The law quickly took hold elsewhere, including Iowa, which followed California’s lead six months later.

By 1971, Colorado, Florida, Michigan and Oregon had no-fault divorce laws and within fifteen years the law had spread nationwide.

Most policy analysts agree that no-fault divorce has weakened the “traditional family since one person could now end the marriage unilaterally.” Some say it threw open the door to “marriages” of same-sex partners, since adultery – which has a particular definition – was taken off the law books. Same-sex partners are not capable of adultery and hence, could now qualify for divorce on the basis of “breakdown” of the relationship.

Who were the key players in this family policy revolution? Who were the ‘villains’ and were there any ‘heroes’?

Some might name Governor Reagan as the biggest villain since he could have blocked the bill by vetoing it. He himself had been divorced-against-his-will by his first wife, actress Jane Wyman and he considered himself a family man. Although his name will be forever linked with no-fault divorce, it turns out that he may be the only who has expressed regret about his role.

Late in life, Reagan confessed to his oldest son, Michael that, signing the bill was one of the worst mistakes he ever made in public office. Michael tells the story about his father in Twice Adopted .

While Reagan had a prominent visible role, the man who was probably the most responsible for this bill worked behind the scenes and his story is not well-known.

Assemblyman James A. Hayes from southern California was self-described as the bill’s author. By the time he attained the role of Assembly Judiciary Chairman, his wife had already filed for divorce on the ground of ‘cruelty.’ Hayes’ new role on the Judiciary Committee provided him with an opportunity that he used to his personal advantage.

With the implementation of no-fault divorce on January 1, 1970, the rules of the game abruptly changed, turning the tables on all pending cases, including that of Hayes’ wife. As a result, Hayes was able to reduce his ‘damages’ in the final settlement. The newspapers later reported that his wife and four children did not fare so well and turned to food stamps.

Hayes claims he coined the term “irreconcilable differences” because he didn’t like the proposed term, “breakdown” — it sounded too negative.

Hayes had to convince Reagan to sign the bill, and during their one-hour meeting Hayes found the job challenging. Reagan wanted to veto the bill, but Hayes pressed him to sign it by ticking off the names of those who were ‘on board.’ In fact, in Hayes reflections on that period, he made it sound like everyone was on board.

Hayes even claimed that he worked with representatives of the Catholic Church and that the Archdiocese of Sacramento was particularly supportive.

In 1969, Republicans controlled the political scene in California, with Reagan just having defeated Pat Brown, a Democrat. Republicans also controlled the senate and assembly. The Republican Party would later take on the title of the “Party of Family Values.”

Iowa, which was the next state to enact no-fault, was also Republican-controlled with its own popular Republican governor, Robert Ray, signing the bill.

By all accounts, there were few if any heroes. Most policymakers were ‘sold’ on the bill, but when looking at previous accounts, it’s not clear whether they really understood what it the bill would do. Most accounts portray it as a “mutual consent” type of measure, but in reality, it was not. Only one party needed to bring a divorce action knowing that the “State” would assure them of the outcome.

Looking back at what we now know, is this fortieth anniversary begging some questions?

One question might be whether there was deception in the process. Would a similar law be possible today if the story got out that the main player had such a strong personal vested interest? At the time, the media did not report on the divorce lawsuit filed by Hayes’ wife.

Secondly, would Catholic Church officials have endorsed this bill if they’d known the full truth about it — that it would quickly turn into “unilateral divorce-on-demand” with the state doing a yeoman’s job for the one filing for divorce, leaving the other party defenseless in such a lawsuit?

In Iowa, some legislators labeled the bill an “attorneys’ bill” because they could see the benefit to members of the bar but no benefit to families.

One of the bigger questions that Catholics and other Christians might consider is this: How did the State obtain such sweeping jurisdiction over this God-ordained institution? Is marriage merely a civil institution? Does pre-marital instruction, along with promises to live up to church teachings mean anything?

For Catholics, where does the Church’s canon law fit into the picture? And, where are the “church courts” that could hear cases falling within the her jurisdiction?

Do the Canons and teachings in Catechism apply only “after the fact” –- once the divorce is finalized? Or, are these elements meant to be a strong buffer, bringing couples back to their vows and to the teachings of the Church?

