Bob Lee said:

---

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.

---

I brought up my adopted kids because you said:

Quote:

---

Mothers dating men who aren't their children's father on its own is probably more damaging to children than a million shouting matches.

---

Three of my adopted kids were my second wife's kids - that's right, she was dating a man who was not their children's father. Well, guess what -their damn father was not in the picture because he was an ******* and had treated all of them like crap.

So forgive me if I call bull**** on your statement that it was "more damaging to (the) children than a million shouting matches".

I became their father - which is what they needed. A REAL father figure, not just a bad BIOLOGICAL one.

As to 3), you now know more of the picture - and as usual, you're wrong. Oh, and the other 4 kids were my wife's brother's kids. He and his wife thought that doing meth was much more important than raising their 4 girls. So my wife and I did it for them. I guess we denied the girls' parents the right to destroy their lives more, though...


The moral of the story is:

Kids need good parents to care for them. If those two parents can do a good job while not being married, that's a lot better than doing a bad job while staying married.

And if someone else has to step into the picture and do one of the jobs that's not being done, that is ALSO a good thing.

bobbranco said:

---

No-fault divorce came about during a time where it was difficult if not impossible for women to own property, obtain credit, obtain checking accounts, etc. At that time men could and did run roughshod over women. Those days have passed and the pendulum is swinging back the other way.

Spouses spy on each other now and document the trespasses.

And it continues to be gold mines for attorneys and pi's.

---

That's total BS. The first state to adopt NFD was Kalifornia in 1969. In 42 years of practicing family law, I have seen 2 PIs involved.

Not much need for PIs when there is no trial about who was more culpable for the failure of the marriage and the need to gather evidence to prove same. We see how ugly it can get in contested custody cases - I can't imagine having that possibility over just the right to divorce.

No Spin Ag said:

---

TxAg82 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

TxAg82 said:

---

Marriage is great. Everyone should aspire to marry, raise kids, and enjoy life.

Government should not require anyone to stay in or make it more difficult to get out of a marriage they no longer want to be in.

---

So Fathers should be allowed to abandon their children? Children have no right to be raised by the person who called them into existence?

---

Fathers should not abandon their children.

Children should be raised by the person that called them into existence.

---

Even if the father beats or abuses the mother in other ways?

---

I think he's just rebutting Bob Lee's specious argument that getting divorced equals the father abandoning their children (which is a stretch, but that's par for the course)...

Ag with kids said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

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.

---

I brought up my adopted kids because you said:

Quote:

---

Mothers dating men who aren't their children's father on its own is probably more damaging to children than a million shouting matches.

---

Three of my adopted kids were my second wife's kids - that's right, she was dating a man who was not their children's father. Well, guess what -their damn father was not in the picture because he was an ******* and had treated all of them like crap.

So forgive me if I call bull**** on your statement that it was "more damaging to (the) children than a million shouting matches".

I became their father - which is what they needed. A REAL father figure, not just a bad BIOLOGICAL one.

As to 3), you now know more of the picture - and as usual, you're wrong. Oh, and the other 4 kids were my wife's brother's kids. He and his wife thought that doing meth was much more important than raising their 4 girls. So my wife and I did it for them. I guess we denied the girls' parents the right to destroy their lives more, though...


The moral of the story is:

Kids need good parents to care for them. If those two parents can do a good job while not being married, that's a lot better than doing a bad job while staying married.

And if someone else has to step into the picture and do one of the jobs that's not being done, that is ALSO a good thing.

---

I don't know your situation, or what treating them all like crap entails. You're taking exception with something that probably doesn't apply to your situation, which from the sound of it is exceptional (quite unique at the very least). The discussion I'm having is on broad public policy relating to no fault divorce. I'm talking about parents who split because they "can't get along" or they argue too much. I specifically said I'm not talking about actual abuse, which I think is what you may be describing.

Eta: I do stand by that mothers dating men who aren't their children's fathers is not good for their children. I can imagine a scenario where it may be the best alternative though. Sorry if that offends you.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

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

---

I don't disagree here.

AS LONG AS BOTH PARENTS STAY IN THEIR LIVES.

However,
Statistically women push the fathers out of the children's lives once the divorce happens. And the numbers are overwhelming.

There are dozens of studies that show within 2 years of divorce that the father has been pushed out.

