[fr_freak]

No fault divorce has a long tradition, despite what critics of it say. In the Jewish tradition, a husband could divorce his wife for any or no reason - it was perfectly right and holy, as far as God was concerned. Christian tradition changed that, but it suggest no fault is somehow ‘new’ doesn’t hold water.

No fault is relatively new in the United States. I don't care what other countries do or have done. Are you vying for a spot on Obama's Supreme Court?

I see no reason to do away with no fault. If one party wants out, forcing them to remain together isn’t a wise thing.

Eliminating no fault doesn't force anyone to stay together. It merely restores consequences to divorce, AND it makes it more difficult, so that people don't toss away their marriages on a whim, as they do now. Either party might be a little less likely to cheat if they knew that they could be thrown out on their butts with nothing as a consequence.

[Ted Grant]

No, I am not a supreme court nominee. I’m just pointing out that in the Judeo part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, no fault divorce was acceptable and moral for 1,000s of years.

I think if at least one party wants out of the marriage, he or she should do it, with no financial penalty. Maintaining a 50% interest in marital property is contingent on being married, not contingent on staying faithful.

I just don’t see the upside of forcing two people to remain married when one person wants out.