“Jurisdiction” is loaded with implications. Under whose jurisdiction do we place ourselves? Canon law is written for “The People of God.”

Most people who are intent on filing for divorce will seek the jurisdiction of the civil court. The first step is usually hiring an attorney to prepare the paperwork. But, what if it didn’t work that way?

Maybe Church officials should be prepared to assert jurisdiction when approached. Why should we be limited to only one jurisdiction? We are asked to make a commitment to church teachings at the front end of marriage. Why shouldn’t we ask church leaders to provide a forum like the one Paul talks about in 1 Cor. 6:1?

St. Paul admonishes us about bringing lawsuits against our brothers. We are supposed to be able to settle things amongst ourselves, using a fair and just process.

We could learn how to set up church governance in such a way that those who stray to the civil arena could be called back. They could present their complaints and have them heard amongst those who are properly trained. In the beginning, very few would know how to hear a case and provide a fair and just process. But, we could learn.

Instead, too many members of the flock now find themselves disillusioned after receiving a summons for divorce from the civil court, turning to ask for help from the Church, and then being turned away. Just because we don’t know how to do it now, doesn’t mean we can’t learn. There’s an opportunity here. Will we respond?

Most churches have so many committees doing various things. Why not one more committee: the Complaints and Adjudication Committee?

When you ask most people, they will say it’s a mutual-consent process, or that it preserves privacy, or that it eliminates blame for the failure of the marriage.

Not many people will answer that it’s a lawsuit in which one party is suing the other party. And even fewer will know that it came from the Soviet Union.

Like previous divorce actions, no-fault divorce is still a lawsuit, which means that one party is invoking the state’s police powers against the other party. The main difference now is that the person filing for divorce no longer has to provide a reason for why they’re doing it. This type of lawsuit is unique; it’s the only type of legal action devoid of any ‘claim’ (complaint), and if the party being sued doesn’t know the complaint, then there’s no possibility of a defense.

As for the communist origins of no-fault divorce, a 1975 law review article by Donald M. Bolas entitled, “No Fault Divorce: Born in the Soviet Union?” explains how, after speaking with Russian lawyers, he stumbled upon how Soviet divorce law may have influenced our own laws.

Bolas explains that when the Bolsheviks took over in 1917, religious marriages were no longer recognized by the state. Marriage became a “state action” and divorce became merely an administrative process known as Russian Post Card Divorce. One spouse simply filled out the paperwork at city hall and the other party was then notified by mail that they were no longer married. Some people married twenty times. There was also a ‘free love’ bureau where people could sign up for partners.

The fact that this type of law increases the divorce rate is proven every day in the United States. Since the onset of no-fault divorce, the divorce rate doubled with one divorce granted for every two marriages that take place. In terms of sheer numbers, approximately a million divorces are finalized each year, translating into 3,000 divorces every day.

How coincidental that the U.S. divorce rate is among the highest in the world, vying only with Russia!

Another interesting fact about no-fault divorce is how strikingly similar its underlying thinking is to abortion law. In fact, laws dealing with both subjects were being drafted at the same meeting. This is how it all began.

History

In 1970, a national group of lawyers gathered for their annual meeting at the Colony Motor Hotel in Clayton, Missouri, just outside of St. Louis. At this meeting, two new ‘model’ laws were being drafted and debated. These laws would serve as ‘blueprints’ for state legislators around the country to enact as state laws. The purpose was to create more uniformity in state laws. One of these laws was called the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (UMDA) and the other was the Uniform Abortion Act (then, in 1973, Roe v. Wade overturned all state abortion laws).

A common theme found in both of these debates was the word viability and this word would be operative in rationalizing both of these laws.

In the case of abortion, the discussion revolved around the viability of the human life, meaning its potential for survival outside the mother. The divorce debate was similar: a marriage could be terminated “on the basis that it no longer is a viable institution,” according to the transcripts that have been preserved from these debates.

Using viability as the operative term would soften the discussion on divorce, or abortion, making these new laws more palatable to the public. This way of thinking would also help cover up the truth so we wouldn’t have to ‘look’ at the reality: that both are really destructive acts. One act destroys the product of the one-flesh union while the purpose of the other act is to destroy the one-flesh union itself.