Women often do this to either punish the father, make the father look bad to the children, make themselves look less worse because she initiated the divorce, or make room so she can get a new husband.

Being a junior in high school is different than a young child.

Also, I am not saying people should not divorce.

I am saying that the way the family courts are set up women are actually incentivized to divorce instead of working through the marriage.

Getting rid of no fault divorce disincentivizes that tendency of women because unless they have a good reason they are going to have to make some sacrifices to leave.

Which will make them weigh the pros and cons more heavily before ripping a family in two.

And that is the way it should be.

---

I think pretty much ALL of us here agree that no matter what, having both parent's in the children's lives is the best thing (excluding obvious abuse cases, both physical and mental).

I think aggie93's solution of allowing no fault divorce, but making it like all other contracts - where if you want to bail with no reason, then you lose a lot in the separation - such as not getting the house, car, money, etc.

It's not the NFD in itself that's the problem, it's the way that it's manifested itself and been implemented that is the problem.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

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

---

A. if they're abused, that's not the situation we're discussing. No one is suggesting abused women be trapped in a marriage.

B. I dont think that's hard to prove.

---

If the abuse isn't physical, I can't see how it would be easy to prove.

---

Fair enough.

Noone is saying that they SHOULDN'T be allowed to divorce.

They are saying that no fault divorce where there is a perfect 50/50 split regardless of the circumstances should not be an option.

Oh.....and if u don't think women's latitude on what constitutes emotional and psychological abuse can be waaaay off kilter, I suggest you actually talk to some women.

---

The auto 50/50 split needs to be off the table for sure.

If the wife wants to bail for whatever reason, she needs to understand she's not just taking half of the **** with her unless she's got some kind of justification for it - which most of the time will not exist.

Oh, and I would posit that WOMEN are just as often guilty of emotional and psychological abuse as men are...

Ag with kids said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

TxAg82 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

TxAg82 said:

---

Marriage is great. Everyone should aspire to marry, raise kids, and enjoy life.

Government should not require anyone to stay in or make it more difficult to get out of a marriage they no longer want to be in.

---

So Fathers should be allowed to abandon their children? Children have no right to be raised by the person who called them into existence?

---

Fathers should not abandon their children.

Children should be raised by the person that called them into existence.

---

Even if the father beats or abuses the mother in other ways?

---

I think he's just rebutting Bob Lee's specious argument that getting divorced equals the father abandoning their children (which is a stretch, but that's par for the course)...

---

Gotcha. Thanks for that.

And, like everyone else I believe that children born into a house where the parents truly love each other have many advantages that children who aren't. Unfortunately, life doesn't always give everyone that same lucky hand.

bobbranco said:

---

93MarineHorn said:

---

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.

---

No-fault divorce came about during a time where it was difficult if not impossible for women to own property, obtain credit, obtain checking accounts, etc. At that time men could and did run roughshod over women. Those days have passed and the pendulum is swinging back the other way.

Spouses spy on each other now and document the trespasses.

And it continues to be gold mines for attorneys and pi's.

---

All of those things are why they aren't really practical today. Along with social media, ease of access / temptation, etc. It's just an entirely different world than before so you can't directly compare things and act like no-fault divorces are the issue when clearly a dozen other factors have come to be as well.

Anything regarding religious and/or values/morals/beliefs one has that leads to more government, I couldn't care less to hear. That has no place.

Anything actually looking to protect a good marriage partner from getting absolutely bent over, I'd be interested in hearing. The 50/50 split no matter what, etc.

Divorce should not be harder than it is. It's already a painful enough process for those involved. But protection can be better.

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

TxAg82 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

TxAg82 said:

---

Marriage is great. Everyone should aspire to marry, raise kids, and enjoy life.

Government should not require anyone to stay in or make it more difficult to get out of a marriage they no longer want to be in.

---

So Fathers should be allowed to abandon their children? Children have no right to be raised by the person who called them into existence?

---

Fathers should not abandon their children.

Children should be raised by the person that called them into existence.

---

Even if the father beats or abuses the mother in other ways?

---

I think he's just rebutting Bob Lee's specious argument that getting divorced equals the father abandoning their children (which is a stretch, but that's par for the course)...

---

Gotcha. Thanks for that.

