Divorce- no fault vs. whose fault?

[Saiwana]

Most things in this world seemingly come to an end eventually, even marriage which is meant to last for life or separation (if the couple choose eachother well). Relatively recently, a right wing talk radio host Steven Crowder- complained on his show to his audience about how he's recently getting divorced and that he doesn't consent to it and asked: why it is that Texas and all other 50 states in the US, have "no fault" divorce be the standard?

Apparently, this hasn't always been the case. And that as late as 2010, New York state had it to where you needed to get a judge or court of law to approve your request for a divorce which meant proving abuse and infidelity and so on. Theoretically, if you can't prove sufficient reasons/grievances to get divorced under "at fault" divorce, you're potentially stuck in a marriage to someone you no longer like or get along with.

From people who know Steven Crowder in private, and from leaked footage, it has been revealed that he is probably more to blame for his marriage falling apart and that she's tried for longer before recently calling it quits on him, and that he wasn't good to her when she was 8 months into pregnancy. But unfortunately for better or worse, Steven Crowder's complaining about divorce has led to other conservatives thinking: "yeah, why should we keep having "no fault" divorce if too many women in general are initiating divorces? Why don't we try rolling back "no fault" divorce laws as part of our culture war/legislative priorities if in the "old days" that we love so much- at fault divorce was the standard?"

Which brings us to now, where do you stand on the issue and why? Is it more important to strengthen the institution of marriage via requiring people to repair a toxic relationship and to try harder to exit a marriage if they want a divorce or is it better to ensure that people can exit any relationship that is no longer working for them? Discuss.

Republican Party and Conservative movement, now attacking "No Fault" Divorce; potentially a renewed political/culture war issue.
Op Ed: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 234727777/
Explaination of controversy: https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/wh ... 43712.html

[Juansonia]

Most things in this world seemingly come to an end eventually, even marriage which is meant to last for life or separation (if the couple choose eachother well). Relatively recently, a right wing talk radio host Steven Crowder- complained on his show to his audience about how he's recently getting divorced and that he doesn't consent to it and asked: why it is that Texas and all other 50 states in the US, have "no fault" divorce be the standard?

Apparently, this hasn't always been the case. And that as late as 2010, New York state had it to where you needed to get a judge or court of law to approve your request for a divorce which meant proving abuse and infidelity and so on. Theoretically, if you can't prove sufficient reasons/grievances to get divorced under "at fault" divorce, you're potentially stuck in a marriage to someone you no longer like or get along with.

From people who know Steven Crowder in private, and from leaked footage, it has been revealed that he is probably more to blame for his marriage falling apart and that she's tried for longer before recently calling it quits on him, and that he wasn't good to her when she was 8 months into pregnancy. But unfortunately for better or worse, Steven Crowder's complaining about divorce has led to other conservatives thinking: "yeah, why should we keep having "no fault" divorce if too many women in general are initiating divorces? Why don't we try rolling back "no fault" divorce laws as part of our culture war/legislative priorities if in the "old days" that we love so much- at fault divorce was the standard?"

Which brings us to now, where do you stand on the issue and why? Is it more important to strengthen the institution of marriage via requiring people to repair a toxic relationship and to try harder to exit a marriage if they want a divorce or is it better to ensure that people can exit any relationship that is no longer working for them? Discuss.

Republican Party and Conservative movement, now attacking "No Fault" Divorce; potentially a renewed political/culture war issue.
Op Ed: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/p ... 234727777/
Explaination of controversy: https://www.firstpost.com/explainers/wh ... 43712.html

Personally, I would support the wholesale abolition of civil marriage and all beauraucratic equivelants.

[Vassenor]

So basically the right wing are getting upset that women aren't the property of their husbands any more.

[Juansonia]

So basically the right wing are getting upset that women aren't the property of their husbands any more.

Not sure I'd go that far in terms of assumptions.

