Marriage and Divorce in a Multi-Cultural Context: Multi-Tiered Marriage and the Boundaries of Civil Law and Religion

Description

American family law makes two key assumptions: first, that the civil state possesses sole authority over marriage and divorce; and second, that the civil law may contain only one regulatory regime for such matters. These assumptions run counter to the multicultural and religiously plural nature of our society. This book elaborates how those assumptions are descriptively incorrect, and it begins an important conversation about whether more pluralism in family law is normatively desirable. For example, may couples rely upon religious tribunals (Jewish, Muslim, or otherwise) to decide family law disputes? May couples opt into stricter divorce rules, either through premarital contracts or 'covenant marriages'? How should the state respond? Intentionally interdisciplinary and international in scope, this volume contains contributions from fourteen leading scholars. The authors address the provocative question of whether the state must consider sharing its jurisdictional authority with other groups in family law.

Joel A. Nichols is Associate Professor of Law at the University of St Thomas, Minnesota and a Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University. His scholarship explores the relationship of theology and religion to law - especially family law, constitutional law and international human rights. Professor Nichols holds degrees in both law and theology.

'It presents a scholarly discussion of the pros and cons of multi-tiered marriage with essays covering historical, legal, and religious dimensions of the issue. Nichols, and to some lesser extent his mentor John Witte, Jr, are advocates of hybrid legal approaches to marriage.' John Farina, Journal for the Study of Marriage and Spirituality 'Balance and addressing both sides of the argument is a feature of the volume on the whole. Reading the chapters in succession, it is striking how often one's own questions or doubts about a particular perspective are picked up and addressed by a subsequent chapter. An even handed and measured tone strengthens the force of the individual arguments and contributes to the overall effectiveness of this important and stimulating conversation, where the participants are not only making their own views heard but also listening and seeking to respond to those of others.' The Cambridge Law Journal