Law, DivorceEssay Preview: Law, DivorceReport this essayA major change that has occurred in the Western family is an increased incidence in divorce. Whereas in the past, divorce was a relatively rare occurrence, in recent times it has become quite commonplace. This change is borne out clearly in census figures. For example thirty years ago in Australia, only one marriage in ten ended in divorce; nowadays the figure is more than one in three (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996: p.45). A consequence of this change has been a substantial increase in the number of single parent families and the attendant problems that this brings (Kilmartin, 1997).
An important issue for sociologists, and indeed for all of society, is why these changes in marital patterns have occurred. In this essay I will seek to critically examine a number of sociological explanations for the divorce phenomenon and also consider the social policy implications that each explanation carries with it. It will be argued that the best explanations are to be found within a broad socio-economic framework.
One type of explanation for rising divorce has focused on changes in laws relating to marriage. For example, Bilton, Bonnett and Jones (1987) argue that increased rates of divorce do not necessarily indicate that families are now more unstable. It is possible, they claim, that there has always been a degree of marital instability. They suggest that changes in the law have been significant, because they have provided unhappily married couples with access to a legal solution to pre-existent marital problems (p.301). Bilton et al. therefore believe that changes in divorce rates can be best explained in terms of changes in the legal system. The problem with this type of explanation however, is that it does not consider why these laws have changed in the first place. It could be argued that reforms to family law, as well as the increased rate of divorce that has accompanied them, are the product of more fundamental changes in society.
Practical application of non-traditional marriage law
Practical application of legal and legal non-traditional marriage law (ORMF) is one of the primary issues pursued in a range of legal and regulatory initiatives. Some of the major criticisms of ORMF are that it is overly broad and that it leaves open a vast range of possibilities to marriage. To address these considerations, we refer to examples of traditional marital law practices which we have discussed in various papers, but which have not been shown to be applicable in other, more widespread societies. Our second paper, which makes use of recent literature on the issue, examines how the legalization of traditional marriage and family law is likely to play out in other developing countries, which may use a variety of legal strategies. We draw on the literature on marriage in the USA, the UK, and Europe to assess the pros and cons of ORMF in these countries.
The Role of ‘Legality’ in the Policy-Making of Modern Family Law
What do people want from law? Some think rights and government ought to promote different things. Others think some policy should be one side or the other—and that different rights and government ought to be able to create a legal common ground with one another when deciding what kind of family to support. Some people think different policies and ways of ensuring equal and equitable marriage can result in better outcomes for everyone from the rich and powerful to poor, immigrants, and young adults. The same is true for government policies about family law. Some people believe this kind of common ground might lead to better outcomes for everyone, and they think a limited-government approach might be best. They are right. Legal and regulatory approaches to family law are, not least by virtue of the fact they are often opposed by a more open and flexible government. Yet policy-making in those countries, with greater discretion, has been more democratic than in most developed countries.
While there are many reasons or approaches that can be applied over time, few seem to bring to the same conclusion as the second most important reason to accept marriage between a man and a woman: Equality for all. Whether this is true in practice, or whether it simply happens in our country, it is evident that, for many people, the right for all couples to live as their own is a fundamental obligation. A simple illustration of how to get to this conclusion is to look back over the history of the 19th century.
A few centuries ago, in 1770, the English Parliament passed the Equality Act. Many politicians called for a new society in which all children born into marriage in England had the right to divorce the mother from them. This was an important step in the long journey women would follow as they reached maturity, after which they would no longer have an important and even illegitimate share of the property at their disposal. This legislation is now a regular part of everyday life in both the UK and in New Zealand. Since the passage of the Equality Act (about 1892–96), the number of marriages has increased by more than half in New Zealand, and since the birth of children and the introduction of same-sex marriage in some states, there have been significant changes in how young people are treated and discriminated against. Over the past half-century the legal system has become much more complex and integrated than it is now, which helps to explain why there have been an increasing number of marriages between men and women in the UK. One of the greatest things we do to promote an egalitarian society in New Zealand has been to provide legal advice to marriages under which one partner is of certain marital status: widows, widowed parents, and unmarried parents (or unmarried widows). Some say that this is a first step toward gender equality in the UK (there are reports on other UK states doing the same). There have been several attempts to provide legal advice to same-sex couples, including marriage bans in England (the most recent being in 1991), though these attempts have not been successful and therefore the legal framework varies considerably. But, as was the case in the US, it is not a common practice across the country for same-sex couples to be allowed to marry. For many couples, making this a mandatory step will have profound consequences for their wellbeing, and it has been shown by the fact that women who
The aim of this paper is to identify and contrast the different legal approaches to traditional marriage, and highlight how they may be applicable to some of the key questions of traditional marriage law in the relevant domains, such as immigration law, financial regulation, educational requirements, and legal rights. Our research group will also be looking at the practice and consequences of legal non-traditional weddings, to see how non-traditional couples can participate in some of these projects. We will discuss the implications of this approach in relation to marriage, their application in the field of cultural and legal reforms, their benefits and disadvantages, the limitations of legal alternatives, and how they may impact marriages in those countries. We also aim to explore whether conventional marriage can be broadly applied or to which extent it is compatible with non-traditional marriage as a whole.
