No-fault divorce

[El_Machinae]

In the end, its about making trade offs. I'd rather have domestic abuse and spouse suicide over ruining children's lives and facilitating all you have managed to an even greater degree.

Oh, see here? If it's about the kids, we just admit it's about the kids. I happen to agree that kids are owed a level of protection that requires non-intuitive, non-libertarian containment of adults. We should just go right out and license parenting. Maybe make 'marriage' a way of getting the licensing to be easier.

The problem we have here, again, is that the law 'forcing' someone to stay married is nearly meaingless. Marriage is what you're doing when you're already wanting to be doing it. The law cannot influence that.

 

[Cutlass]

There lies perhaps the difference. I view marriage as a foundation act and a covenant that two people into one unit and link their parents and siblings' families into one.

That doesn't actually change anything about divorce.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

And if people in the family are unable or unwilling to tell the truth due to ignorance, intimidation, or other reasons, determining "fault" could be impossible - and innocent people would be condemned to stay in an insufferable existence.

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.

To which period of Roman history are you referring - early Republic, Late Republic, early Empire before Augustus reformed the marriage laws, after he did so, or decades or centuries later?

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

Define "family unit."

BE WARNED. I am about to express an extremely unpopular view.

Husband and wife form economic unit for purpose of raising children. There are questions about how 'bringing home bacon' contributes as compared to maintaining the home as compared to actual monitoring of the offspring as compared to ...well all the other aspects of raising children. In any event if you look closely in the vast majority of cases the two parents between them can barely manage it all, at best.

Following a divorce the necessities involved in raising the children remain exactly the same, while all the costs and upkeep of a second dwelling are added in. If it was being barely managed before, it will be impossible now. If it wasn't being managed before it will only be worse. Whatever 'fault' may lead to this situation, that is the consequence if there are children involved.

Oh my God! You had SEX! With someone ELSE! Does not justify that consequence. Sex happens. Get over it. Whether divorce is hard to get or easy as snapping fingers or even not needed because you formed this unit to raise children without government intervention, get over it. Whatever else may incline you to dissolve this partnership with the job half done, get over it. Man (or Woman) up and finish the job you signed on for.

I look at it this way: Marriage vows are promises, and one of those promises is to be faithful to the person you married. That means you do not voluntarily have sex with anyone else, period. If you want to, then have the decency to get divorced first. To do otherwise is dishonorable and makes you a liar. A lie of that magnitude would make me wonder what else he was lying about.

Interesting. I have a cousin who divorced his first wife (very pretty woman and a good match in temperament for him I always thought, I believe they were high school sweethearts).

He caught her in bed with a repairman or something one day. If I'm not mistaken he was the one who called for the divorce. They never had children but, after that he had at least two more relationships that I know of. One got him a daughter. Neither of the other two females was anything to "write home about". They were both a little "rough around the edges" as they say.

One was a brat from the local wealthy land owner. Not very attractive and ended up running off somewhere on some joy ride leaving her daughter with my cousin. I don't think my cousin's daughter even knew her mother after the age of 5 or so. The last one I know of was a biker chick. What an interesting looker she was (at least compared to my cousin).

I still have a photo of my cousin and his first wife. What a cute couple and vibrant pair they were. His life probably would have been totally different I think had he forgiven her and moved on with life. I don't know what happened to her but she was a very sweet young lady all the times I met her. She was a "good catch" as they say. But he threw her back over one mistake. And he "paid for it" I can almost guarantee.

There may be more to this than you were ever told. Or maybe infidelity is indeed the dealbreaker for your cousin: One chance and that's it.

Here's a thought...figure out why you have the standard you are doubting.

The origins of 'evil adultery' go back further than human history...it's primate behavior. Males want to provide for offspring if the offspring is 'theirs', not if it came from some interloping male. This basic primate behavior has made it into holy books and family law and deep into our minds...despite being totally irrelevant in our times.

