My husband is from Switzerland, and before he got divorced from his ex-wife they had to go through a mandatory certain period (I think it was 6 months) of marriage counceling. Then the therapist had to declare that in his opinion they were irreconsilable. If the therapist thinks the marriage still has a chance of working out, then you can’t legally get a divorce.
So, do you think these kids of laws are helpful or hurtful to society? Should it be harder to get divorced?
On the flip side, what about mandatory pre-marital classes? Again, harmful or hurtful?
I think it is shameful that the mandatory waiting period to buy a handgun in the U.S. is longer than the (non-existent) mandatory waiting period to get married.
I kind of like the Switzerland idea… I also think that there should be conseling before the marriage as well. It would surely help reduce the divorce rate in the US, I’m certain.
**
I think that it should be harder in most cases. Mandatory marriage counseling is a good idea, but only if the state is willing to supply it free of charge to those who can’t afford it. In cases of abuse, however, there should be neither a waiting period nor counseling as either has the potential to do great harm to the victim.
Helpful I think. However, again the state must be willing to pay for the classes of those who cannot afford them. Marriage must not become only for the well off. Also I think that the states should be willing to count the pre-martial counseling mandated by many religions.
Enh. My parents got hitched not very long at all after first dating. They’re still together. The only thing a “waiting period” would have done there would have been to throw a few extra bumps into the usually bumpy road. Pointless.
And on the other end of things, the only opinions worth a good goddamn about when a marriage is salvageable and when it is not are the two people making the choice–I don’t care how many papers a third party has hanging on the wall, if they’re not in the marriage, their opinion is moot. If they want counseling, they will seek it; if they don’t want it…well, it’s not possible to help people who don’t want to be.
Can they choose the therapist? If they can, then it seems like they’ll just shop around to find one that will declare them irreconcilible. If not, then their fate is in the hands of one person. That seems like a lot of power to give to someone. What about cases of abuse? Would a battered wife still have to spend six months with her attacker before she could leave him? How useful is therapy in which the main goal of the clients is to convince the therapist that they’re irreconcilible, anyway? Just what is expected to happen in six months that won’t happen in two?
I agree with you Drastic. I also don’t see what the big deal to either marriage or divorce is. Who fucking cares if the divorce rate is 50%? Does that matter? The only shame is that many people see marriage as the step immediately preceding having kids. But I and hundreds of thousands of others are children of divorced parents, and I think most will attest that it is just as nice as if they were married. Benefits and drawbacks to both sides, but after the first 6 months I didn’t mind at all.
There are a hell of a lot of things we should focus on before divorce rate. Spousal abuse and having too many kids are a couple examples somewhat related to this issue. The environment, wars, and the encroachment of human and civil rights are a much bigger couple of things. I mean, try and save your marriage if you feel you must. But to have someone give permission for divorce? Ludicrous. Put that time and energy into a more important program.
My wife and I got married within six months of meeting. We had to attend pre-marital counselling (well, we didn’t have to; we could have chosen to get married at a different church - the minister set this poilicy up himself). We had three informal meetings with a middle-aged couple from his congregation where we could discuss anything we liked with them (they did deliberately bring up a few topics like finance, sex and parenting).
Dated for five years. Were engaged for two. Went through all the counseling required by the Catholic church (which was two or three weekends).
Got married.
Marriage lasted 18 months.
He moved out of my house and in with his girlfriend. Counseling would have simply dragged out the inevitable. A waiting period would have made the divorce (which took over a year to complete) drag out even longer.
I just wanted to move on - he already had (and I had the stains on the bedsheet to prove it).
I have an acquiantance whose parents are devout Catholics and won’t divorce. They haven’t lived together for 25 years (and they didn’t live together when my aquaitance was a child) and barely speak. But they haven’t gotten divorced.
I think when you want to get out of a relationship, you get out. The state can make you sit uncooperatively in front of a counselor for six sessions and waste nothing but time and money.
And when you are in love and you want to get into a relationship, you get in. State says you attend marriage counseling, and you might - but the reality doesn’t penetrate the thick skull of love (or lust). Or you might just shack up.
Before the 1960s-1970s, if you wanted to get a divorce in any U.S. State, it was not enough that the two of you didn’t want to be married any more. You had to show grounds for divorce. “Grounds” included such things as adultery, physical or mental cruelty, legal incompetence, etc. – but “irreconcilable differences” were not considered grounds for divorce!
The legal intent here was to keep people married. Failed marriages were not politically popular and were considered downright immoral by some. However, as with any case where morality is enforced with laws, there were serious problems under this system. Married couples who couldn’t stand each other any more were going in front of judges and making up stories about catching their partners in the act of adultery. Children were being asked by their parents to lie on the witness stand about seeing daddy going to bed with a strange woman (when in fact no such thing had happened).
Eventually, Americans wised up to the fact that there needed to be some kind of “no fault” divorce system, to allow people to get divorced without needing any of the traditional “grounds” for divorce. However, such a back door had to be introduced very carefully. A few States tried such things as adding “irreconcilable differences” to the grounds for divorce, with the proviso that at least 6 months had to transpire between the filing for an irreconcilable-differences divorce and the granting of said divorce. When this proved to be feasible and did not, in fact, lead to rioting in the streets , other States added similar “no-fault divorce” and “dissolution of marriage” laws onto their books. Some States do not require a waiting period before granting a no-fault divorce, but do require the couple to have been residents of the State for at least 6 months prior to granting the no-fault divorce (to avoid having the state turn into a “divorce mill”).
