The special guest of The Spectator, Michael Knowles, swung into Lexington for a sermon on moral decay, criticizing the liberal-endorsed expansion of divorce laws as useless and anti-family. So, is it true?

Though the full breadth of Knowles’ remarks, from those on same-sex marriage to Haitian cuisine, provoke criticism, the issue of divorce laws is particularly important to me — a child of a single mother who escaped a broken, destructive marriage.

So, to understand the scope of his argument, I first asked Knowles where he drew the line on divorce. He clarified that he didn’t oppose divorce extending to abuse, but was referring to “no-fault divorce,” when no party is legally to blame.

It was Ronald Reagan himself who, as Governor of California, established the first no-fault divorce laws in 1970. The then-novel liberty spread like wildfire, and eight more states accepted it in just nine years. Today, it is a universal right across all American jurisdictions, although many like Knowles would want to turn the clock back fifty years.

To be clear, issues of abuse and abandonment are often raised in cases of no-fault divorce to stymie the often spiraling cost of litigation — litigation that can be lengthy and intrusive, just so someone can get the opportunity to live how they want to. But even for less horrific cases, no-fault divorce is the only avenue open to couples whose relationships have irretrievably broken down, devoid of love. Knowles remarked that they should “tough it up” for the sake of the children. But should children be subjected to life under a house divided, united by law but splintered in spirit?

The affirmative seems irreconcilable with so much of Knowles’ proclaimed mission. I agree with him that we must turn the tide of population decline to maintain and improve American society. That’s why I oppose the conception of marriage as simply a contractual obligation, with love as an afterthought, a conception that is not only unjust for parents and children but completely unattractive to the young people who doubt marriage.

Knowles might retort that no-fault divorce is evil to the point where compromise is not an option; terrible enough that it must be rejected regardless of its widespread support. After all, he has said that divorce “should basically be outlawed.” But the policy has overseen a 30% decrease in domestic abuse and an 8 to 16% decrease in female suicide rates, according to the Census Bureau. If, regardless, Knowles still finds that evil, for reasons religious or secular, then I would expect his passion on the matter to extend to all cases.

But it doesn’t. Knowles, who emphasizes Catholicism in his politics, does not question the Republican nominee, a two-time divorcee. In fact, he has endorsed the main policies promoted by the Trump campaign, including deporting immigrants and rolling back environmental regulations — initiatives that have been fiercely condemned by Pope Francis in speeches given to the press and his second Papal Encyclical. Knowles simply does not practice what he preaches.

Regardless, beyond the declamations and hypocrisy, no-fault divorce has secured the safety of countless individuals and families. I would not be attending this school if my mother was bound in permanent matrimony. In such a world, the American ideal of restarting one’s life in search of a better tomorrow would be just a mirage, with the “pursuit of happiness” being subordinated to the moral satisfaction of a few.