Posted on 05/08/2015 6:49:06 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas
What is no-fault divorce?
When you ask most people, they will say it’s a mutual-consent process, or that it preserves privacy, or that it eliminates blame for the failure of the marriage.
Not many people will answer that it’s a lawsuit in which one party is suing the other party. And even fewer will know that it came from the Soviet Union.
Like previous divorce actions, no-fault divorce is still a lawsuit, which means that one party is invoking the state’s police powers against the other party. The main difference now is that the person filing for divorce no longer has to provide a reason for why they’re doing it. This type of lawsuit is unique; it’s the only type of legal action devoid of any ‘claim’ (complaint), and if the party being sued doesn’t know the complaint, then there’s no possibility of a defense.
As for the communist origins of no-fault divorce, a 1975 law review article by Donald M. Bolas entitled, “No Fault Divorce: Born in the Soviet Union?” explains how, after speaking with Russian lawyers, he stumbled upon how Soviet divorce law may have influenced our own laws.
Bolas explains that when the Bolsheviks took over in 1917, religious marriages were no longer recognized by the state. Marriage became a “state action” and divorce became merely an administrative process known as Russian Post Card Divorce. One spouse simply filled out the paperwork at city hall and the other party was then notified by mail that they were no longer married. Some people married twenty times. There was also a ‘free love’ bureau where people could sign up for partners.
The fact that this type of law increases the divorce rate is proven every day in the United States. Since the onset of no-fault divorce, the divorce rate doubled with one divorce granted for every two marriages that take place. In terms of sheer numbers, approximately a million divorces are finalized each year, translating into 3,000 divorces every day.
How coincidental that the U.S. divorce rate is among the highest in the world, vying only with Russia!
Another interesting fact about no-fault divorce is how strikingly similar its underlying thinking is to abortion law. In fact, laws dealing with both subjects were being drafted at the same meeting. This is how it all began.
History
In 1970, a national group of lawyers gathered for their annual meeting at the Colony Motor Hotel in Clayton, Missouri, just outside of St. Louis. At this meeting, two new ‘model’ laws were being drafted and debated. These laws would serve as ‘blueprints’ for state legislators around the country to enact as state laws. The purpose was to create more uniformity in state laws. One of these laws was called the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act (UMDA) and the other was the Uniform Abortion Act (then, in 1973, Roe v. Wade overturned all state abortion laws).
A common theme found in both of these debates was the word viability and this word would be operative in rationalizing both of these laws.
In the case of abortion, the discussion revolved around the viability of the human life, meaning its potential for survival outside the mother. The divorce debate was similar: a marriage could be terminated “on the basis that it no longer is a viable institution,” according to the transcripts that have been preserved from these debates.
Using viability as the operative term would soften the discussion on divorce, or abortion, making these new laws more palatable to the public. This way of thinking would also help cover up the truth so we wouldn’t have to ‘look’ at the reality: that both are really destructive acts. One act destroys the product of the one-flesh union while the purpose of the other act is to destroy the one-flesh union itself.
During a pregnancy, we now are able to ‘see’ the reality of life due to technical advances. However, in the case of marriage, there isn’t any test. One person’s word suffices. Judges and lawyers don’t check for vital signs in the marriages, which assumes they are all dead on arrival.
The label given to this new type of divorce is something of a misnomer. The term ‘no-fault’ came into the vernacular with the introduction of ‘no-fault’ car insurance. The rationale behind no-fault car insurance was to move cases more quickly into ‘settlements.’
The same is true for no-fault divorce because now the emphasis is on moving cases into mediation where settlements are supposed to be reached, conveniently skipping the step of determining viability. Once a petition for divorce is filed, the marriage is essentially doomed, since no one checks for any pulse.
The term “no-fault” has served masterfully to cover up something that is far more sinister. The idea that the State is forcing people out of their marriages is hard to fathom but because every divorce petition is granted, and none are ever denied, then there are certainly a few viable marriages that meet an untimely death.
Conciliation/Reconciliation
Before the onset of no-fault divorce there was a burgeoning activity around the country called the Conciliation Court Movement with the focus on marital reconciliation. This movement began in 1939 when California enacted its Children’s Court of Conciliation Law in order to:
… protect the rights of children and to promote the public welfare by preserving and promoting family life and the institution of matrimony, and to provide means for the reconciliation of spouses and the amicable settlement of domestic and family controversies.
By 1970, Conciliation Courts were operating in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon and Wisconsin, using a growing body of knowledge and techniques to help restore family life. But now, such lofty goals cannot be found anywhere in our statutes.
When no-fault divorce entered the picture, the emphasis in conciliation courts soon changed to ‘divorce with dignity.’ Settlement negotiations took place under the auspices of a mediator who assisted the courts in keeping the conveyor belt moving.
Is there another possibility? Can distressed spouses find ‘relief’ for their anguish? Could we create Marriage Support facilities that operate in the same way as the Pregnancy Support facilities that offer another answer than abortion? Marriage Support facilities could do the same thing by offering couples the help they need to stay together.
In many ways, the Church might be the perfect home for these facilities. Tribunal offices could incorporate the Conciliation Court model, summoning couples from the civil courts. At this time, spouses are typically directed to Catholic Charities, but this is not enough because the problem requires a blending of both legal and pastoral initiatives.
Also needed are skillful practitioners who are trained in multiple fields. Working with a dyadic relationship is much harder than working with one person individually. Not many practitioners can handle such a challenge without bringing their own biases into the work.
By all appearances we are a nation that wants to defend traditional marriage, as evidenced by the number of state constitutional amendments that have passed. The next step is to protect marriages from being destroyed in this country’s no-fault divorce mills.
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.