Rabbis said to use torture to secure divorces for women

[Malthus]

Malthus, I'm done here.  If you think your tone and manner of discussion throughout this thread was appropriate, then it's a bigger problem for you than it is for me.

Okay ...

[Malthus]

It's an invitation to sharpen the argument. Prove me wrong. 

Your arguments all suck and I win. 

Good.

Now add such details as "proof" and "argument".

[merithyn]

I don't think it should be the responsibility of the justice system to fix a given religion's inconsistencies.

It isn't doing that.

It is threatening punishment for failure to remove a religious bar to remarriage. In  the specific case of Judaism, the religion itself is not "inconsistent" - the man is obligated to do just that - provide the 'get'.

Still, the point is that it's a religious matter.  If religious authorities lack the means to enforce a religious environment, then it's their problem to solve, not secular legal system's.

I think these are the arguments that were given that you seem to have disregarded, Malthus.

[Berkut]

I don't understand the angst. I don't see this as a seperation issue at all.

Well, except insofar as the secular courts getting mixed up religious marriage in general.

Marriage within a religion is commonly recognized as being secularly valid as well, as long as the religious ceremony is completed properly.

If there is a requirement that hoops X, Y, and Z be jumped through before the religious ceremony which ends that marriage is properly fulfilled, I do not see any reason why a secular court would not hold that

A) Said divorce is not complete until said hoops jumping has been fulfilled (within reason), and
B) Being able to hold participants involved as being secularly responsible for jumping through said hoops in order to allow their spouse to be free to live their lives normally.

I think there is a real issue that has to be recognized - the state, if it is going to recognize religious marriage and religious divorce, has a stake in the process, and hence the power to compel both parties to complete whatever is necessary to allow the other party whatever level of freedom their practice allows.

On the other hand...some religions don't really recognize divorce at all. What about a religion where the "get" is not compelled? Should the spoouse who wants a divorce never be allowed to have one if the other spouse is not obligated to give it?

In other words, what if the crazy fundy Ortho Jew rules said "Wife cannot remarry without a get. Husband is not compelled to give said get"? Then what?

Or for that matter, what if the religion simply states that once married, no-one can ever re-marry, period?

[Admiral Yi]

Good.

Now add such details as "proof" and "argument".

No need until you sharpen your game.

[The Brain]

It seems insane for a court to get involved in a religious matter like that. I hope Swedish courts don't do that (but they suck ass bigtime so they probably do).

[OttoVonBismarck]

Did you not bother to read the commentary on the case law in various other states ... and how Constitutional arguments against orders of the sort contemplated in the Ontario law have been tried and failed? 

No, for the purposes of this internet discussion we about hit my limits of "giving a fuck" after I spent five minutes finding sec. 253 of the New York divorce/marriage law, so I didn't go ahead and read the case law.

For the reading-impaired, I repeat it:

There is, however, case law in the statutory annotations of many states; this means that in any state, a court may or may not order a husband to give a get, depending on the circumstances of the case.  Get cases are sometimes argued under the “free exercise” clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  For example, in one New Jersey divorce case, the court decided that forcing the husband to give a get fulfilled the secular purpose of completing the divorce; since no religious ritual was required in order to obtain the get, and since the get in no way impacted his ability to practice his religion, his First Amendment rights were not infringed by this requirement.

Emphasis. Added.

This is talking about New Jersey for one, so that does not invalidate my analysis of New York State's law. I would need to actually read the cases in question and ascertain the circumstances therein, in both Mississippi and New Jersey, to begin to understand whether or not I should concede this point to you. However, due to my above mentioned hitting of the "give a fuck" limit, I'll skip with that and just assume you're right in how you're reporting the state of the law.

That actually doesn't change my objection, though, specifically wrt Canadian law. It seems that to me U.S. courts occasionally order weird things in civil trials, we've all heard of the strange court orders that pass constitutional muster. So if this is something we do then so be it, and I'm even okay with someone being jailed on civil contempt--a court order is a court order, if it's valid and you willfully disobey it civil contempt is the appropriate remedy.

But it seems like to me in America the position is "we can give you a court order to do this stuff, and if you don't, you're in civil contempt." Okay, I'm not supportive of that, but the process at least passes the smell test. In Canada it seemed like you were saying, "if you don't give the get, we treat the man badly in future proceedings." That would seem to offend justice to me, instead of the court ordering the guy to do something and then punishing him with fines or civil contempt imprisonment for disobeying it you're saying Canadian courts ding him on unrelated issues like child custody and disposition of assets. In the United States those sort of things, handled in a family court, are primarily supposed to be informed by issues relating to the well being of the children and the various laws that govern equitable division of marital assets. It seems perverse to me (if what you suggested is true) if all that goes out the window in Canada if someone refuses to do something. Even civil contempt individuals here still maintain equality under the law in their other court hearings.

[derspiess]

In other words, what if the crazy fundy Ortho Jew rules said "Wife cannot remarry without a get. Husband is not compelled to give said get"? Then what?

Or for that matter, what if the religion simply states that once married, no-one can ever re-marry, period?

