For better, for worse, in dream or in reality

I dream the strangest things. Sometimes I dream jokes that are still funny when I'm awake, even to other people. (To my wife, at least.)

But last week I dreamed a public policy dream that might even be worth sending to my state representative.

I dreamed that Congress passed a law that the granting of a divorce required the signatures of the officiant and one of the witnesses from the wedding.

This means that if someone wants a divorce, they must contact the clergyman or judge who performed service of marriage, plus at least one of the witnesses who signed the marriage certificate (e.g., Best Man or Maid of Honor), and obtain their signatures on the application for the divorce.

Provisions:
- If the officiant is deceased or for whatever reason no longer performing marriages, the officiant's successor or delegate within the officiating organization may provide a signature.
- If a witness is deceased or incapacitated, inheritance rules apply. If a witness cannot be located, the court may designate a proxy witness. (Note that most divorces happen well within the lifespans of the witnesses. Those who seek divorces late in life will have a harder time.)

The point is that those who profess to regard marriage as more than a legal contract can expect the state to support their beliefs and hold them to them. If marriage participants are not comfortable with the commitments required of the officiating organization, they must find an organization that supports whatever escape clause they want.

In legal terms, this policy prevents one party from wresting control of a legal contract from other stakeholders. In a marriage within the church, those stakeholders include the officiant and witnesses.

It prevents a religiously ambivalent couple from using the church to obtain a marriage and thereafter disregarding its influence.

In colloquial terms, it keeps us all honest. It treats marriage seriously. It causes us as a society to put more thought into both marriage and divorce.

This policy does not weaken the state's power to perform marriages, but inhibits its power to grant divorces to those who marry in the church. It takes nothing from the rights of couples to marry, but places on them the responsibility to carefully choose the organization in which they marry and uphold the rules of that organization. If that organization is the state, "no-fault divorce" remains the option assuming the judge and court witnesses are agreeable. If that organization is a Catholic parish, a legal divorce could not be obtained until an annulment is granted by the Church. A protestant church pastor or other clergyman may grant a divorce under the rules of the given organization.

This does not violate "separation of church and state," but affirms the church has a stake in marriages it performs. It preserves religious freedom by upholding the authority of religious organizations.
It further admonishes the church to prepare applicants for marriage and carefully consider which marriages to perform. It gives legal weight to church marriage.

The state can grant a "no-fault" divorce if the state officiated it, but the state cannot usurp the authority of the church to divide "what God has joined together."

To reiterate, this policy:

- Strengthens the inherent link between a divorce and a wedding.
- Eliminates unilateral ending of a union. (The dissolution of a union involves the parties who participated in it inception.)
- Slows down the divorce process for those who profess a faith that resists divorce
- Affirms religious beliefs of churches and marriage participants
- Allows state and religious organizations to continue to perform marriages, respective of religious beliefs

The bottom line is, if your belief in no-fault divorce is stronger than your belief in the permanence of marriage, don't marry in the church. Or, find a pastor who approves the conditions under which you want to be able to end the marriage. Choose an officiant who reflects your beliefs about marriage, and know that the state will support you in living out those beliefs.

I am interested to hear what others think about this idea. Does it have merit? In my dream, this was a federal law, but I know it should actually be implemented at the state level. (Such details aren't so clear when I'm asleep.)

I wish to point out that I do not support "no-fault divorce." At the very least, couples ought to agree to divorce, but some believe "no-fault divorce" provides a necessary escape from an abusive marriage. I thought the policy I've described here might be appealing to those who support that escape clause but believe in accountability.

This policy could even allow a state to define marriage as it chooses, but preserve the rights of churches to hold more restrictive definitions. I do not support the redefinition of marriage by states or the federal government, but again, the policy described here could promote accountability even under those cirumstances.

Let my comments here not be construed in any way to trivialize the pain of divorce. On the contrary, I have witnessed the devastation families undergo when marriages break up. Divorce is always nothing less than a tragedy. But how many in struggling marriages seek the counsel of those who married them before contemplating divorce? Do officiants and witnesses have no interest after the wedding day? Even among divorcees, few deny that some divorces are frivolous. Could a policy like this avert at least some of those?

I invite discussion on this.