I love how everyone in favor of this thinks that before no fault divorces everything was Ozzie & Harriet or Lucy & Desi. If men are so worried about being taken to the cleaners by their scheming, unsatisfied wives they should've gotten pre-nups. Everybody knows what's involved and what can happen when you get married.

aggie93 said:

---

No fault divorce has had terrible consequences but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. What you can do though is modify divorce and child custody laws though.

For instance, if either partner wants a divorce but has no cause or "fault" (abuse, infidelity, etc) then they should should be able to divorce but not be treated as an equal in the settlement. That would do wonders with the Suburban wife who "falls out of love" with her husband in her 30s and gets the house and the car and much of the savings to go with a favorable child care arrangement. I know so many men that have been absolutely destroyed by women who they gave everything to and were faithful husbands and good fathers and the wife just decided she "wasn't getting her emotional needs met" or something else. She gets to keep living the life and start dating again while he now has to pay for her life and his and the kids while trying to rebuild everything when he didn't break any marriage vows. Had a friend recently go through this and she waited until right after he sold his business and crushed him. He ended up in an apartment and she got the house and the lions share of everything and was partying it up on his money. Saddest thing was he didn't care about the money, he would have gladly done anything to keep her but she "just didn't think he understood her needs" as she drove her Mercedes convertible and kept the condo in Breckinridge and picked up a new boyfriend in no time. Oh, and the kids had a rough go of it to and had trouble connecting with Dad in his small apartment in the little time he got them. The biggest nail to me was she used the fact he had been working insane hours for the last couple years trying to sell the company so they could spend more time together and have financial security against him, she filed within a few weeks of the deal closing and he had made millions. To be fair she had a "job" even though he brought in 90% of the income. So many stories like this.

If a woman wants to walk on a marriage without cause she shouldn't be able to take the man to the cleaners, she should be able to leave but leave without much and be treated as the one who broke the contract and suffer the penalty for that. If she leaves without cause then the husband should get first right of refusal on just about everything from the house to the cars to the child care arrangement. Do that and a lot more of those women will work a LOT harder at their marriages and realize it is a partnership. Most of marital laws have shifted to favor the wife without any adjustment.

Oh, and no doubt there are men that act like scum as well but typically the men are doing something that is cause (abuse, infidelity, etc.). If that happens they should also be treated harshly in the divorce. Men are certainly capable of being terrible husbands and fathers and generally horrible humans.

You should be able to get your freedom without cause but it should come at a price unless both parties agree it just isn't working. They should of course be able to settle how they wish. It's just you can't have one party incentivized to break a contract and many marriages are set up that way. It should always be strongly discouraged from breaking up a contract or in this case a marriage and the one who breaks it or causes the break has to face consequences for doing so.

Or we just keep doing the things the way we are and fewer and fewer people will get married and have kids. I've been married 29 years and the only way we have made it is both my wife and I have never considered divorce an option. We have had our hard times for sure as all couples do, it's not all a fairy tale. If you make divorce an easy and acceptable option though people will use that option far more often and that is the environment we have encouraged.

---

This.

Very stupid.

The 60 day rule is already bulls*** and needs to go away.

And FWIW, I'm referring to amicable situations. Yes, there should be some protections for someone who has upheld their end of the marriage and someone else just decides to break it. But if both agree to the terms of a no fault divorce, with no disputes, it should be as easy as possible.

93MarineHorn said:

---

I love how everyone in favor of this thinks that before no fault divorces everything was Ozzie & Harriet or Lucy & Desi. If men are so worried about being taken to the cleaners by their scheming, unsatisfied wives they should've gotten pre-nups. Everybody knows what's involved and what can happen when you get married.

---

You're making that up. No one said that. Were there more or fewer children being raised in broken homes?

93MarineHorn said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

No fault divorce has had terrible consequences but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. What you can do though is modify divorce and child custody laws though.

