Beginning around 1970, most states passed "no-fault" laws for couples who wanted to get divorced. This meant that husbands and wives no longer had to prove that their spouse did something wrong such as adultery in order to get divorced. Since that time, social scientists have regularly surveyed Americans about their attitude in regards to these divorce laws. The findings have been quite consistent over the past 40 years. About half of Americans want more strict laws about divorce, about 25 percent would keep them the same and another 25 percent think that getting a divorce should be even easier.
What influences people's attitudes towards divorce?
Scientists have been exploring the factors that shape people's attitudes towards divorce. In general, we know that people who have conservative attitudes in general, married individuals, older adults (60 years and older), Whites and rural residents are more likely to believe that divorce laws should be more strict.
But what about the role of religion? Does religion shape our attitudes about divorce? The obvious answer to this question would be, "of course." But what is it about religion that influences divorce?
Two sociologists at the University of Texas at Austin recently published their findings about the way in which religion shapes attitudes towards divorce in the Journal of Family Issues. Their study was based on more than 5,000 American adults in 2000, 2002, 2004 and 2006. This sample included many different ethnic, religious and educational groups. About 45 percent of the sample was married and never divorced, 29 percent were divorced and 25 percent were never married.
The study addressed three questions, and the answers are somewhat surprising.
Does religious affiliation in general matter?
First, Charles Stokes and Christopher Ellison asked the question, are people who profess to have a religious affiliation more likely to think divorce laws are too lax compared to people who are atheist or express no religious activities? They found that those with any religious affiliation, especially those who identify themselves as conservative Protestants were more likely to think that divorce laws needed to be stricter.
Do a person's views about the Bible matter?
Next, they asked if their view of the Bible matters. They were particularly interested in whether Americans who viewed the Bible as the "literal word of God" had different views than those who viewed the Bible as "inspired, but not literal" book. They hypothesized that people who viewed the Bible literally would be more likely to have more conservative views. The results indicated otherwise. Stokes and Ellison found that both groups were similar in their view that divorce laws were too lax. In short, it appears that the general belief that the Bible as an important book, either inspired or literal, did not make a difference in attitudes towards divorce.
Does church attendance matter?
Lastly, they asked if church attendance itself matters. Here they wanted to find out whether it was beliefs about religion in general or church attendance that was a better predictor of divorce beliefs. Their results indicated that church attendance was the strongest predictor of what a person thought about divorce law. Those who regularly attended church regardless of the religion were more likely to think that divorce laws should be stricter. In short, church attendance itself, not the profession of religious beliefs, was the strongest predictor of attitudes towards divorce.
So what should we make of these findings? First, it is interesting that over the last 40 years American attitudes towards divorce haven't changed. There is neither overwhelming support to make the laws stricter or more lenient. Like so many other cultural issues, we are divided. Some of the findings of this study seem obvious. Yes, those who profess any religious belief are more likely to want stricter laws about divorce. Most religions view marriage as important to the fabric of society and to the faithful. On the other hand, one might expect that those who hold a literal belief in the Bible might have had even more conservative views about divorce. This was not the case. And finally, it seems that the practice of religion through church attendance may be the critical feature in shaping these stricter views of divorce. Americans who regularly practice their faith, regardless of the type of faith, are more likely to think that divorce laws should be stricter.
No-fault divorce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No-Fault Divorce - The Pros and Cons Of No-Fault Divorce
Religion and divorce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jesus gives us one reason for divorce, Paul adds another which didn't exist until the resurrection.
I didn't want to get divorced. I got divorced because it was the only way for me to survice. I don't believe I went into my marriage lightly, either. I think that the supposed "fairness" of a no-fault divorce is unnecessarily punitive to many people who are making a good and sane choice.
It is the social coherence and conformity of a social structure that drive the desire of stability of marriage than religious values.
This is a very testable hypothesis and should be put to the test. Thanks for your thoughtful reading of these findings.
That having been said, I do feel for the plight of people aho are left by their spouses and have no say in the matter, however even with having to prove fault, it seems to almost always end up that the couple does get divorced, it just ends up being more costly to do so.
Asian faiths are about family values. They do not interfere with Politics for the most part.
But many are in denial.
We can argue about the specific roles of government and the church at present, what can and should be different, etc. There's a lot to discuss there. But marriage is the public delcaration of a new familial unit before the community. It must be public, must be on record, and must be official. The institution was never intended simply to bind two loving individuals together in a vaccuum.
All right, if we want to get real picky, marriage initially was about chattel. Nevertheless, that only broadens and strengthens my point that the point of the whole thing is not just between two people.
Sometimes. My daughter recently told me about her neighbor friend, an older woman who was married for like 40 years and then lost her husband. My daughter reports that her friend hates it when people say that. She says her husband and her had a good relationship, and it never felt like "work".
After all how good can it be if you "have to" in order to maintain it. I think we fall in love for whatever reason and the relationship takes on a pattern early on that pretty much becomes what it is. Some patterns work a lot better than others; work in the sense of maintaining intimacy and connection and emotional function. But unless the bad outweighs the good from the beginning we tend to stick with it. We're getting something out of it, and we don't know that there is something much better because we have never experienced it, especially if it wasn't present in our birth family.
I admire people who can stay together in marriage for a long period of time, some have grown closer but some have developed a tolerance for the other in the partnership. To those who have grown together, more power to them. To those who have learned to tolerate the other in their relationship, is that what you want? Some do. But for those who realize that tolerance is no longer an option, divorce should be easier and without stigma.
F&F
BYW..if you look at the link he provided. Notice the low divorce rate by Asians. That pretty much shows Asian faiths have better family values than any sections of christianity.
White 32%
African-American 36%
Hispanic 31%
Asian 20%
http://www.backyardmystic.com/2010/11/how-do-couples-stay-indivisible/