We must ban divorce! (letter to The Times)

I have received the draft of a letter which I lay out below from an individual who is very much against divorce, to the point that he feels we should ban it altogether…….

Ban Divorce I say! (Letter to The Times) by Lord Goebbles-Glaxo-Smith

Bravo I say to that John Marcotte chappy who is defying the myth that Californians are a bunch of liberal untrustworthy hippies, and instead he is fighting the good fight to ban that abomination of our modern times – Divorce! And bravo to my good friend Lady Preach for her intelligent speech the other day about female celebrities who take their husband’s to the cleaners and suggestion that we banish them to an island where they can live out their miserable lives on a 24 hour TV reality show.

If only we could turn back the clock and cleanse our society of this aberration enshrined in our legal system, then we never again would be forced to listen to that blonde woman with the large breasts singing D-I-V-O-R-C-E as we struggle to turn back to Radio 3 whilst negotiating a particularly tricky bend driving the Bentley to the family estate in the Cotswolds. An estate torn apart by the destructive and unforgivable legal decision that left my Ex wife with more than I wanted her to have.

A study recently of 8,652 people between the ages of 51 and 61 found those who were divorced or widowed had 20% more chronic health problems than those who were still married. Well, there you have it – getting divorced is unconstitutional because it causes cancer. If these liberal scallywags are going to fine me every time I forget to put a seatbelt on, then surely they should protect my pocket – I mean health – by making divorce a capitol offence?

“Divorce has a lingering, detrimental impact on health that even remarriage cannot fully repair”, the Chicago study suggests. And that must be true, because my remarriage to a stonking rich society girl has not in anyway cured my persistent gout, which is clearly down to the trauma I suffered from that witch, who once had the honour of being known as `Lady Goebbles-Glaxo-Smith’.

All this fuss about Viagra being at the centre of divorce cases because it encourages men to cheat on their wives. For goodness sakes, we don’t need drugs to do that! And when you consider that (according to the Grant Thornton divorce survey of 2008) that in 91% of cases women filed for the divorce, the main reason consistently being ‘extra marital affair’, then it is clear to even an idiot that if women don’t want their husbands to do what comes naturally to any full blooded male, then they should become lesbians – which I believe to be legal in this country.

Let us get back to how it was in the good old days, and blessed be the political party that returns us to true old fashioned family values. At the very least we could return to the more enlightened times prior to 1960 when the divorce rate was very low, mainly because it took 7 years to get one – which gave those unlucky enough to be subject to such a humiliation time to redirect a few funds here and there and make sure the villa in Spain was safely in the hands of one’s Nephew, who hates the sun and can’t swim.

And what about the psychological issues, eh? Compared with no disorder, those with a psychiatric disorder are more likely to be separated or divorced (14 per cent compared to 7 per cent). They are less likely to be married or cohabiting (62 per cent compared to 67 per cent).

There once again is a clear reason for banning divorce altogether. What are we going to do with all those mentally ill people who don’t have a wife or husband to care for them? Wandering the streets, that’s what – are we not supposed to be a caring society? Make them stay married, I say. The upper classes have been putting up with mad spouses for centuries – why should the commoners have it better than us?

Some of those liberal ‘collaborative’ lawyers down the club have been trying to convince me that the current laws need changing – but they seem to want to make it even easier to get divorced! “Why is it that we aim to encourage parties to put the past behind them and yet we start by insisting that 65% present issues of fault (84,129 out of 128,290)? “ They winge. “Our laws are now almost 40 years old (the 73 act was a slight remodelling of the 69 act) and we must reform!” I agree we should reform, but several brandies later I was still unable to shift my deep conviction that when a man marries a woman she is his for life, and if he really must get rid of her, there is always the “Oh I didn’t see her standing behind me when I backed the Bentley out of the garage” routine.

The fact is that first marriages have halved since 1970 whereas re-marriages have doubled. This means that people clearly like being married, they just don’t seem to be very good at sticking to the same partner.

It’s really not hard to stay with the same person year in year out as long as you approach it from an intelligent, and moral perspective. Separate rooms – houses if you can afford it – allow for privacy and individual pursuits. And I suggest also a ‘mission statement’ placed prominently on the fridge, inspired by the John Marcotte t-shirt I bought off Facebook: “Till death us do part – and you’re not dead yet”.

Yours most sincerely,

Lord Goebbles-Glaxo-Smith
Blog: www.oldfashionedfamilyvalues(mine).com

If California ban divorce – should the UK follow suit?

With the UK divorce laws under attack from Lady Deech and the chances of your marriage failing having much better odds than you winning the lottery, the initiative by John Marcotte to change the law in California to ‘ban divorce’ may be more dangerous than it sounds.

The Starting Over Show - which was the UK’s first ‘divorce fair’ and which hopes one day to take it’s mixture of legal and financial information to the US, along with it’s inspiration to start over whilst keeping on talking terms with your Ex, not surprisingly vehemently opposes such a proposition – but for reasons that we should all be concerned about.