For instance, if either partner wants a divorce but has no cause or "fault" (abuse, infidelity, etc) then they should should be able to divorce but not be treated as an equal in the settlement. That would do wonders with the Suburban wife who "falls out of love" with her husband in her 30s and gets the house and the car and much of the savings to go with a favorable child care arrangement. I know so many men that have been absolutely destroyed by women who they gave everything to and were faithful husbands and good fathers and the wife just decided she "wasn't getting her emotional needs met" or something else. She gets to keep living the life and start dating again while he now has to pay for her life and his and the kids while trying to rebuild everything when he didn't break any marriage vows. Had a friend recently go through this and she waited until right after he sold his business and crushed him. He ended up in an apartment and she got the house and the lions share of everything and was partying it up on his money. Saddest thing was he didn't care about the money, he would have gladly done anything to keep her but she "just didn't think he understood her needs" as she drove her Mercedes convertible and kept the condo in Breckinridge and picked up a new boyfriend in no time. Oh, and the kids had a rough go of it to and had trouble connecting with Dad in his small apartment in the little time he got them. The biggest nail to me was she used the fact he had been working insane hours for the last couple years trying to sell the company so they could spend more time together and have financial security against him, she filed within a few weeks of the deal closing and he had made millions. To be fair she had a "job" even though he brought in 90% of the income. So many stories like this.

If a woman wants to walk on a marriage without cause she shouldn't be able to take the man to the cleaners, she should be able to leave but leave without much and be treated as the one who broke the contract and suffer the penalty for that. If she leaves without cause then the husband should get first right of refusal on just about everything from the house to the cars to the child care arrangement. Do that and a lot more of those women will work a LOT harder at their marriages and realize it is a partnership. Most of marital laws have shifted to favor the wife without any adjustment.

Oh, and no doubt there are men that act like scum as well but typically the men are doing something that is cause (abuse, infidelity, etc.). If that happens they should also be treated harshly in the divorce. Men are certainly capable of being terrible husbands and fathers and generally horrible humans.

You should be able to get your freedom without cause but it should come at a price unless both parties agree it just isn't working. They should of course be able to settle how they wish. It's just you can't have one party incentivized to break a contract and many marriages are set up that way. It should always be strongly discouraged from breaking up a contract or in this case a marriage and the one who breaks it or causes the break has to face consequences for doing so.

Or we just keep doing the things the way we are and fewer and fewer people will get married and have kids. I've been married 29 years and the only way we have made it is both my wife and I have never considered divorce an option. We have had our hard times for sure as all couples do, it's not all a fairy tale. If you make divorce an easy and acceptable option though people will use that option far more often and that is the environment we have encouraged.

---

This seems ok from a theoretical perspective, but has been shown to be a nightmare in practice. It's why society has moved to no fault divorces. Baring your personal lives to gov't bureaucrats so you can get your "fair share" is a disaster. It involves spying on your spouse and documenting their trespasses. It's a gold mine for attorneys and private investigators, I suppose. For everyone else, it's awful.

---

What I am talking about hasn't been tried anywhere to my knowledge.

I agree that an extreme position on No Fault doesn't work. What you do need though is a balance. Sure, you can get a divorce from someone who wants to remain married without cause but if you do you don't get to be treated equally. You are breaking the contract without cause. If the other party doesn't want to break the contract then you shouldn't get equal treatment.

The goal here is to have people take marriages more seriously and work harder at keeping them. To be fair a lot of messaging to women especially is toxic and narcissistic. Much of the messaging to women is that they can do anything and have limitless opportunity yet still get the benefits of not having to take responsibility for much of that freedom. Choices have consequences.

The reality is that both men and women are happiest when they believe in giving more than receiving. A husband is happiest when he feels like he is providing and protecting his wife and family and it gives him purpose. A wife is happiest when she sacrifices for her husband and children to provide them with love and happiness to go with a stable and loving home environment. Real joy comes not from receiving but from giving.

When they realize you can't keep score and that there are times when one partner is getting more benefit than the other in many ways but it balances out. That only happens though if both sides are committed to it. Having an arrangement that says that marriage comes with a real commitment with real consequences is critical to the success of marriages.

There also is no perfect solution. Any system will be abused, that is human nature. That said I agree with you I don't want government involved in my life but that's not realistic. A marriage is a legal binding agreement that involves property and finances. Of course a couple can sign a pre nup or they can make their own settlement but what we are talking about here is cases where that hasn't happened. We have to have laws and guidelines or else chaos and more bad behavior ensues.

