The fundys are trying to get rid of no fault divorce, again. Yes, they've fought this battle before. Yes, they've lost this one before. Trust me, if fundamentalists ran this country, we'd have been back in Vietnam at least five times by now, because fights aren't over until the fundys say they're over. (See also: Iraq wars I and II.)
I'd like to preface my comments on the War Against No Fault Divorce (catchy, eh?) by pointing out that marriage is in the best shape since 1970.
America's divorce rate is down to 36% — the lowest since 1970. That means nearly two-thirds of those getting married today are likely to fulfill their lofty wedding-day promise.
Which makes Mr. Craven's rant against no fault divorce at this juncture a little ill-timed, but hey, if you're going to fight a losing battle, you may as well fight it when it's no longer all that necessary.
Beyond currently lacking the moral authority to preserve marriage, the church seems generally indifferent to the idea, especially when it comes to tampering with no-fault divorce. This past week I spoke with my friend, Kelly Shackelford of the Free Market Foundation about my desire to abolish no-fault divorce and the FMF’s ongoing efforts to do the same in the Texas state legislature. Kelly, a respected attorney who has worked for years on this issue, told me, “So far, the biggest problem has been the apathy of the church on this. If they rose up, we could do this in one legislative session.” The biggest problem is the apathy of the church! This sentiment is shared by many Christian activist organizations.
Let's review what no-fault divorce means, shall we? We'll start with what came before no-fault divorce. Prior to no-fault divorce people did get divorced. However, you had to prove to a Judge that your partner committed adultery, physical or mental cruelty, desertion, alcohol or drug abuse, suffered from insanity, was impotent or infected you with a venereal disease.
In other words, if you wanted a divorce, you had to publicly humiliate yourself and your spouse on the record. Right there, in black and white, for all the world to see, forever.
I realize there are many in the church that have suffered divorce, perhaps even pursued divorce in defiance of biblical justification. I myself experienced a divorce many years ago while in my twenties. I believe this divorce was very clearly allowed under the provisions of 1 Corinthians 7:15, which refers to an unbelieving spouse who seeks divorce. While most Christians would agree that divorce under these conditions is indeed permissible, some would argue that my remarriage was unjustified and therefore sinful. Suffice it to say, there is much debate on the issue. Regardless, we can repent and seek forgiveness from a grace-giving God and make every effort to sin no more.
1 Corinthians 7:13-17 (I like a little context with my bible quotes):
13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?
17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.
Why how convenient for you, Mr. Craven. You got your divorce, it may or may not be biblical, but nobody else should be allowed a divorce, unless they'd like to admit to having erectile dysfunction or syphilis in open court. How kind of you!
The Religious Right: No, it's not hyprocrisy, and yes, we do prefer that you live lives of quiet desperation. All of you.
