This question is opposite to the extreme of the more often-uttered lament that “government should do more to help folks stay married.”

In other words: Does the government have an interest in discouraging lifelong unions?

Unquestionably. It does.

Think about it. Although I’m not a lawyer (and don’t play one on TV), my understanding is that “marital privilege” is a phrase describing the right of a husband and wife not to testify against one another in court. Or, for that matter, any other legal proceeding.

Even if not universally applicable to courtrooms, we’ve gotta believe the idea instructs a lot of behavior at the ground level.

Recall an episode or two of The Sopranos where Adrianna thought this might help her out of a pickle. Or White House Counsel John Dean, who inexplicably married his girlfriend on the eve of giving testimony on “Watergate.”

The divorce process has even more potential. Issue areas need not be bounded by any pesky concern about “relevancy,” because, you know: Anything and everything is said to be by-definition relevant to matters concerning “the best interests of the minor children,” we’re told.

On top of that, the emotional stir of divorce actually seems to have an inherent knack for reaching into the sole of moviation for a lot of individuals such that they pro-actively, willingly dish the dirt on their former loves. The marketed image of legal system “equity” (meaning, this is a place to get even, if nowhere else) creates motive to provide detailed answers to questions “the system” could never have thought to ask.

Imagine:

  • The inside scoop on financial records and tax returns.
  • Neatly photocopied medical histories otherwise locked behind pesky HIPAA restraints.
  • Candid revelations about sexual proclivities, voting histories, and attempts to circumvent handicapped parking space restrictions.

It all strikes me as a lot more efficient and a lot less time-consuming than any of that bulky data-acquisition stuff George Orwell thought would be needed to make his science-fiction world work in 1984.

Maybe no one is acting on this. But we can’t say that government has no motive to do so.