Bob Lee said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

I love how everyone in favor of this thinks that before no fault divorces everything was Ozzie & Harriet or Lucy & Desi. If men are so worried about being taken to the cleaners by their scheming, unsatisfied wives they should've gotten pre-nups. Everybody knows what's involved and what can happen when you get married.

---

You're making that up. No one said that. Were there more or fewer children being raised in broken homes?

---

You mean when it was much harder to get a divorce?

Gee...what a great metric to use.

There were fewer because they were not ALLOWED to be divorced. So, many children grew up in a different kind of broken family. The one where everyone yelled all the time and no one was happy. But, at least they were together.

Want to turn Texas blue? This is how you do it. The religious right needs to stay out of politics.

Just imagine if they got rid of no fault divorce - people would just stop getting married altogether. This is just as stupid as most of the stuff liberals come up with.

javajaws said:

---

Want to turn Texas blue? This is how you do it. The religious right needs to stay out of politics.

Just imagine if they got rid of no fault divorce - people would just stop getting married altogether. This is just as stupid as most of the stuff liberals come up with.

---

There is no right without religion. Sorry. We're the most ardent conservative voting demographic there is, and you want us to stay out of politics. Genius.

Make prenups mandatory.

javajaws said:

---

Want to turn Texas blue? This is how you do it. The religious right needs to stay out of politics.

Just imagine if they got rid of no fault divorce - people would just stop getting married altogether. This is just as stupid as most of the stuff liberals come up with.

---

Without making an argument for or against the premise of the thread, we're moving that direction regardless. Our society is increasingly narcissistic and selfish. Marriage rates are massively down from when most of the people that post on this board were children.

People shouldn't get married if they are not going to actually commit to it, but I cannot imagine that the decline in stable, married households is going to be a good thing long term.

This sounds like a great plot to Hitman II.

This time, the spouses are even angrier.

Turf96 said:

---

I agree 100% with this. Just because one person wants out doesn't make it a deal that should be broken. As stated above don't like the contract just say sorry what we agreed above is no longer because my feelings changed. Divorce often affects more than just two and when it happens it destroys. The devil rejoices at every no fault divorce. Look at divorce numbers alone in Texas. A large majority are women desperate to upgrade one last time before their Worth declines. Many times it isn't anything to do with the father of the children. Being unhappy with one's self should not be reason enough to destroy a spouse and children. No fault divorce is a joke. If one wants out they need to leave with only the carry on bag they carry out. Then feelings would be much less of a damage to American family.

---

Nothing better than a wife who feels held hostage and who doesn't want to be with you. Secretly likely cheating on you behind your back all because she feels trapped. If you think people who jump to divorce really quick will just all of the sudden become faithful, loyal partners who give it their all in a marriage because the government says so, you have another thing coming.

The wives that want to fight with you don't need the government to tell them divorce should be tough. The wives who want to destroy you and take half your stuff, how could you want to be with them anyways? They would destroy your life one way or another.

beerad12man said:

---

Very stupid.

The 60 day rule is already bulls*** and needs to go away.

And FWIW, I'm referring to amicable situations. Yes, there should be some protections for someone who has upheld their end of the marriage and someone else just decides to break it. But if both agree to the terms of a no fault divorce, with no disputes, it should be as easy as possible.

---

I don't think that you have many people arguing with you here. I think this is a bit of a strawman.

What people are arguing about is a spouse that falls in love with someone else, and decides to dissolve the marriage when the spouse has been loyal, and wants their half of the marital assets.

That is bull*****

javajaws said:

---

Want to turn Texas blue? This is how you do it. The religious right needs to stay out of politics.

---

How quickly do you think Dade Phelan will get around to plank #185 of the Texas GOP platform?

Texas adding in a category of legal separation would be helpful here, I think.

There are marriages where the spouse might want to try and stay together, but is not willing to participate in the spouses illegal / dangerous / destructive behavior. Legal separation would give couples a chance to be apart financially, but still assume monogamy. I don't understand how legal separation could hurt.

