As a child of a divorce, I would 100% rather my parents pursue happiness than fake it for my sake. So I couldn't disagree more with that. loveless marriages offer nothing of substance to a child compared to two divorced parents.

The key is both parents being in their kids life. Not that they have to force it to remain together. Often times, that would only make it worse for the child.

AgGrad99 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. ...

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.

---

I know of 2 guys who went through similar situations and committed suicide.

yes, there are studies that show having a father and mother in your life is statistically the best.

Is there a study I'm missing that says a child who has two parents that are not together are any worse off than a child of a loveless marriage that just continues to live with each other out of requirement? Because coming from my perspective, I was much better off with my parents splitting up but both still remaining in my life than had they stayed together. I would never wish that on either of them and would not have been better off.

BartInLA said:

---

Ban is coming 3, 2, 1,
So if you don't like infidelity, I guess you'd never vote for Trump, huh?
Edit: I forgot he sincerely apologized. Took ownership. I still think that the trial was totally political and ridiculous.

---

Huh?

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

Slicer97 said:

---

BartInLA said:

---

Ban is coming 3, 2, 1,
So if you don't like infidelity, I guess you'd never vote for Trump, huh?
Edit: I forgot he sincerely apologized. Took ownership. I still think that the trial was totally political and ridiculous.

---

Huh?

---

He's making fun of all the people who are against no fault divorce because they think it's bad for society's morality, but who will also be voting for a man who cheated on his wife and has also been divorced.

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

sorry our party is not designed all around keeping blacks on the welfare plantation. stoking racial and sexual anger for power, or buying votes by forgiving student loans at the cost to other tax payers.

but you do you.

Bob Lee said:

---

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.

---

Exactly how people rationalize their behavior. They tell themselves it'll be better for the children if they leave them. But it's a lie. Mothers dating men who aren't their children's father on its own is probably more damaging to children than a million shouting matches. As soon as we stop enjoying our marriage, it's "eff them kids". And we diminish the harm we're doing to them. We even pretend it's the best thing for them. Total lies. It's all balogna.

---

I have 9 kids. I made two of them. I adopted the rest.

Everything you said is bull*****

There is plenty of mental abuse that occurs that damages kids in those bad marriages. That would not be allowed to be terminated if you had your way. The kids would just have to accept it so that you could feel good that your religion was forced on them.

Oh, he's one of those that votes on feelz instead of policy and thinks it's hypocritical if others don't do likewise?

I was just trying to understand how infidelity plays into a thread on no fault divorce.

B-1 83 said:

---

Next up: Anti blasphemy laws!

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

You may be on to something……. Can the state forbid them from voting in state and local elections? I'm sure a few f16 posters would be all for that along with new divorce and blasphemy laws.

So Mom and Dad have been married for 25 years. Kids are raised. Dad no longer has any interest, but some other guy does. She wants out. What does she say in the complaint? Emotional abuse?

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

You may be on to something……. Can the state forbid them from voting in state and local elections? I'm sure a few f16 posters would be all for that along with new divorce and blasphemy laws.

---

Wait...women are NOT property!?

</awkward glance at the padlocked basement door>

beerad12man said:

---

yes, there are studies that show having a father and mother in your life is statistically the best.

Is there a study I'm missing that says a child who has two parents that are not together are any worse off than a child of a loveless marriage that just continues to live with each other out of requirement? Because coming from my perspective, I was much better off with my parents splitting up but both still remaining in my life than had they stayed together. I would never wish that on either of them and would not have been better off.

---

By every metric kids are better off with a father in the home.

Excluding abuse and drug use.

Cromagnum said:

---

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

---

The fear of no fault divorce is actually a huge reason not to get married.

Some protection against the seven year itch is actually helpful, I think.

And, if you are entering into a "marriage" where you want to have an out, that's not really marriage.

Tea Party said:

---

Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.

---

This to infinity.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.

---

This to infinity.

---

I would agree in principle I just don't know how this would actually work. Who enforces a "fair" split of assets?

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?
What's next? Women are property?

---

Why do you assume no fault divorce benefits only women?

If the various states want to ban no fault divorce, they are welcome to do so. Doesn't strike me as particularly wise given that this will be spun as "yet another effort by the right to crush women's rights", but that's how representative republics work.

This is absolutely outside of the purview of the federal government and there should be no effort to make this a federal law.

Fenrir said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.

---

This to infinity.

---

I would agree in principle I just don't know how this would actually work. Who enforces a "fair" split of assets?

---

Nothing is ever going to be seen as "fair" by any party involved. The system we have now has worked just fine (relatively).

To force someone (likely a wife) to have to prove she deserves a divorce from someone she no longer loves, or worse yet, has made her life a living hell, is cruel. IMO

Good. California started this and it has destroyed American families.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.

