No-fault divorce

[classical_hero]

What's the better alternative?

Actually there needing to be a fault for breaking an agreement? The troubling thing is that it is easier to dissolve a marriage than it is to get fired.

 

[El_Machinae]

What makes someone else better qualified to decide a marriage ain't failed? Might be remarriage y'all have problems with.

 

[JollyRoger]

Actually there needing to be a fault for breaking an agreement? The troubling thing is that it is easier to dissolve a marriage than it is to get fired.

Not in Texas. It is impossible to dissolve some marriages here and you can fire someone for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all.

 

[History_Buff]

Actually there needing to be a fault for breaking an agreement? The troubling thing is that it is easier to dissolve a marriage than it is to get fired.

A reason to break an agreement is not required in any other facet of the law.

 

[Tahuti]

I have a thought or two. They may even be 'progressive'.

What are the usuals you were expecting?

All the comments by metatron were pretty much landmines of cliché, sorry that I'm saying it that way.

A reason to break an agreement is not required in any other facet of the law.

If we assume government is still running marriage, governments can set its terms.

How do you force someone to stay in a failed marriage?

The problem is that marriages are perhaps considered 'failed' to soon, to the detriment of everyone.

 

[metatron]

All the comments by metatron were pretty much landmines of cliché, sorry that I'm saying it that way.

As i suspected:
Projection much?

 

[El_Machinae]

The problem is that marriages are perhaps considered 'failed' to soon, to the detriment of everyone.

I'm not arguing with that. My contention is that someone else is deciding if a marriage is failed and then deciding whether or not to force someone to stay married.

I'm not sure what 'forcing someone to stay married' entails. You have pressingly few legal obligations to your spouse when you're married.

 

[classical_hero]

What makes someone else better qualified to decide a marriage ain't failed? Might be remarriage y'all have problems with.

Traditionally it has been adultery was one reason you could dissolve a marriage and abuse was another reason, since both a breaking the rules of marriage.

 

[Gary Childress]

Any thoughts? I suppose the usual 'progressive' comments will be made.

If there are no children involved then I think "no fault" divorce is fine and most certainly divorce determining "fault" are as well. If there are children involved then I would be more in favor of divorce only in cases where "fault" can be determined.

 

[El_Machinae]

Traditionally it has been adultery was one reason you could dissolve a marriage and abuse was another reason, since both a breaking the rules of marriage.

Traditionally, adultery, yes. Abuse, no. It was only recently that it became illegal to rape your wife. Betcha the same where you live, too.

I'm still unsure how you can legally force someone to stay married. Marriage has very few legal obligations. Divorce is when the legal obligations kick in.

 

[Gary Childress]

Traditionally, adultery, yes. Abuse, no. It was only recently that it became illegal to rape your wife. Betcha the same where you live, too.

I'm still unsure how you can legally force someone to stay married. Marriage has very few legal obligations. Divorce is when the legal obligations kick in.

Good point. We live in a free society. Why should we penalize people for making free decisions?

 

[Tahuti]

Traditionally, adultery, yes.

Interesting thing to note that in ancient Rome as well as according to early biblical law, adultery always had to involve a married woman. If the husband had sex with an unmarried woman, it wasn't considered adultery.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A reason to break an agreement is not required in any other facet of the law.

Really? My business had a thirty day net agreement with a supplier. My guys could go in and pick up whatever they needed, and they billed me every thirty days. You think I could break that agreement arbitrarily without any reason? Or even with a reason...say;I just don't want to pay you. If one day I couldn't complete a job because they had decided for no reason to change our agreement to cash only and my guys couldn't pick up materials you can bet I'd have had a case if I took them to court.

I contracted with customers. Sometimes they paid in advance, at least partly, but usually they paid as the work progressed. If halfway through the job they paid me for the work to date and I said 'oh I've decided not to finish this job...no reason really,' do you think there wouldn't be consequences? If I showed up at the job site with a thousand dollars worth of materials and they said 'oh we changed our mind' do you think I wouldn't have wanted a reason, and been legally entitled to not just any reason but a bloody good one?

I've agreed with my nation not to kill anyone. If someone breaks in here with a gun I will gut them like a fish, breaking my agreement...but my nation will (hopefully) acknowledge and accept my reason for doing so.

What I'm suggesting here is that a reason is at least required for breaking an agreement in almost every facet of law...and in some facets a reason isn't even good enough.

 

[El_Machinae]

Interesting thing to note that in ancient Rome as well as according to early biblical law, adultery always had to involve a married woman. If the husband had sex with an unmarried woman, it wasn't considered adultery.

That would explain why I know the word 'concubine' and what it means, I guess! If it was a real thing, then there ya go.

 

[Cutlass]

The government has very little in the way of a public interest in saying who can and cannot marry. By the same token, the government has very little in the way of a pubic interest in saying who can and cannot dissolve a marriage. These are private considerations which don't bear on the public welfare. And so don't have a legitimate public policy response.

 

[Gary Childress]

...a reason is at least required for breaking an agreement in almost every facet of law...and in some facets a reason isn't even good enough.

Well said, Tim!

 

[Tahuti]

The government has very little in the way of a public interest in saying who can and cannot marry. By the same token, the government has very little in the way of a pubic interest in saying who can and cannot dissolve a marriage. These are private considerations which don't bear on the public welfare. And so don't have a legitimate public policy response.

You are thinking too libertarian. Individuals are not completely autonomous and strong family units can contribute to a meaningful existence. Why shouldn't governments be able to regulate social functions to achieve that end?

 

[Gary Childress]

BTW my apologies to Tim for cutting his phrase out of context in my previous post to this one. Context is important in this case.

 

[Cutlass]

You are thinking too libertarian. Individuals are not completely autonomous and strong family units can contribute to a meaningful existence. Why shouldn't governments be able to regulate social functions to achieve that end?

People who want a divorce are, by definition, not part of a strong family unit. And so that argument is utterly irrelevant.

 

[Gary Childress]

People who want a divorce are, by definition, not part of a strong family unit. And so that argument is utterly irrelevant.

Depends upon the reason for the divorce doesn't it? Maybe counseling could strengthen their family unit or something. Of course that may not always be the case but your statement "...by definition..." seems a little suspect to me.