Summer Sale Extended! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
News Opinion Op-Eds

Maryland threatens the sanctity of divorce

American family values are under siege again, this time in Maryland.

Two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience are at the mercy of the state's Court of Appeals. The decision of the seven-judge panel may corrupt one of the most fundamental institutions of civilization: divorce. First some courts let kids divorce their parents. Now Maryland's appellate court has to decide if the state should sanctify the separation of a married same-sex couple.

Gay marriage isn't currently legal in Maryland — legislation allowing it was recently signed by Gov.Martin O'Malley, but it doesn't take effect until next year. In the meantime, the court is being forced to decide whether it can dissolve a marriage that the state doesn't recognize. By hearing the case, Maryland's judiciary assumed a power that threatens the historic concept of divorce.

Authorizing divorce for gays and children abolishes that institution as we know it. Were Jerry Falwell still with us, he would surely declare: "We need to protect the sacred Biblical definition of divorce from the reach of unelected judges."

Court approval of homosexual divorce starts us down an irreversible slippery slope, opening the door to sibling and polygamous divorce, making a mockery of traditional separation. With divorce cheapened by opening it to gays, straights won't file for it. In the Biblical view, honored in cultures around the world, divorce is between one man and one woman, sanctioned in Heaven, blessed by God and esteemed by religions worldwide.

As proof, nearly half the marriages in this nation, founded on Judeo-Christian principles, end in dissolution. The other half end with death of a spouse before divorce can be consummated.

Now same-sex divorce threaten the very social fabric of American life, changing the institution's definition. WhatGeorge W. Bushsaid about marriage applies equally well here: "[Divorce] cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening all of society."

Fortunately, Florida's judicial system got something right. Its appellate court ruled that people undergoing sex change operations can't divorce since their marriage was illegal in the first place.

Alas, Florida stands alone in protecting the sanctity of divorce. Voters in several other states have enacted constitutional amendments to ban homosexual marriage but ignored divorce. Despite the Republican commitment to family values and the protection of marriage, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has failed to enact legislation protecting divorce from frivolous and demeaning legal efforts at same-sex separation.

Only an act of Congress defining divorce in its traditional context can save it. Now is the time for that champion of social conservatism, presidential hopeful Rick Santorum, to add one more plank to his platform. In addition to his anti-contraception, anti-abortion, anti-same-sex marriage views, Mr. Santorum should now urge congressional adoption of SODA, the "Sanctity of Divorce Act." His previous statement in defense of marriage would need only slight tweaking: "The states are powerless on this issue, and the courts have shown that they are all over the map regarding traditional divorce."

We need SODA now, allowing states to nullify same-sex splits legalized by other states. As a sop to gays who wish to divorce, let's enact "Civil Disunion" laws that stop short of divorce but allow separating same-sex couples to sever insurance, medical, community property and other ties acquired through "marriage."

But don't count on politicians. Although divorce is nonpartisan, enjoyed by Democrats (John Kerry) and Republicans (Rudy Giuliani), spineless elected officials quake in fear of the same-sex juggernaut despite overwhelming public support for traditional divorce.

Most religious leaders are afraid to speak out on this issue.

We can only hope that some brave clerics will deny communion to elected officials who support gay divorce, applying that same rule to voters who cast ballots for them. The pews, not the pulpits, truly represent American opinion on this issue.

The politically correct may plead the inevitability of universal, same-sex divorce. But in America the people rule, not politicians, clergy or judges.

So, Rick Santorum, are you ready to nudge John Boehner and his Republican House into passage of the "Sanctity of Divorce Act?"

Ralph E. Shaffer is professor emeritus of history at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. His email is

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Marriage equality can't wait

    Marriage equality can't wait

    In 1967 when the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws banning interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, there was not a single dissent. Never mind that Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute had been in the books since 1924. The justices unanimously found discrimination in the institution of marriage...

  • How will Kennedy vote on same-sex marriage?

    How will Kennedy vote on same-sex marriage?

    As a long-time civics teacher I follow the Supreme Court's decisions very carefully. I have long admired Justice Anthony Kennedy because he is the swing vote on the court and his decisions are often unpredictable.

  • Court's silence on marriage speaks volumes [Editorial]

    Court's silence on marriage speaks volumes [Editorial]

    Our view: Same-sex marriage is set to be legal in a majority of states, making eventual Supreme Court victory appear inevitable

  • Religious beliefs can't excuse discrimination

    Religious beliefs can't excuse discrimination

    A recent suggestion that some people should be exempt from serving gays because of their religious beliefs is nonsense. If you are licensed to provide a service or employed by the government to do so, you are required to perform that service without unlawful discrimination. Neither government employment...

  • Equality in Alabama

    Equality in Alabama

    These are heady days for advocates of marriage equality. The Supreme Court is due to hear arguments this spring in a group of cases that could settle the question of a national Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and this week, a decision not to enter a stay on the enforcement of a federal...

  • Yes, some people do follow the Bible to the letter

    Yes, some people do follow the Bible to the letter

    In his recent column ("The conservative case for same-sex marriage," March 29), Eddie Zipperer gives three reasons why conservatives should favor same sex marriage. I find his second, poking fun at the Bible, to be both offensive and ignorant.

  • Get states out of the marriage business

    Get states out of the marriage business

    In light of the recent Supreme Court on same sex marriage being protected under the Constitution ("Freedom to marry," June 27), there is now a movement afoot in Montana by a Mormon, Nathan Collier, who is legally married to Vicki, to be allowed to marry his second wife, Christine. Many have predicted...

  • Selective reading of Leviticus won't justify bigotry

    Selective reading of Leviticus won't justify bigotry

    Letter writer Adam Goldfinger objected to Eddie Zipperer's references to Leviticus and states that he does indeed try to follow the laws in this book ("Yes, some people do follow the bible to the letter," April 3). I find myself wondering how many people Mr. Goldfinger has personally stoned to...