[highball]

"If you don't like no-fault divorce, change the law."

We've been trying for years to do just that. It's not as easy as you make it sound.

I understand that. Changing laws isn't always easy, nor should it be.

But until you get the law changed, what right has the state to punish people who exercise their rights under that law?

[William Terrell]

But until you get the law changed, what right has the state to punish people who exercise their rights under that law?

Same right it has to fine people for not keeping their ad valorem tax tag up to date, using their concealed weapon license in a reckless manner. It's called the police power of the state and it's purpose is to regulate the exercise of rights so that they don't threaten the health, welfare and safety of the people of the state.

The option ofno-fault divorce is destroying the integrity of the basic unit of society, simply because that option is available and easy in comparison to actually working out problems.

It's purpose may be warm and fuzzy, but it is not used that way. It's proper use depends totally and completely on the fair heartedness, integrity, honesty and sense of self governance of the user, with no oversight thereof.

It's like putting a loaded gun for public use at every street corner.

[texgal]

But until you get the law changed, what right has the state to punish people who exercise their rights under that law?

I guess my answer in response to that question is how long should innocent people (spouse and children) be made to suffer under an unconstitutional law?

When a person is sued for something that cannot be adequately described, the plaintiff and the court cannot give a threshold for how much it takes to determine what constitutes a breach and you're deprived of your right to trial by jury of your peers, shouldn't the unconstitutional law be overturned? The supreme court won't hear a challenge to divorce laws because of the abstention doctrine.