Having been through divorce myself and seen a couple more very closely, I am painfully familiar with the system of penalties that are designed to purportedly protect the so-called institution of marriage. It has helped me develop a great disdain for the idea that the state needs to get involved in a private lives of two people who are either seeking to unite or dissolve their union. Beyond the giddiness of love, companionship and desire to formalize the union there are practical consideration like how the parties will earn and spend their income, raise their children and so on. Most importantly, how the union should be unwound when the parties no longer want it - and how to do so in a fair way and with least hurt and trauma caused to their offspring.
Every person is unique and by extension so is every marriage. The laws of divorce are a one-size fits all solution for all residents of the given state. That is the first and most fatal flaw of the system. The unwinding of a marriage that is unlike any other will need to fit the boilerplate template of the state. This can only lead to terrible outcomes for all concerned. People would fare way better if they worked up private agreements on all issues relating to their union, much in the way that they create personal wedding vows that accurately reflect who they are and what they value in their particular relationship. Those agreements can be treated as a valid legal contracts with enforcement mechanisms. The legal profession could play the role of ensuring that no guardrails of the law of the land are undermined by the private agreement. For example, one spouse cannot require the other to be flogged or stoned if they are found cheating. This should be standard process for any marriage - have the couple come up with their private dissolution agreement at the same time as they come up with their bespoke wedding vows. It puts everything in context and helps them appreciate the gravity of what they are stepping into.
It would not hurt to create a mechanism of revisions to the contract as life events and circumstances change. A couple in the twenties cannot anticipate what their life looks like in their fifties and beyond. If there is a clause to revise the contract upon their youngest child attaining adulthood, the problem can be addressed in an orderly manner. Say they are out of love by then and want to part ways, they would have a mutually agreed upon way to do so and not waste public time and resources fighting to death in court. The kids will fare much better as well.
The solution I believe is to privatize the whole process and not involve the state at all, instead of squabbling over what the state has the rights to do or not to do. In the end there is no solution that works for everyone. Some will still want the state involved in their private business and marry in the traditional way. Others might take a different approach and go the partnership route with legal protections for the partnership so that they never have to deal with divorce law and the court system.
Comments