Sunday, June 14, 2015

What if: Breaking News: Divorce Laws Abolished

The following is meant to be satire.

This just in, the divorce laws in the United States of Worldliness are officially abolished. The Supreme Court of the United States of Worldliness (SCOTUSOW) unanimously voted to abolish all divorce laws in this country, making marriage one man and one woman for life. The only divorce law that will remain in effect is a revision that requires the dissolution of all remarriages. This particular divorce law specifically pertains to a person, or persons who “remarried” after divorcing from his or her first covenant marriage. This new law requires these “adulterous” unions to end immediately.

The recent vote has caused considerable backlash from the family court lawyers who believe this law will eliminate their livelihood of exploiting and destroying individuals and families through costly divorce litigation. One divorce lawyer was quoted as saying, “How can the SCOTUSOW make a decision on this without considering the billions of dollars we family court lawyers make on this industry of divorce? This is preposterous!” In response, one of the judges said that this vote should give these lawyers a new position on preserving the covenant of marriage by creating contracts that would enforce laws to those who failed to live up to the vow of marriage. Instead of destroying individuals, the new laws would lean toward the reconciliation of individuals, families, and marriages.

The new marriage laws would compel “offenders” shown to be guilty of abuse and adultery to face severe consequences for their actions including extended jail time and community service. These consequences would not give either spouse the option of divorce, it would give the choice to repent of abusive and adulterous behavior, or remain single until death of either spouse. The courts believe that there is always hope for reconciliation even in the most arduous of cases. These new laws would give a person more appreciation for the importance of marriage in society.

The vote also brought considerable consternation from the divorce support ministries. They claim these new laws would create more problems if the law requires the dissolution of thousands of “remarriages”. One person quoted, “If we say that the divorce laws are abolished, then why would you force thousands to divorce from remarriages? Don’t you see the problems this would create?” The answer to this is simple. These “remarriages” were not marriages to begin with, thus they were unlawful in nature. There is opportunity for these "divorce support" ministries to adjust their curriculum to helping the unlawful marriages adjust to singleness or reconciling to first covenant marriages. 

In these cases, the new law would abolish current “remarriages”, while not allowing divorce and remarriage in the future. The worst case scenario is that this implementation of the new law would entail some severe changes and challenges for one generation. The succeeding generations would be under the new laws which would virtually eliminate the “divorce of remarriages" law based on the fact that there will be no more remarriages in future generations.Under this new law, a man and woman of "divorce from remarriage" (unlawful marriages) would separate from any further associations as husband and wife. 

The big question is how to handle the children of "divorced remarriages."Under the former laws, children became victims because divorce (granted upon) a unilateral decision (petition of one) of their parents. Therefore, the courts believe it is nothing less than hypocrisy for a person who divorced from a covenant marriage to claim that the new laws would cause pain and heartache for the children of divorced “remarriages”. This new law would teach a child the importance of marriage and obedience to laws created for their own good. This new law would be a reminder for future generations that divorce always has consequences.

Ironically, the greatest upheaval came from the evangelical church leaders. One particular leader was quoted as saying, “Marriage is God’s design, and you have no right to change these laws!” Ironically, this man was on his third marriage after divorcing his first two wives. It was believed that the first divorce was based on the spiritual condition of his wife, claiming that his first wife was an unbeliever. A few months after his divorce, he remarried the church secretary. Sadly, he divorced this second wife when she was found committing adultery with the praise leader of his church. He then married the praise leader’s divorced wife, and they claim to be happily “remarried” for 2 years.  

Another response was from the publisher and author of a very popular marriage, divorce, and remarriage publication. This book is famous for making the reader believe that certain passages of scripture provide loopholes to exit marriage. This author made the following statement, “This new law makes my book obsolete. Will I be held accountable under the laws of men based on the language in this book? I believe God gives valid reasons to divorce, and even though these new laws are in line with what God intended of marriage, I believe that God is merciful to the innocent.”

The court has considered language on passages such as Luke 16:18, and we understand that God does not give valid reasons to divorce and remarry, even for the innocent. Thus, we could question the validity of a book by a man who believes there are loopholes to leave a marriage based on other scripture that may refer to specific circumstances that are irrelevant to a consummated marriage covenant. The court believes that scripture points to marriage permanence, and that using scripture to validate divorce is tantamount to ignorance, selfishness, and deceitfulness.    

