LEGISLATURE '05: MARRIAGE LAWS: Bills extend waiting time for divorce, add penalty for adultery

Spouses seeking a divorce soon may have to wait longer before they can call it quits, and those who commit adultery could lose their rights to marital property.

Several state legislators are pushing bills they say will strengthen marriage by making divorce a longer, and perhaps costlier, process.

A Senate bill introduced Wednesday would extend the waiting period from 30 days to six months for an uncontested divorce of a couple with children, and to four months if no children are involved.

The bill by state Sen. Mitch Seabaugh (R-Sharpsburg) calls children "innocent victims" of legal separation and divorce. They are often "negatively affected academically, socially, emotionally, and psychologically" by the stress and trauma of divorce, the legislation declares. Last year, a similar bill was approved in the Senate, 33-21, but died in the House Judiciary Committee. With Republicans in control of the House, the divorce bill now has a good chance of passing.

Legislation to stem divorces or make them harder to acquire may receive support from Democrats, who also have expressed concern about the high number of failed marriages.

Many opponents of Georgia's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, approved overwhelmingly by voters on Nov. 2, argued that gay marriage would not hurt the institution of marriage as much as divorce does.

Some conservative national organizations, such as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, have devoted considerable effort to promoting marriage and to urging couples to seek divorce as a last resort.

The bill before the Georgia Senate would require divorcing parents with children to attend classes for a minimum of four hours that focus on the effects of divorce and separation on children. Many judicial circuits in Georgia already require such classes.

"The social impact of divorce is overwhelming," Seabaugh said. "I think it is important to do what we can to help families."

"Anything to cut down on divorce is a good thing," said state Sen. Nancy Schaefer (R-Turnerville), one of the bill's co-sponsors. She is president of Family Concerns, a nonprofit, Christian organization dedicated to family issues.

"If a couple would stop and think about what they're doing, that could change their minds," Schaefer said, referring to the longer waiting period.

The waiting period would be waived if either the husband or wife has a protective order or if there has been family violence.

Some legislators expressed concern about meddling in the private lives of Georgia citizens.

"I've been married for 30 years and I believe in marriage, but people have a right to make a decision they can live with," said state Sen. Valencia Seay (D-College Park). "This bill is telling people how to run their personal lives. I don't think that's our duty."

The divorce rate in the United States has steadily increased. A study by the Census Bureau in 2002 said nearly half of recent first marriages end in divorce. In 2003, 59,441 couples married in Georgia, while 35,018 divorced, according to National Vital Statistics Reports.

In the House, state Rep. Nikki Randall, a Macon Democrat, filed a bill that would prohibit a divorcing man or woman from receiving any marital property if he or she committed adultery. The adulterer would be required to attend 12 hours of marital counseling before the divorce would be final.

"Contrary to what some may believe, Democrats also believe in moral and family values," Randall said. "Divorce is at a high rate, higher than ever, and it is in great part due to adultery. This is a real moral issue. I think we should shed some light on what's really going on with family values in our state."

Randall said she decided to tackle the issue of adultery because it is specifically prohibited in the Bible's Ten Commandments. "If we're going to be moral, let's be moral across the board," she said, referring to the debate over the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

"Contrary to what some may believe, Democrats also believe in moral and family values...we should shed some light on what's really going on with family values."

When wolves act like sheep in the flock...

Seems the RATs are trying to force the hand of the conservatives. With Pelosi quoting from her new, big, black Bible, it looks like this is a national trend as well.

Played right, this can be steered into a put-up-or-shut-up situation where they are forced to A) denounce what they are mouthing now (revealing them to be even more the hypocritical cynics), or, B) be forced to vote for the far more important legislation that they abhor (like anti-gay marriage legislation cited).

When wolves pretend to be sheep, they shouldn't be surprised if they end up being sheared.

"This bill is telling people how to run their personal lives. I don't think that's our duty." <<<

Why worry about that now? The Government has been allowed to meddle in everything else; we cant smoke, we cant say "God", we cant carry firearms, we must support social misfits, we have to protect mice from man, we must respect those who partake in deviant behavior, we must pay for health care for illegals, food for illegals, medical for illegals..

Heck! Our Congress has voted in the socialists agenda for the past 40 years and more.

Even if this bill passes it will be overturned by the court. The waiting period of the bill is fine and will likely be upheld. However, the portion that prohibits adulterers from receiving any marital property will be held unconstitutional for multiple reasons. First, it will likely be held to violate due process in that the government interest of preventing adultering is not a compelling governmental interest while the right that is being restricted (Property rights) is a fundamental right, and thus the law violates due process. Second, the law will likely fail due to overbreadth or vagueness. I seriously doubt the legislature will be thoughtful enough to put in exactly what they consider adultery, e.g. oral sex, only sexual intercourse, kissing, etc. Further, even if the legislature does describe exactly what they consider adultery it will likely be overbroad because they will likely ignore the fact that some couples have open relationships, what about a threesome - then does no one get marital property, etc. Finally, the law would have significant evidentiary problems. How would one prove by a preponderance of the evidence that someone committed adultery, while adhering to the rules of evidence (it may be done but would be difficult). This law is pretty ridiculous by any estimation.

Sure, make children live in a potentially violent, emotionally disturbed household for even longer... that's the ticket.

For that situation, this would be the exception.

The waiting period would be waived if either the husband or wife has a protective order or if there has been family violence.

First, it will likely be held to violate due process in that the government interest of preventing adultering is not a compelling governmental interest

Why not? If the state has any interest in marriage at all they have an interest in deterring adultry.

Even if you say the interest the government seeks to protect is marriage, the law would fail. Because the right being restricted is property rights, which is a fundamental right, the law is subject to strict scrutiny review. This means that the government must be protecting a compelling governmental purpose with a law that is necessary to protect the interest (which means it is basically the only way they can protect the governmental interest). Here, even if marriage is the right that they are asserting the law is not necessary to protect marriage. Many other means may be used to protect marriage, e.g. ban on gay marriage, having substantive requirements, etc. This law is not necessary to protect marriage. Not to mention it does not even really protect marraieg in that these people are getting divorced and this law will not likely effect whether they get divorced or not. Further, many people will not know about this law until it is too late in that people do not enter into marriage thinking it will fail. Thus, they will not concern themselvbes with the laws governing divorce because they do not want to believ that their marriage will end in divorce. Thus, the deterent rationale to the law is serverely flawed.

This will have huge repercussions throughout Hollywood... I expect Britney Spears to be jumping up any time now to denounce this, as it prevents her from marrying her friends as a joke, and then breaking up with them the next day.

No, because she just forces them to get an annulment so that she doesn't have to give up any money for stupid publicity stunts. It will be interesting to see what happens when she inevitably gets divorced from her new (insert sarcastic tone here) husband. I am thinking I should go into the family law sector and try to get on this guys good side because some lawyer is going to get a nice payoff if she didn't make him sign a prenup.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.