And, like everyone else I believe that children born into a house where the parents truly love each other have many advantages that children who aren't. Unfortunately, life doesn't always give everyone that same lucky hand.

---

Very true.

I WISH everyone was born into a great family where everything works and the children are loved and treated great.

That is not reality, unfortunately.

Martin Cash said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

No-fault divorce came about during a time where it was difficult if not impossible for women to own property, obtain credit, obtain checking accounts, etc. At that time men could and did run roughshod over women. Those days have passed and the pendulum is swinging back the other way.

Spouses spy on each other now and document the trespasses.

And it continues to be gold mines for attorneys and pi's.

---

That's total BS. The first state to adopt NFD was Kalifornia in 1969. In 42 years of practicing family law, I have seen 2 PIs involved.

---

Texas enacted NFD in 1970. BFD.

PI's get used all the time.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/being-texan/until-1968-married-texas-woman-couldnt-own-property-start-business-without-husbands-permission-dallas-attorney-changed-that/

Ag with kids said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

TxAg82 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

TxAg82 said:

---

Marriage is great. Everyone should aspire to marry, raise kids, and enjoy life.

Government should not require anyone to stay in or make it more difficult to get out of a marriage they no longer want to be in.

---

So Fathers should be allowed to abandon their children? Children have no right to be raised by the person who called them into existence?

---

Fathers should not abandon their children.

Children should be raised by the person that called them into existence.

---

Even if the father beats or abuses the mother in other ways?

---

I think he's just rebutting Bob Lee's specious argument that getting divorced equals the father abandoning their children (which is a stretch, but that's par for the course)...

---

Gotcha. Thanks for that.

And, like everyone else I believe that children born into a house where the parents truly love each other have many advantages that children who aren't. Unfortunately, life doesn't always give everyone that same lucky hand.

---

Very true.

I WISH everyone was born into a great family where everything works and the children are loved and treated great.

That is not reality, unfortunately.

---

It was nearer to reality before no fault divorce.

And before 30 other factors discussed a few posts above yours. You have an amazing ability to ignore many other variables, too.

I also might argue that we went through a period of likely unhappy marriages which led to some of the next generations seeing marriages as less desirable and/or in a new light than before. It's been a slow process. You simply will not get back to that level just because of eliminating no fault divorces. Nor should we be trying to at the cost of freedom of choice. Bottom line numbers, be it with covid, gun laws, etc., cannot and should not be the only factor in decision making in a free society. Even if we don't like some of what that free society brings.

beerad12man said:

---

And before 30 other factors discussed a few posts above yours. You have an amazing ability to ignore many other variables, too.

---

I'm not ignoring them. I've acknowledged their part. I'm saying no fault divorce is different from those things because it had the effect of changing people's perception of what marriage IS. That's why it was uniquely damaging. This is something some pretty astute gay "marriage" advocates pointed to as a justification for further amending the definition of marriage. And they were right.

If we can change one aspect of the definition, why can't we change other aspects of it? It was a good question.

But I guess I'm just saying that I believe your thinking that they make that much of a difference doesn't outweigh the other factors in the 2020s. You'd have to suppress all of those other things to really get a noticeable impact. I don't think this would have the desired impact, but in reality just create other issues.

Again, I'm all for protecting a good marriage partner from getting railed in a divorce. If there's a realistic way to do that. Maybe it would incentivize a small few to seek a different option and save some marriages. Maybe we could protect some good husbands and in some cases wives who got screwed over by their spouse. Maybe it would prevent some who have no business getting married from doing so altogether.

Beyond that, eliminating no fault divorces or even making them harder to obtain, outside of the financial consequence of being the person who wants the divorce (ie something such as the guaranteed 50/50 split going away or a prenup) it has no place in a free society.

I stand up and salute anyone to takes on the responsibility of raising a child that isn't theirs, regardless of the circumstances.

beerad12man said:

---

But I guess I'm just saying that I believe your thinking that they make that much of a difference doesn't outweigh the other factors in the 2020s. You'd have to suppress all of those other things to really get a noticeable impact. I don't think this would have the desired impact, but in reality just create other issues.

Again, I'm all for protecting a good marriage partner from getting railed in a divorce. If there's a realistic way to do that. Maybe it would incentivize a small few to seek a different option and save some marriages. Maybe we could protect some good husbands and in some cases wives who got screwed over by their spouse. Maybe it would prevent some who have no business getting married from doing so altogether.