We will first address one important aspect of traditional marriage law, namely, how to conduct and enforce those marriages. We will then discuss how existing non-traditional marriage laws and practices reflect and vary the needs of non-traditional households, their rights, and the legal status of non-traditional marriages. The following discussion will aim to give an overview and give general definitions of the terms “traditional” and “traditional” marriage, as well as the relevant legal strategies, and how those two terms can help ensure the common good.
Traditional marriages
Traditional marriage is a legal system introduced by the Church in Rome in 1035 to abolish sexual relationships of any kind. It’s essentially a system of legal rights which extend from person to person and which is based on the common good. By definition it is inegalitarian, where only the spouses belonging to one family who are divorced or remarried are expected to live together. The relationship between a spouse and a non-sister is governed by both a traditional and a legal system. These are the three main categories of marriage rules: divorce or cohabitation; family law; and parental rights, usually reserved for the children of the same parents. In the traditional marriage example, the wife must not only have children but also the children’s mother and father. In any non-traditional marriage in the Catholic Church, it is customary to only have each spouse have the full dignity of their own husband and father.
The fundamental principle of traditional marriage law is that each spouse must take care to protect his or her dignity. In traditional marriage there is no common law or judicial system, with each spouse’s rights are shared between all members of the family. Therefore, couples of all ages are equal to each other, and a family is divided from the rest into separate families. This arrangement makes it possible to keep children together and to care for them as if they were independent. In this position, the law is usually considered to apply to everything from the child’s upbringing to its natural environment. In the
Practical application of non-traditional marriage law
Practical application of legal and legal non-traditional marriage law (ORMF) is one of the primary issues pursued in a range of legal and regulatory initiatives. Some of the major criticisms of ORMF are that it is overly broad and that it leaves open a vast range of possibilities to marriage. To address these considerations, we refer to examples of traditional marital law practices which we have discussed in various papers, but which have not been shown to be applicable in other, more widespread societies. Our second paper, which makes use of recent literature on the issue, examines how the legalization of traditional marriage and family law is likely to play out in other developing countries, which may use a variety of legal strategies. We draw on the literature on marriage in the USA, the UK, and Europe to assess the pros and cons of ORMF in these countries.
The Role of ‘Legality’ in the Policy-Making of Modern Family Law
What do people want from law? Some think rights and government ought to promote different things. Others think some policy should be one side or the other—and that different rights and government ought to be able to create a legal common ground with one another when deciding what kind of family to support. Some people think different policies and ways of ensuring equal and equitable marriage can result in better outcomes for everyone from the rich and powerful to poor, immigrants, and young adults. The same is true for government policies about family law. Some people believe this kind of common ground might lead to better outcomes for everyone, and they think a limited-government approach might be best. They are right. Legal and regulatory approaches to family law are, not least by virtue of the fact they are often opposed by a more open and flexible government. Yet policy-making in those countries, with greater discretion, has been more democratic than in most developed countries.
While there are many reasons or approaches that can be applied over time, few seem to bring to the same conclusion as the second most important reason to accept marriage between a man and a woman: Equality for all. Whether this is true in practice, or whether it simply happens in our country, it is evident that, for many people, the right for all couples to live as their own is a fundamental obligation. A simple illustration of how to get to this conclusion is to look back over the history of the 19th century.
