The case against divorce.

When politicians debate the causes of the family breakup in the inner city, they never mention this statistical couplet: While the rate of out-of-wedlock births nearly doubled in the 1980s, the rate of divorce nearly doubled in the 1970s. I can't prove that the liberalization of divorce laws caused the surge of illegitimacy among the poor, but clearly it was the middle class that led the assault on the "sanctity" of marriage.

It's hard to think of a social phenomenon more harmful, and less discussed, than divorce. More than half of marriages end in divorce, and a mountain of psychological research shows that divorce injures women especially financially and children psychologically. Many argue that divorce cannot be as bad for kids as living in a home with parents who hate each other, but Bill Galston of the Progressive Policy Institute recently summarized the social science literature on this question: "Divorce itself [as opposed to the bad relationship] has an independent negative effect on the well-being of minor children ... in areas such as the following: school performance, high school completion, college attendance and graduation, labor-force attachment and stable work patterns, crime, depression, psychological illness, suicide, out-of-wedlock birth, and the propensity of children of divorce to become divorced in turn." We think of welfare kids as uniquely estranged from their fathers, but 40 percent of children of divorce have not seen their dad in the past year.

Yet politicians hardly ever talk about divorce. Why? In part it's because they understand the subject too well. Politicians ranging from Ronald Reagan to Ted Kennedy--as well as journalists like Peter Jennings and Sam Donaldson--have been through it themselves. Those of us who haven't know someone who has. We understand the tragic circumstances that can lead to the breakup of a marriage. In other words, we are far less likely to be judgmental about divorce than about, say, teenage pregnancy, a subject that, for most of us, is entirely abstract.

Another reason there is so little debate is that the rise of divorce was, in part, a response to a very real problem. Before the 1960s, women had trouble escaping from constraining or abusive marriages. Countless millions were subjected to lives of misery because they couldn't or wouldn't get out of horrible marriages. No one wants to go back to the old days, and criticism of divorce should not be viewed as a fundamental attack on feminism or women's rights. But feminists need to concede that the current situation is unacceptable, too.

Finally, this problem is ignored because the solutions aren't obvious. Galston proposes that we should beef up child-support enforcement to at least reduce the financial disruption. Some evidence suggests that fathers forced into making financial contributions tend to demand more of a relationship with their children. Galston also argues that divorce laws should err on the side of keeping minor children in their pre-divorce residences and communities.

The key is to draw a much clearer distinction between divorces that involve kids and those that don't. In fact, divorce among childless adults should be even easier, to reduce the odds of a baby being born into a disintegrating family. But divorce among couples with children should be harder. Too often, parents fail to look beyond their selfish needs; they should have to prove that separation is good not only for the adults but for the kids. Perhaps waiting periods or counseling requirements would mitigate the damage to children.

Most importantly, society has to offer clearer messages about what is shameful and what isn't. Casual divorce should be disparaged as much as casual sex. Pundits who reminisce about restoring the stigma to out-of-wedlock births might remember that divorce used to be considered dishonorable too. (In a Newsweek piece on this subject, Bill Turque recalls the 1952 Look magazine article about Adlai Stevenson: "Can a Divorced Man be Elected President?") If Bill Clinton screwing around on his wife was a legitimate character issue, then so too was Reagan's divorce from Jane Wyman after they'd had children.

At the same time, we should heap praise on couples that split up without having kids; by going through a small ordeal now, they've prevented a much great future tragedy. Conversely, some parents who stay together for the kids' sake should be considered heroes. The message should be everywhere--on TV shows, in the psychologist's office, and at the holiday dinner table--that while it often takes "strength" to leave a bad marriage, it takes courage and maturity to put the happiness of your children before your own.

To be sure, there are some times when divorce really is best for the kids. And it's very hard for any individual, let alone a lawmaker, to make sweeping conclusions about someone else's marriage. But at least a public debate about divorce might guilt trip some parents into putting the needs of their kids first.