Tuna again In Fault-Finding England It's a Cause for Divorce by Sarah Lyall - Essay Example

Tuna again? In fault-finding England, its a cause for divorce A rebuttal In her article for The New York Times, Sarah Lyall takes a comedic approach to explain to readers the differences in marriage law between the United States and England, and more specifically, the absurdities of the English divorce law. She lists a number of humorous examples of the consequences of English divorce law, such as complaints that the husband switched channels too quickly or had awful body odor. As Lyall discusses, England does not have a no-fault divorce law, and consequently, in order to divorce one or both members of the couple must give a specific grievance. Because of this, complaints include the mundane, absurd and occasionally the bizarre. However, I argue that Lyall takes a serious subject much too lightly and that her implied ‘solution’, does nothing to fix the problem, instead it is an attempt to hold the rest of the world to a particular standard, which does not appear to be working very well anyway. Lyall is adamant about criticizing the United Kingdom system of divorce, implying that the most effective solution for the problem of divorces in the United Kingdom would be to move to the American model, and allow for no-fault divorce. However, how much of a problem is there in the United Kingdom? In the United Kingdom, the divorce rate for 2010 is 11.1 divorces per 1,000 individuals in the married population. If one takes into account the fact that a married couple consists of two individuals, this is a rate of a little over 20% of marriages fail (Rogers 2011). Furthermore, it is estimated that around 70% of these divorces occur for first marriages (Divorce Rate 2009), suggesting that either people learn from their mistakes, or that few remarry. These statistics are different in the United States, where the divorce rate is approximately 50% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2012), that is, half of all marriages end in divorce. The relationship of divorce to number of marriage is also different, with second marriages having a higher rate of divorce than first, and third marriages having an even higher rate (Divorce Rate 1999). These figures suggest that marriages fare significantly better in the United Kingdom than in the United States. This might be a result of the United Kingdom system of divorce being more difficult, but the article by Lyall implies this is not the case. She suggests that results are not more complicated in the United Kingdom, just that they focus on more trivial matters. Therefore, if this trend is not caused by a difficultly in divorcing, the next logical answer is that marriages in the United Kingdom fare better than their United States counterparts. This raises some important questions. For example, does the United Kingdom system of divorce help to keep couples together? This argument is not as unreasonable as it sounds as thinking and writing out reasons for the divorce may help couples to confront their problems, and to realize how trivial many of these actually are. This allows room for much more reflection than the American process, where couples may not even be certain between themselves why they are divorcing. Lyall argues that creating a no-fault divorce would remove the requirement for judges and lawyers to determine fault in the divorce. As she explains, currently under the United Kingdom law a divorce must fall into one of five categories before it can be granted. The most common category is unreasonable behavior, which as Lyall shows, can cover a wide range of different types of behavior. However, Lyall appears to believe that moving to a no-fault divorce system would not increase the rates of divorce. This argument is heavily flawed, as by its very nature, making divorce easier would increase how often it occurs. For example, in the United Kingdom the practice of extended separation is common, and this is often used to provide evidence for a future divorce claim (National Family Mediation 2010). This practice can help couples to understand what they lose from a divorce, and has the potential to help some couples reconciliate at a later point in time. If a no-fault divorce is introduced, the practice of separation is likely to decrease. In her article, Lyall focuses on the absurdities that occur because of the United Kingdom’s divorce law. In doing so she ignores the importance of the institution of marriage, instead focusing on making the process simpler. As Lyall considers, albeit briefly, there has been a push for a no-fault divorce in the United Kingdom for many years, and this was repealed in 1996 specifically for the reasons that I have forward in this rebuttal. A no-fault divorce would make it too easy for couples to divorce, and is likely that this would significantly increase the rates of divorce within the country. Perhaps, a better approach is to educate people looking at getting married about what will be involved if they do decide to divorce at a later date. Alternative, or in addition to this, couples who are seeking divorce could be provided with counseling to help them determine whether their decision is one they will regret in the long term. Contrary to Lyall’s assertions, a non-fault divorce is not the answer to problem with the United Kingdom’s divorce law, and perhaps, there really is not a problem at all. After all, giving people an easy way out of a marriage is not necessarily the best solution, and as trends in the United States show, second and third marriages are common, and have even higher rates of divorce than first marriage. Furthermore, the differences in divorce rates between the United States and the United Kingdom suggest that a no-fault divorce law does substantially increase the proportion of marriages that end in divorce. Lyall presents a humorous story that attempts to make a well-established law appear foolish. Her approach is not the answer. There is a need to protect the institution of marriage, rather than provide an easy way out for people who knew full well what they were getting themselves into. References Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Marriage and Divorce". 2012. (March 29). April 10 2012. . Divorce Rate. "Divorce Rate". 1999. April 10 2012. . ---. "Divorce Rate in UK". 2009. April 10 2012. . Lyall, S. "Tuna again? In fault-finding England, its a cause for divorce." The New York Times April 8 2012. Print. National Family Mediation. "Support me, Im separating". 2010. April 10 2012. . Rogers, S. "Divorce rates data, 1858 to now: why are divorces going up?". 2011. Datablog. The Guardian (December 8). April 10 2012. . Read More