The Texas GOP states in its platform that it wants to end no-fault divorce.
"214. No-Fault Divorce: We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws, to support
covenant marriage, and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six
months after the date of filing for divorce."
https://texasgop.org/platform/

Nebraska wants to limit it.
"We believe no-fault divorce should be limited to situations in which the couple has no children of the marriage."
https://ne.gop/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/NEGOP-Platform-2021.pdf

Louisiana GOP is considering calling for the elimination of no-fault divorce in its platform.
https://www.wwno.org/news/2023-01-12/louisiana-republican-party-considers-backing-elimination-of-no-fault-divorce

The national party considered it in 2016.

Here's the full text of the no-fault divorce amendment. (Also note "intact biological family" pic.twitter.com/LCElFQdDkK

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) July 11, 2016

Nope. And it's party suicide to keep banging this stupid drum.

No. The government should not be in the business of marriage. The GOP is wrong here

Let me know when a real bill is introduced. Party platforms are just red meat for the masses.

The Republican Party, both state and national, seems to still have the uncanny ability to pick the wrong hill to die on.

Terrible idea. Also, don't pick culture battles you can't win.

Forcing people that hate each other to stay together for the sake of "the family" seems like brilliant idea.

Glad the GOP has its fingers on the pulse of the real problems facing the state in 2023.

I like Nebraska's idea

Yes Let's make them fight it out

I will say it is pretty stupid to have a legal contract that isn't binding to either party. What is the point?

I know the society benefits from the stability and productivity of marriage and should incentivize it but if it isn't going to make it binding in any way to enter, why be involved at all?

I guess there's still the issue of ownership shares of partnership wealth and of child custody. Maybe it should be harder to get into a legal marriage, and incentivized if you qualify, versus something any two idiots can do on a whim.

Contracts are broken all the time. If the sides can't resolve that issue amicably, they ask a court to do it.

Need to do away with child support. Split expenses and custody straight down the middle.

So if a spouse wants out, they would either have to get the other spouse to agree or prove in court that the other spouse is at fault.

Not good. Recipe for disaster. You can't force people to love each other, so don't try to force people to stay in marriages they want out of.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I will say it is pretty stupid to have a legal contract that isn't binding to either party. What is the point?

I know the society benefits from the stability and productivity of marriage and should incentivize it but if it isn't going to make it binding in any way to enter, why be involved at all?

I guess there's still the issue of ownership shares of partnership wealth and of child custody. Maybe it should be harder to get into a legal marriage, and incentivized if you qualify, versus something any two idiots can do on a whim.

---

Pretty much every contract in the world can be broken. A court might make someone pay up, just like a family court might do during a divorce, but you can almost always end a contract

True I suppose. A shame.

hoopla said:

---

The Texas GOP states in its platform that it wants to end no-fault divorce.
"214. No-Fault Divorce: We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws, to support
covenant marriage, and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six
months after the date of filing for divorce."
https://texasgop.org/platform/

Nebraska wants to limit it.
"We believe no-fault divorce should be limited to situations in which the couple has no children of the marriage."
https://ne.gop/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/NEGOP-Platform-2021.pdf

Louisiana GOP is considering calling for the elimination of no-fault divorce in its platform.
https://www.wwno.org/news/2023-01-12/louisiana-republican-party-considers-backing-elimination-of-no-fault-divorce

The national party considered it in 2016.

Here's the full text of the no-fault divorce amendment. (Also note "intact biological family" pic.twitter.com/LCElFQdDkK

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) July 11, 2016

---

YES.

The real question/issue is: "Why is there a connection between gov't and marriage in the first place?"
That is what needs to go away.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I will say it is pretty stupid to have a legal contract that isn't binding to either party. What is the point?

I know the society benefits from the stability and productivity of marriage and should incentivize it but if it isn't going to make it binding in any way to enter, why be involved at all?

I guess there's still the issue of ownership shares of partnership wealth and of child custody. Maybe it should be harder to get into a legal marriage, and incentivized if you qualify, versus something any two idiots can do on a whim.

---

Pretty much every contract in the world can be broken. A court might make someone pay up, just like a family court might do during a divorce, but you can almost always end a contract

---

No fault divorce can be utilized in petty, ****ty ways but I don't see anyway the government should be forcing people to stay married. With that said, in most contracts the person breaking the contract has to provide some form of remedy. That there is no form of remedy required of the person initiating a no fault divorce and still end up with half of everything is something that should be evaluated imo.

I'd rather the government just stay out of it altogether but since that cat is out of the bag might as well be as involved as little as possible.

Get government out of marriage entirely.

BillYeoman said:

---

Need to do away with child support. Split expenses and custody straight down the middle.

---

The reason why there is a primary parent is they found out kids younger than 12 do better with the consistency and routine of one main parent. After that, in Texas at least, the child can have an opinion on who they want to live with. Alimony or spousal support is a different story

Plus there are a lot of crappy parents out there that don't deserve to see their kids that often. I know a lot that have issues getting their kids to school one day a week.

Fenrir said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I will say it is pretty stupid to have a legal contract that isn't binding to either party. What is the point?

