Political and Religious Differences as Grounds for Divorce
POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES AS GROUNDS FOR DIVORCE .... with the accent on Communism W. DEAN WAGNER* The manifold impact of Communism on our society has created variant problems for the judiciary. It is, therefore, not surprising that the issue of "communism as grounds for divorce" has been raised occasionally in divorce litigation. 1 The recent case of Donaldson v. Donaldson dealt directly with this question. This was an action by the wife against the husband for a divorce. The defendant answered with a cross complaint requesting that he be awarded the divorce and custody of a minor child. The plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and the counter claim allowed. The Supreme Court held that the fact the wife was a member of the communist party at the time of her marriage and refused to continue in the religious beliefs of her birth did not entitle the husband to a divorce. The decree was reversed and remanded. The court said: "Neither a religious belief (or the lack of such belief) nor a political or social opinion is of itself grounds for divorce in this jurisdiction." In arriving at this conclusion the court pointed out that the only provision of the statute under which the counter complaint might possibly lie was that which provided "Cruel treatment of either party by the other, or personal indignities rendering life burdensome ' 2 are grounds for divorce. Thus, the court was of the opinion that divergent political opinions, per se, do not constitute the essential elements of either (1) cruel treatment, or (2) personal indignities.3
* 2nd year law student, Duke University; A.B. Colgate, 1950.
231 P.2d 607 (Wash. 1951). See case note, 14 GA. B. J. 238 (Nov. 1951). 2 LAws OF WASH., 1949, c. 215, §2, p. 698, REM.Supp. 1949 §997-2. 3 Cf. New York Herald Tribune, March 8, 1952, p. 1. "A court in Potsdam, East Germany, has ruled a man may divorce his wife for not being sufficiently Marxist, even though he may have admitted adultery. . .. The wife's
* 2nd year law student, Duke University; A.B. Colgate, 1950.
231 P.2d 607 (Wash. 1951). See case note, 14 GA. B. J. 238 (Nov. 1951). 2 LAws OF WASH., 1949, c. 215, §2, p. 698, REM.Supp. 1949 §997-2. 3 Cf. New York Herald Tribune, March 8, 1952, p. 1. "A court in Potsdam, East Germany, has ruled a man may divorce his wife for not being sufficiently Marxist, even though he may have admitted adultery. . .. The wife's