In Orthodox Jewish understanding, only a husband may divorce his wife. That is, the divorce does not happen until the husband gives his wife a get, a statement of divorce. A recalcitrant husband can thus avoid or delay a divorce, and even a rabbinical tribunal (a Beth Din) cannot simply create a get absent the husband’s unwillingness to provide it. The Beth Din may order the husband to do it, and impose sanctions if he does not (much like a civil court might order a person to pay money and impose a contempt citation if he refuses). But the rabbinical tribunal cannot simply declare the marriage over absent a get, unlike a civil court can – in a civil divorce, ultimately the court can order the marriage dissolved, even over the objections of one party.
So the question: should an Orthodox Jewish wife be able to ask a civil court to order her husband to grant her a get? She’s been given a civil divorce, but without the get cannot remarry in a Jewish ceremony. If the husband either outright refuses, or withholds the get in an effort to obtain more favorable divorce settlement terms, may a civil court step in and order the husband to provide his wife with the religiously-significant get?
I don’t see how. The wife is free to get a civil marriage to anyone, including another Jewish man. The religious ceremony is just that–a religious ceremony.
Would another Orthodox Rabbi even recognize a ‘forced’ get and allow the wife to remarry in the Orthodox church? It seems like the only reason to have one is if the wife wanted to remarry in the Orthodox tradition, so if it won’t be recognized anyways the whole question seems kinda pointless.
But in anycase, no, I don’t think the secular courts should muddle with religious aspects of peoples marriages. The wife can get a divorce in the eyes of the State, to settle the question in her religious community, she’ll have to convince the members of her religious group (or leave the faith and go find a less misogynistic religion).
My view is “No” as it would impose a state sanction on a religious institution, in an area that the religious institution considers itself primary. The situation seems similar to a Catholic marriage (in my limited understanding of such) – can a civil court order a church to annul a marriage so that a Catholic person could remarry within the church? Should it be able to?
I think a court should allow a civil marriage for anyone, Jewish, Catholic, whatever, regardless of the standing of that marriage within the religion. And, should similarly allow a civil divorce, according to the rules of the state.
How would this be different than a civil court ordering the Catholic Church to grant an annulment just because a civilly-divorced Catholic wants to remarry?
IOW, the wife can ask, but the court shouldn’t grant. It’s a dumb, misogynistic religious rule, but the courts shouldn’t be in the business of telling people which religious rules they have to follow.
Agree with everyone else. There is no legal impediment to remarrying with a civil divorce, and since in the US any person is free to leave a religion at any time, any issues the woman would have are self-inflicted.
Now, if for some reason civil marriage becomes intertwined with religious marriage - for instance if only religious marriages and divorces were recognized - perhaps there would be cause for the civil authorities to intervene in religious matters. This is just another example of how the separation is as favorable for religions as it is for civil society.
Separation of church and state means that (barring criminal actions) the state has no business doing such a thing. Whether the (civil) divorce is recognized religiously or not, whether or not a believer should or shouldn’t do a particular action that isn’t even legally defined (what is a “det”, legally speaking? Just a random statement by the husband.) isn’t an issue the state should be involved in.
If it were the case, taking the example of the catholic church, the State could order it to recognize all civil divorces, to allow women to become bishops (in the name of non-dicrimination), forbid batism of infants (because they can’t consent to the sacrament), to have the Pope or the bishops elected by all catholics (because the current process isn’t democratic), declare that homosexuality or abortion aren’t sins (because it stigmatizes homsexuals and people who legally had an abortion) and any number of other things about which someone or another has some bad feeling.
Tragic as the situation is for these women, I’d agree with the others who say no, because there’s no real way for the state to force the husband to grant a get (or in the other example, the Catholic Church to grant an annulment) without excessive entanglement with religion. In the state’s eyes, the woman is already divorced and single, and there’s no civil impediment to her remarriage. If she or her religion has scruples against it, that’s a private matter of conscience and not the state’s business.
Equally, if one or both spouses carry out a divorce (or annulment) within their religion, they continue to be married in the eyes of the state until they get a civil divorce. So, until they get a civil divorce, if they remarry they are committing bigamy.
I guess the obvious solution would be to have Rabbis require men sign an addition to the marriage contract when they get married, saying that they’ll agree to provide the get or pay a penalty should the marriage end in divorce and the Beth Din order it.
Yeah, not seeing this being proper for a Court to do. Seems like a violation of the establishment AND free exercise clauses, at the same time. I don’t think the Court can order him to participate in a particular religion…or any religion at all. If he does chose to practice a religion, I don’t think a Court can tell him how he ought to practice that religion. What’s the Court going to do if the guy says he’s no longer Jewish, he’s an atheist, and refuses to participate in any religious practices?
As much as this sounds like a good idea in theory, I tend to agree with the “excessive entanglement” theory. I’m not sure if I would be happy if my church got served a court order to revoke an offensive sermon or if I got a court order from the case “Mrs. robert_columbia v robert_columbia : The defendant is hereby ordered to renounce his religion and convert to Buddhism without delay.”
Or, perhaps make the man sign a document stating that the document itself shall be a valid “get” if a civil divorce occurs. I don’t know if Orthodox Judaism would recognize that…
Another vote for “no”. Civilly, legally able to remarry and free from legal entanglements, sure. But a court shouldn’t be able to compel religious custom.
I’m not sure why the question is limited to Jews. Just like various Jewish denominations may have different rules on divorce (Traditional versus Orthodox versus whatever else), different denominations of Christianity have different rules. Some don’t allow divorces at all, some allow divorces but not remarriage, some only allow remarriage after an annulment, and more. Right?
My reaction was similar to the above universal sentiment.
Imagine my surprise to read Schneider v. Schneider (PDF), an Illinois appellate case handed down this week, which confronts this issue.
The court’s ruling relies on an earlier Illinois decision, In re Marriage of Goldman, 554 NE 2d 1016 (Ill. App. 1990), for the proposition that a court may indeed order a husband to sign a paper authorizing a get to be granted.
Bill: “Joe, how’s it going.”
Joe: “Not so good. I’m being sued.”
Bill: “What happened?”
Joe: “Well, if you recall, I left my parents’ church last year and became Catholic.”
Bill: “So? How can you get sued for that?”
Joe: “Well, apparently my parents’ are facing an excommunication tribunal in their church for being bad parents. That church says that to be a member in good standing, all of your children over 15 must either be members in good standing or enrolled in conversion classes. The suit says that my conversion is interfering with my parents’ right to participate in their religion.”
The argument seems to be kind of what I proposed as a solution. That the Jewish marriage (Ketubah, apparently) contract implied a willingness to sign the get should it become necessary. Dunno how true that is (I just skimmed the decision), but the idea of the Court enforcing a separate contract seems a lot more palitible then there forcing the husband to sign perform a religious act out of the blue.