In a recent interview with a local news outlet, Dusty Deevers, the Republican candidate for state senator of Oklahoma District 32, has reignited an essential dialogue surrounding the contentious issue of no-fault divorce. His position challenges the prevailing norms and reflects a profound biblical understanding of both societal and moral foundations. Deevers argues against the widespread acceptance of no-fault divorce, invoking a return to principles that have long underpinned the stability of society.
“But Ronald Reagan was the first one to bring no-fault divorce,” Deevers said, aligning himself with the late President’s retrospective wisdom. “And he then later said, whenever he was a governor of California, later he said that no-fault divorce was the worst thing that he had ever done in his political career.” This admission by Reagan demonstrates that the policies once deemed “progressive” are often, in hindsight, recognized as sources of societal degradation.
Deevers’ perspective resonates deeply with a Christian worldview. The Bible has consistently advocated for the sanctity of marriage. Scriptures like Hebrews 13:4 hold marriage in high esteem, while teachings throughout the New Testament echo this reverence. In this light, Deevers’ stance is not merely political posturing but a commitment to upholding values deeply ingrained in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The early Church Fathers, from Augustine to Aquinas, emphasized the importance of marriage as a covenant, not merely a contract to be dissolved at will. This echoes Deevers’ assertion that laws are a reflection of societal morality and that every law inherently concerns itself with what is deemed right or wrong.
Join Us and Get These Perks:
✅ Access to Comments and Discussions
✅ Community Chats
✅ Full Article and Podcast Archive
✅ The Joy of Supporting Our Work 😉
Echoing the sentiment from our previous article on legislating morality, Deevers observes, “Our government only mandates morals…every law has to do with something that’s right or wrong.” Deevers reminds us that the legal system is, at its core, a moral compass guiding societal behavior, but that it boils down to whose morals are we mandating. In advocating for restrictions on no-fault divorce, Deevers is arguing for a return to a legal and moral framework that prizes commitment, responsibility, and the welfare of the family unit as critical to the health of society.
His approach is not an imposition of morality but a reclamation of a moral framework that supports the foundation of society, the family. As he states, “A strong family…is the bedrock for a strong and thriving government.”
