sorry, "petitioner")). In particular, why go to the trouble of demonstrating that you were mentally ill when you got married when you can just wait two years?
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In my view all divorces should be recorded without stating the reason (and be automatic where both parties agree). Why add to the pain by labelling?
That really would be no-fault divorce. It would fail to acknowledge the norm that marriage is until one party or other dies.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin: quote:
in response to ken:
Legal divorces in England increased continually from the mid-19th century
The interesting statistic should be convictions for bigamy. I imagine that one dropped like the proverbial.
Someone has researched that one (sorry, tiny url link to a pdf paper) - looking at bigamy rates in comparison to divorce rates from 1850 to 1950. The conclusions include:
quote:
The reasons for pursuing a bigamous relationship were many and varied; some perpetrators simply wanted to escape an unhappy marriage, and with the divorce laws being so complex and expensive, many escaped by going through a type of „self-divorce‟ – there are numerous examples of bigamy trials in which the deserted partner gives their full blessing to the new, bigamous „marriage‟. Frost has argued that the desire to remarry, albeit bigamously shows that there was a continuing respect for the institution of marriage, and that the main problem lay with the complex and unfair divorce laws. This may have been true to a certain extent for some bigamists, but the above statistics suggest that there was not in fact a close correlation between divorce and bigamy rates. Poole has argued that bigamy showed a total disregard for the sanctity of marriage. Yet more offenders, as Soothill et. al. have pointed out, seem to have regarded bigamy as simply another option in the arsenal of fraudulent transactions that were available to sustain their criminal careers.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
The interesting statistic should be convictions for bigamy. I imagine that one dropped like the proverbial.
Someone has researched that one (sorry, tiny url link to a pdf paper) - looking at bigamy rates in comparison to divorce rates from 1850 to 1950. [/QUOTE]
Very interesting, thanks. I hadn't realized quite how little willingness there had been to prosecute people for bigamy.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
When George Eliot and George Lewes set up housekeeping together, Lewes still had a wife. However, she had given birth to three children who were not his.
Lewes filed for divorce, but it was denied because he had not filed immediately after the birth of the first child. The court said he had assented to his wife's adultery.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The state of the economy will affect the number of divorces, but it may be impossible to factor in / out. Breaking up is expensive. I've known several people in relationships of varying intimacy and duration who had made the decision to split, but were holding off -- sometimes in secret, sometimes not -- until they could find an apartment / buy a car / get a job / whatever. I guess this is just more sad evidence of how heterosexuals have destroyed holy matrimony.
Breaking up is expensive.
Firstly there is the emotional cost.
Secondly there is the financial cost. Its amazing how the best part of £10k can disappear in legal costs even when both parties agree. Then if you have to sell property - open the cheque book.
I really cannot think that anyone can say that divorce is easy. Whether the piece of paper assigns fault or not; divorce is not easy.
It could be said I am better off (its taken me a while but I now bleiev that to be true) but i would not wish the process on my worst enemy. I don't think anyone was focussing on the divorce law.
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837
|
Posted
This is a fascinating and significant area for discussion and research. We tend to take a rather short term view of the trends, and skew them even further by our understanding of the terms. I'm not going to try and set out any kind of definitive definition of 'divorce' 'marriage', etc., although they may appear self-evident they really need thinking about. For a long time in our culture, going back at least a couple of hundred years 'marriage' was largely something the wealthy and then the 'middle-class' did, i.e. 'marriage' as a legally defined and governed social institution. For many people it was much more a personal arrangement sponsored and arbitrated by family and local community---the church and the 'law' didn't come in to it.
So, what exactly do we mean when we talk about 'marriage'. Prior to changes in 'divorce law, there were clearly large number of very inadequate to downright miserable and intolerable 'marriages'. At what point, from the perspective of humanity does a marriage become meaningless, or is marriage simply a legal contract---behaviour, etc. being utterly irrelevant?
What is it that we are actually bringing up our children to expect about 'marriage'. Are the expectations realistic? Are they humane? Are they true before God, or a corrupted understanding?
For the record, I am divorced (after 17 years). Arguably we should not have married, but arguably we could have stuck it out and made it work. We have children---I will never forget the crumpled faces when we told them we were parting. We've worked hard to look after them subsequently and they seem happy energetic and enthusiastic young adults, so perhaps we have succeeded in not added wreckage to wreckage.
Whatever the 'law' may have to say, a broken relationship tears the soul, and more besides.
Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
My broken narrative follows on from Anyuta's most coherent one and I'm glad that's there, or mine would look just cringingly inappropriate. Even though it isn't. Cringe making yes. Real. The tip of the iceberg around here. Digging the hole deeper there is more pain in irreconcilable breakdown than one would wish on one's worst enemy. And I've been there twice.
Catholic or no other form of sacred marriage theoretical imprimatur could have prevented that. The second marriage was 'sacred'. Bipolarity isn't.
The reality of broken humanity is far stronger than some fantasy contract. Only Grace is stronger. Human brokenness breaks human contracts. The grace of God as in Anyuta's case can heal that. Through much suffering. Heal the de facto break. And not. And one can still find healing beyond and in utterly irreconcilable brokenness.
