I recently read an article by some economists that analyzed data on divorces and domestic violence, before and after the divorce laws changed. The results of their research were perhaps predictable to those of us who practice in the real world of unhappy families, but the results do not fit the current right-wing political agenda. Simply put, the research found that those states that adopted more liberal laws permitting “unilateral divorce” — what lawyers would probably call “no fault” divorce — reported a 8–16 percent decline in female suicide, roughly a 30 percent decline in domestic violence for both men and women, and a 10 percent decline in females murdered by their partners.
The article, “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress,” by Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers and published in the February, 2006, issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, is a rather dense argument based on economic theorems that I will assume to be correct. I am less certain of the economics scholarship than I am of the reality that we see in our practice — that when people have a right to get out of an abusive relationship, they can either negotiate with the abuser to stop the abuse, or can leave and escape to a place of safety.
Virginia has special programs through the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court — in the Charlottesville area we talk of the Batterers’ Intervention Program, or BIP — that help to address the problem of domestic violence. We have programs such as the Shelter for Help in Emergency to offer services to those in abusive relationships. These programs make a difference in the lives of the families who become involved in them. But none of these programs would have a chance of making a difference if the weaker spouse did not have the ability to get out of the marriage.
In the 1990’s there was a move toward “covenant marriages” — marriages that are harder to get out of. Some fundamentalist Christians wanted covenant marriages because they feared the decline of American civilization as the national divorce rate was rising. The movement began in earnest after the Clinton welfare reform bill was passed; during that debate it was noted that there were many single women for whom a divorce was an economic disaster, and suddenly there was an arguably altruistic rationalization for making no-fault divorces more rare. Those who seek to advance the movement believe that marriage lowers poverty rates, therefore reducing the number of people on welfare. It is more difficult for couples who have a legal covenant marriage to obtain a divorce. Cause for divorce in a covenant marriage is typically limited to the traditional “fault” grounds — physical cruelty, conviction of a felony, and adultery.
In 1997, Louisiana became the first state to establish a type of marriage called a “covenant marriage”; since then Arkansas and Alabamahave joined them. Legislation has been introduced in recent years to create legal covenant marriage in many other states as well — Wikipedia counts 21 more, including Virginia. But none of those new bills have passed. This year I find no “covenant marriage” bills in the General Assembly, though it is sometimes hard to figure out from the summaries of bills just what the bills would do. Perhaps the crest of the wave has passed for this movement that was always more about ideology than helping families stay, or become, safe.