I think they are clinging to the idea of "marriage is for life", a vestigal notion from when spouses used to be property, and are getting pissed at what they perceive as an attack on said idea. Obviously, most who support that idea are willing to make concessions, such as for cheating and abuse. However, having one's life ruined (that's at least what often happens to financial situations) because one's wife filed for divorce (without fault) is something that stings, especially to those who thought that their marriage would last until death.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

So basically the right wing are getting upset that women aren't the property of their husbands any more.

Define "right wing," and do specify whether or not that label applies to someone who supports public healthcare, unionization efforts, and better public transit but thinks no-fault divorce is unfair to those who had better reasons to divorce their spouses, by treating them no differently than those who had worse ones.

I don't doubt in Crowder's case it could very well have been his fault, and railing against no-fault divorce is part of a long-term strategy to pretend it was not. But a stopped clock can be right twice a day.

[The Verking Federation]

Forcing people to stay married/Making Divorce illegal, would be the dumbest idea ever, so like if a woman’s husband was severely abusing them, they’re just supposed to stay married to him? And it can happen vice versa too, if a man’s wife is abusing him (shocker, woman can abuse people too) is he supposed to stay with her?

[Juansonia]

Forcing people to stay married/Making Divorce illegal, would be the dumbest idea ever, so like if a woman’s husband was severely abusing them, they’re just supposed to stay married to him? And it can happen vice versa too, if a man’s wife is abusing him (shocker, woman can abuse people too) is he supposed to stay with her?

Making divorce illegal is an essential component of the best approach, which is to abolish civil marriage entirely.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Forcing people to stay married/Making Divorce illegal, would be the dumbest idea ever, so like if a woman’s husband was severely abusing them, they’re just supposed to stay married to him? And it can happen vice versa too, if a man’s wife is abusing him (shocker, woman can abuse people too) is he supposed to stay with her?

No-fault divorce treats spouses who leave for no reason other than losing interest no differently than spouses who leave over abuse. I'm not sure how differently they should be treated, but "no difference at all" doesn't sit right with me.

We live in a world where the fear of being abandoned by one's spouse is so pervasive that people non-ironically recommend having kids so they won't leave you. This is a crisis. We need people who feel that attached to their spouses to have something, however small, they can do about being abandoned by them such that people don't get married in the first place until they know they can commit to it.

[Rary]

Forcing people to stay married/Making Divorce illegal, would be the dumbest idea ever, so like if a woman’s husband was severely abusing them, they’re just supposed to stay married to him? And it can happen vice versa too, if a man’s wife is abusing him (shocker, woman can abuse people too) is he supposed to stay with her?

Making divorce illegal is an essential component of the best approach, which is to abolish civil marriage entirely.

And why is that?

[Aggicificicerous]

People are talking about how no fault divorce is necessary for people to escape abusive relationships, and while that's true, it's not the primary reason for no fault divorce. Nobody should be forced to endure a marriage they don't want to be in. If you want to leave your partner, you can. If you want end your marriage, you can. Anything less is an absurd imposition on individual freedom.

[Juansonia]

Making divorce illegal is an essential component of the best approach, which is to abolish civil marriage entirely.

And why is that?

It's not the government's business what two (or more) consenting adults do in a bedroom. That naturally extends to all rewards for civil marriage (tax benefits, spousal immunity, medical decisions, etc.) After that, there is no reason to maintain the paperwork.

Also, as long as monogamists are allowed to get civil marriages (and all the benefits) but polygamists are jailed for even mentioning the idea of marrying, that is a violation of human rights. Since the government is unwilling to repeal its ban on bigamy, all marriages must be void to remedy this.

[Saiwana]

We live in a world where the fear of being abandoned by one's spouse is so pervasive that people non-ironically recommend having kids so they won't leave you. This is a crisis. We need people who feel that attached to their spouses to have something, however small, they can do about being abandoned by them such that people don't get married in the first place until they know they can commit to it.

Kids are no obstacle to getting divorced these days if both parents generally have to work outside the home anyways- to be able to afford a middle class or better lifestyle in most locations. If 2 people separate, they split assets/income and do alimony or child support if that is relevant. But alimony is less likely to be granted these days, if one or both people are equally financially "well off" enough apart as they were whilst still married.