The type of divorce the OP is talking about is a no-fault divorce. Divorces with traditional “grounds” would surely not require counseling or waiting periods.
And incidentally, the next time someone mentions how high the divorce rate has gotten in the U.S. in the last half century, politely remind them that half a century ago there were no no-fault divorce laws in the U.S…
Ah, but tracer, which comes first? Did my ex find the girlfriend to give himself an excuse to get out of a marriage he didn’t want to be in, or did he get out of the marriage because he found the girlfriend.
A little of both. But its much nastier if their are grounds, and a counseling requirement would certainly drive some dissatisfied spouses to create some grounds.
I think pre-marital counseling is a nifty idea, as long as it is either free or sliding-scale.
As for divorce:
I think nobody has a better idea of whether a marriage should be dissolved than the two people filing for divorce. I don’t think making it harder will help marriage at all in most cases, and I think it’s nobody’s business why someone wants to divorce.
If a judge denied my no-fault divorce ten years ago, I’d still be living happily alone in my one bedroom apartment today. I may not be able to get married again, but it wouldn’t stop me from “living in sin”…I laugh at the term, by the way.
I apologize if I have made more than one post. I keep getting the message that I’m not logged in, although I see my name right there at the bottom.
Statistical evidence for an opinion… hmmmm… what is with these forums!!!
I would only think it would be common sense. I mean, you go through some conseling before marriage, so both parties know what is going to be expected, and all that stuff. You might air out some stuff that could help during the marriage. I don’t see how it would hurt?
Should it be harder to get divorced. No. Some people seem to think that couples get divorced without truly thinking through the causes and results of their problems, and without trying to fix their marriage. While this may be true in a very small number of cases, most couples won’t file for divorce until it’s obvious to them that nothing can save their marriage. And once it’s reached this point, why should anyone else have the right to tell them otherwise.
Should it be harder to get married? I already mentioned my view on this question in another thread recently. Instead of making it harder to get married, we should lessen the advantages for married couples. Currently, being married gives you huge tax advantages as well as a number of small perks, such as visitation rights in hospitals. By getting rid of these, we would no longer be encouraging young couples to rush into marriage without thinking. Then maybe we wouldn’t have almost 15 percent of marriages ending in divorce within 5 years, according to this. But to throw counseling demands and other roadblocks in front of couples who want to get married and then give them huge advantages when they do actually tie the knot would just be silly.
Harder to divorce ? No way. If I want out, I want out, and who are you or anybody else to tell me that you know better.
Harder to marry ? Nope. Why force someone to attend pre-marital counselling when they aren’t interested ? I trust my judgement much more than I trust a lot of other people’s. For example, my view of marriage is a lot different from what another’s view of marriage is. Who are they to tell me that my view is wrong, or more likely, why should I lie to that person so they’ll tick off the counselling attendence and pass sheet, and let me get married ?
even sven, I agree 100%
ITR champion what advantages are there for married couples where you live ? I’m speaking mainly of tax breaks, etc, not things like visitation in hospital, and next of kin status. I ask because where I am, we are actually financially worse off being married, and am curious to know what the married couples in the USA get.
I’ll just point out that divorce in Australia is no-fault and the sole grounds are 12 months separation (there can be an episode of reconciliation of up to 3 months).
The Family Law Court has the power to order compulsory counselling, and at one time used to do so routinely for marriages of extremely short duration. It also has the power to withold the granting of the divorce decrees until it is satisfied with property arrangements and/or arrangements in respect of children.
To be honest, I’ve found that many people who’ve been separated for periods far in excess of 12 months don’t go through the formality of getting divorced until one of them wants to marry someone else and then become frustrated that they can’t get a “quickie” divorce.
I think the 12 months provides a useful buffer zone in terms of both giving a couple the opportunity to sort out their differences and to some extent limiting the potential for legally sanctioned “rebound” relationships. I don’t think that our waiting periods for either marriage or divorce are unreasonable.
Yes, I’d encourage my children to attend pre-marital counselling if only for them to confirm that they do share the same relationship goals and values. It never ceases to amaze me how many married couples have never discussed major relationship issues (such as having children) but have simply assumed that they each feel the same way about those issues (or even worse, that their partner’s attitudes will change ).
You just appeared so certain that forcing people to undergo pre-marital and/or pre-divorce counseling would reduce the divorce rate, I thought perhaps you had seen a model from somewhere outside the U.S. that would back it up. No big deal if you don’t. FWIW, two sources I consulted showed the U.S. with a divorce rate of 49% of new marriages, and Switzerland (mentioned in the OP) with a rate of 40%. Not a big difference.
**
Would that common sense were more common and more sensical. Unfortunately, many things that seem like they should be common sense really aren’t.
**
, other States added similar “no-fault divorce” and “dissolution of marriage” laws onto their books. Some States do not require a waiting period before granting a no-fault divorce, but do require the couple to have been residents of the State for at least 6 months prior to granting the no-fault divorce (to avoid having the state turn into a “divorce mill”).