I was a sailor. Going to sea, with attendant forced celibacy, was my job...and celibacy was not a part that I considered a great benefit. In fact I thought it was one of the serious drawbacks. 'Staying faithful' was made easier by the fact that there were no women for however many hundreds of miles in any direction. My wife, however, did not sign up for that job. She also was not isolated, and was a very attractive and healthily driven woman.

I have all the genetic instincts of any other primate, and have read all the holy books and a few of the law books...and if she got laid while I was at sea...good for her! No harm came to me from it.

This reminds me of several scenes in Robert Heinlein's novel To Sail Beyond the Sunset, when newlyweds Maureen Johnson Smith and her husband Brian Smith are discussing their personal rules for "civilized adultery." Their rules worked throughout most of their decades-long marriage, until Brian broke them by sleeping with his widowed daughter-in-law.

 

[Smellincoffee]

In my father's side of the family -- with four brothers and sisters, with 14 children among them -- there are no divorces. There were plenty of thoughts about it, I'm told -- newlyweds who wanted to call it quits in the few couple of years. But they didn't, because that's the way they were raised. Now none of them regret it, and those who had the most doubts are the least likely to complain about their marriages now. They made a commitment; they put work in, it bore fruit. As much as I'd like to support no-default divorces on the basis of individual rights, as I compare the lives of my friends -- half of whom were raised in divorced homes -- to the lives of my family, the consequences make it plain to me that the western world has done itself a disservice by ceasing to give marriage the respect it once had.

 

[Farm Boy]

It's a root social thing. Communities are more transient, employers are as likely to lay you off as reward you for long service, and marriage fits the new mold too. A side product of capitalist globalization, perhaps.

 

[Tahuti]

It's a root social thing. Communities are more transient, employers are as likely to lay you off as reward you for long service, and marriage fits the new mold too. A side product of capitalist globalization, perhaps.

Reverse that globalisation then!

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

In the end, its about making trade offs. I'd rather have domestic abuse and spouse suicide over ruining children's lives and facilitating all you have managed to an even greater degree.

Domestic abuse and spouse suicide doesn't ruin children's lives?

 

[Tahuti]

Domestic abuse and spouse suicide doesn't ruin children's lives?

Yes it does, though I'd rather have less of it than more.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Me too. It's pretty obvious a break up impacts kid's lives less than ongoing domestic abuse and spouse suicide.

 

[bathsheba666]

I am personally aware of one situation where no-fault sucks.

A relative was married, wife had an affair and child and divorced him.
He is now paying maintenance boosted by the need to support the child, now living with mother and biological father.

Biological father must be very happy, he got both woman and child, and they are being paid for by the entirely innocent third party.

 

[Camikaze]

I am personally aware of one situation where no-fault sucks.

A relative was married, wife had an affair and child and divorced him.
He is now paying maintenance boosted by the need to support the child, now living with mother and biological father.

Biological father must be very happy, he got both woman and child, and they are being paid for by the entirely innocent third party.

That's not the fault of no-fault divorce. It's the fault of some other part of family law incidental to no-fault divorce. There's nothing about no-fault divorce which requires the payment of maintenance for another person's child.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's not the fault of no-fault divorce. It's the fault of some other part of family law incidental to no-fault divorce. There's nothing about no-fault divorce which requires the payment of maintenance for another person's child.

No fault can often be coupled with the default presumption that children born to a person in wedlock, regardless of biological parentage, are fully the responsibility of the married couple. It's not exactly the same thing, but it's built in as part of the broader premise of the law being totally unwilling to look at fault. It's a counter-swing that's gone too far.

Reverse that globalisation then!

I'm more sympathetic to American Isolationism than most people. By that token, I wouldn't actually begrudge you your Russian buddies if you want Europe to go ahead and grow its pair back.

 

[warpus]

My rationale for a marriage would be to found a family with the woman I'd marry to. So I don't assume an opening for divorce is needed anyway. I certainly wouldn't marry simply to enshrine a prolonged relationship.

Good for you. So amazing that you're able to focus only on yourself and your needs here, ignoring everyone else.

 

[Truronian]

Single parent households are certainly not ideal for children, however they are a step up from unhappy marriages. As such, I don't see increasing divorce rates as an inherently bad thing.