Next up: Anti blasphemy laws!

93MarineHorn said:

---

I love how everyone in favor of this thinks that before no fault divorces everything was Ozzie & Harriet or Lucy & Desi. If men are so worried about being taken to the cleaners by their scheming, unsatisfied wives they should've gotten pre-nups. Everybody knows what's involved and what can happen when you get married.

---

No one thinks marriage was always wonderful, at least no one who knows what they are talking about. It is always a challenge and requires self sacrifice. It just has a great reward for most as there is nothing more fulfilling in life than being happily married with children for most people, even if they don't realize it.

I couldn't disagree more than "everybody knows what's involved". I sure as hell didn't and I grew up with parents that were as close to "Ozzie and Harriet" as anyone and married an amazing woman. You don't really know until you are in it and you hit some real challenges, whether they be caused by one of the two of you or outside factors. Marriage is hard work. You simply can't explain or describe it until you are in it, I especially look back at my 23 year old self getting married and how little I knew what it really meant. All I knew was I loved my wife and I was going to make it work, I was making a commitment and it was for life. I didn't really understand what that meant though. I was fortunate I married a woman who also took those marriage vows seriously and stood by me even when I know it wasn't always easy and I made so many mistakes. I recognize just how blessed I am to have had that but it definitely didn't just happen by accident.

As for prenups that's a tough call. A prenup by definition sets up the expectation that things won't work out. Most people also don't have significant assets when they marry, they accumulate them over time. Thus a typical scenario is: Man and woman get married a few years out of college with minimal net worth but valuable skills with both working. After a few years the wife gets pregnant and they start a family and quits her job or moves into something that requires less time and thus pays significantly less. The husband has to work harder to make up the difference as well as the expenses of children. As the kids start to grow up the wife gets bored and starts thinking about what things she doesn't have and society often pushes her to resent her husband for not satisfying whatever needs she feels unfulfilled by. Resentment ensues and she realizes that she can divorce him, get the house and cars and he has to pay for all the real expenses around the kids. She now has more free time because he has the kids half the time and she has half his money.

The real tragedy is this is usually a short term boon for her because she still thinks she can get guys like she could in her 20s but now if she is lucky she can get some who will use her for sex and not much else and those guys often have their own baggage. Then as the kids get older she realizes that her child support money is going to go away and she has to work really hard to make ends meet. Unless she has secured a new husband with money things could get really tough for her as her kids grow farther away from her and she realizes she is alone and often starts on the therapy/drugs cycle.

It's really tough on the man as well unless he finds a new wife that brings him happiness or he truly adjusts to a new reality.

Life is choices and consequences with responsibility.

aggie93 said:

---

No fault divorce has had terrible consequences but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. What you can do though is modify divorce and child custody laws though.

For instance, if either partner wants a divorce but has no cause or "fault" (abuse, infidelity, etc) then they should should be able to divorce but not be treated as an equal in the settlement. ...

Had a friend recently go through this and she waited until right after he sold his business and crushed him.

---

Years ago, I had a friend who this happened to. He was a good guy, she cheated on him, and decided she didnt love him anymore. But her leaving forced him to sell his business. She got a favorable valuation, and he had no other way of coming up with the funds. So he was forced to sell, paid her off, and he had to go look for work. Overnight he lost everything...his family, marriage, his business he'd worked so hard to build.

I know of another guy who was in a similar situation (good guy, she cheated and wanted to leave). He was so scared of losing his business, he gave her all of his retirement. That was the trade off...you take all my funds, leave my business alone. She just went off and blew his money with the guy she'd been sleeping with. It was very wrong what happened to him, but he wanted to protect his livelihood.

Im sure these guys could have fought it more. But it would have just resulted in a drawn out scenario, legal fees, and dragging kids through a sad ordeal.