During a pregnancy, we now are able to ‘see’ the reality of life due to technical advances. However, in the case of marriage, there isn’t any test. One person’s word suffices. Judges and lawyers don’t check for vital signs in the marriages, which assumes they are all dead on arrival.

The label given to this new type of divorce is something of a misnomer. The term ‘no-fault’ came into the vernacular with the introduction of ‘no-fault’ car insurance. The rationale behind no-fault car insurance was to move cases more quickly into ‘settlements.’

The same is true for no-fault divorce because now the emphasis is on moving cases into mediation where settlements are supposed to be reached, conveniently skipping the step of determining viability. Once a petition for divorce is filed, the marriage is essentially doomed, since no one checks for any pulse.

The term “no-fault” has served masterfully to cover up something that is far more sinister. The idea that the State is forcing people out of their marriages is hard to fathom but because every divorce petition is granted, and none are ever denied, then there are certainly a few viable marriages that meet an untimely death.

Conciliation/Reconciliation

Before the onset of no-fault divorce there was a burgeoning activity around the country called the Conciliation Court Movement with the focus on marital reconciliation. This movement began in 1939 when California enacted its Children’s Court of Conciliation Law in order to:

… protect the rights of children and to promote the public welfare by preserving and promoting family life and the institution of matrimony, and to provide means for the reconciliation of spouses and the amicable settlement of domestic and family controversies.

By 1970, Conciliation Courts were operating in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon and Wisconsin, using a growing body of knowledge and techniques to help restore family life. But now, such lofty goals cannot be found anywhere in our statutes.

When no-fault divorce entered the picture, the emphasis in conciliation courts soon changed to ‘divorce with dignity.’ Settlement negotiations took place under the auspices of a mediator who assisted the courts in keeping the conveyor belt moving.

Is there another possibility? Can distressed spouses find ‘relief’ for their anguish? Could we create Marriage Support facilities that operate in the same way as the Pregnancy Support facilities that offer another answer than abortion? Marriage Support facilities could do the same thing by offering couples the help they need to stay together.

In many ways, the Church might be the perfect home for these facilities. Tribunal offices could incorporate the Conciliation Court model, summoning couples from the civil courts. At this time, spouses are typically directed to Catholic Charities, but this is not enough because the problem requires a blending of both legal and pastoral initiatives.

Also needed are skillful practitioners who are trained in multiple fields. Working with a dyadic relationship is much harder than working with one person individually. Not many practitioners can handle such a challenge without bringing their own biases into the work.

By all appearances we are a nation that wants to defend traditional marriage, as evidenced by the number of state constitutional amendments that have passed. The next step is to protect marriages from being destroyed in this country’s no-fault divorce mills.

[This article originally appeared in Canticle Magazine and is used by permission of the author .]

A marriage can now be ended by a unilateral act that disregards the other person.

At the time of its enactment, no-fault divorce was promoted as a “mutual consent” process. According to newspaper coverage at the time, both parties together would be able to approach the courts to terminate their marriage contract without saying why. It would be “mutual” and, hence, done with greater “dignity.”

The goal was to eliminate public testimony about wrongdoing, therefore offering couples a greater zone of privacy, which is the same concept used in legal arguments for abortion.

Merely filing a request to exit the marriage would be sufficient to meet this new law’s requirement. No need to state a reason other than “the marriage is irretrievably broken.” The divorce request would be in the form of a “petition,” which is actually code for “lawsuit,” because in spite of the subterfuge, one spouse would still be suing the other.

Policymakers indulged in rhetoric about how the divorce rate would actually decrease with this change in the law. They suggested that the prospect of reconciliation would be more appealing to couples if accusations were no longer part of the process. Reconciliation services were supposed to be offered by the courts, but these plans were quickly scuttled due to budgetary concerns.

The “good intentions” ushered in with this law-change quickly gave way to the stark reality of divorce-for-the-asking, with no services provided and with judges in the role of marriage exterminators. The judge’s role was to keep the conveyor belt rolling, rubber-stamping the decrees as lawyers served up the families.

The proof that it’s a rubber-stamp process can be verified by simply asking any county clerk: “How many petitions are granted and how many are judicially denied?” (zero).

All cases meet the same fate — “Divorce granted” — and it doesn’t matter whether there’s any viability in the marriage because no one checks for vital signs.

