Shouldn’t the divorce decree mention sexual unfaithfulness?
Question:
I wrote to you years ago concerning my ex-wife, who divorced me for desertion while I was stationed in another country while in the military. She has since passed away.
I've been a widower for years now and I've met a lady in the church. She has had two previous marriages, both, according to her, ending in divorce for cheating. I've no reason to doubt her as public knowledge has proved that out. My questions are:
- Will I be held accountable for a person saying things that may or may not be true about her past if with the passage of time proved otherwise? I asked her lots of questions so as not to put our souls at risk if we were to marry, and she readily answers them. In short, if I'm given false information about my questions to her, would I be held accountable for believing her?
- Jesus and the apostles' doctrine spoke of fornication being the only cause for divorce. I'm confused. Does the court system actually print out the cause on the divorce decree? The worldly governments allow anything these days. I know we are to obey God's law over the governments but should not the actual wording of fornication be spelled out on the decree instead of these other illegitimate excuses? I am just asking for a little guidance from God's word through you. I've studied the subject but haven't found one that specifically addresses the word fornication being written on the decree.
Thank you in advance and may God bless you and your work.
Answer:
Beginning in the late 1960s and into the 1970s, states switched their divorce laws to implement the concept of no-fault divorces. "No-fault divorce laws allow one person to dissolve a marriage without the consent of the spouse." ["No-fault Divorce Laws May Have Improved Women's Well-being," About.com]. Prior to this either both parties in marriage had to agree to the divorce, or the person filing for divorce had to prove just cause to dissolve the marriage over the spouse's objections. For thousands of years, marriage was viewed as a covenant relationship as taught in the Bible. "Yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant" (Malachi 2:14). Today, that covenant can be dismissed at a whim. It is easier today to break a marriage covenant than for a business to cancel its contract. Let me put this bluntly: the no-fault divorce laws in the United States are in direct violation of God's laws concerning promises, vows, oaths, and covenants.
Not that most people care, but it does cause difficulties for Christians trying to live under God's laws while everyone does their own thing. The snag comes in trying to resolve what is with what should be. When the Jews, trying to trap Jesus, asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" (Matthew 19:3), notice that no-fault divorce wasn't under consideration. Even those who thought any reason would do to file for a divorce still understood that some reason ought to be given. Today, a person can file for a divorce for no reason, and since no reason is involved, there is no need to prove that lack of reason is just.
This has caused a quagmire. In the past, the person who thought the other spouse was guilty of violating the marriage covenant would file for a divorce. Evidence would be asked for and examined and then a determination would be made as to whether the marriage should continue. Today, it is easy for the person who wants to break the covenant to file for a divorce. They can remove their spouse from any consideration. There is no compelling reason to solve the problem. A quick divorce is seen as a way to minimize long, drawn-out battles. In far too many cases, the innocent spouse is caught unaware of a problem until he or she receives the divorce papers. Hence, the filing of divorce has shifted from something innocent parties tended to file to something guilty parties tend to file to speed up their misdeeds.
Given this casual view of marriage by the government, it cannot be insisted that sexual immorality be listed on the paperwork regarding the divorce since the government has dropped specific charges for a generic “marital incompatibility” in its records.
In your case, you have her word and it was confirmed by others. Two or three witnesses are needed to establish a truth and you have those. You've done proper diligence and that is all that can be expected.
