Would you exclude childless marriages from that mandate "to end no-fault"? If you wouldn't, then would you expect to see people who have no intention of producing offspring from a relationship just resort to living together without ever getting legally married? What would that do to the institution of marriage? How do you go after the folks living together?
I would have no intention of "going after" folks who want to live together. They most certainly should have the right to do so, if that is what they want. The state and the law should treat all parties who come before them equally and impartially. That is not the case with no-fault divorce.
There are literally thousands of people who each day have their constitutional rights violated and no one cares because it is not seen as a rights issue, but as a divorce issue. Three decades since the divorce revolution took hold, the legal requirement for divorce has devolved into a mere claim of "incompatibility" by a dissatisfied spouse. This standard for the response of government when petitioned is faulty for several reasons. First, there is another spouse who presumably has equal rights in the marriage. Two persons willfully entered into marriage. To forbid one from asserting the viability and prognosis of the marriage is grossly partial and even merits constitutional challenge. The present emotion of the petitioner should not trump the interests and well-being of the other spouse and children. The responding spouse should have the right to present the history and overall quality of the marriage, and its value to him/her and to the children and have that considered in court.
Second, government should never have authority to rule in favor of one party to a lawsuit based only on petition. Imagine the outcry if government stamped a guilty verdict in every prosecution. Yet that occurs in every divorce case in most states. A cause of action based on emotion rather than facts results in over one million divorces in the United States every year. They appear to be mutually consented because attorneys don't advise clients to deny the allegation that incompatibility exists to the level of irreconcilableness.
Third, a claim of incompatibility is more likely to be opportunistic than to seek protection from real harm.
For many, divorce is the most heart-rending event in their lives, with personal losses of a valued spouse, children's time and affections, and a decreased standard of living. So is divorce a problem or a solution? After experiencing a generation of misery, many are rethinking this and other questions. Whose lives are improved and whose are worse off? Is one spouse's unhappiness enough reason for divorce? Do children really believe parents will continue to love them when they can stop loving each other?
Recent social research has some answers. Children with married parents do better on all measures of well-being than kids in other structures including stepfamilies. Men, women, and children are all poorer after divorce. Although men recover more quickly financially, they lose time or contact with their children. But mothers also lose time with kids, because they're at dad's or mom works more. Men are more likely to remarry, and choose younger second wives. Divorced women are freer to make career choices, but their prospects for remarriage drop after age 30, and plummet after 40.
Furthermore, eighty percent of divorces are unilateral decisions, with one spouse considering reconciliation. Seventy percent are low conflict situations without abuse or constant fighting. Of the thirty percent regarded as high conflict divorces, less than 15% cite domestic violence or substance abuse. Adultery crosses the spectrum. Almost half of first marriages, 60% of second marriages, and 80% of third ones fail.
So what is the benefit for most of the players in divorce? Losses and gains vary, but to which side have the scales tilted? Overall, for most persons and society at large, divorce is a losing proposition. And with taxpayers absorbing the fallout, why is government so unconcerned about family breakup? Under current law, the state unabashedly sides with every divorce petitioner. This defies American principles of contracts, due process, and burden of proof. But, the old argument goes, government can't force people to stay married. Yet for thirty years it has forced divisions upon spouses who thought their vows had meaning under the law. It has forced countless children to live the yo-yo lifestyle when only one parent approves. Divorce forces unwanted consequences on someone. The question is, where should government apply its force?
It's time government moved to the side of preserving marriages where reasonable and feasible. Perhaps it's time for government to expect a little more from divorce petitioners when violence is not present. If their spouse declines the divorce, petitioners would still have choices: (1) with appropriate intervention, to put their hearts into rebuilding their marriage, (2) to prove one of the other three grounds in the statutes (adultery, abandonment, and cruelty), or (3) convince their spouse to consent to divorce by negotiating a better settlement. Presently, respondents have no choice but to adjust to a forced divorce.
Government can't change hearts. But there should be a cultural ethic whereby it would be considered irresponsible to end a marriage without two people first getting serious help. Ideally, counseling helps the couple assess marital strengths and weaknesses, finds interventions to improve satisfaction, and helps them rebuild. Many counselors, both secular and faith-based, are armed with new approaches to healing marriages. Proven and new relationship skills courses and mentoring programs are becoming more available. Much more is available than most judges, attorneys, pastors, or even counselors are aware of.
Divorce court must not serve as a morgue when one spouse still feels a pulse. One size does not fit all, and it's time that the law, through its judges and attorneys, started recognizing the value of marriages when one spouse does.
Our country is being destroyed one family at a time because the family unit has been all but obliterated due to no-fault divorce. Without both biological parents in the home, children are at risk to predators within the home - a place where they should be the safest. Children suffer mental, physical and sexual abuse at the hands of step-parents and mom or dad's live-in significant others. The natural, God-given protection of the family is no longer there. The Heritage Foundation has studies that show the safest place for a child is in the home of BOTH biological parents. The least safe situation is in the home of the mother and a live-in boyfriend.