I know the society benefits from the stability and productivity of marriage and should incentivize it but if it isn't going to make it binding in any way to enter, why be involved at all?

I guess there's still the issue of ownership shares of partnership wealth and of child custody. Maybe it should be harder to get into a legal marriage, and incentivized if you qualify, versus something any two idiots can do on a whim.

---

Pretty much every contract in the world can be broken. A court might make someone pay up, just like a family court might do during a divorce, but you can almost always end a contract

---

No fault divorce can be utilized in petty, ****ty ways but I don't see anyway the government should be forcing people to stay married. With that said, in most contracts the person breaking the contract has to provide some form of remedy. That there is no form of remedy required of the person initiating a no fault divorce and still end up with half of everything is something that should be evaluated imo.

I'd rather the government just stay out of it altogether but since that cat is out of the bag might as well be as involved as little as possible.

---

This. It isn't about forcing people to stay together. It's about who gets what when only one party wants to leave.

Anything that hurts the sanctity of marriage is a good thing.

C@LAg said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Get government out of marriage entirely.

---

as long as there are taxes, that is never going to happen.

---

Being the gayest gay to ever gay, why are you even worried?

TXAggie2011 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I will say it is pretty stupid to have a legal contract that isn't binding to either party. What is the point?

I know the society benefits from the stability and productivity of marriage and should incentivize it but if it isn't going to make it binding in any way to enter, why be involved at all?

I guess there's still the issue of ownership shares of partnership wealth and of child custody. Maybe it should be harder to get into a legal marriage, and incentivized if you qualify, versus something any two idiots can do on a whim.

---

Pretty much every contract in the world can be broken. A court might make someone pay up, just like a family court might do during a divorce, but you can almost always end a contract

---

Family courts don't make the at fault side "pay up". At worst, you're looking at a 40/60 split of marital asset under egregious facts. Hardly the consequences of breaching a business contract.

As a former divorce attorney, I think we'd be better off as a society if we got rid of no-fault divorce.

hoopla said:

---

The Texas GOP states in its platform that it wants to end no-fault divorce.
"214. No-Fault Divorce: We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws, to support
covenant marriage, and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six
months after the date of filing for divorce."
https://texasgop.org/platform/

Nebraska wants to limit it.
"We believe no-fault divorce should be limited to situations in which the couple has no children of the marriage."
https://ne.gop/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/NEGOP-Platform-2021.pdf

Louisiana GOP is considering calling for the elimination of no-fault divorce in its platform.
https://www.wwno.org/news/2023-01-12/louisiana-republican-party-considers-backing-elimination-of-no-fault-divorce

The national party considered it in 2016.

Here's the full text of the no-fault divorce amendment. (Also note "intact biological family" pic.twitter.com/LCElFQdDkK

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) July 11, 2016

---

Yep

Marriage is a contract between God, the man, and the woman. Where are all those that incorrectly use the separation of church and state over marriage? If the church does not want to "Marry" anyone for any reason, they should not have to. The govt. should get out of marriage. Only the serious should apply to marry.

Irish 2.0 said:

---

No. The government should not be in the business of marriage. The GOP is wrong here

---

Republicans are missing the forest from the trees again. Instead of penalizing divorcees, Republicans need to push incentivizing couples to stay together particularly if they have kids, via tax breaks. The data is very clear that kids from a 2 parent home are much more likely to be successful, that and avoiding teen pregnancy.

Apply this philosophy at the macro level and if anything single mothers should be disincentivized from separating from their baby-daddys. Stop replacing husbands and dads with the government dole. Now politically it may not be a winner, but if we want society to improve the incentives need to change.

The Louisiana Covenant Marriage law is a voluntary option.

https://ldh.la.gov/page/695

I think that having a similar option is the main intention of the Texas GOP Platform plank.

I think it's unrealistic to put the genie back in the bottle completely but I do think there needs to be reforms. You should not have situations where one spouse is incentivized to divorce and screw over the other spouse. If you want out without "fault" so be it but you don't get half or even close to it. If there is "fault" though then that reverses. Essentially whomever is responsible for breaking the contract or not living up to the terms should pay the price.

The way marriage is set up currently it is especially risky for a successful male. We should be encouraging people to marry responsibly, stay together, and put any children they have first in the event of a divorce. The problem with "no fault" is it didn't make a further adjustment in the law to prevent abuse.

BTW, it can go both ways for sure it's just uncommon in terms of the female/male dynamic in divorces though media seems to always focus on the men being the bad guy every time.

Tea Party said:

---

Get government out of marriage entirely.

---

So get them out of legislating morality? Or just the ones we don't want to believe are against Christian beliefs?

$240 Worth of Pudding said:

---

Forcing people that hate each other to stay together for the sake of "the family" seems like brilliant idea.

---

It's for the sake of the contract. You want to sue me for divorce, take half my money, and take majority custody of my kids? You better be able to point to a good reason why I'm at fault.

What other contract in the world can you just break, come out the winner, all because you don't like the other party anymore?

As with most changes like this, yes WITH proper education. The country would benefit from more people entering marriage with the mindset that they CAN'T get out. Most now enter it thinking they can get out anytime or "that won't happen to us"