The logic of your argument appeals to me, Orrin, but then I remember that the Church I was raised in claimed the right to tell me whom to marry.

Dismaying to see your link is to the still-ongoing "study" by Judith Wallerstein. Said study, consisting of 131 children of divorced parents has no control group (this is what you had originally characterized as not meeting "rigorous scientific standards"). Beyond this, the story behind how Wallerstein found her original sample of divorcing parents with children has changed from book to book. Her more recent tomes have neglected to mention that she advertised for those couples by offering "divorce counseling"--in short, she selected initially for parents who were not dealing with their divorces very well. In Wallersteins's original book, those parents were a rather disturbed bunch, suffering from a variety of psychological problems.

As essayist Katha Pollitt noted, "In short, what we have here are not generic white suburbanites who threw away workable marriages in order to actualize their human potential in a Marin County hot tub. We have sixty disastrous families, featuring crazy parents, economic insecurity, trapped wives and, as Wallerstein does discuss, lots of violence (one-quarter of the fathers beat their wives; out of the 131 children, thirty-two had witnessed such attacks). How on earth can she claim that divorce is what made her young people's lives difficult? The wonder is that they are doing as well as they are."

I have no doubt that divorce can and does have negative effects on many children. What is not clear, however, is how the effects of divorce compare to the negative effects that precede it.

M-

Common sense used to mean something when determining the consequences of one's actions. In the brave new world of intellectual rationalization, which I hope we are beginning to outgrow, it no longer seems to have any weight. Think for a moment about the effect of a divorce on young children. It's not hard to imagine, unless one cannot see beyond their personal, narrow and what they believe to be their immediate self-interest. Properly structured statistical analysis is meaningless in these areas.

Harry-

Who cares what the "church" claims. It only matters if you believe in their authority. Last I looked, the coercive power of the church was ZERO.

The review was interesting, although I don't think the punitive measures therein would have any impact whatsoever (and very difficult to enact in a Republic where the target of your legislative ire is nearly a majority).

Mr. Bulgers comments are very incisive. The problem with any study such as this is the dreaded Range Restriction Error. The population of divorced people does not share all the characteristics of the population of never divorced people. Otherwise, they would not have divorced in the first place. Therefore, the assertions about the damage divorce does to children almost certainly overstate the reality.

Full disclosure: I am the child of divorced parents. It wasn't wonderful, but there are far worse things.

Like losing a parent to death, which probably happened as often a century ago as divorce does today. But our forebears somehow managed to deal with it.

Regarding the restrictions:

#6: Perhaps for a "probationary" period of a year or two.

#8: You'd merely see a vast increase in claims of said abuse, and it's already common for such claims to be made.

Tom C.:

You vastly overestimate the damage done to the average child, due to divorce. Average, I say. We can all dredge up marginal cases that illustrate our various points.

Tom, I am shocked -- SHOCKED I tell you -- that you dismiss the strength of moral suasion.

Anyhow, the proposal on the table is to use coercion, so if the church was able to do damage without it, then imagine how much more damage the state -- I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you -- could do.

Harry-

I miss your point. The power of physical coercion will always lie somewhere. In the USA we place it in the limited and defined power of the state. Moral or religious teaching is persuasion not the police power. If human society could operate on moral suasion rather than the police power I think even you would be happy.

Well, ask yourself, Am I prepared to be coerced on this?

And if your answer is yes, then who is so placed as to make the decisions about your marriage?

Jeff:

You are wrong to analogize divorce to death. Death of a parent can be devastating, but at least the child can understand it wasn't the parent's choice.

Do you remember the Peanuts strip where Charlie Brown and his friends went into a deep funk when they learned their teacher was getting paid--they thought she did it because she loved them. Kids do not understand that they are not the only thing that matters to their parents...and they shouldn't be told that.

Sorry, that was me.