In fact, the conveyor belt had to speed up, in order to accommodate the new cases flowing into the system. The courts turned into divorce mills, churning out cases, with no time or inclination to reflect on how things might work differently.

One of the saddest parts of the story is that marriages — most of which had been blessed in a church — were abandoned to the civil authorities by these very institutions. Pastors or priests were nowhere in sight when the judge lifted the gavel.

The Link Between Abortion and No-Fault Divorce

Roe v. Wade and No-Fault Divorce were contemporaneous events. And, they both held out similar deceptive promises to cover up the truth.

No-fault divorce devalues the one-flesh union in the same way that abortion devalues life. Marriage is disposable, and so is the flesh created from that union. One person can end a marriage and one person can end a pregnancy. Divorce and abortion are both unilateral acts — each one is a rejection of the-one-that-has-no-say.

No-fault divorce and abortion influence each other. No-fault divorce makes the safe harbor much more tenuous, introducing fear into the relationship. Women understand this tenuousness. They know that the “burden” of new life comes with greater risks than it used to.

When news of pregnancy is received in fear, not joy, the future is harder to face. Knowing there’s security in the legal union of marriage is vitally important to reducing fear.

No-fault divorce has cheapened marriage and roiled the safe harbor. It’s no longer as safe to say, “yes.”

Abortion and unprotected marriage work hand in hand. We will be able to reduce the one by protecting the other.

(Judy Parejko is a legal researcher and the author of  Stolen Vows: The Illusion of No-Fault Divorce and the Rise of the American Divorce Industry.)

These were the words that rang out from the news coverage but, what does he mean “marriage as an institution has been strengthened”? Is it because a greater number of couples can now be married?

As couples lined up to purchase marriage licenses in California, did anyone bother to ask what this is really all about? The state handing out “permits” to marry is one issue, but the other is: What is marriage anyway?

In the past, you didn’t need a permit (license) in order to solemnize your marriage. A priest or pastor (or civil official) along with two friends or members of the family witnessed the exchange of the couple’s vows. All the parties would then sign a marriage certificate, which constituted proof that a marriage had taken place. The marriage certificate — like any other important document that had public implications — was taken to the courthouse and filed, usually with the register of deeds. But, this activity was only about registering marriages — not getting permission to marry.

In today’s world, as engaged couples prepare to marry, they will find information like this posted on their state’s web site: “The marriage license permits a marriage to take place. The marriage certificate indicates that a legal marriage has been performed.” (This statement comes from the State of Hawaii’s web site.)

Decades ago, state legislatures enacted marriage codes that would require a license from the State in order to be married. There were multiple reasons for this new law, including trying to prevent teenagers from marry. Another purpose was to control who married whom during a time when inter-racial marriage was not allowed in some states.

In 1884, the official marriage certificate form in Wisconsin included twenty questions that had to be answered, including “color of the parties.” The form also included questions, like “name of the father of husband,” and “name of the mother of husband,” and likewise for the wife. These questions were asked in order to clearly identify the parties who were marrying.

In 1906, a new ‘model’ law was proposed by the American Bar Association’s drafting arm, the Uniform Law Commission. This law, called the ‘Revised Marriage Code’ prescribed “the manner of contracting marriages” and “providing for the issuing of marriage licenses.”

The ‘Code’ was drafted by the same organization of lawyers that, in 1970, created the blueprint for “no-fault” divorce in this country which overturned a century of law by eliminating all previous grounds for divorce and installing a new ground called ‘irretrievable breakdown.’ The problem with this new term was that it was given no legal meaning by the authors of the new law and the term subsequently slipped into the legal lexicon and found its own definition over time. A Florida Supreme Court ruling essentially said that was “okay” and since then, the term covers a multitude of sins for the person wanting out of the marriage. The marriage-exit is a given for the person filing because the State backs up the person filing by using the state’s police powers if need be.

Another way to say this is that religious authority over marriage was replaced by the State — insidiously and without much outcry. Organizations that lobby for the Catholic Church typically have either been silent on this issue or have gone along with legislation that tightens the grip of the state.

A precedent can be found in 1917 during the Bolshevik takeover in Russia. New law nullified the role of religious authorities in marriage, replacing them with the State. Religious marriages were no longer considered valid. Marriages performed by a civil authority were the only ones recognized that would receive the so-called ‘benefits.’ The corollary of no-fault divorce was Russia’s Post Card Divorce which operated essentially by notification. One party filed and the other received a form in the mail.