My issue with no-fault, is that it's simply too easy to take advantage of. The legal system favors the woman far too often. Even when the woman in the wrong, there is little recourse for the man, especially when it comes to the kids. It's simply not fair, how it's set up now. What are the consequences for the partner who decides to leave and take half of everything? There should be consequences for actions...good and bad.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

I love how everyone in favor of this thinks that before no fault divorces everything was Ozzie & Harriet or Lucy & Desi. If men are so worried about being taken to the cleaners by their scheming, unsatisfied wives they should've gotten pre-nups. Everybody knows what's involved and what can happen when you get married.

---

You're making that up. No one said that. Were there more or fewer children being raised in broken homes?

---

You mean when it was much harder to get a divorce?

Gee...what a great metric to use.

There were fewer because they were not ALLOWED to be divorced. So, many children grew up in a different kind of broken family. The one where everyone yelled all the time and no one was happy. But, at least they were together.

---

Not just that, but it was a different world with less temptation and access. Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation.

The types that we want this legislation for are the types that aren't going to pay attention anyways. They'll just cheat on you behind your back, resent you, and make life miserable because they feel trapped. They just won't publicly make your life miserable, but they will make it miserable in a different way. By resenting you, feeling trapped, cheating on you, etc.

The type of woman you want to marry doesn't need this anyway. She already has loyalty and commitment from within.

If they want out, make your life miserable so that you are the one that files, and then you get screwed for "causing the divorce"

Again, the FACTS are that the cat is out of the bag, and there is no real good solution. In those instances? Err to the individual. Not the government.

Quote:

---

There were fewer because they were not ALLOWED to be divorced. So, many children grew up in a different kind of broken family. The one where everyone yelled all the time and no one was happy. But, at least they were together.

---

It's funny....I had a long talk with my neighbor about this recently.

He grew up in a home where the parents hated each other. His comment was that he wouldn't do the same to his kids, because he saw how bad/uncomfortable it was growing up. He always saw them argue, and felt like him and his siblings were always expected to pick a side.

But, as he got older, he realized that while the mom and dad didn't like each other...he always knew the dad loved him and the mom loved him. And had they be separated, he'd likely ended up in a lot more trouble, and likely not nearly as successful. The way it played out, he still had a dad around to keep him on the right path and away from trouble, and a mom around who loved on him.

So while an unhappy marriage is not preferential, it really got me thinking about what's better for the kids in the long run. I know having no dad around certainly hasn't proven to help kids.

This is as close to a physics experiment as you can get. The government removed one of the pillars of marriage, indissolubility. And people started to treat marriage as something other than a permanent arrangement. Sometimes a correlatory shows causation.

BusterAg said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

Very stupid.

The 60 day rule is already bulls*** and needs to go away.

And FWIW, I'm referring to amicable situations. Yes, there should be some protections for someone who has upheld their end of the marriage and someone else just decides to break it. But if both agree to the terms of a no fault divorce, with no disputes, it should be as easy as possible.

---

I don't think that you have many people arguing with you here. I think this is a bit of a strawman.

What people are arguing about is a spouse that falls in love with someone else, and decides to dissolve the marriage when the spouse has been loyal, and wants their half of the marital assets.

That is bull*****

---

It is bulls***. I agree. Maybe make prenups the standard (but again, if you build wealth together, that doesn't really help) so that the guy isn't seen as an ass**** for bringing it up during the engagement, but even then I don't see that as being realistic.

I just feel that instead of going forward with divorce, the types who are already quick to turn to divorce would simply make life miserable for their partner until they turned it around on them to be the one to initiate the divorce. Oh, I'm not going to get 50%, or even more? Yeah, I'll just go out and party all the time, neglect him, withhold sex, be a b****, be resentful, and make his day to day life a living hell until he cracks. He either cheats on me and I have my out, or he is the one to file for the divorce.

Modern temptation and morals/standards have gone down, and that's the issue. It's really hard, if not impossible, to put the cat back in the bag and get divorce rates back down in western culture. Not until more are raised to where loyalty comes first. It really has to come from individuals far more so than government. Simple as that. As with 99% of issues.

Quote:

---

Again, the FACTS are that the cat is out of the bag, and there is no real good solution. In those instances? Err to the individual. Not the government.

---

I'm for limited government. But we still need some government. Individuals are inherently selfish. Chaos isn't the answer, and we need laws to protect our freedoms.