---

This to infinity.

---

I would agree in principle I just don't know how this would actually work. Who enforces a "fair" split of assets?

---

Nothing is ever going to be seen as "fair" by any party involved. The system we have now has worked just fine (relatively).

To force someone (likely a wife) to have to prove she deserves a divorce from someone she no longer loves, or worse yet, has made her life a living hell, is cruel. IMO

---

You just agreed "this to infinity" to someone saying that government should have no involvement in marriage. The system we have now is very hands on by the government both at the conception and the dissolution of a marriage.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

yes, there are studies that show having a father and mother in your life is statistically the best.

Is there a study I'm missing that says a child who has two parents that are not together are any worse off than a child of a loveless marriage that just continues to live with each other out of requirement? Because coming from my perspective, I was much better off with my parents splitting up but both still remaining in my life than had they stayed together. I would never wish that on either of them and would not have been better off.

---

By every metric kids are better off with a father in the home.

Excluding abuse and drug use.

---

That really isn't necessarily true. Of course a happy marriage between a man and a woman is statistically the best situation for a child, but that's not what we are talking about here.

There has actually been quite a bit that also shows an unhealthy, loveless marriage is worse off for many children than simply divorcing, so long as both parents stay in their lives. That is the key. I'm all for trying harder and doing everything you can before you get divorced. How easily some give up on it devastates me. But that needs to come from within, and not the government, imho.

I am much better off that my parents divorced than stayed in a loveless marriage. It isn't even really up for debate, and I would NEVER wish that upon my parents, nor think the government has any say in them having to stay together. In the long run, children are smarter than many give credit for and eventually figure it out. I know I would have. It became really, really obvious to me about junior year of high school what their relationship was like when I was in elementary and middle school and how I was just oblivious to it. If they were still together, I'd have sensed it around JR year when I really started to understand these things and look back, and cannot think how it would have benefited me to realize that's why they were together.

I'm sure if I took more time, I could link actual studies, but here's a couple articles that touch on it.

https://www.heysigmund.com/unhappy-marriage-and-kids/#:~:text=Research%20has%20found%20that%20when,adolescence%2C%20including%20depression%20and%20anxiety.

https://cadivorce.com/california-divorce-guide/parenting-through-divorce/should-you-stay-together-for-the-sake-of-the-children/#:~:text=Studies%20reveal%20that%20children%20who,stressful%20and%20conflicted%20marriage%20are

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

You may be on to something……. Can the state forbid them from voting in state and local elections? I'm sure a few f16 posters would be all for that along with new divorce and blasphemy laws.

---

I was at a football game with my daughter last year (current student) and we were talking about constitutional politics. We were talking playfully about how ending the 19th Amendment would be good for the country but bad for individual liberty. She joked she would give up her right to vote if it meant all other women had to do the same.

12 year old boy in front of us turned around and looked at us with eyes as big as saucers. Said something to his dad, who just chuckled.

Logos Stick 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.


... 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.

---

There is no perfect solution for sure. That being said I think if women go into marriage seeing it as a more serious commitment they also may take a different approach. When they know they can walk away easily it makes it a lot easier to "not be in love anymore". The reality is sustaining love takes work. Many women seem to think that it is the job of their husband to make them always feel a certain way which will inevitably lead to disappointment.

In your scenario they likely come to a settlement on their own. As you said she can make his life hell if she really wants to and she doesn't want to work on the marriage. So they can decide on the asset distribution. If not then it certainly can get ugly but it was going to get ugly anyway, it's just she can't decide to take him to the cleaners without him having any leverage.

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

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.

---

Exactly how people rationalize their behavior. They tell themselves it'll be better for the children if they leave them. But it's a lie. Mothers dating men who aren't their children's father on its own is probably more damaging to children than a million shouting matches. As soon as we stop enjoying our marriage, it's "eff them kids". And we diminish the harm we're doing to them. We even pretend it's the best thing for them. Total lies. It's all balogna.

---

I have 9 kids. I made two of them. I adopted the rest.

Everything you said is bull*****

There is plenty of mental abuse that occurs that damages kids in those bad marriages. That would not be allowed to be terminated if you had your way. The kids would just have to accept it so that you could feel good that your religion was forced on them.

---

1. We're only talking about no fault divorce. Please don't caricature my position. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a way for women or children to be removed from abusive situations
2. I don't know why you brought up your adopted children. I think adoption is great. Adopting 7 children is insanely selfless. What a great thing that is!
3. Your children have still been denied their right to the love and education from their biological parents, through no fault of yours or theirs. It's true that there are of course situations where (like with your children), adoption is the best thing by far.
4. The proof is in the pudding. People's attitudes about marriage are upstream of people's behavior inside of one. And the law is educational regarding what a marriage is. It shapes people's attitudes about marriage.