Alone or with another.
I can only tell myself in my journal what has gone through my heart today, as I dined with my third wife, my mother, my stepson by my second and my daughter by her. My second who is reaching out to my mother. Dear God how I feel for her.
So much love. And pain. This isn't to wave the paw to elicit sympathy for its own sake, to use this forum as therapy for ones self alone. Where there is a sinner in my pathetic tragedies it is me. It is to poorly make a very rich case for mercy triumphing over judgement. The arrogated judgement of, by the church. As usual, secular society is far wiser in these matters in accommodating human brokenness. Although it is clinical, surgical, cold. The church is just cold.
Binding where even Moses loosed. And I'm not talking about the bogus Hilelite 'any cause' divorce for male Pharisees or even the certificate of divorce Moses actually allowed to the hard hearted. But the rights of slave women even in Exodus 21:10f implicit in Jesus and therefore Paul.
He who fails to provide is just as free as she who he has failed to provide for (marriage number 1). Where provision cannot be made by either side - CAN NOT - not will not, where all the love in the world, struggled for against weakness and ignorance, does not work, believe me (marriage number 2). Both are free again. De facto. And in Heaven. Whatever the church de meaningless, loveless, unforgiving jure says.
(And yes, should I have waited and waited?).
What comes after marriage breakdown and divorce, loss worse than death, grief, madness, by the grace of God is acceptance, forgiveness, newness of life with frailty, with wisdom bitterly won and yes with phantom limbs post amputation.
I cannot be explicit. Cannot be coherent. It hurts too much and would be too, too personal. Compared to this just too personal.
My complaint here is against being a sinner in the hands of an angry church, despite mine being that theoretically, that from the pulpit, twice in four years (Evangelical Anglican) to a congregation where divorced and remarried couples from the congregation exist and yet the same vicar married me knowing my past BECAUSE in him mercy triumphed over judgement.
For all of those poor brothers and sisters here innocent AND those complicit in their own unbearable pain and having caused that in others: forgiveness means you start repenting from where you are now.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglo Catholic Relict
Shipmate
# 17213
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
For all of those poor brothers and sisters here innocent AND those complicit in their own unbearable pain and having caused that in others: forgiveness means you start repenting from where you are now.
Your post was very moving, and I think I understand something about the forgiveness you speak of. And the unbearable pain.
I married h 26 years ago. Six years later our daughter was born, and that same year I found out that he was an alcoholic. I divorced him in 2000, but neither of us remarried.
It took him another 11 years to kill himself, bit by bit, drink by drink. Our daughter was 18.
There are no words for what is written in between these few lines.
Posts: 585 | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
In my parents' culture divorce is a recent phenomenon, but marriage breakdown absolutely is not. Growing up I always knew women whose husbands lived elsewhere, they were not legally divorced and it was not for economic reasons. Their marriages had broken down but it was not considered acceptable to actually "leave" one's husband, so they just lived separately.
I think focusing solely on divorce is misleading; divorce is not the only expression of marital breakdown. However I would that the impact divorce has on marriage is an increase in serial monogamy - having a series of long-term relationships. If one separates without divorcing obviously it means remarriage is off the table, and even new relationships are considered distasteful when a divorce has not be finalized.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I agree with the above post - my grandmother and grandfather saw each other only once a year, from the time my mother was a toddler until his death about 40 years later. At which point, he was brought 'home' to the family home where he had never lived and placed in the grave where he would be joined by his wife a few years later. Together permanently at last, in death if not in life.
And yet, and yet, the Bible mentions divorce rather a lot - it is hardly a new invention....
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
When I read the posts on the Hell thread that triggered this thread, I was unconvinced by the suggestion that marriage was this idealised state as being described. Neither did I think divorce was anything other than a societal response to already existing marital breakdown.
Having bothered to really look at the data on marriage, divorce and bigamy, I'm even less convinced that the institution of marriage has ever been this wonderful sacramental union for the majority of those married.
Now I'm wondering how this wonderful myth held dear by religious leaders trying to lay the failure of society on changes in the marriage laws came from because it seems to be wishful thinking?
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
There's also the element of cost. Years and years back, I was a solicitor's office dogsbody, and whereas the two/five years' separation were easy-peasy to write (in fact, I was bored enough that I wrote a macro to do most of those ones), the other reasons — and adultery in particular — were an awful lot more work.
When I was divorced I didn't even use a lawyer at all. Got a letter from the court saying my ex-wife had asserted five years separation, replied agreeing to to facts, and that was pretty much it. All done by post.
quote:
The other things that two/five years' separation pushes out are all the wonderful reasons for which a marriage may be voidable (non-consummation, lack of consent, mental disorders, sex changes, venereal disease, and the wife being pregnant by someone other than the plaintiff (sorry, "petitioner")).
I've known people who took that route because one of them had religious reasons for voiding the marriage rather than divorcing.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In my view all divorces should be recorded without stating the reason (and be automatic where both parties agree). Why add to the pain by labelling?
That really would be no-fault divorce. It would fail to acknowledge the norm that marriage is until one party or other dies.
I never wrote that, it was Merchantg Trader. And its not my opinion.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