If people can have half their net worth stolen overnight without recourse, it seems prudent to investigate whether that needs fixing. Maybe so, maybe not...but it's worth discussing, rather than simply saying 'no govt'.

aggie93 said:

---

No fault divorce has had terrible consequences but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. What you can do though is modify divorce and child custody laws though.


... clipped ...

---

I agree that no fault isn't fair because of asset and child allocation. But I don't think your proposal would work in reality. For example, female wants out but needs the money that comes with typical divorce. She wants out because she's not in love with the husband anymore. My ex divorced me because she didn't like my personality anymore. I'm not joking! I wasn't abusive or anything like that. (I don't like my personality either, but that's the way I was born, LOL)

If the female can't get out without a payday, what do you think the female will do at that point? You think the marriage is getting better or worse? She will make life a living nightmare. No sex. No effort in the marriage at all. Confrontation, strife, etc... The husband will meet her demands because he's miserable.

It'll play out the exact same way.

I would be in favor of laws that if a spouse is caught cheating or being physically abusive, then the asset allocation and child custody takes that into consideration.

Sometimes, but always account for variable change. There is a world of difference now than 40 years ago. Not just this one factor. With all the other factors, I don't see how we go back.

beerad12man said:

---

Sometimes, but always account for variable change. There is a world of difference now than 40 years ago. Not just this one factor. With all the other factors, I don't see how we go back.

---

There are a lot of things not conducive to a healthy marriage, but they're tangential to marriage. Porn is that for example. But those things aren't part and parcel of marriage.

If you can get divorced for any reason or no reason at all, that isn't marriage. It's literally in the terms. For better or for worse, in sickness and health, till death do you part.

I knew someone who worked for a family lawyer.

One of the things she said was that it was often a race to the courthouse to file because whoever filed first was looked at more favorably in the divorce.

This is bull*****

If a person is being abused in the marriage and they file first then they should be looked at favorably.

If they are filing due to "irreconcilable differences" they should be looked at unfavorably.

No fault divorce is bull*****

It takes two to tango BUT there are plenty of times when someone is trying to make it work and the other person sucks ass.

The family courts and no fault divorce favor women 100% and that needs to change

I have zero problem with someone being able to file for divorce because they fell out of love.

But like any contract- you can get out if you REALLY want to.

However if the other person has not given you cause then you have to eat it when assets are split up and pay a penalty to the other person.

I would say in irreconcilable differences filings there should be no 50/50 split.

beerad12man said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

Very stupid.

The 60 day rule is already bulls*** and needs to go away.

And FWIW, I'm referring to amicable situations. Yes, there should be some protections for someone who has upheld their end of the marriage and someone else just decides to break it. But if both agree to the terms of a no fault divorce, with no disputes, it should be as easy as possible.

---

I don't think that you have many people arguing with you here. I think this is a bit of a strawman.

What people are arguing about is a spouse that falls in love with someone else, and decides to dissolve the marriage when the spouse has been loyal, and wants their half of the marital assets.

That is bull*****

---

It is bulls***. I agree. Maybe make prenups the standard (but again, if you build wealth together, that doesn't really help) so that the guy isn't seen as an ass**** for bringing it up during the engagement, but even then I don't see that as being realistic.

I just feel that instead of going forward with divorce, the types who are already quick to turn to divorce would simply make life miserable for their partner until they turned it around on them to be the one to initiate the divorce. Oh, I'm not going to get 50%, or even more? Yeah, I'll just go out and party all the time, neglect him, withhold sex, be a b****, be resentful, and make his day to day life a living hell until he cracks. He either cheats on me and I have my out, or he is the one to file for the divorce.

Modern temptation and morals/standards have gone down, and that's the issue. It's really hard, if not impossible, to put the cat back in the bag and get divorce rates back down in western culture. Not until more are raised to where loyalty comes first. It really has to come from individuals far more so than government. Simple as that. As with 99% of issues.

---

In the situation you describe above, everyone would know that the woman was a money-grubbing *****. Don't underestimate how big of a deterrent that is for your average suburban mom.