 

[Tahuti]

Single parent households are certainly not ideal for children, however they are a step up from unhappy marriages. As such, I don't see increasing divorce rates as an inherently bad thing.

That depends. In some cases, divorce may be the right call, even if it results in single-parenting situations. However, these were rather extreme circumstances that do not apply to all single-parenting cases.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Single parent households are certainly not ideal for children, however they are a step up from unhappy marriages. As such, I don't see increasing divorce rates as an inherently bad thing.

This counts on a very broad meaning for 'unhappy marriages'.

If you mean 'dad comes home, gets drunk, and punches mom' then yeah, single parent household is a distinct improvement.

If you mean 'hey the Beatles promised us that Love Is All You Need and it turns out living with another human being is hard, and these little ruggers make it really hard' then that's just parents that need to grow up and deal with reality, because no one's situation is going to be significantly improved when they split up, least of all the children's.

 

[Verbose]

I am personally aware of one situation where no-fault sucks.

A relative was married, wife had an affair and child and divorced him.
He is now paying maintenance boosted by the need to support the child, now living with mother and biological father.

Biological father must be very happy, he got both woman and child, and they are being paid for by the entirely innocent third party.

This is in the UK?

There certainly are place where that just couldn't happen.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm reasonably sure that at-fault divorce still exists. No-fault divorce is what you use if you want to speed up the process and keep the courts out of it.

 

[IglooDame]

He caught her in bed with a repairman or something one day. If I'm not mistaken he was the one who called for the divorce.

In my own limited experience, "once a cheater, always a cheater". For the life of me I don't understand how someone can take up with a married person, marry that person after they've divorced their current spouse, then act surprised when that person ends up cheating on them, too.

There is no one on the planet I trust more than my wife, and "don't boink other men" doesn't seem like a particularly onerous rule to follow - and we both know, one boink and it's over (both of us having previous marriages to cheaters).

That said, with many friends in non-traditional relationships, as long as all parties involved understand and agree to the mutual rules, have at it. Open relationships, swinger couples, very fluid poly households, harems, I've seen it all work and I've seen it not work at all. It just doesn't work for me. Okay, maybe the harem bit would, but... nevermind.

 

[Arwon]

This discussion strikes me as treating marriage fairly strangely. It's a legal category of relationship. It's another form of a de facto relationship (the name 'de facto' is a product of history more than anything else; it's not implying that the relationship is not a legal one). A de facto relationship isn't something you register for. If your relationship has characteristics A, B and C, the government will treat you as being in a de facto relationship. It's not really a matter of choice, other than the choice involved in being in a relationship with those characteristics. A 'marriage' is just the government recognising that you've also had some sort of ceremony which indicates an intention for a greater degree of permanence. Should a de facto relationship cease to have characteristics A, B and C, it will cease to be a de facto relationship. It seems odd to suggest that, should a marriage also cease to have characteristics A, B and C, the government should insist on continuing to recognise it as a marriage, where it doesn't do the same for de facto relationships. It would no longer fit the purposes for which the legal category exists. If 'marriage' is descriptive of the relationship, if the nature of that relationship changes, it simply doesn't make sense to continue applying the same term to it.

Unless you're actually saying that the government should force individuals to live together and share property, insisting on regarding couples as 'married', even when they have separated, or no longer have any meaningful relationship to speak of, just means that the property will not be distributed according to the actual nature of the relationship. Divorce is essentially just signifying that this distribution should take place, as it does with de facto relationships. This state of affairs is quite inefficient, and historically unfair to women.

I'm highly sceptical as to the arguments in the OP. The supposed detriments do not strike me as necessary results of no-fault divorce. Rather, they're probably description of how no-fault divorce has operated within a given system of law. With child custody, for instance, there's no reason why no-fault divorce would necessarily grant women greater custody rights over children; that's simply a quirk of the system in which no-fault divorce is being observed.

I think this is pretty astute. Aren't de facto relationships virtually identical to marriages in the eyes of government anyway?