Marital commitment and the legal regulation of divorce

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511495328.003

3 - Marital commitment and the legal regulation of divorce

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 August 2009

Elizabeth S. Scott

Edited by

Antony W. Dnes and

Robert Rowthorn

Show author details

Elizabeth S. Scott: Affiliation:
Professor of Law University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA
Antony W. Dnes: Affiliation:
University of Hertfordshire
Robert Rowthorn: Affiliation:
University of Cambridge

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The question of the appropriate role of law in regulating marriage and divorce is the subject of much controversy in the United States – a raging battle of the “Culture Wars” (Hunter, 1991). On one side are social conservatives, who view divorce and family instability as an important source of societal decline. These advocates of “family values” adopt a somewhat punitive tone, arguing that the family can be saved only if the government restricts divorce, by reinstituting fault grounds and discouraging unhappy spouses from selfishly defecting from their responsibilities. Liberals tend to oppose all restrictions on divorce, partly on the ground that they will not be effective in promoting family stability or enhancing the welfare of children. More importantly perhaps, liberals challenge what they view as oppressive constraints on individual freedom.

Recently, conservatives have been encouraged by the introduction of covenant marriage statutes in a few US states. These laws allow couples to choose a marriage option that involves a legal commitment more binding than is allowed under conventional no-fault divorce law. Some proponents of covenant marriage are hopeful that it is part of a trend toward more restrictive divorce reforms – a return to a regime in which divorce is conditioned on fault. Not surprisingly, many liberals view covenant marriage with alarm – for the same reason that conservatives favor these laws.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: The Law and Economics of Marriage and Divorce , pp. 35 - 56

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511495328.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ainslie, George (1975), “Specious Reward: A Behavioral Theory of Impulsiveness and Impulse Control,” Psychological Bulletin, 82, 463CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Amato, Paul and Allen Booth (1997), A Generation at Risk: Growing up in an Era of Family Upheaval, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

American Law Institute (1999), “Compensatory Spousal Payments,” Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution, Philadelphia, PA: ALI

Baker, Lynn and Robert, Emery (1993), “When Every Relationship Is above Average: Perceptions and Expectations of Divorce at the Time of Marriage,” Law and Human Behavior, 17, 993CrossRef Google Scholar

Bishop, William (1984), “‘Is He Married?’ Marriage as Information,” University of Toronto Law Journal, 34, 245–63CrossRef Google Scholar

Eggars, Dave (2000), “Intimacies,” New York Times Magazine, 5 July, 76–7Google Scholar

Elster, Jon (1979), Ulysses and the Sirens: Studies in Rationality and Irrationality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Emery, Robert (1982), “Interparental Conflict and the Children of Discord and Divorce,” Psychological Bulletin, 92, 310CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Festinger, Leon (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Evanston, IL: Row Peterson

Festinger, Leon (1964), Conflict, Decision and Dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press

Glendon, Mary Anne (1984), “Family Law Reform in the 1980s,” Louisiana Law Review, 44, 1553Google Scholar

Haas, Theodore F. (1988) “The Rationality and Enforceability of Contractual Restrictions on Divorce,” North Carolina Law Review, 66, 879Google Scholar

Hunter, James (1991), Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, New York: Basic Books

Jacob, Herbert (1988), The Silent Revolution: The Transformation of Divorce Law in the United States, Chicago: University of Chicago Press

Parfit, Derek (1973), “Later Selves and Moral Principles.” in A. Montfiere (ed.), Philosophy and Personal Relations, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 137CrossRef

Posner, Eric (1999), “Family Law and Social Norms,” in Frank Buckley (ed.), The Fall and Rise of Freedom of Contract, Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 256

Rasmusen, Eric and Stake, Jeffrey E. (1998), “Lifting the Veil of Ignorance: Personalizing the Marriage Contract,” Indiana Law Journal, 73, 454–502Google Scholar

Schelling, Thomas (1984), “Self Command in Practice and in a Theory of Rational Choice,” American Economic Review, 74, 1Google Scholar

Schneider, Carl (1984), “Moral Discourse and the Transformation of American Family Law,” Michigan Law Review, 83, 1803CrossRef Google Scholar

Scott, Elizabeth S. (1990), “Rational Decision-making about Marriage and Divorce,” Virginia Law Review, 76, 9CrossRef Google Scholar

Scott, Elizabeth S. (2000), “Social Norms and the Legal Regulation of Marriage,” Virginia Law Review, 86, 1901CrossRef

Scott, Elizabeth S. and Scott, Robert E. (1998), “Marriage as Relational Contract,” Virginia Law Review, 84, 1225CrossRef Google Scholar

Scott, Robert and Douglas Leslie (1997), Contract Law and Theory, 2nd edn, Charlottesville, VA: Michie Press

Strotz, R. H. (1955–6), “Myopia and Inconsistency in Dynamic Utility Maximization,” Review of Economic Studies, 23, 165CrossRef Google Scholar

Trebilock, Michael (1999), “Marriage as a Signal,” in Frank Buckley (ed). The Fall and Rise of freedom of Contract, durham, NC: Duke University press, 245

Tversky, Amos and Daniel Kahnemann (1982), “Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases,” in D. Kahnemann, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds.). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.