Is no-fault divorce good or bad for marriage and society?

[Little Raven]

Much ado has been made about gay marriage lately. One side cries for equal rights. The other side cries to protect a cherished institution. Democrats can't seem to figure out what side they're on. Neither can Republicans.

The strongest arguments coming from the 'nay' side seem to focus on the need to protect the institution of marriage for the well-being of familial and social relationships. Allowing gays to marry, argue critics, will weaken the already struggling bond that marriage represents. They maintain that this will have grave and negative consequences for us as a society, and that it is a risk we cannot afford to take.

Certainly, the prediction is arguable. But that's not really what I'm interested in discussing. One fact that does appear to be beyond argument is that marriage in the US is currently struggling. Marriage rates are falling. Divorce rates are rampant. Single parents now make up 52 percent of families in the US. The 'family unit' appears to be a thing of the past.

Even our pop culture seems to be determined to kick marriage while it's down. The networks are full of reality shows that promise a marriage at the end. Britney Spears has been married to two different guys in less than a year. We even have Trading Spouses on TV.

Looking at the history of divorce in the US, there seems to be no doubt that the number increased dramatically once states began enacting so called "no-fault" divorces. In years past, the state did not just grant a divorce because someone wanted one. You had to prove infidelity, abuse, or some other reason that justified breaking the marriage bond. That began to change around 1969, when states began repealing laws that required a couple to show cause. By 1984 every state had adopted no-fault divorce laws.

But high divorce rates really do seem to be bad for society. Study after study shows that single-parent households are poorer, less educated, and more likely to be associated with crime and delinquency.

Why are divorce rates in this country so high? Should we try to lower them? Is rolling back no-fault divorce laws a good step towards 'fixing' marriage?

 

[carlosMM]

no-fault divorces banned means more alcoholics, more murder, more domestic violence, more psychologically traumatised kids.

Just like in the bad old days

Answer enough?

 

[Little Raven]

no-fault divorces banned means more alcoholics, more murder, more domestic violence, more psychologically traumatised kids.

It's not quite that simple, though. You say we would get more psychologically traumatized kids, but is that really possible? Look at what we have now! Single-parent households are now the majority. That's an awful lot of kids. And like I said, every study out there shows that those kids will be at a disadvantage in almost every aspect of life. Without two parents to depend on, they are more vulnerable to every bad thing that can happen.

Do you have any evidence that no-fault divorce has reduced the number of murders or the rate of domestic violence? Remember that abuse has always been considered a viable reason for divorce, even in the 'bad old days.'

 

[CenturionV]

No-fault divorce has destroyed the family in my opinion, it has also been one of the major things leading to large scale family breakups because its what leads to quick dating and marriage.

In my church everyone who is even interested in some one else has to
A. ask permission of the parents/guardian, OR the elders if they are older.
B. Start a constantly supervised "courting" process which can last anywhere from 4-5 months, to a few YEARS. During which there is little physical contact, and absolutely no sexual content.
C. Engagment, at this point you better have a darned good reason (more than the "We just don't love eatch other" crap given out now adays) for breaking it off, and there is a good bit more physical contact, holding hands, etc (I'm not sure on kissing, I've never gone through the process, only seen some friends)
D. Marraige, at this point this is a life long, literal tell-death-do-us-part commitment, a covernant, I.E a contact, the contract is ONLY broken by death, adultery by one of the parties, or willful uneccessary desertion.

And we have never had a family in our church divorce to my knowledge without on of these occuring.

The idea behind this, is you know the person SO well by the time you get to the engagment point, that you can be totally sure if you want to spend you whole life with this person. The whole thing from start to finish can last from several years.

This system might seem harsh or take the "fun" out of the common idea of dating, sex before marraige, etc. But in the long run it leads to strong close families, lasting relationships, and overall good consequences.

 

[carlosMM]

It's not quite that simple, though. You say we would get more psychologically traumatized kids, but is that really possible? Look at what we have now! Single-parent households are now the majority. That's an awful lot of kids. And like I said, every study out there shows that those kids will be at a disadvantage in almost every aspect of life. Without two parents to depend on, they are more vulnerable to every bad thing that can happen.

Would you prefer a lot of them growing up with parents fighting or ignoring each other? Cheating, mabye even openly? Or - worst of all - Daddy beating up Mommy?

Yes, single parent kids are worse off than those from a stable and intact family. And best of all, a family with aunts and uncles and grandparents around. But in reality, most divorces allow the parents to live a better life for themselves than if they stay married and spare the kids some of the worst things to witness. Better an amiable divorce in time than a drawn-out fight.
Also, the more common this phenomenon is, and the better accepted, the better do the single parents do. First, society learns to deal with it, second, kids of divorcees are not the rare outcast case, but normal, and third, both parents and kids get help instead of contempt.