The argument is mute if you take into account that there is punishment and consequences for the vow-breaker of covenant marriage. It is not the fault of the court’s decision that the evangelical church was not accountable to marriage permanence. What the new laws do take into account is the fact that marriage is not to be taken lightly. Instead of providing loopholes to divorce, the focus of these laws is significant on the definition of marriage…one man and one woman for life. There are no loopholes to divorce, but there are laws in place to make reconciliation possible. The court has recognized the significance of accountability in the Bible. The court has also recognized that the evangelical church has failed to preach the significance of a vow, and how this vow pertains to having faith in God to remain obedient.  

Another major consideration of this law was the effects of divorce on society. The courts believe that in years to come, the permanence-of-marriage law will eliminate many costly programs that contributed to the financial and social burdens of this country. There is no question that stable marriages provide the best for individuals, family and children in areas of financial stability, education, physical health, mental health, and accountability. The courts believe this law would make children become responsible adults, who in turn would view marriage as essential to the betterment of society.

There are also financial benefits with the elimination of divorce laws.The effects of divorce have greatly increased mental health issues, welfare recipients, and substance abuse. The escalation of taxpayer burden would decrease from programs associated with these social consequences of divorce. There would be a greater need for education on the dangers of fornication and the greater importance of marriage education. The greatest relief would come from the court systems itself. There would be a virtual elimination of billions of dollars in court costs associated with divorce litigation. 
This extra money could also provide financial support of current families affected by the new law pertaining to a divorce from “remarriage”. Statistically, this financial strain would only be temporary; considering a child born today of “remarriage” will become an adult in 18 years. The new law would virtually eliminate “remarriages” in the future. This extra money would also provide certain spouses financial support if their spouse is incarcerated because of breaking their marriage vow. The extra money could also go into educating the values of marriage, and how reconciliation of marriage is the best for the individual, families, children, and society.

The court is aware that some churches already recognize these reforms and that these same churches have preached for years for the permanence of marriage. These churches will not tolerate divorce, and they have already administered accountability for such actions. These same churches have also warned of the consequences of sexual promiscuity outside the confines of marriage.  The court is also aware of the dangers of sexuality transmitted diseases increased through unchecked fornication. That is why the court will consider revisions of current laws that all but ignore the dangers of pre-marital sex. 
This of course leads to a greater restriction to the pornography industry. The courts agree that pornography does greater harm to society than previously thought. The new fornication laws would eliminate many proliferators of “professional fornication”.  The courts believe that the restrictions on proliferators of fornication, and new laws of fornication would eliminate many social, health, and mental problems, up to and including, the death of the innocent (abortion).
This post is satire, and nothing more.  It begs the questions: What if this country would repent of redefining marriage? And where should that repentance begin? 

James 4:10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

In Christ’s love,


standerinfamilycourt said...

The delicious richness of your parody, Neil, is all the hand-wringing about judges and justices "legislating from the bench". This offering seems to ask (tongue-in-cheek, I'm sure), "if individualistic immorality has been legislated from the bench, why not national righteousness?"

The entrenched legal establishment will insist that the only way to reduce litigation costs associated with the immoral dissolution of holy matrimony is to strip ever more constitutionally protected fundamental rights from the contesting spouse. Obviously, reconciliation strategies would be better way to accomplish this both for all taxpayers and families, but since most legal fees are incurred in the years following divorce, this would be financially disadvantageous for the oversupply of lawyers hitting the market every year. They can't all chase ambulances, after all. As it is, they are licking their chops over new homosexual client base that's developing for them.

Thanks for a very enjoyable read.

Neil Novotnak said...

Thank you stander. You make some excellent points. One thing that I should have included was the effect of this "new" law would have on the entertainment industry. I kind of touched on this with the restrictions to the pornography industry. The fact is many cable programs and commercials border on the edge of soft pornography.What is to say for the restrictions on r-rated movies and the glorification of fornication and adultery? I personally do not watch cable television, but I have to believe that sexual promiscuity is acceptable, celebrated, and marketed.