Beyond that, eliminating no fault divorces or even making them harder to obtain, outside of the financial consequence of being the person who wants the divorce (ie something such as the guaranteed 50/50 split going away or a prenup) it has no place in a free society.

---

Here's the disconnect.

Your view of marriage is purely transactional (or at least you're conveying a view of marriage that's transactional, whether or not that's your intent).

I'm not delusional enough to think we go back to a bygone conception of marriage with the flip of a switch. I either asked you or someone else further back whether you believed there's an aspect to the law that's educational. We form habits by doing certain things and abstaining from others. I'm not saying we just go back to the way families were in the 50s. I'm saying it would be better if no fault divorce weren't codified in our law. It would have a positive effect.

Ag with kids said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

AgGrad99 said:

---

Quote:

---

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

---

A. if they're abused, that's not the situation we're discussing. No one is suggesting abused women be trapped in a marriage.

B. I dont think that's hard to prove.

---

If the abuse isn't physical, I can't see how it would be easy to prove.

---

Fair enough.

Noone is saying that they SHOULDN'T be allowed to divorce.

They are saying that no fault divorce where there is a perfect 50/50 split regardless of the circumstances should not be an option.

Oh.....and if u don't think women's latitude on what constitutes emotional and psychological abuse can be waaaay off kilter, I suggest you actually talk to some women.

---

The auto 50/50 split needs to be off the table for sure.

If the wife wants to bail for whatever reason, she needs to understand she's not just taking half of the **** with her unless she's got some kind of justification for it - which most of the time will not exist.

Oh, and I would posit that WOMEN are just as often guilty of emotional and psychological abuse as men are...

---

I know we don't to see eye to eye on other things.

But I agree 100% here.

beerad12man said:

---

But I guess I'm just saying that I believe your thinking that they make that much of a difference doesn't outweigh the other factors in the 2020s. You'd have to suppress all of those other things to really get a noticeable impact. I don't think this would have the desired impact, but in reality just create other issues.

Again, I'm all for protecting a good marriage partner from getting railed in a divorce. If there's a realistic way to do that. Maybe it would incentivize a small few to seek a different option and save some marriages. Maybe we could protect some good husbands and in some cases wives who got screwed over by their spouse. Maybe it would prevent some who have no business getting married from doing so altogether.

Beyond that, eliminating no fault divorces or even making them harder to obtain, outside of the financial consequence of being the person who wants the divorce (ie something such as the guaranteed 50/50 split going away or a prenup) it has no place in a free society.

---

Child custody is the other key factor besides financial. I know many men that have basically given their exes (who were complete nutcases) basically whatever they wanted financially just to have their kids half the time. Women have huge advantages in custody battles, especially if she was a stay at home or just worked part time and he worked full time to pay the bills which is the most common arrangement. As others have noted since it isn't alimony she can go ahead and remarry a week later and still keep all his money and make him pay for everything for the kids even if she was cheating on him the entire time.

We need to not allow that type of behavior to be rewarded if we want to save the institution of marriage. You can leave without cause but you pay a price to do so. That may mean some people get caught in difficult circumstances too but they also chose to marry that person and that has a consequence if that. If you marry someone and they don't violate your marriage vows or abuse AND they want to work it out while you want to leave there is a cost to that. I think that's more than fair.

As also has been mentioned in my experience women are much better at emotional manipulation of men than vice versa, though there are certainly exceptions.

Bob Lee said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

But I guess I'm just saying that I believe your thinking that they make that much of a difference doesn't outweigh the other factors in the 2020s. You'd have to suppress all of those other things to really get a noticeable impact. I don't think this would have the desired impact, but in reality just create other issues.

Again, I'm all for protecting a good marriage partner from getting railed in a divorce. If there's a realistic way to do that. Maybe it would incentivize a small few to seek a different option and save some marriages. Maybe we could protect some good husbands and in some cases wives who got screwed over by their spouse. Maybe it would prevent some who have no business getting married from doing so altogether.

Beyond that, eliminating no fault divorces or even making them harder to obtain, outside of the financial consequence of being the person who wants the divorce (ie something such as the guaranteed 50/50 split going away or a prenup) it has no place in a free society.