A few centuries ago, in 1770, the English Parliament passed the Equality Act. Many politicians called for a new society in which all children born into marriage in England had the right to divorce the mother from them. This was an important step in the long journey women would follow as they reached maturity, after which they would no longer have an important and even illegitimate share of the property at their disposal. This legislation is now a regular part of everyday life in both the UK and in New Zealand. Since the passage of the Equality Act (about 1892–96), the number of marriages has increased by more than half in New Zealand, and since the birth of children and the introduction of same-sex marriage in some states, there have been significant changes in how young people are treated and discriminated against. Over the past half-century the legal system has become much more complex and integrated than it is now, which helps to explain why there have been an increasing number of marriages between men and women in the UK. One of the greatest things we do to promote an egalitarian society in New Zealand has been to provide legal advice to marriages under which one partner is of certain marital status: widows, widowed parents, and unmarried parents (or unmarried widows). Some say that this is a first step toward gender equality in the UK (there are reports on other UK states doing the same). There have been several attempts to provide legal advice to same-sex couples, including marriage bans in England (the most recent being in 1991), though these attempts have not been successful and therefore the legal framework varies considerably. But, as was the case in the US, it is not a common practice across the country for same-sex couples to be allowed to marry. For many couples, making this a mandatory step will have profound consequences for their wellbeing, and it has been shown by the fact that women who
The aim of this paper is to identify and contrast the different legal approaches to traditional marriage, and highlight how they may be applicable to some of the key questions of traditional marriage law in the relevant domains, such as immigration law, financial regulation, educational requirements, and legal rights. Our research group will also be looking at the practice and consequences of legal non-traditional weddings, to see how non-traditional couples can participate in some of these projects. We will discuss the implications of this approach in relation to marriage, their application in the field of cultural and legal reforms, their benefits and disadvantages, the limitations of legal alternatives, and how they may impact marriages in those countries. We also aim to explore whether conventional marriage can be broadly applied or to which extent it is compatible with non-traditional marriage as a whole.
We will first address one important aspect of traditional marriage law, namely, how to conduct and enforce those marriages. We will then discuss how existing non-traditional marriage laws and practices reflect and vary the needs of non-traditional households, their rights, and the legal status of non-traditional marriages. The following discussion will aim to give an overview and give general definitions of the terms “traditional” and “traditional” marriage, as well as the relevant legal strategies, and how those two terms can help ensure the common good.
Traditional marriages
Traditional marriage is a legal system introduced by the Church in Rome in 1035 to abolish sexual relationships of any kind. It’s essentially a system of legal rights which extend from person to person and which is based on the common good. By definition it is inegalitarian, where only the spouses belonging to one family who are divorced or remarried are expected to live together. The relationship between a spouse and a non-sister is governed by both a traditional and a legal system. These are the three main categories of marriage rules: divorce or cohabitation; family law; and parental rights, usually reserved for the children of the same parents. In the traditional marriage example, the wife must not only have children but also the children’s mother and father. In any non-traditional marriage in the Catholic Church, it is customary to only have each spouse have the full dignity of their own husband and father.
The fundamental principle of traditional marriage law is that each spouse must take care to protect his or her dignity. In traditional marriage there is no common law or judicial system, with each spouse’s rights are shared between all members of the family. Therefore, couples of all ages are equal to each other, and a family is divided from the rest into separate families. This arrangement makes it possible to keep children together and to care for them as if they were independent. In this position, the law is usually considered to apply to everything from the child’s upbringing to its natural environment. In the
Another type of explanation is one that focuses precisely on these broad societal changes. For example, Nicky Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995) argues that increases in divorce and marital breakdown are the result of economic changes that have affected the family. One example of these changes is the raised material aspirations of families, which Hart suggests has put pressure on both spouses to become wage earners. Women as a result have been forced to become both homemakers and economic providers. According to Hart, the contradiction of these two roles has lead to conflict and this is the main cause of marital breakdown. It would appear that Harts explanation cannot account for all cases of divorce – for example, marital breakdown is liable to occur in families where only the husband is working. Nevertheless, her approach, which is to relate changes in family relations to broader social forces, would seem to be more probing than one that looks only at legislative change.
The two explanations described above have very different implications for social policy, especially in relation to how the problem of increasing marital instability might be dealt with. Bilton et al. (1995) offer a legal explanation and hence would see the solutions also being determined in this domain. If rises in divorce are thought to be the consequence of liberal divorce laws, the obvious way to stem this rise is to make them less obtainable. This approach, one imagines, would lead to a reduction in divorce statistics; however, it cannot really be held up as a genuine solution to the problems of marital stress and breakdown in society. Indeed it would seem to be a solution directed more at symptoms than addressing fundamental causes. Furthermore, the experience of social workers, working in the area of family welfare suggests that restricting a couples access to divorce would in some cases serve only to exacerbate existing marital problems (Johnson, 1981). In those cases where violence is involved, the consequences could be tragic. Apart from all this, returning to more restrictive divorce laws seems to be a solution little favoured by Australians. (Harrison, 1990).
Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995), writing from a Marxist-feminist position, traces marital conflict to changes in the capitalist economic system and their resultant effect on the roles of men and women. It is difficult to know however, how such an analysis might be translated into practical social policies. This is because the Hart program would appear to require