Chisum Says He Will Try Again With Bill To Create Two Year Waiting Period On Divorces In Texas

State Rep. Warren Chisum (R-Pampa) must be restless. Evidently unsatisfied with making sure that the bible must be taught in public school classrooms, briefly becoming one of the most talked-about alleged “flat earthers” in the nation, and crusading against gays becoming foster parents, Chisum now has a new crusade: creating a two-year waiting period before couples are allowed to divorce.

Yes, you read that right: Warren Chisum will author a bill in the 81st session of the Texas Legislature creating a two-year waiting period before a divorce can be finalized. If you happen to be a math genius, then you’ll quickly note that Chisum’s proposed waiting period, if passed, would mean you can go out and buy a handgun quicker than you can get a divorce in Texas. How appropos.

Of course, all of this is part of the Republicans’ endless crusade to defend marriage (except their own). From what they’re trying to defend marriage, we’re not sure. First it was gays. Now, it appears that they are trying to defend marriage from divorce altogether.  Here is what Chisum has to say on this:

“The deal is, we need to take marriage more seriously,” said Chisum, who in October will celebrate his 51st wedding anniversary.

(Of course, if Chisum is subscribing to the Pat Robertson Theory on no-fault divorce, i.e., “You go back to the various laws that took away the difficulty of getting a divorce, and the people leading the charge were homosexuals, way back in the ’70s. So we have no-fault divorce,” then I suppose this still falls under defending marriage from gay people.)

Now, it’s wonderful that Rep. Chisum has been married 51 years, but I’m not sure why the folks at the Austin American-Statesman thought it was relevant to include that. Either way, the “we need to take marriage more seriously,” is a bit, well…how shall we say….”bogus?”

At present, it takes 60 days to finalize a divorce in Texas. Given that most people who divorce have already tried to save their marriage in some way, shape, or form, I’m not sure why it is a good idea to make the state “big brother” in this situation with a two-year waiting period.

Of course, though, this is a big pet-project of the right-wing Texas Conservative Coalition Research Institue. Chisum is president of the Institute’s board.

Before we get to more reasons why this is wrong, let’s consider something else this is about: money.

While I honestly believe that Rep. Chisum is sincere in his desire to save marriages and prevent divorce, some of those pusing the issue–and using Chisum’s bill to do so–are not. Regardless of claims that groups like Marriage Savers (a group quoted in the Statesman article that helped change Maryland’s divorce law to require a waiting period of up to two years) make about marriage, they are all about the Benjamins, not saving marriages.

Consider this: the complaining about “no-fault” divorces has existed for many years, but it didn’t really ramp up and move into high gear until after George W. Bush became president and “faith-based initiatives” became a huge buzzword (not to mention cash cow) for a lot of folks. Enter the no-fault divorce opponents, who can garner fat government contracts for their programs or mega bucks off the fact that clients are refered by courts.

Michael McManus, the co-founder of Marriage Savers, has already benefitted from government contracts for his work. How many half-assed right-wing mini-Marriage Savers are there in Texas? How many “Christian Counselors” want to line up and be listed on sheets handed out in the local District Clerk’s office as an approved service provider for whatever mandatory counseling program the bill might ultimately include? The answer? A lot. A hell of a lot.

Once again, the right wing and the Religious Right see a money-making opportunity so they cloak it in something like this to make government swallow it and then shower it all over the people.

All of that, of course, doesn’t even begin to address the other problems or complications with legislation such as that Chisum proposes. The bill from last session (which mercifully failed in Committee) did include a provision related to family violence–but it required one party to have obtained a protective order, which is easier said than done in many cases for many reasons.

A two-year waiting period would be a disaster. For one thing, you can’t expect the couple to live together during this time, but family violence will likely be an issue. Too, you have financial issues such as what happens to money earned, retirement savings earned, etc. during the two-year hiatus. Chisum’s bill does nothing to address what happens in the pendancy of those two years. Would temporary spousal support still be an option?

Chisum’s legislation is just a bad idea.

Tweet This Post   Ping This Post

Bookmark It