---

Here's the disconnect.

Your view of marriage is purely transactional (or at least you're conveying a view of marriage that's transactional, whether or not that's your intent).

I'm not delusional enough to think we go back to a bygone conception of marriage with the flip of a switch. I either asked you or someone else further back whether you believed there's an aspect to the law that's educational. We form habits by doing certain things and abstaining from others. I'm not saying we just go back to the way families were in the 50s. I'm saying it would be better if no fault divorce weren't codified in our law. It would have a positive effect.

---

Actually is you really go back in time marriage was much more about the contract than love. Families arranged most marriages and it was seen as at least partly a business transaction in much of history. The only sane way to get this back is to look at it in terms of contract law in the end. You make an agreement and if one side wants to break it without cause there are penalties to doing so. Right now it doesn't matter if there is cause or not which is lunacy and encourages bad behavior.

2040huck said:

---

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?

---

No, as you said some "other guy" does. So she can leave, she just isn't going to be able to take half his stuff and then marry the next guy. It allows her leaving the marriage to be a boon financially for her while she is banging some new dude while at the same time the husband is devastated financially and he doesn't have a Sugar Mama lined up like she does. So it's fair for her to be able to leave and have her freedom, she just doesn't get to do it by devastating him financially.

Or they come to some other amicable agreement. The key is that since SHE is the one who wants to leave he has some leverage to "follow her heart" or whatever reason she comes up with for leaving.

aggie93 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

But I guess I'm just saying that I believe your thinking that they make that much of a difference doesn't outweigh the other factors in the 2020s. You'd have to suppress all of those other things to really get a noticeable impact. I don't think this would have the desired impact, but in reality just create other issues.

Again, I'm all for protecting a good marriage partner from getting railed in a divorce. If there's a realistic way to do that. Maybe it would incentivize a small few to seek a different option and save some marriages. Maybe we could protect some good husbands and in some cases wives who got screwed over by their spouse. Maybe it would prevent some who have no business getting married from doing so altogether.

Beyond that, eliminating no fault divorces or even making them harder to obtain, outside of the financial consequence of being the person who wants the divorce (ie something such as the guaranteed 50/50 split going away or a prenup) it has no place in a free society.

---

Here's the disconnect.

Your view of marriage is purely transactional (or at least you're conveying a view of marriage that's transactional, whether or not that's your intent).

I'm not delusional enough to think we go back to a bygone conception of marriage with the flip of a switch. I either asked you or someone else further back whether you believed there's an aspect to the law that's educational. We form habits by doing certain things and abstaining from others. I'm not saying we just go back to the way families were in the 50s. I'm saying it would be better if no fault divorce weren't codified in our law. It would have a positive effect.

---

Actually is you really go back in time marriage was much more about the contract than love. Families arranged most marriages and it was seen as at least partly a business transaction in much of history. The only sane way to get this back is to look at it in terms of contract law in the end. You make an agreement and if one side wants to break it without cause there are penalties to doing so. Right now it doesn't matter if there is cause or not which is lunacy and encourages bad behavior.

---

Were arranged marriages very common in the U.S. before 1970? I didn't think so. I see the wisdom in parents counseling their children on choosing a spouse, and men asking the father should be more than a formality. I fully intend to say no to any boy who inquires about marrying my daughter if he's not a serious person, or he can't answer some basic questions correctly. With full knowledge that they can just do it anyway. I just think the law should treat marriage more seriously because it's serious business. You might be right from a practical standpoint.

I think social media / attention, women in the workplace, temptation, ease of access, more individualism, is what also began to change the perception of marriage. I consider the NFD more of a coincidence in timing with so many other changes that would have VERY LITTLE real world effect in the 2020s. You have to remember part of the reason it became a thing was because there was already a shift in expectations about marriage all the way back then. There was a push for it because stuff was already shifting.

In addition, domestic abuse rates to women, suicides associated with marriage, etc. have also come way down in the last decades, too. So lets not overlook that.

Again, all said, I cannot state enough. Divorce laws screw men more often than woman. Initiating 70-80% being the major theme here. I'm all about looking into that and protecting no fault partners who want to continue with the marriage financially, and with children.

Also, it should be noted that couples married in the 80s and 90s divorce less than the 70s. There has already been a slightly positive shift downwards in divorce rates per 1000 married people.

