No-Fault Divorce
Recent reports reveal that well-respected senior judicial figures are joining forces with The Times newspaper in an attempt to place “no fault” divorce onto the statute books of England and Wales – so seeking to bring them into line with the divorce laws in Scotland. They denounce what they call the “antediluvian, damaging” 50-year-old laws governing marital break-ups, asserting that they are unjust and outdated. The Times’ campaign to achieve sweeping reforms followed the release of a Nuffield Foundation report condemning existing divorce laws in England and Wales. The report maintained that current laws “forced” couples “to make false and exaggerated allegations of adultery or bad behaviour, causing bitterness and harm to children” during divorce proceedings.
Ironically this campaign claims to support the institution of marriage, stressing the necessity to “bolster family stability, end financial injustice and remove acrimony from divorce”. The changes sought include “scrapping fault-based divorce laws, allowing divorce within a year where both sides agree, and two where they do not – as in Scotland; ending the outdated . . . ‘meal ticket for life’ that can result from present laws on splitting assets and awarding maintenance after divorce”. Additionally there is a call to give pre-nuptial contracts the force of law, which they do not have at present. There is much cause for concern in these new proposals. If a couple (or even one of them) feels a pre-nuptial contract is necessary, perhaps they should be thinking twice before taking solemn marriage vows.
While reassessing the split of assets may, in some complex circumstances, have validity, the “no fault” scheme has a disturbing ring to it. Under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 the only ground for divorce in England and Wales is very clear: the marriage must have irretrievably broken down. To prove that, the person desiring a divorce must produce at least one of five reasons. Two of these reasons are adultery and desertion – both based on fault. Does this not agree with the teaching of the Bible and with our subordinate standard, The Westminster Confession of Faith? Are these campaigners and their supporters forgetting God’s purpose in marriage or are they just conveniently bypassing it to conform to society’s current norms? Yes, there may be dishonest claims and acrimony between divorcing parties, but these are sins and should not be covered over. Every endeavour should be explored to get to the truth and save the marriage – not to end it as easily and swiftly as possible with no blame attached to either party.
Sadly the Law Commission supports the new proposals, having put pressure
on successive governments to change the law. Nick Hopkins of the Commission said: “We recommended the introduction of no-fault divorce decades ago. The law isn’t working as it should be and we stand by our recommendations in the recent past.” Last year more than 100 lawyers marched to Parliament calling for more liberal laws. Nigel Shepherd of Resolution, a 6000-strong association of family lawyers and advice workers in England and Wales, said, “Our members have met with MPs from all parties on this very issue and received an almost universally positive response”. The Justice Secretary is also on record as saying he is “open minded” about a change. He added that, although the Government itself is unlikely to have the parliamentary time to introduce a family law reform bill, he made it clear that it could support a private member’s bill. This would almost certainly receive the backing of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs.
Coalition for Marriage (C4M), a leading British pro-marriage group, however, warns that weakening the law on marriage will cause great damage to society. It says that this campaign “would make divorce an administrative process that could not be defended in court by the abandoned party”. C4M fears that the introduction of no-fault divorce could result in the loss of 10 000 marriages a year and reduce the status of marriage “to that of a tenancy contract which can be dissolved at minimal notice”. It also cautions that weakening the law would put “the most vulnerable at risk” – for example, those who become disabled or suffer financial losses. Under current legislation they have protection and cannot be divorced on these grounds.
When these plans were mooted a few years ago, Sir Edward Leigh MP said that, while introducing “no-fault” divorce might appear a “common-sense thing to do”, it would have a “large, widespread and demonstrable effect” on society. Referring to Canada, which approved “no-fault” divorce in 1968, he warned that subsequently the divorce rate increased. He added, “Despite the obvious problems that sometimes occur in a marriage, the emphasis in recent years has been on strengthening marriage as an institution. Bringing in no-fault divorce, while seeking to ameliorate one problem, would undermine that new appreciation by making divorce easier, and thus [increase] the number of divorces. That is the crucial point.”
Andrea Williams of Christian Concern echoes these sentiments: “Divorce is obviously painful, but the right response is not to diminish the significance of break-up. Rather, we should work harder to encourage, support and equip people to thrive within marriage. As the evidence repeatedly shows, marriage provides the best outcome for adults, children and the wider community. This is not surprising, given that God designed it.”
We must go back to the Bible and to the Westminster Confession, which
states, “Nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can in no way be remedied by the church or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage” (24:6). Jesus solemnly declares in Matthew 19:9: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery”. The new proposals ride roughshod over these absolute biblical standards.
KHM
“Unkind and Destructive”
Rev Kelvin Holdsworth, the Provost of St Mary’s Episcopal Cathedral in Glasgow, has said that people should pray for Prince George to be homosexual in order to help the Church of England come to terms with same-sex “marriage”. This depraved and profoundly-ungodly idea is one further indication of how far the toleration and promotion of gross sin has advanced in Britain. It is evil enough when leading politicians use their influence to further the sin of Sodom, but when high-profile Church figures debase their office to such depths of iniquity, we may well tremble for the future of our society.
We entirely agree with the views expressed by Gavin Ashenden, a former chaplain to the Queen and a Christian Episcopal Church missionary bishop, who said the comments were not Christian: “To use prayer as a mechanism for wishing this on Prince George is an unkind and destructive thing to do . . . . It doesn’t have the Prince’s best interests at heart, but uses him as a gender-political football to please 1.7% of the population.” Mr Ashenden points out that it is now considered “totally unacceptable” to pray for people “to be free from being gay and to resume a sexuality that was in tune with their biology”. The words of Isaiah (5:20) are most applicable in this matter: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” AWM
Free Church Film Review
A sad piece in the Free Church Record reviews a recent science-fiction film, comparing it with a film from 35 years ago to which it is a sequel. The purpose of the review is to show how the perspective on human life has changed over those 35 years. In the course of the review, brief descriptions are given of scenes of indecency, violence, and suffering in both films, but with no comment on the unsuitability of such material for public viewing. Even some of the language used in the review is unsuitable for a Christian publication.
The review speaks about “morality”, but says nothing whatever about Christ or religion. One wonders why it was included. The review itself is a
reflection of the age in which it was written and of the low state of Scottish Christianity – mesmerised by the world instead of looking up in faith to heaven. “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Phil 4:8). DWBS