The fight over marriage now is centered around the right to get a marriage license. Do we need a “permit” to marry — which puts marriage in the same category as handguns that also need a permit in some states to “conceal and carry.”

How would it look if we eliminated this vestige of state-control over our private relationships? Maybe we need to turn back the clock to the time when marriages were simply registered, and authority was not automatically vested in the state.

A Legal Milestone Hidden in Obscurity

Marriage is cutting a wider swath in the news these days, now that the possibility of same-sex marriage is on the horizon.

Until recently, “marriage” news came mostly by way of its dark counterpart — divorce — when word leaked out about a high-profile breakup. But that has changed. Several recent High Court rulings have put “marriage” on the front page.

Recently, the Catholic Church in this country weighed in on this issue. U.S. Bishops made their position unequivocally clear — that the sacrament of marriage would not be opened to same-sex partners.

But, this country’s secular leaders will continue to grapple with this contentious issue, and as a result, they may let another cat out of the bag.

The current rhetoric surrounding the threat to marriage posed by same-sex partners neglects a far more serious threat unleashed thirty years ago — the same year that Roe v Wade sent shock waves through the Church. While most people know the date of the historic legal opinion giving women the “right” to abortion — January 22, 1973 — the other legal milestone is hidden in obscurity.

But, on August 2nd that same year, a select group of lawyers meeting in Hyannis, Massachusetts, approved the final version of their five-year project — the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act.

Every summer, this group, known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, comes together to write laws. Appointed by their respective governors they come from every state.

In 1969, they began work on a “model” law on marriage and divorce. This law would then be promoted back in each of their home-states. The commissioners expected their respective legislatures to enact state laws based on this model law.

The stated purpose of their historic work was to bring “the law” into uniformity throughout the country. The transcripts of their meetings reveal their concern about, “the existing hodgepodge of laws on Divorce and Marriage”. They also express concern for children of divorce. “If the improvement and uniformity in this field were not at hand for the sake of the marriage partners, it is surely at hand for the sake of the children.”

Yet another concern was the problem of “migratory divorce” where a spouse might cross state lines to access more lenient laws. Migratory divorce — which could mean a loss of revenue for the local lawyers — allowed a spouse to “shop” for divorce and sometimes use fraudulent tactics to discard their vows.

While the stated goal of this new law was uniformity, another mission crept into the work — to overthrow the rules of divorce and replace them with a vague standard that would give judges absolute power over people’s lives.

The work of this group remains obscured even today by misconceptions about the group’s good intentions. But the resulting monumental scale of family breakdown in this country is testimony to the deceptive nature of their work.

The Death-knell for Stable Marriages

This seemingly innocuous rule-change sounded the death-knell for stable marriages. But, it didn’t make the history books the way the abortion ruling did that same year. While the Church has been busy defending the unborn, she has abandoned the 3,000 victims a day of a legal system that extinguishes marriages through the practice of “forced” divorce.

The outrage directed at Roe v Wade continues to this day, because abortion has such clear victims. On the other hand, “divorce” dehumanizes and removes the focus from the victims — victims that include children and relationships.

The rule-change incorporated into this model law is more commonly referred to as “no-fault”, which is really a palliative label for an agonizing process. The rules are clear — the spouse who files for divorce has all the power over the decision to divorce. Marriage vows originally exchanged by mutual consent can be terminated by just one partner — without any good reason.

No-fault divorce empowered judges to terminate the marital bond in the same way that Dr. Kevorkian ended lives through assisted suicide. And worse yet, the use of draconian measures can turn some judges into legal henchmen, wielding absolute power over people’s lives. A judge can even jail a resistant spouse for not being a willing participant in his own execution.

Only those who have been victimized by this process can truly understand what was really done to families thirty years ago.

When two people marry, they make their vows by “mutual consent” but when that same marriage is terminated, it can be done unilaterally. Once two people are married, the power over their lives is insidiously transferred to civil authorities residing in the courtroom — judges working in concert with lawyers to destroy what life is left in a family.

No-fault divorce is like a toxin eating away at the fabric of society.