Edit: mine wasn't a comment of the virtues of shouting matches. It's a comment on how horrific divorce is, and how badly children can be wounded by it.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.

---

This to infinity.

---

That sounds great but there is property and finances involved, thus there has to be rules and law involved.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.

---

This to infinity.

---

I would agree in principle I just don't know how this would actually work. Who enforces a "fair" split of assets?

---

Nothing is ever going to be seen as "fair" by any party involved. The system we have now has worked just fine (relatively).

To force someone (likely a wife) to have to prove she deserves a divorce from someone she no longer loves, or worse yet, has made her life a living hell, is cruel. IMO

---

But if she's "living in hell," why would she be forced to stay? That would be easy to prove. It's also not the situation people are concerned about.

The issue is when someone decides they want 'different' and taking half of everything...even though they agreed to enter into the partnership willingly.

Someone has to determine how property is divided. The 'individual' is not the answer, since individuals are selfish.

There probably isn't a practical way to do this, but mandatory pre-nuptial agreements would solve some of the problems.

beerad12man said:

---

As a child of a divorce, I would 100% rather my parents pursue happiness than fake it for my sake. So I couldn't disagree more with that. loveless marriages offer nothing of substance to a child compared to two divorced parents.

The key is both parents being in their kids life. Not that they have to force it to remain together. Often times, that would only make it worse for the child.

---

If you have 2 people that hate each other of course they should divorce. It's sad but sometimes can't be avoided, it's usually when 2 people should never have gotten married. Putting more consequences on getting out of marriage though A)Makes people think more about what is involved in that decision and B)Put in more effort to make it work. Most people don't fall out of love in a day, it's a slow process where one or both of them weren't making the effort to make it work. If both people see divorce as not an option or an option of absolute last resort they will tend to make those compromises and sacrifices earlier and often can repair a situation before it gets too big to fix.

Once again there is no perfect solution but this is about making the current solution better. Right now it sucks and we are seeing terrible results.

Seven Costanza said:

---

There probably isn't a practical way to do this, but mandatory pre-nuptial agreements would solve some of the problems.

---

Can my pre nuptial agreement just be that we agree that we're entering into a marriage of the kind that's indissoluble?

BusterAg said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

Really courting that independent/moderate vote aren't ya?


What's next? Women are property?

---

You may be on to something……. Can the state forbid them from voting in state and local elections? I'm sure a few f16 posters would be all for that along with new divorce and blasphemy laws.

---

I was at a football game with my daughter last year (current student) and we were talking about constitutional politics. We were talking playfully about how ending the 19th Amendment would be good for the country but bad for individual liberty. She joked she would give up her right to vote if it meant all other women had to do the same.

12 year old boy in front of us turned around and looked at us with eyes as big as saucers. Said something to his dad, who just chuckled.

---

Poor girl

Fenrir said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.

---

This to infinity.

---

I would agree in principle I just don't know how this would actually work. Who enforces a "fair" split of assets?

---

Nothing is ever going to be seen as "fair" by any party involved. The system we have now has worked just fine (relatively).

To force someone (likely a wife) to have to prove she deserves a divorce from someone she no longer loves, or worse yet, has made her life a living hell, is cruel. IMO

---

You just agreed "this to infinity" to someone saying that government should have no involvement in marriage. The system we have now is very hands on by the government both at the conception and the dissolution of a marriage.

---

In the post I said that to, it said little to no involvement. Hence why I said the way things have been going for decades upon decades, while not perfect, doesn't need to be replaced by something that only makes it more difficult than it needs to be to get divorced.

Who does it benefit to make it harder for a couple to get divorced?

AgGrad99 said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.

---

This to infinity.

---

I would agree in principle I just don't know how this would actually work. Who enforces a "fair" split of assets?

---

Nothing is ever going to be seen as "fair" by any party involved. The system we have now has worked just fine (relatively).

To force someone (likely a wife) to have to prove she deserves a divorce from someone she no longer loves, or worse yet, has made her life a living hell, is cruel. IMO

---

But if she's "living in hell," why would she be forced to stay? That would be easy to prove. It's also not the situation people are concerned about.

The issue is when someone decides they want 'different' and taking half of everything...even though they agreed to enter into the partnership willingly.

Someone has to determine how property is divided. The 'individual' is not the answer, since individuals are selfish.

---

Women who are emotionally, psychologically, and mentally abused will have an extremely hard time proving things.

As to property, let the divorce happen at the same pace it is now, but if there's an issue about property, that can be another matter.

Again, when someone wants out of the situation they're in, it's cruel to make them stay in it because a politician feels life should be lived the way they want it to be lived, regardless of what reason they give.