GOP Ramps Up Push To End No-Fault Divorce
- Thread starter NoleATL
- Start date
Seeing my BILs divorce, where it's so clearly the wife's fault yet he's left holding the bag on everything...yeah something more equitable needs to be the norm.
The damage she's done to the 4 kids is beyond reprehensible. 2 of them are mentally and emotionally upside down and it will take them years to recover. BTW we always hear that you should speak up when you see signs of mental issues, etc. our courts/system isn't set up for it. If you can't prove someone is in immediate physical danger, it's a non-starter.
There's a giant gap in our system to help victims of emotional abuse. I'm NOT saying this is the bill to do it, but passing personality disorders down from generation to generation is cruel and unusual punishment that ruins lives.
The damage she's done to the 4 kids is beyond reprehensible. 2 of them are mentally and emotionally upside down and it will take them years to recover. BTW we always hear that you should speak up when you see signs of mental issues, etc. our courts/system isn't set up for it. If you can't prove someone is in immediate physical danger, it's a non-starter.
There's a giant gap in our system to help victims of emotional abuse. I'm NOT saying this is the bill to do it, but passing personality disorders down from generation to generation is cruel and unusual punishment that ruins lives.
That problem has nothing to do with no-fault divorce.
It's long past due that we hold divorcees to account. Its an epidemic in our society.
The trail of misery, destruction and fall out that some people cause needs to be addressed.
I have no issues with fault being determined and consequences faced by those doing the damage.
The trail of misery, destruction and fall out that some people cause needs to be addressed.
I have no issues with fault being determined and consequences faced by those doing the damage.
I'm on the fence on this. I think sometimes there are very obvious situations about fault which I think should be determined. But I also think sometimes you have the issue where people have a general breakdown of the relationship and it was sort of a case that both people are at fault to some level.
So to me some relationships I think it would be just a nightmare for the courts to try to pick apart and try to decide who is at fault.
But at the same time in obvious cases, I think maybe the court should take that into account.
One of the big reasons no fault divorces exist is to protect victims of domestic abuse.
In a free society individuals should have freedom of association, and the most significant association anyone has in their lifetime is with their spouse. The US can not claim to value individual freedom and liberties if the government can tell you who you should be married to.
What might seem totally obvious just rarely is though in the context of relationships. You just don't know what's going on in that house.
If you got rid of it, you'd also really incentivize people just not getting married. When they first changed to no fault divorce, it was taboo to be living together unwed. Now it's not, and I think you'd just get more people saying to heck with it regarding the institution.
In conversations with lawyers fault vs. no fault has come into play, which is what triggered my brain.
In this particular case, it was around military retirement and disability benefits and how fault would impact her entitlement to those.
Perhaps I don't understand the subject well enough, but my understanding is that just because a state allows for "no fault" divorce, it does not preclude one party from filing for divorce with cause.
Gays didn’t destroy marriage, no fault divorce did.
I'm not sure but I'm pretty sure that most states have decided that they arn't going to look at it. That the courts are just gonna split up the assets and decide custody/child support.
Custody/Child Support is a bigger issue IMO. Courts need to presume shared parenting when both parents are capable.
People already said the heck with it because marriage became a piece of paper with no protections involved. Your wife can cheat on you out of the blue, take half the assets, take the kids and you have to pay her not only child support but alimony to "upkeep her lifestyle"
I would add that a public registry is also in order. Make the findings public so potential future partners are fully aware of the background of those determined "at fault".
But marriage is also a contract. But it's the only contract where there is no penalty for violating the terms or leaving it.
If my employer backs out of a contract he gets hit with a severe financial penalty not to mention his business reputation is shot.
You walk out of your marriage, there is no penalty. And honestly the way things are you can walk out of 3 marriages and not lose any reputation.
If people are worried about that happening then they shouldn't get married in the first place. And maybe she's cheating because the guy she's married to is a scum bag. There's two sides to every story. If you're not willing to risk losing half your assets, don't get married. If you don't want to ever pay child support, don't have kids. You can't have your cake and eat it too. My suggestion, buy a blowup doll.
But the question is why does it have to be that way?
If the husband is a scum bag she could just divorce him outright, not commit adultery.
I recognize there are risks in doing these things, especially in terms of being emotionally hurt. I just don't think it makes any sense that the law gets to inflict hurt on you too.
There is no contract, if you want a contract then write a prenup. Look at trump, he can cheat and because his contract is one sided, his wife won't even leave. Also look at trump again, he backs out of his business contracts all the time and people like you still vote for him.
So now you're wanting to be the relationship police. I don't give a sh!t what happens to them or their marriage, I have better things to worry about. How does her committing adultery change anything if they're looking to get divorced, it doesn't. You sound like someone who has been cheated on and you're still pissed about it.
If you think I voted for Trump, you have not been paying attention.
Never been cheated on, been married mostly happily for 14 years. (We did have a couple of bad years but worked through them, stayed married.)
What changes is the incentives. That's what changes. The law should avoid creating situations where people are incentivized to end the marriage.
Without no-fault, if he is cheating on her she will have to prove it in court to obtain her divorce. She shouldn't have to do that, she should be able to walk away. If he is beating her, she will have to prove it in court to obtain her divorce.
There is simply no way to remove no-fault divorce without placing a huge burden on anyone who has a legitimate need or desire to remove themselves from the marriage.
What is the incentive to end a marriage? And why should the government be involved in this decision in any way?
It would be better if the government didn't provide incentives to get married.
Does that have to be in the vows? Are the vows documented and then signed?
Seems you are an advocate for people staying in bad marriages because they "promised" to do so in a ceremony.
It's worse than that. He doesn't like for a women to be able to terminate the marriage. He feels she should be punished for wanting out.
It is weird how you guys are looking at marriage like it’s 1952 and the men always seem to be at fault in your mind for terrible marriages. Times have changed.
Look at the historic reasons and customs for creating the institution of marriage in every single society and whether or not we agree with the institution as we know it today it gives you a better understanding of how we arrived at the idea.
The theory of tribal preservation, retention of property and power and strategic unions is a theme that runs through every aspect of the marriage theme.
Is it still relevant today? How does it affect the idea of the family unit and its effect on a stable society as a whole? And how does divorce impact it?
The theory of tribal preservation, retention of property and power and strategic unions is a theme that runs through every aspect of the marriage theme.
Is it still relevant today? How does it affect the idea of the family unit and its effect on a stable society as a whole? And how does divorce impact it?
This is nonsense. If you can't prove certain facets, then you can't prove certain facets. That doesn't mean you can't get a divorce.
You’re white knighting for spouse beaters. Ending no fault would give them another layer of protection.
Exactly why Northern opposes them.
Sometimes it’s difficult to tell who the abuser is as well. A relationship can be so toxic that the spouses are taking turns. Wouldn’t want a court trying to figure out who is at fault. Best to dissolve it and get both parties clear of it before a fatality.
Briefly, it used to be that one spouse would have to "sue" for divorce and prove, in court, a specific need for the divorce; such as infidelity or violence. Over the years I believe "irreconcilable differences" became the term commonly used when both parties wanted the divorce even though neither had really done anything wrong. But you still had to have a complicated legal proceeding.
No-fault divorce removed the assumed burden that one spouse had to be blamed for the divorce. It eased the legal requirements to a divorce, making it easier for spouses to simply agree to end their marriage.
The biggest proponents for ending no fault divorce might be divorce lawyers.
Similar threads