As the Starting Over Show’s creator, I believe that it is a fundamental human right to feel supported and encouraged when you want to move forward from any life changing event, and that to be condemned to going back to a society where abuse and adultery were tolerated, couples slept in separate rooms and ’till death us do part’ was the only way out, this would be the result of any ‘ban’ or attempts to make divorce more difficult. This would also mean that accidentally backing the car over your spouse would become the best option for those no longer willing to accept a life-time of punishment, because their marriage didn’t pan out as planned.

But how real is the threat of public support for banning divorce?

By October 17^th John Marcotte will have heard from the US Secretary of State whether he will be allowed to gather signatures supporting his proposed law to ‘ban divorce’ in California. Marcotte has 4,000 Facebook fans, and close to a thousand dollars in donations. He’s even sold out of T-shirts which read, ” You said, till death do us part, you’re not dead yet.”

Following on from Lady Deech’s accusations that the the old public divorce hearings have been replaced by “an unpleasant inquisitorial procedure designed to establish the husband’s financial position and revials the old law in its depth, length, cost, temptation to lie and humiliation,” and a clear desire to stem the tide of “undeserved millions” being handed out to celebrity wives, is it just possible, that with the more right-wing approach to government likely after the next general election, that such outrageous ideas of banning divorce altogether could take hold in the UK?

The Conservative think tank that produced ‘Every Family Matters’, an in-depth review of family law in Britain, estimated that the direct financial cost of family breakdown in the UK to be in excess of £20 billion pounds per annum. They were also clear about not wanting to currently reform the lack of legal protection for the increasing number of people who cohabit: “we want to encourage a high commitment culture and break the relationship breakdown culture”. This is a significant statement, when you consider that ‘common law marriage’ is a myth and particularly women with children are increasingly finding themselves without any legal rights if their relationship breaks down – unlike their married counterparts. 58% of the YouGov Poll (April 2008 & January 2009) thought that giving cohabitants similar legal rights to marriage would undermine marriage, and 84% agreed that it is important for the law to support marriage.

Surely the simplest way to achieve this is to make divorce more difficult? Is this not what is effectively happening with the stubborn refusal of Government to bring in ‘no fault divorce’ as a standard, irrespective of the (sensible) need for ‘cooling off periods’? Although marriage is undeniably a legal contract that should be respected as such, the very fact that what is essentially an emotional and spiritual matter is not treated as such by the current legal system suggests that for government, marriage is seen as an indicator of a healthy society – or at least one that is behaving as the powers that be wish it to.

More progressive family lawyers, who are increasingly gaining links with mediators or becoming ‘collaborative’ lawyers, approach divorce with more sensitivity to the emotional state of their clients than has traditionally been the case.

The Starting Over Show exhibitors have regular networking meetings so that the lawyers can form trusted relationships with the mediators, divorce coaches and holistic therapists so that they will be better able to refer their clients to specialists who can help make a less combative divorce the primary focus. It’s hard to be nice, or even reasonable, to someone you’re divorcing when you are frightened, confused, don’t have any positive vision for your future and have forgotten that your children deserve you to at least try to be a ‘good Ex’.

I agree with one thing Marcotte says about banning divorce: “What it might do is cause people to really think about it, and really value their marriage while they are in it.” But wouldn’t it be better to encourage people to do that in a more proactive way, rather than punishing them if they get it wrong? The Social Justice Report ‘Every Family Matters’ concludes “that there should be strong government encouragement of couples getting married to take part in high-quality, standardized and accredited pre-marriage information and preparation, delivered in an accessible fashion.” Of course they are right that we should not all go into marriage without a tool-box of skills – such as communication techniques, parenting skills, positive shared visions for the future – but are government the right people to be judging and accrediting how we access those skills? Let’s face it, are we able to find any politicians or government employees to hold up as fine examples, mentors even, of how to have a ‘successful marriage’?

US attorney Kevin Healey says, a “No Divorce” law is unconstitutional and will never happen.
“Anybody can get something before the voters, but I think it will be shot down handily. ” But does Healey have a facebook group of 4,000 fans, many of whom are taking comedy writer John Marcotte’s campaign as a serious suggestion, not as the ‘parody’ that some claim it to be?

Whether it’s pre-marriage support, refusing to provide legal protection for cohabiting couples or making divorce even more difficult and painful than it already is, the political drive to control society in order to reduce that £20 billion pound cost of ‘family breakdown’ needs to be taken seriously.

UPDATE:

California Secretary of State Debra Bowen today authorized the backer of an initiative that would ban divorce to begin collecting signatures to put the proposed constitutional amendment before voters.

John Marcotte now has until March 22, 2010, to collect 694,354 signatures of registered voters in order to get the measure on the ballot next year. The proposal would change the California Constitution to “eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California.”

Couples could still get their marriages annulled under the proposal.

Here is the official text of the initiative:

ELIMINATES THE LAW ALLOWING MARRIED COUPLES TO DIVORCE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the ability of married couples to get divorced in California. Preserves the ability of married couples to seek an annulment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Savings to the state of up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually for support of the court system due to the elimination of divorce proceedings.

References:

New York Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/ban-divorce-ballot-effort-gets-ok-to-gather-signatures.html#comments

Times article on Lady Deech’s speech http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6832973.ece

Fox40 News

http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-nodivorce,0,5509809.story