Do you have any evidence that no-fault divorce has reduced the number of murders or the rate of domestic violence? Remember that abuse has always been considered a viable reason for divorce, even in the 'bad old days.'

And how many marriages started with a beating in the wedding night? Easier divorce means couples split faster - often, before problems become really bad.
My Mom is a lawyer, and you do not want to hear about the divorce cases (I have seen many of the beaten women) where foreign laws played in where no-faults divorces are a . Often enough, both sides didn't want the other, but felt stuck and desperate - and this resulted in the violence.

 

[Mark1031]

My prescriptions.

Make marriage harder. Six months from marriage license to wedding. Mandatory interview with a marriage counselor, not to block the marriage but just to bring up issues that are relevant but may not been talked about between the couple.

Make divorce harder. Minimum one year from the request to the divorce. If no children involved it can be immediate. Of course you don't have to live together during the one year but you would still be married.

Parent registration. I am definitely not a libertarian. I think at the birth of a child 2 Social Security numbers should be attached to this child representing the two parents who are then, if nothing else, financially responsible for that child for 18 years and if necessary this financial obligation should be extracted through direct government deductions from paychecks associated with that Social Security number.

 

[betazed]

If the goal is to reduce divorce rates then we maybe barking up the wrong tree here.

I would like to see statistics of divorce related to demographics, divorce relates to educational backgrounds, related to income backgrounds, related to timing of marriage etc. before proposing a solution.

Basically, we need to find the cause first before we think of a cure. IMHO, the above data could show us some pointers.

 

[carlosMM]

Make divorce harder. Minimum one year from the request to the divorce. [snip] Of course you don't have to live together during the one year but you would still be married.[/snip]

In Germany, a one-year enstrangement period is needed to get a divorce, and only if you can't afford to live sperately may you stay living together.

Parent registration. I am definitely not a libertarian. I think at the birth of a child 2 Social Security numbers should be attached to this child representing the two parents who are then, if nothing else, financially responsible for that child for 18 years and if necessary this financial obligation should be extracted through direct government deductions from paychecks associated with that Social Security number.

Move to Europe

 

[Akka]

Why are divorce rates in this country so high?

Probably because people get married too hastily.

That's the problem with advocating "no sex before marriage" and having a higher social consideration for married couples than for non-married couples. People will marry before thinking it through, and before "testing" it, resulting in more divorces.

If you really want to make the number of divorce drop, make marriage harder to make, like a minimum one or two-years wait.

(I would be against that, of course, but if you really want less divorces...)

Forcing people to live together when they don't love each other anymore is stupid, counterproductive, remove any meaning of the principle of marriage, and ultimately is simply evil.

 

[Little Raven]

Would you prefer a lot of them growing up with parents fighting or ignoring each other? Cheating, mabye even openly? Or - worst of all - Daddy beating up Mommy?

Cheating has always been legitimate grounds for divorce. So has domestic violence. If Daddy is beating up Mommy, Mommy can take him to the cleaners regardless of whether there are no-fault divorces or not.

But in reality, most divorces allow the parents to live a better life for themselves than if they stay married and spare the kids some of the worst things to witness.

I don't doubt it. But we're talking about the family, not the individual. And the family most definitely suffers when one side can end the marriage at any time for no reason.

Better an amiable divorce in time than a drawn-out fight.

But you're going on the assumption that divorce rates will remain the same if we get rid of no-fault divorce, it's just that the divorce cases will get nastier. Statistics argue against that. After no-fault divorce laws were instituted, the number of divorce cases jumped by anywhere from 25 to 33%. That suggests that if no-fault divorce laws were repealed, the number of divorces would drop. Presumably, the worst cases, (the drinking, the fighting, the openly cheating) would continue to get divorced, and the kids would continue to be screwed. But won't we be saving that 25%? And won't those kids be better off?

And how many marriages started with a beating in the wedding night? Easier divorce means couples split faster - often, before problems become really bad.

How much sympathy are we supposed to have for someone who marries someone that beats them on their wedding night? Nobody is forced to get married in this country. If you get married in the US, it's because you want to. To what lengths should we go to protect people from their own stupidity? It's not like the woman can't get divorced, she just has to show that the husband is beating her. In an age of webcams and mp3 recorders that fit in your ear, that can't be too difficult.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

@Centurion. What church denomination are you?

 

[carlosMM]

Cheating has always been legitimate grounds for divorce. So has domestic violence. If Daddy is beating up Mommy, Mommy can take him to the cleaners regardless of whether there are no-fault divorces or not.

True - bu by then it is too late!