As for my view on marriage? I would have fought for my marriage, but my ex had no interest in it. I would have never initiated a divorce in my lifetime short of her cheating on me or major psychological abuse, and I would have made the sacrifices I believe she wanted to be happy. Unfortunately it was never about that. She had just emotionally disconnected and I had no choice. I chose the wrong person who clearly didn't view marriage strongly enough nor was willing to fight for it. Yes. But that doesn't change my view on what MY MARRIAGE should be and what I would have done for it.

However, in addition to the view of MY MARRIAGE, my view is also that I cannot tell others how they should view their marriage. If they want to divorce, so be it. But I do agree with aggie93 to try and protect the person who isn't at fault who wants to stay.

BluHorseShu said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.

---

It definitely should if we want this nation to move back to a time with more Christian morality. Requiring the 10 commandments in public schools, govn't buildings, not allowing gay marriage, and doing a way with no fault divorce is a good start.

We legislate morality all the time...and the government is responsible for carrying out that legislation.

---

So after watching government bureaucrats repeatedly abuse their power whenever possible over the last several decades (and really kicking it into high gear over the last 8-10), your response is to give them more power. I'm speechless.

Every time you support a law you should ask yourself "would I be okay with this law if the opposition party was in power?" You already know the answer to it in this case. Stop being so gullible and take charge of you and your family's own moral wellbeing. Handing it to the government as you advocate is beyond dumb. The data that we have screams this. Screams it!!

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.

---

It definitely should if we want this nation to move back to a time with more Christian morality. Requiring the 10 commandments in public schools, govn't buildings, not allowing gay marriage, and doing a way with no fault divorce is a good start.

We legislate morality all the time...and the government is responsible for carrying out that legislation.

---

So after watching government bureaucrats repeatedly abuse their power whenever possible over the last several decades (and really kicking it into high gear over the last 8-10), your response is to give them more power. I'm speechless.

Every time you support a law you should ask yourself "would I be okay with this law if the opposition party was in power?" You already know the answer to it in this case. Stop being so gullible and take charge of you and your family's own moral wellbeing. Handing it to the government as you advocate is beyond dumb. The data that we have screams this. Screams it!!

---

You are acting as though the government doesn't already control marriage. It is a function that actually needs regulation because it involves property and financial rights and children so not sure where you get this utopia that government isn't involved with marriage from that perspective.

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.

---

Yes, of course, let's penalize the suburban wife who has sacrificed her own life for her kids and husband. She is taught this is supposed to be her cross to bear in life and she has no other value. Then once she gets old enough to realize what a pile of crap religion is and that is intended to trap her in a life of perpetual indentured servitude wants out of hell on earth - we should leave her with nothing because of the cultish brain-washing initially took, it just didn't hold. Of course that is the move for forum 16, so on brand.

aggie93 said:

---

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.

---

It definitely should if we want this nation to move back to a time with more Christian morality. Requiring the 10 commandments in public schools, govn't buildings, not allowing gay marriage, and doing a way with no fault divorce is a good start.

We legislate morality all the time...and the government is responsible for carrying out that legislation.

---

So after watching government bureaucrats repeatedly abuse their power whenever possible over the last several decades (and really kicking it into high gear over the last 8-10), your response is to give them more power. I'm speechless.

Every time you support a law you should ask yourself "would I be okay with this law if the opposition party was in power?" You already know the answer to it in this case. Stop being so gullible and take charge of you and your family's own moral wellbeing. Handing it to the government as you advocate is beyond dumb. The data that we have screams this. Screams it!!

---

You are acting as though the government doesn't already control marriage. It is a function that actually needs regulation because it involves property and financial rights and children so not sure where you get this utopia that government isn't involved with marriage from that perspective.

---

Exactly. The law is not silent on marriage and how we regulate it. It must say something. The question is "what?"

Quote:

---

However, in addition to the view of MY MARRIAGE, my view is also that I cannot tell others how they should view their marriage. If they want to divorce, so be it. But I do agree with aggie93 to try and protect the person who isn't at fault who wants to stay.

---

You cannot determine fault or no fault without bringing in the legal system (lawyers & judges). You're either 100% no fault or 100% "Fault" with all the extra legal hurdles that come with it. You cannot split the baby.