People seem more reluctant to get married if they're risk adverse to divorce or insist on iron clad prenumptual contracts before agreeing to marriage. If it is intended to be a permanent big deal, may as well delay or opt out of that status until much later in life or permanently unless or until you can be certain enough that another person is "the one?"

If you want to leave your partner, you can. If you want end your marriage, you can. Anything less is an absurd imposition on individual freedom.

The downside is that this effectively weakens marriage as an institution as to make it almost pointless. The idea under older school definitions of it is that you can't just do whatever you want while married to someone because of commitments or sacrifices on personal freedom so far as conduct. But I'm also sure it wasn't necessarily ever intended to just be a way people can be trapped into abusive relationships/living situations indefinitely. But that without "no fault" divorce, that can be more of the case in practice.

[Ifreann]

People are talking about how no fault divorce is necessary for people to escape abusive relationships, and while that's true, it's not the primary reason for no fault divorce. Nobody should be forced to endure a marriage they don't want to be in. If you want to leave your partner, you can. If you want end your marriage, you can. Anything less is an absurd imposition on individual freedom.

Big agree. Steven Crowder wants the law to force Hilary Crowder to stay married to him, even though she doesn't want to be any more. That is fucked up. It would fucked up for the state to wield the power of the law to do that, even without considering the evidence of abuse on his part that has come to light.

[Adamede]

My parents divorced when I was pretty young and tbh it fucked me up in ways that I’m still dealing with today. Honestly I doubt I will ever be able to have normal romantic relationships because of the trauma from it.

Thing is forcing them to stay together would’ve fixed nothing. Marriages should be at the consent of both individuals. Forcing people who don’t want to be together to stay in the marriage because it doesn’t meet some threshold doesn’t fix anything.

[Dtn]

So basically the right wing are getting upset that women aren't the property of their husbands any more.

Define "right wing," and do specify whether or not that label applies to someone who supports public healthcare, unionization efforts, and better public transit but thinks no-fault divorce is unfair to those who had better reasons to divorce their spouses, by treating them no differently than those who had worse ones.

That’s not how it works.

[Vikanias]

I think that No fault is fine, but some assholes will still leave you for no reason at all or exploited you for something like money, a green card/visa etc. But that’s how the world is and it’s best to find signs of it and call it off before they can fully leech you.

[Cannot think of a name]

My parents divorced when I was pretty young and tbh it fucked me up in ways that I’m still dealing with today. Honestly I doubt I will ever be able to have normal romantic relationships because of the trauma from it.

Thing is forcing them to stay together would’ve fixed nothing. Marriages should be at the consent of both individuals. Forcing people who don’t want to be together to stay in the marriage because it doesn’t meet some threshold doesn’t fix anything.

Also being a child of divorce, I can imagine no greater nightmare than forcing those two people to continue together. Divorce sucked, the lead up to divorce sucked even worse.

[Fractalnavel]

As an example of what happens when you try this, look at Catholic marriage. People just end up ignoring it.

Meanwhile, what do you propose to do? Chain people together? "Enforcing" no-exit marriages would just end up in (even more) violence and murder.

I mean, unless that's what you're looking for. Kind of a weird kink...

[Tinhampton]

The only reason the UK has a no-fault divorce law is because of a high-profile court case in which a woman complained that she was not able to get a divorce after living apart from her husband for three years, when the requirement was that they be separated for five years. (And it's worth noting the court ruled against her; they didn't override that particular section of the law or indeed any part of existing divorce law.) I feel like the old law was working well and this was an overreaction; what should have been done was to reduce the separation period rather than give into the Labour Party Manifesto.