Catholic marriages receive no greater protection from this legal nightmare than marriages outside the Church — in spite of the Vatican’s continual reminders that families are precious — like “domestic churches”, and that the marriage bond is indissoluble.

For those unfortunate victims who beg for help from the Church, the response they get can sometimes shatter their faith. A case in a Catholic Diocese in Ohio provides a glimpse into the usual scenario.

Why Are They Abandoned?

Blair’s wife, Jane, moved out one day while he was at work. She soon had divorce papers served on him. Blair believed his marriage could be saved — given the right help — but once the legal machinery started rolling, he was cut off from talking to her. The court issued a “No Contact” restraining order that used the threat of jail to keep them apart — even though there had been no physical violence warranting this protection.

When Blair sought help from one priest after another to break the impasse, not one would offer more than prayers and comforting words. Not one of them stepped out of his comfort zone to set up a meeting between the two estranged parties. Not one made a phone call to Jane or her parents (all Catholic) to try to mediate the perceived problems. Not one accompanied Blair to court.

Towards the end of the legal process, one of the bishops heard about Blair’s plight and expressed interest. This was a bishop trained in both civil law and canon law, so he understood more than most do. He invited Blair to meet with him. After a two-hour meeting, the bishop offered his assurance, saying, “I will do everything I can to help.” Blair left the meeting feeling like a weight had been lifted off his shoulders. He had a renewed sense of hope, because alone, he could do nothing to stop the divorce machinery that was destroying his family. The hardest part was seeing the signs of deep distress his 3-year-old son was showing. Every time Blair was with him, he would cry, “I don’t want our family to be broken anymore,” and he would pray, “Jesus, please fix my family.”

Blair envisioned that the bishop or a priest would write a letter to the court, or to Jane. He even hoped that the Church might intervene in court on his behalf — ask for time so he and Jane could heal their wounded relationship.

But, days passed with no word and, at the eleventh hour, he understood that he’d been abandoned. Something had drastically changed and Blair did not know what had happened behind the scenes. Only those on the inside knew.

At the next-to-last court hearing, the magistrate — himself a Eucharistic minister on Sundays — gave this response when Blair reminded him of Catholic teachings on marriage, “I don’t care what the Church says, your divorce will be final on August 22nd!”

Blair’s case is just one example of the Church’s response to these “victims” of a process that destroys families — they are ignored until after the divorce, when a spouse like Jane can request the Church’s annulment process to clear her conscience so she can re-marry. At that time, an official in the role of “Defender of the Bond” steps in to investigate the validity of the marriage, but this role is akin to the coroner doing a post-mortem. It’s too late to save the “victim”.

The Vatican has expressed alarm at the fact that while only 6% of the world’s Catholics reside in the U.S., 80% of annulments worldwide come out of the U.S.

Church teaching claims that the sacrament of marriage lives on, in spite of the fact that a civil marriage has been destroyed. But, this is like saying that abortion doesn’t matter because the child’s soul goes to Heaven. It’s so much easier for the Church to see an unborn child as a victim. The Church has invested heavily in anti-abortion activities, but those such as Blair — who face a similar barbaric process — are ignored until the execution is over.

How can the Church consecrate the sacrament of holy matrimony and then, simply turn away when civil authorities are desecrating it?

The silence from the Church about the destruction of countless families is in stark contrast to the media campaigns and street demonstrations leveled at abortion.

When the rules are written in such a way that one marital partner has all the power to end a marriage and the other spouse can do nothing to save it, then outside intervention is needed. Marriage deserves the favor of the law, according to Canon Law. But in civil court, “divorce” has been given the favor of the law.

The same year the right-to-abortion was legalized, the right-to-divorce was also affirmed.

There are remedies available that can save a marriage by restoring its relationships. The excuse that “we can do nothing” may have been true in past times, but things have changed. We can do something now. There are new remedies to the relationship-ailments that can lead to divorce. The Church’s inaction is contributing to the destruction of families. The Church must stand up to what is being done to families “under the color of law”.

© Copyright 2003 Catholic Exchange

Judy Parejko, lives in Wisconsin and published a book entitled, Stolen Vows (www.stolenvows.com). Michele Gauthier, lives in Louisiana and is the founder of Defending Holy Matrimony (defendingholymatrimony.org).