We got rid of "Fault" divorces decades ago for good reasons.

They're involved with a lot of the logistical spillover, but they don't currently force people to stay married. There is a 100% chance that inserting them into this process would cause myriad problems.

ArcticPenguin 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.

---

Yes, of course, let's penalize the suburban wife who has sacrificed her own life for her kids and husband. She is taught this is supposed to be her cross to bear in life and she has no other value. Then once she gets old enough to realize what a pile of crap religion is and that is intended to trap her in a life of perpetual indentured servitude wants out of hell on earth - we should leave her with nothing because of the cultish brain-washing initially took, it just didn't hold. Of course that is the move for forum 16, so on brand.

---

LMAO. Have a frappacchino girl.

Bob Lee said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

beerad12man said:

---

But I guess I'm just saying that I believe your thinking that they make that much of a difference doesn't outweigh the other factors in the 2020s. You'd have to suppress all of those other things to really get a noticeable impact. I don't think this would have the desired impact, but in reality just create other issues.

Again, I'm all for protecting a good marriage partner from getting railed in a divorce. If there's a realistic way to do that. Maybe it would incentivize a small few to seek a different option and save some marriages. Maybe we could protect some good husbands and in some cases wives who got screwed over by their spouse. Maybe it would prevent some who have no business getting married from doing so altogether.

Beyond that, eliminating no fault divorces or even making them harder to obtain, outside of the financial consequence of being the person who wants the divorce (ie something such as the guaranteed 50/50 split going away or a prenup) it has no place in a free society.

---

Here's the disconnect.

Your view of marriage is purely transactional (or at least you're conveying a view of marriage that's transactional, whether or not that's your intent).

I'm not delusional enough to think we go back to a bygone conception of marriage with the flip of a switch. I either asked you or someone else further back whether you believed there's an aspect to the law that's educational. We form habits by doing certain things and abstaining from others. I'm not saying we just go back to the way families were in the 50s. I'm saying it would be better if no fault divorce weren't codified in our law. It would have a positive effect.

---

Actually is you really go back in time marriage was much more about the contract than love. Families arranged most marriages and it was seen as at least partly a business transaction in much of history. The only sane way to get this back is to look at it in terms of contract law in the end. You make an agreement and if one side wants to break it without cause there are penalties to doing so. Right now it doesn't matter if there is cause or not which is lunacy and encourages bad behavior.

---

Were arranged marriages very common in the U.S. before 1970? I didn't think so. I see the wisdom in parents counseling their children on choosing a spouse, and men asking the father should be more than a formality. I fully intend to say no to any boy who inquires about marrying my daughter if he's not a serious person, or he can't answer some basic questions correctly. With full knowledge that they can just do it anyway. I just think the law should treat marriage more seriously because it's serious business. You might be right from a practical standpoint.

---

Prior to 1970? Depends on how "prior". From 1940-70? Not so much. Go back to the 1800s and before? Many marriages were either arranged or certainly involved the consent of the families involved with the exception being those without assets. My point was the path forward is to get back to the contractual nature of marriage not that families have to be involved either. You are entering into a contract with another person and contracts have provisions and consequences for dissolving them. You have reasons for cause and not. You can still get out of a contract but there are stipulations.

A pre nup is another version of this but it really is meant for those with significant assets prior to marriage and that's not most people, most people acquire assets and financial resources (and of course children) later in marriage.

The issue is incentivizing people to break a contract without cause, that is what needs to be corrected.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

They're involved with a lot of the logistical spillover, but they don't currently force people to stay married. There is a 100% chance that inserting them into this process would cause myriad problems.

---

They are inserted now, not sure how you don't understand that. Try getting married or divorced without the government involved.

Tea Party said:

---

Government should have little to no involvement in marriage.

---

Exactly. Marriage is a religious institution and it should be left up to the churches.

93MarineHorn said:

---

Good God!! These people just can't help themselves. F no!! No one needs to go before some judge to get permission to get divorced. Social conservatives, stay the hell out of private lives. Your "cures" are far worse than the disease.

Seriously, if I had to go before some gov't employees and prove to them why they should grant me a divorce from my wife I'd have gone f'ing postal.

---

Late to the thread, but yes, yes you do. Even in no fault divorce.