I don't doubt it. But we're talking about the family, not the individual. And the family most definitely suffers when one side can end the marriage at any time for no reason.

hu? What is the well-being of the family but the well-being of all its members?

But you're going on the assumption that divorce rates will remain the same if we get rid of no-fault divorce, it's just that the divorce cases will get nastier. Statistics argue against that. After no-fault divorce laws were instituted, the number of divorce cases jumped by anywhere from 25 to 33%. That suggests that if no-fault divorce laws were repealed, the number of divorces would drop.

It may be true that BACK THEN things were different from today, right?
A lot of people do not want to go through enticing the poartner to cheat so they can get a divorce on thatg round. And a lot of people lived parallel but decidedly un-intact-family lives before they could get an easy divorce.

Presumably, the worst cases, (the drinking, the fighting, the openly cheating) would continue to get divorced, and the kids would continue to be screwed. But won't we be saving that 25%? And won't those kids be better off?

If you grow up in a family that shows you that marriage for live doesn't work, doesn't make peopel happy, tends to make them UNhappy even - would you say it's good?

How much sympathy are we supposed to have for someone who marries someone that beats them on their wedding night?

You are missing my point - mariages usually start happy and become unhappy.

Nobody is forced to get married in this country. If you get married in the US, it's because you want to. To what lengths should we go to protect people from their own stupidity?

To what length should we go to force people to stick with an error they once made, just to make two people available by force to look after kids that remind them of their unhappiness?

It's not like the woman can't get divorced, she just has to show that the husband is beating her. In an age of webcams and mp3 recorders that fit in your ear, that can't be too difficult.

Yeah, right, so if your Mom loves someone else, and so does your Dad, then both will compete at getting the other to get caught first, and whoever succeeds actually does you a favor?

Come on!

 

[Mark1031]

To what length should we go to force people to stick with an error they once made, just to make two people available by force to look after kids that remind them of their unhappiness?

Just to be clear, when you reproduce with somebody you are inextricably tied to that person for the rest of your life be you married or divorced or never married in the first place. Having children is the only true till death to you part event in one's life. Forget this at your peril.

 

[carlosMM]

Just to be clear, when you reproduce with somebody you are inextricably tied to that person for the rest of your life be you married or divorced or never married in the first place. Having children is the only true till death to you part event in one's life. Forget this at your peril.

eh, let the biologist tell you that human children are perfectly capable of living independently and totally seperated from their parents at roughly 15 to 18 biologically, depending on society, and even where social issues like university tuition money comes in it would actually often be no harm at all if the parents died when the kids are 25 or so. In modern societies, the 'grandmother advantage' (i.e. old people know stuff that may become necessary for survival) ids no longer true as opposed to 'primitive', non-literate societies.

 

[Mark1031]

@CMM. I assume you don't have kids . Even if you don't have as much interaction with them after 15-18 you will continue to have an interest in them and their offspring and they in you as well as their other parent. This is a connection that for the vast majority of people is not going to go away. You will continue to interact with the other parent at weddings, Bar Mitzva's in conversations with your common kids etc. Like I said till death do you part.

 

[Perfection]

@CMM. I assume you don't have kids . Even if you don't have as much interaction with them after 15-18 you will continue to have an interest in them and their offspring and they in you as well as their other parent. This is a connection that for the vast majority of people is not going to go away. You will continue to interact with the other parent at weddings, Bar Mitzva's in conversations with your common kids etc. Like I said till death do you part.

Does no-fault divorce break those bonds? I don't think so.

 

[carlosMM]

@CMM. I assume you don't have kids . Even if you don't have as much interaction with them after 15-18 you will continue to have an interest in them and their offspring and they in you as well as their other parent. This is a connection that for the vast majority of people is not going to go away. You will continue to interact with the other parent at weddings, Bar Mitzva's in conversations with your common kids etc. Like I said till death do you part.

I can only second what perfection said - what in the world does no-fault divorce have to do with NOT seeing and caring for grown-up kids? Heck, there is a better chance that BOTH parents will TOGETHER and GETTING ALONG at weddings and family reunions if they got their divorce in time before things got really nasty!

 

[Stapel]

Any sane person understands that it is better for kids to be raised in a single-parent family, than in a complete family, where mammy and daddy have no love for eachother anymore.
Now a bit more nuancated :
Parents cannot hide their misery, quarrels, fights and eventually hate for the kids. For a kid it is a true drama when mammy and daddy fight all the time.
I have seen it going wrong too many times. Staying together JUST for the kids, is possibly the most cruel thing parents can do to their kids.

