The Luke Burbank Show - 10am on KIRO Radio
 Luke Burbank
Tune in
Tune in to KIRO Radio weekdays at 10am for The Luke Burbank Show.


Divorce in Washington could require one-year waiting period, instead of current 90 days

BY Jamie Skorheim  on February 12, 2013 @ 11:06 am (Updated: 12:23 pm - 2/12/13 )

A new bill being considered in Olympia would make getting a divorce in Washington state a slightly longer process.

Senate Bill 5614 would extend the waiting period for granting a divorce from 90 days to a year.

After hearing of the proposal on KIRO Radio's Ross and Burbank Show, show contributor Tom Tangney said, "Here, here."

"I don't think in general people take marriage seriously, so anything that forces people to take a longer time to get unmarried to me is a positive," said Tangney.

Being raised Catholic, Tangney said there was also a waiting period to get married, and he thinks such policies are useful to make sure everyone respects the seriousness of the union.

For those that might be leaving one marriage to quickly get into another, this could slow down people's ability to rush into another mistake, Tom points out.

"If you had to wait a year, that bright, shiny thing that might be attracting you may be a little less shiny in a year's time, and you may say, you know what my issues with her are no different than my first wife."

The only host in the conversation to have gone through a divorce, Luke Burbank, shared his experience and said the process is actually pretty tough as it is.

"If there is this idea that it's just the easiest thing to do and that you just go online and you check a couple boxes and you just walk away, it is more involved than that," said Burbank.

"There's a lot of paperwork involved. I found out after all the stuff that I went through. I got divorced years ago in California. Again we had lawyers it was all very official, went to family court, unmarried, signed all the paperwork. I got a text from my ex two or three years later that said, 'Hey, I just found out we're still technically married.' Because my lawyer had failed to file some last piece of some paperwork."

Dave Ross and Tom said they find it heartening to hear it's not such an easy thing to break up a marriage.

"It should mean something," said Ross.

Luke said he doesn't have a problem with them extending the waiting period, but in his experience he wants folks to know it's not something that's super easy even under current conditions.

The bill says if they can reduce the number of divorces, even by a slight amount, it could be useful to our state.

"Divorce causes poverty, juvenile delinquency, and lower scholastic achievement among children of our state. Even a modest reduction of divorce in our state could be beneficial to children," the bill says.

Jamie Skorheim, MyNorthwest.com Editor
Whether it's floating on Green Lake, eating shrimp tacos at Agua Verde, or taking weekend drives out to the Cascades, she loves to enjoy the Pacific Northwest lifestyle as much as humanly possible.
More Luke Burbank

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (25)


  • Add A Comment

  • mnpat wrote...
    Get rid of "No fault divorces" would be a start in the right direction.
    February 12, 2013 10:54 am
    Implemented by feminists in the 70's, it opened the door to anyone that "needed to find themselves".
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • FormerMarineSgt wrote...
    @mnpat
    February 12, 2013 11:29 am
    I don't want some stinking conservative state senator telling me when or if I can end my marriage. And that's exactly what is going on here. I know when it's over, she knows when it's over and that's it. No more being held hostage by a spouse that doesn't want to let a person get divorced, no more playing games with it like used to be. IT's funny how much the right wing and conservatives tell us they want smaller government, but give them a chance, and guess what? They're more intrusive than the dems are! I don't plan on getting divorced from my wife - EVER. But no way in hell does some idiot politician have the right to tell me how to end my marriage - should I desire to.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Michigander wrote...
    MarineSgt
    February 12, 2013 11:38 am
    What I find funny... is that your argument against extending the time required to get a divorce, is almost the exact same argument that I hear used against gun control.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • The Wiz wrote...
    Yep
    February 12, 2013 10:55 am
    This is exactly what our state lawmakers should be spending their time on.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • doublej wrote...
    When I want a divorce,
    February 12, 2013 11:06 am
    I want rid of your sorry butt now. Not in 90 days, not in a year. There's a reason I want a divorce and waiting isn't going to change it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • It's me! Ha ha! wrote...
    Poser Sgt. You are a RIOT!
    February 12, 2013 12:00 pm
    I don't want some stinking conservative state senator telling me when or if I can end my marriage.

    Yet you will gleefully bend over and grab your ankles every time some anti American Liberal from the regime tells you they are taking away more of my rights. I do not want this government making divorce any more long and drawn out than it is. But as long as Left wing Parrots like you are around, this Racist Liberal regime and your beloved Dear Leader will be here!

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • WiIliam Lawn wrote...
    because phony marine Sgt
    February 12, 2013 8:49 pm
    Is the queen of hypocrisy
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fakename70 wrote...
    Another Nail In The Coffin
    February 12, 2013 12:23 pm
    Yet another reason to not even marry in the first place.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • bigdogina4x4 wrote...
    Why does the government need to be involved?
    February 12, 2013 12:26 pm
    Marriage is a religous union between man and woman, or maybe 2 people. Let the church work it out. We should repeal all laws dealing with marrige. It worked fine until the government started messing with it.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Stevebo wrote...
    This bill (if passed) will not change one thing...
    February 12, 2013 1:01 pm
    Well, it will change one thing... people will just have to wait longer for a divorce.... but Mr. Ross and Mr. Tagney need to take off the rose-colored glasses if they think that this bill is going to keep any marriages together.

    Honestly, the proposed law is a waste of time in my opinion. The only thing it might possibly prevent, is keeping a person from jumping from one bad marriage and into another... but then... it doesn't stop ANYONE from getting involved in bad relationships at all.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Stevebo wrote...
    One thing that I'd add...
    February 12, 2013 1:04 pm
    It seems to me that the law would even potentially cause more problems in some cases...

    I was previously married, and got divorced about a decade ago. My ex-wife was horrible to me and the divorce was about as acrimonious as it could have been.

    A law like this only would have drawn out a very horrible experience and made it all the worse in my case (and I would imagine a great many others).

    I would truly hope that lawmakers will think about this bill very carefully before they would get to a point of giving any serious consideration to enacting it into law.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Only a single constituency benefits
    February 12, 2013 1:22 pm
    Divorce Lawyers.

    With no fault and 90 days, if you can come to an agreement, a divorce is inexpensive and can leave no lasting scars.

    BUT, I think it is sad, these couples who have nothing yet can't agree to ANYTHING and they come out of the divorce owing the attorneys more than they are both worth.

    I have a distant relative involved in just this situation. Fighting over crap that isn't worth anything. Using the kids a pawns to "get" the other one.

    Stupid.

    This makes it worse.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Ack! Tom Tagney did not say "here, here"...(although it may have sounded like it)
    February 12, 2013 1:58 pm
    Being a scholarly sort, Mr. Tangney would have said "hear, hear".

    "Here here" is an expression used when calling a dog.

    "Hear hear" indicates, "listen to what was just said, or is being said- it warrants your attention".

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • BARLOW wrote...
    Mostly I could agree with AJ
    February 12, 2013 2:30 pm
    horror of horrors, but we would still need a way to divide real property accumulated during the marriage and to provide for the welfare of the offspring, if any, of the union. I think a legally binding pre-nup addressing those areas might suffice.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }