Posted on 05/08/2015 6:49:06 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
The earliest precedent in no-fault divorce laws was originally enacted in Russia shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. They were legislated in the series of decrees that issued in early 1918. The decrees included nonjudicial dissolution of marriage by either party and mandatory provision of child-support.[2] The purpose of the Soviet no-fault divorce laws was ideological, intended to revolutionize society at every level.[3] They were the subject of significant revisional efforts from World War II to the 1960s. Major revisions were concluded in 1968.______________________________________________________
In the 1925 Soviet conference to draft the Family Law of 1926, people debated whether marriages should even be registered. Nikolai Krylenko, a chief architect of the Soviet law of marriage and leading theorist of "socialist legality" in the 1920s and 1930s, described the purpose of divorce without restraint as a step toward the ultimate goal of the abolition of marriage, thereby establishing the socialist transformation of society.Of course, if living together and not registration is taken as the test of a married state, polygamy and polyandry may exist; but the State can't put up any barriers against this. Free love is the ultimate aim of a socialist State; in that State marriage will be free from any kind of obligation, including economic, and will turn into an absolutely free union of two beings. Meanwhile, though our aim is the free union, we must recognize that marriage involves certain economic responsibilities, and that's why the law takes upon itself the defense of the weaker partner, from the economic standpoint.[3]
California was the first U.S. state to adopt what are now called "no-fault" divorces in the United States in 1969.[4] California's law was framed on an earlier and roughly contemporaneous effort, of the non-governmental organization, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, which began drafting a model of no-fault divorce statute for states to consider in 1967.[5] The Soviet 1968 and California 1969 no-fault divorce laws bore many detailed similarities of terminology, substance, and procedure.[2]:50–57[verification needed]
No Fault Divorce - Wikipedia
Divorce rates have skyrocketed since the imposition of no-fault divorce which, rather than being a victory for liberty and human rights, turned out an unqualified disaster for families, the children of divorce, and good parents --especially, fathers.
I thought you could offer some good input here.
And it’s closest sibling, annulment.
If you just find that you are not compatible, the prior way to get a divorce was to cry Infidelity.
Catholic purists may reject “no-fault” divorce, but it is better to quietly and civilly dissolve the marriage and go separate ways. Better for the couple, better for the kids.
Divorce is “better for the kids?”
What have you been smoking?
Do you believe that invalid or "null" marriages occur?
For example, is a drunken Vegas marriage valid?
Marriage to a close relative?
The principle is valid.
The question regards particulars. What constitutes a valid marriage?
What is marriage?
I guess as a kid you never had to hide in your room while some a hole slapped your mom around. I did. It sucked. And my mother, sister and I were better off with out him. Sometimes it makes sense. Son of a Single mom.
Is divorce always better for the kids?
I am not a child of divorce, but I'm sure there are some people here who can share their experiences.
______________________
If your concern is the good of the children, establishing fault should be an important aspect of determining custody. Currently, the default legal position is to grant custody to the mother. But what if the mother is of bad character? Shouldn't the father be granted custody?
For example, is a drunken Vegas marriage valid?
Please. We're talking about much, MUCH less than these extreme examples. Couples, MARRIED for years - DECADES - , with children, and a life, home, possessions purchases together.
The number of sought annulments of long-standing, fruitful marriages denied are VERY minuscule. You cannot deny this.
“Better for the couple, better for the kids.”
No, that’s wrong... It’s not better for either. It completely nullifies the Sacrament of marriage. The Church should have, with the institution of no-fault divorce, decoupled it’s self from the state regarding marriage urging the married couple NOT to register their union with the state at all. Keep it a religious union.
Divorce has been way better for my kids than the situation we were in for years. I’ve never been one FOR divorce, but I’m happy my wife filed for divorce and my kids (who are with me) are better off, too. And I think it’s ridiculous that the process is taking years and years and expensive as heck- $225,000 so far and counting, all told.
I believe you. But what if the rolls were reversed. What if your mother was the abuser? Today, it's possible for an abusive or neglectful mother to be granted custody, since fault is given little consideration.
Thank you.
You are talking about two different things. Physical assault is not about divorce, it is about a crime, ASSAULT. No family should have to endure that.
The vast majority of what were talking about is “incompatibility” and spouses with wandering eyes. That is probably 99% of what we’re talking about.
Nikolai Krylenko, a chief architect of the Soviet law of marriage and leading theorist of "socialist legality" in the 1920s and 1930s, described the purpose of divorce without restraint as a step toward the ultimate goal of the abolition of marriage, thereby establishing the socialist transformation of society.
“I guess as a kid you never had to hide in your room while some a hole slapped your mom around. I did. It sucked. And my mother, sister and I were better off with out him. Sometimes it makes sense. Son of a Single mom.”
Your situation is/was not in the same league as a no-fault divorce. Apples and oranges... Your throwing up a false flag.
Divorce is “better for the kids?”
That is the biggest crock. I know first hand.
America on the skids with the ancient Greeks....
"Nullity" regards the validity of the wedding, or the entrance into the marriage.
To take an easy case, consider the case of two close relatives being married. Their marriage would be null, regardless of the number of their children or the duration of their domesticity.
Marriage is a natural as well as sacramental institution. Only marriage as a natural institution is relevant to civil law in a secular State.
A natural marriage is a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman for their mutual care, and the begetting and raising of children.
So a null marriage would include at least some of the following conditions:
- Failure to intend a lifetime commitment at the time of the wedding.
- Unwillingness to ever beget children at the time of the wedding.
- Failure to consumate; impotence at the time of the wedding.
- Mental incompetence at the time of the wedding.
- Etc.
Now, there are legitimate reasons for divorce, abuse being the most obvious. In such cases, the determination of fault should be paramount in awarding custody of children.
bfl
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.