Posted on 06/18/2024 3:47:07 AM PDT by fwdude
Before the 1960s, it was really hard to get divorced in America.
Typically, the only way to do it was to convince a judge that your spouse had committed some form of wrongdoing, like adultery, abandonment, or “cruelty” (that is, abuse). This could be difficult: “Even if you could prove you had been hit, that didn’t necessarily mean it rose to the level of cruelty that justified a divorce,” said Marcia Zug, a family law professor at the University of South Carolina.
Then came a revolution: In 1969, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan of California (who was himself divorced) signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce law, allowing people to end their marriages without proving they’d been wronged. The move was a recognition that “people were going to get out of marriages,” Zug said, and gave them a way to do that without resorting to subterfuge. Similar laws soon swept the country, and rates of domestic violence and spousal murder began to drop as people — especially women — gained more freedom to leave dangerous situations.
Today, … a counter-revolution is brewing: Conservative commentators and lawmakers are calling for an end to no-fault divorce, arguing that it has harmed men and even destroyed the fabric of society.
(Excerpt) Read more at vox.com ...
yes he does.
what is marriage in HIS eyes... is something entirely different what the government of mankind envisions.
God has forever pursued Israel (see Hosea’s writing)
Christ has forever become ONE with his Church.
Divorce is a construct of MAN and God allowed it, due to the hardness of mankind’s hearts... not because he approves it.
you should not have to live with someone if you made a mistake, and it’s not working.
Plus I will mention DV/drunks/drugs/cheaters.
all good reasons to divorce.
I have. I've known women whose husbands beat the snot out of them, and after ending up in the ER a couple times, decided that divorce was a matter of survival.
Some never remarried. A couple went on to marry wonderful men. They did not make the same mistake twice, although I know some women have a tendency to go for abusers for God knows what reason.
Great graphic - having done quite a bit of genealogy, I find an amazing number of divorces in very rural communities from about 1900 through the Depression. Perhaps a more established judicial presence that was more responsive to the drunken husbands/adulterous wives (seems to be the usual formula back then)
No, but it may help limit the financial damage done by a derelict spouse. A family member who went through such a misfortune rued that he did not have a prenup.
They should get rid of no-fault, as well as recriminalizing alienation of affection laws. Also update paternity fraud laws as well and be able to sue for financial loss for momey spent on kids that aren’t yours.
Marriage cannot be treated like contract law because the implications of marriage are far reaching, affecting others not a party to the narrow “contract.”
Contracts ONLY affect the parties who agree to it. That doesn’t describe marriage.
Also if you involve the state in your marriage its a legal contract. It needs to be treated as such when one violates it.
They can be dismissed. Its hardly a guarantee.
Your assumption is flawed.
Elimination of divorce is not the purpose.
Marriage is a legal contract too, this just actually make marriage a more enforceable contract.
The offended party wants that on reco4d and wants the cheating to factor into the distribution of assets and also custody. No fault screws over the cheated on spouse.
What ‘Christian Right’???
I think you would find you are not the only woman who experienced such devastating results.
Yes.
That is a rather unfair character smear.
I remember reading about how they did things “back in the day,” to discourage divorce: The husband got custody of the child(ren).
Today, … a counter-revolution is brewing: Conservative commentators and lawmakers are calling for an end to no-fault divorce, arguing that it has harmed men and even destroyed the fabric of society.
Two excellent points.
Divorce should be permitted. But we're making it too easy for women to leave men. They get alimony and child support. So why stay?
Maybe we should get men off the hook regarding payments. Section 8 housing and food stamps for single mothers. I'll support that 100%. I think that's a healthy compromise.
Our birth rate is already very low. And what we've been doing the past generation or two is not working.
This sounds like an unsubstantiated lie. Perhaps martital violence dropped, but that would only be because there is now far less marriage. I highly doubt that the resulting increase in fatherlessness, serial cohabitation, and stepfather/mother's-boyfriend abuse due to the increased dissolution of marriage made our culture anything but more violent. The increase in divorce also led to a significant increase in poverty, out-of-wedlock pregnacy, abortion, and drug abuse. This is President Reagan's biggest mistake.
Even in “fault” divorces, the court will award alimony to a spouse who cheated, and even if one spouse maxed out secret credit cards hidden from the other, the court will split that debt 50/50.
What happened in the marriage doesn’t matter to the court. The court only looks at numbers. This is why so many people take the “no fault” route now. Speaking from experience here. Why bother proving fault when the outcome will be the same?
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.