There are definitely clubs out there where divorcees get together for Sunday brunch and compare how well they screwed over their exes and compare their latest boy toys. These are the types of women that would never be seen in a smoky bar, however.

In the end, a loveless marriage is often better than a divorce, especially when it comes to the kids. And, in my opinion, the kids are all that matter.

Since men and women are equals, and transwomen can participate against women and it is championed as a great thing, just allow both parties to fight, hand to hand...winner take all.

Anyone against it is a racist, bigoted homophobe literally Hitler fascist.

Abolishing no fault divorce would be primarily intended to protect the innocent third party in all this - the kids (so easy for you all to forget about them it seems). Couples with kids have a responsibility towards them not to break up the family for frivolous reasons. If there's a non-government solution, I'd be happy with that but since the government is already in the business of marriage...

I have no problem with no fault divorce when no kids are involved. Then it really is just the business of the couple.

Ah yes, because people need even more reasons not to get married in the first place.

aggie93 said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

I love how everyone in favor of this thinks that before no fault divorces everything was Ozzie & Harriet or Lucy & Desi. If men are so worried about being taken to the cleaners by their scheming, unsatisfied wives they should've gotten pre-nups. Everybody knows what's involved and what can happen when you get married.

---

No one thinks marriage was always wonderful, at least no one who knows what they are talking about. It is always a challenge and requires self sacrifice. It just has a great reward for most as there is nothing more fulfilling in life than being happily married with children for most people, even if they don't realize it.

I couldn't disagree more than "everybody knows what's involved". I sure as hell didn't and I grew up with parents that were as close to "Ozzie and Harriet" as anyone and married an amazing woman. You don't really know until you are in it and you hit some real challenges, whether they be caused by one of the two of you or outside factors. Marriage is hard work. You simply can't explain or describe it until you are in it, I especially look back at my 23 year old self getting married and how little I knew what it really meant. All I knew was I loved my wife and I was going to make it work, I was making a commitment and it was for life. I didn't really understand what that meant though. I was fortunate I married a woman who also took those marriage vows seriously and stood by me even when I know it wasn't always easy and I made so many mistakes. I recognize just how blessed I am to have had that but it definitely didn't just happen by accident.

As for prenups that's a tough call. A prenup by definition sets up the expectation that things won't work out. Most people also don't have significant assets when they marry, they accumulate them over time. Thus a typical scenario is: Man and woman get married a few years out of college with minimal net worth but valuable skills with both working. After a few years the wife gets pregnant and they start a family and quits her job or moves into something that requires less time and thus pays significantly less. The husband has to work harder to make up the difference as well as the expenses of children. As the kids start to grow up the wife gets bored and starts thinking about what things she doesn't have and society often pushes her to resent her husband for not satisfying whatever needs she feels unfulfilled by. Resentment ensues and she realizes that she can divorce him, get the house and cars and he has to pay for all the real expenses around the kids. She now has more free time because he has the kids half the time and she has half his money.

The real tragedy is this is usually a short term boon for her because she still thinks she can get guys like she could in her 20s but now if she is lucky she can get some who will use her for sex and not much else and those guys often have their own baggage. Then as the kids get older she realizes that her child support money is going to go away and she has to work really hard to make ends meet. Unless she has secured a new husband with money things could get really tough for her as her kids grow farther away from her and she realizes she is alone and often starts on the therapy/drugs cycle.

It's really tough on the man as well unless he finds a new wife that brings him happiness or he truly adjusts to a new reality.

Life is choices and consequences with responsibility.

---

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your posts and completely agree with the vast majority of your opinions regarding this subject. I have my own experience with divorce while my youngest was a teenager and still at home. It was awful. I just don't think that gov't standing in my way when seeking a divorce would have been helpful in any way to me, my son or society. We tried marriage counseling but my ex ended that quickly when the counselor started focusing on her problems almost exclusively.

My son watched his mom and me have terrible fights. She would provoke me to a point where I would explode with volcanic anger. I swear, I think it was sport to her. Towards the end of our marriage it happened regularly. I just can't see the point of me having to go before a judge and explain our incompatibility and the unhappiness of our last couple of years.