I don't think my husband and I have ever been particularly close to divorce. The closest we got was a very big argument that was semi-easily resolved. I'll repeat what I privately told one of my NS-side friends many months ago here:

Strangely enough, my parents divorced when I was about two years old. (Mum gave me love, wisdom, a sense of work ethic, and inane levels of attention to detail. Dad gave me what's now a 30-year-old car. I still drive it!) And for more than a few years after I got married, my view of divorce was basically "okay, I'm gonna move from 'happily-married, productive and satisfied mum of one' to 'omniscient domestic goddess with an office job who'll die if she gets more than five hours sleep a night,' how do I do this?!". The kid's moved out but thankfully we're still together and I don't think that's ever been remotely close to changing. although it's probably always good to have a backup plan

I mean, I say "not even remotely close," but the possibility surfaced at times! The closest I ever got was one particularly heated argument something like fifteen years ago, which was diffused when we agreed to go on a walk every night. We forgot about the walks within a couple of months, but they definitely gave me enough headspace to not go overboard on the whole complaining thing. (That and classical music. A LOT of it.) I suspect my husband and daughter felt the same, too! It may have even gotten her to stop hating PE at school, although I claim no responsibility for that.

Neither of us have (seriously) threatened divorce for ten years because we wouldn't feel comfortable splitting up while our daughter was sitting her GCSEs, or while she was sitting her A-Levels, or while she was at university, or while she's just starting out at work, or while she's getting to grips with her boyfriend, or while she's no longer our problem, or, or, or...

Only ten years? See OOC 1 of this.

As a side note: Dad married the woman he was cheating on Mum with in 1982. They will probably never divorce.

[Ethel mermania]

Irreconcilable differences, was the reason for a one sided divorce in the day.

Marriage always has to be a two yes decision. Both parties have to want it, if one wants out they should be allowed. No one should be forced into a marriage they don't want.

No fault makes divorce much simpler, cheaper and faster. Which are good things.

What you lose is the ability to really calculate damages. For example if one party was doing the damage, lying, cheating, etc. The decree issuing the divorce and setting up the division of assets, child support, alimony can take the reasons why the marriage ended into account. With no fault it cant.

[Saiwana]

An interesting historical irony is that Ronald Reagan was the first to sign "no fault" divorce into law, as California Governor in 1969. Most other US states gradually followed suit during the 1970s. The GOP isn't sure going back to the "at fault" divorce standard is something they genuinely want.

If most Conservatives went on board with backing "at fault" divorce, where would this leave Donald Trump, the twice and soon possibly thrice divorced front runner for the party?

[Tinhampton]

If most Conservatives went on board with backing "at fault" divorce, where would this leave Donald Trump, the twice and soon possibly thrice divorced front runner for the party?

I'm fairly confident all of these Trump shenanigans happened in pre-'10 New York

Irreconcilable differences, was the reason for a one sided divorce in the day.

Isn't that the wording used in all American no-fault divorces with no option to change or explain the actual reasoning in legal documents, or am I mistaking? (The British wording is "irretrievable breakdown".)

[Floofybit]

Divorce MUST be harder to accomplish unless in cases of extreme harm

[Ethel mermania]

An interesting historical irony is that Ronald Reagan was the first to sign "no fault" divorce into law, as California Governor in 1969. Most other US states gradually followed suit during the 1970s. The GOP isn't sure going back to the "at fault" divorce standard is something they genuinely want.

If most Conservatives went on board with backing "at fault" divorce, where would this leave Donald Trump, the twice and soon possibly thrice divorced front runner for the party?

Its not an irony. Ron was the last president who wanted smaller government. No fault takes much government process out of divorce.

Rob was also divorced, Nancy was wife #2

[Cannot think of a name]

Divorce MUST be harder to accomplish unless in cases of extreme harm

Should be way easier. There should be a kind of worksheet that fills out that divides shared resources evenly and an automatic shared custody schedule that can be altered by availability or if a parent willingly surrenders a portion of their time for the stability of their child's day to day activities. All these things should be automatic and something that can be certified by a notery public or a paralegal so that the process from filing for divorce and total separation is measured in months and has a negligible cost in filing fees. Once two people have decided they're better apart, the fast you get them there the better and the more you remove a contentious lawyer vs lawyer escalation of an already emotionly taxing event the better.

No idea how realistic that is, but that would be the ideal.