I am very happy my parents have cut the crap relatively in time. But, never ever will I forget my memories of their unhappy marriage.
When you are 7 years old, and go downstairs in the middle of the night, and ask your parents to stop the quarrel, as you can't fall asleep, you know something is really wrong. As a 7 year old kid I told my 5 year old brother it might be better to move out together and live with grandpa and grandma, as they never had fights (and they had a colour TV-set , where we could properly watch 'De Berenboot').

When parents divorce in time, there is a far better chance both mammy and daddy will be there for the kids.

The whole problem of single parent kids, doing worse in society, is an issue that should be discussed with more sense, than is usually done.

We should not just compare single parent families with compelte families, but rather the following situations:
-happily married parents
-unhappily married parents
-happily divorced couples
-unhappily divorced couples (this one is the most interesting * )
-parents were never (or hardly) a couple anyway

* When parents postpone their divorce, there is a significantly bigger chance that the divorce will be unnecissarily tough. This usually leads to a situation where the kids are used as messengers, or even worse, a situation that one parent (usually the father) will loose contact with the kids.
A divorce in time, will simply increase the chances to raise kids in a situation where parents still reasonably cooperate.

 

[Mark1031]

@P If you read above you will see that that was not my point. I don't think you can force people to stay married obviously. My point is that the biggest decision you make in life is not who you marry but who you reproduce with. Granted, they are in theory related but I know people who have gotten out of bad marriages quickly before having kids, as well as people who've had kids knowing the marriage is bad in hopes of changing it. I highly advocate the former. It always amazed me that people ask me whether I was nervous about getting married, it never really occurred to me as that was always quite easily reversible. On the other hand no one ever asked whether I was nervous about having kids or having kids with my wife. This to me is the more appropriate question and the answer is yes I was quite nervous about this. Not because of any problems with my wife but because I recognized that it is in fact the most momentous decision in one's life.

@CMM Sorry if I misunderstood you but you seemed to be arguing that your relationship with your children would end or would at least be unnecessary after they were 15-18 so my point was that this is not the case. My view on divorce is that it is too easy and that there should be at least a one year waiting period with mandatory family counseling before it goes through at least if children are involved, if not I could care less. I also think that the somewhat anachronistic view that the parents should stay together for the children is not such a bad idea. Obviously if they can't be civil then they should not but divorce can have very bad effects on kids of certain ages, particularly 6-16 and I would favor sucking it up for the kids sake if at all possible.

 

[Little Raven]

True - bu by then it is too late!hu?

Ok, so you're arguing that no-fault divorce prevents domestic violence? Do you have any evidence to support that? I've just spent some time looking for some statistics that would back that claim, and I can't find any. Can you point me to some?

What is the well-being of the family but the well-being of all its members?

But now you're talking about something else entirely. Yes, the parent that wants the divorce gets off easier with no fault divorce laws and is presumably happier. But what about the other family member? What about the children? According to this book, less than a third of so called 'bad marriages' involve domestic violence or cheating. Most are simply the result of mom and dad growing apart. In most cases, one spouse wants to keep the marriage intact. What about those spouses? What about the children? There's more to a family than one unhappy member.

It may be true that BACK THEN things were different from today, right?

Do you have any evidence that basic human nature has changed much in the last 40 years? Because otherwise, I tend to believe that put in the same situation as someone 40 years ago, people will behave the same way.

A lot of people do not want to go through enticing the poartner to cheat so they can get a divorce on thatg round. And a lot of people lived parallel but decidedly un-intact-family lives before they could get an easy divorce.If you grow up in a family that shows you that marriage for live doesn't work, doesn't make peopel happy, tends to make them UNhappy even - would you say it's good?

It's not ideal, but it beats a single-parent household. A household with two parents, even ones that live separate-but-married lives, is more likely to avoid bankruptcy, more likely to get their children educated, and less likely to become a drain on societies resources. I don't know if it's good, but according to the statistics, it's certainly better.

You are missing my point - mariages usually start happy and become unhappy.To what length should we go to force people to stick with an error they once made, just to make two people available by force to look after kids that remind them of their unhappiness?

It seems to me that that's exactly what we're discussing.

We've tried it your way. And we've gotten more divorces, more single parents, and even greater disintegration of the family unit as a result. Maybe it's time for a change?

Yeah, right, so if your Mom loves someone else, and so does your Dad, then both will compete at getting the other to get caught first, and whoever succeeds actually does you a favor?

Maybe, maybe not. All marriages go through rough spots. Many recover, if given the chance. Some no doubt won't, but it's not like we're getting rid of divorce altogether. It's still avaliable for the cases that need it.

Again, we've tried it your way. The family unit is getting worse, not better. The studies show the family unit makes a real difference in children's lives. Is satisfying the selfish desires of one parent in a handful of cases really more important than maintaining an institution that serves as a foundation for society?