In my brother's wacky church, he is allowed to remarry but his ex-wife isn't because she initiated the divorce.  He warned her about this before she moved forward with it, and she said she had already thought it through and was fine with the consequences.  So basically she was saying she would rather be alone for the rest of her life than stay married to him

[Jacob]

In my brother's wacky church, he is allowed to remarry but his ex-wife isn't because she initiated the divorce.  He warned her about this before she moved forward with it, and she said she had already thought it through and was fine with the consequences.  So basically she was saying she would rather be alone for the rest of her life than stay married to him

That or, "... and I'm ready to get a new church should the need arise."

[Malthus]

I don't think it should be the responsibility of the justice system to fix a given religion's inconsistencies.

It isn't doing that.

It is threatening punishment for failure to remove a religious bar to remarriage. In  the specific case of Judaism, the religion itself is not "inconsistent" - the man is obligated to do just that - provide the 'get'.

Still, the point is that it's a religious matter.  If religious authorities lack the means to enforce a religious environment, then it's their problem to solve, not secular legal system's.

I think these are the arguments that were given that you seem to have disregarded, Malthus.

Marriage itself is, in many cases, a "religious matter" that is "enforced by the secular legal system". You get married in a Church ceremony, it has "secular legal system" implications - the secular authorities will give that act a legal meaning, indeed "enforce" it, even though it took place in a "religious environment".

So I'm not seeing why this is an issue. Or if it is, isn't having church weddings just as much of an issue? Yet every state allows them.

[Maximus]

... except that you have failed to articulate any rules or principles being "bent" other than 'I don't like it, no sirree'.

I'm not sure where this hostility is coming from, but I believe that I did articulate such principles repeatedly.  Just because you can cite legal opinions that disagree with my interpretation of such principles does not negate the fact that I did state these principles.

What "hostility"?  Is claiming someone is wrong or hasn't articulated a point a hostile act for you?  This is the second time you have passively-aggressively claimed I'm being mean. What gives with you?

That sounds like hostility, doesn't it?

And we don't like hostility, do we, Errol?

No, we don't, John.

[Admiral Yi]

You missed Meri's point Malthus, which was that your claim that DG's position boiled down to "i don't like it" was unwarranted.

[garbon]

I don't think it should be the responsibility of the justice system to fix a given religion's inconsistencies.

It isn't doing that.

It is threatening punishment for failure to remove a religious bar to remarriage. In  the specific case of Judaism, the religion itself is not "inconsistent" - the man is obligated to do just that - provide the 'get'.

Still, the point is that it's a religious matter.  If religious authorities lack the means to enforce a religious environment, then it's their problem to solve, not secular legal system's.

I think these are the arguments that were given that you seem to have disregarded, Malthus.

Marriage itself is, in many cases, a "religious matter" that is "enforced by the secular legal system". You get married in a Church ceremony, it has "secular legal system" implications - the secular authorities will give that act a legal meaning, indeed "enforce" it, even though it took place in a "religious environment".

So I'm not seeing why this is an issue. Or if it is, isn't having church weddings just as much of an issue? Yet every state allows them.

Except that I thought the part that makes it legal is the officiant (in the above cases the religious one) solemnizing the marriage license. Is the marriage still legal without that paperwork?

Doesn't strike me in anyway similar to penalizing someone in legal proceedings because they won't grant a religious divorce to their former spouse.

[Malthus]

This is talking about New Jersey for one, so that does not invalidate my analysis of New York State's law. I would need to actually read the cases in question and ascertain the circumstances therein, in both Mississippi and New Jersey, to begin to understand whether or not I should concede this point to you. However, due to my above mentioned hitting of the "give a fuck" limit, I'll skip with that and just assume you're right in how you're reporting the state of the law.

That actually doesn't change my objection, though, specifically wrt Canadian law. It seems that to me U.S. courts occasionally order weird things in civil trials, we've all heard of the strange court orders that pass constitutional muster. So if this is something we do then so be it, and I'm even okay with someone being jailed on civil contempt--a court order is a court order, if it's valid and you willfully disobey it civil contempt is the appropriate remedy.

But it seems like to me in America the position is "we can give you a court order to do this stuff, and if you don't, you're in civil contempt." Okay, I'm not supportive of that, but the process at least passes the smell test. In Canada it seemed like you were saying, "if you don't give the get, we treat the man badly in future proceedings." That would seem to offend justice to me, instead of the court ordering the guy to do something and then punishing him with fines or civil contempt imprisonment for disobeying it you're saying Canadian courts ding him on unrelated issues like child custody and disposition of assets. In the United States those sort of things, handled in a family court, are primarily supposed to be informed by issues relating to the well being of the children and the various laws that govern equitable division of marital assets. It seems perverse to me (if what you suggested is true) if all that goes out the window in Canada if someone refuses to do something. Even civil contempt individuals here still maintain equality under the law in their other court hearings.

The situation in Canada is simply a specific case of the "clean hands" doctrine, codified. I posted the law upthread.

What happens under the Ontario statute (it varies by province, just as yours varies by state) is that, in relation to certain specified matters having to do with spousal support and division of assets (not custody), your claims or defences may be struck out if you don't give a "get".

This is far, far less onerous and intrusive than holding someone in contempt. You can go to jail for contempt.

Are you seriously claiming that having your claims or defences struck out for a very limited class of claims is more "perverse" than being jailed for contempt for the same thing? 

[Malthus]

You missed Meri's point Malthus, which was that your claim that DG's position boiled down to "i don't like it" was unwarranted.

I already conceded that point.