The earliest precedent in no-fault divorce laws was originally enacted in Russia shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution.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.
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.
America on the skids with the ancient Greeks....
bfl
No Fault Divorce has created a situation where the woman could run off and sleep with the entire New York Jets football squad, and the courts would still order her husband to pay her support and alimony.
Ending such perverse incentives to violate your vows would go a long way towards cutting the divorce rate.
Nobody insists that the State set up conditions for initiating or terminating relationships predicated upon sharing bonsai or bicycling or classic British films. And relationships involving property land, homes, exchange of goods and services, can be readily taken care of by private contract.
I have often said this in relation to the irrationality of "gay marriage." What for? What friends demand legally enforced "twosiness"? It calls to mind a banner I saw in a crowd shot of the big pro-traditional-marriage march in Gay Paree: a couple of flamboyant queers proclaiming "We're gayer without marriage."
So it seems marriage is primarily set up, not to secure the consortium and interests of adults, but primarily to secure the rights and interests of children.
Do children no longer have rights? Do thy no longer have interests? If there is truly "NO FAULT" in a marriage (the 5A's: no adultery, assault, abandonment, addiction, abuse) how is it in the children's interest to dissolve the marriage?
It seems to me that the State's interest --- the public interest --- in preserving marriage for the sake of the offspring, would naturally call for disincentives to divorce, and incentives to reconcile.
Not the contrary.
Children have a right to a father and a mother who are married to each other.
They still do.
My state adopted no-fault in 2007. Until then, many couples were separating and staying separated, never to reconcile again. They just couldn't afford the actual divorce.
IOW, no-fault divorce didn't destroy those marriages; they already were destroyed. No-fault simply made it possible to turn those separations into official divorces.
In the meantime, "fault" divorce is still an option.
BTW, even with no-fault, the plaintiff still has to give a reason - such as separation for 18 months or irreconcilable differences.
The problem isn't with no-fault. The real problem for many years has been that, even when "fault" can be shown, it has no effect on support, child custody, etc., as far as the courts are concerned.
Interesting...OBVIOUSLY the attempt here was to weaken the country by DESTROYING families. Seemed to have worked quite well, too.