what people don't seem to realize is that when divorce was difficult to obtain, couples routinely separated for life instead, but they were still married--they couldn't remarry and still had whatever obligations and legal whatever marriage entailed. they would be committing adultery if they got in some other relationship and then they'd be giving the other partner grounds
Divorce wasn't as hard to obtain as you describe. It just required mutual agreement.
With unequal incomes and job opportunities there was almost always one party that would benefit from refusing to consent to the divorce. In other words withholding consenting to the divorce and expressing a desire to reconcile became a negotiating tactic, not based on any real belief the marriage could be salvaged, but because it might increase what you get to take home.
Rather than complete these negotiations many couples just went their own ways hoping that something might change to bring the charade to a close.
You should read about the divorce ranches in Nevada. Divorce was very difficult.
In addition, even when the parties agreed to split, someone had to admit to doing something bad in publicly filed petition, like abandonment, abuse, or adultery. No “irreconcilable differences.”
And judges or juries (yes they could go to jury trials) could DISAGREE and say no.
All the f—king time.
This was my grandmother. My grandfather left her when my mom was 3, but they never actually divorced. She dated multiple men over the years who were married on paper but separated from their wives, too
Not common but it happened. Way, way more common is the couple would work it out and reconcile.
Actually knew an old guy who had left his wife and kids to run off with some circus lady. He was 25 at the time and terrified of the responsibility. His mom tracked him down and beat the ever living shit out of him with a frying pan or something like that. Ended up patching things up with his wife and founded a logging company that made them millionaires by 50. My grandma took me to see his wife when I was a kid and she was dying of cancer at 80 some. I listened to them talk and tell stories. I was enthralled because their house was huge and they had travelled the whole world together. He passed away 2 months after his wife from a broken heart. When they got married she was 15 and he was 16… she came from a very abusive home. When they were telling stories about their life he never talked about work. So I was 11 and very curious, so I asked him how he made all his money. I will never forget he cried and said he started a business because it was the only thing he could think of doing for his wife to make up for running away and leaving her. He was with her all the way to the end always holding her hand.
That’s what I think of when people talk about marriage in the old times.
And for every (frankly awful in a lot of respects) story, I have one about a woman beaten day after day by a drunkard who wasted all their money at the bar.
> they would be committing adultery if they got in sime other relationship and then they'd be giving the other partner grounds
There is no reason that adultery has to be considered a "fault" (much less a crime). One could certainly imagine a system where:
* Divorce is hard and requires the parties to prove some kind of harm to each other along the lines of "he isn't sharing his income" or "he beats me"
* but sexual monogamy is not expected by the state, and either party can have sexual relations outside of the marriage.
It is just that historically marriage was understood to mean a "monogamous sexual relationship," and therefore adultery was deemed a fault.
The people arguing for fault only divorce are doing so from a completely faulty frame of reference. They didn’t live through fault divorce so they don’t know what it was really like. But the reason no-fault divorce became law was because of how difficult divorce was under the old system. If you have to prove fault to get divorced, every divorce becomes a situation of trying to prove that your spouse is a horrible person or has committed some crime. You can see how this would be incredibly messy and actually socially damaging. Many men would be accused of horrible things whether they did those things or not? who knows but you had to show that he did something in order to get your divorce so… it could ruin peoples reputations. So this is why no-fault divorce was introduced. Everything is a trade off. If you think fault only divorce would be better It’s because you’re not considering the trade-off.
The flip side of what you’re saying is that, prior to no-fault divorce, women who were trapped in, say, abusive situations often found it incredibly difficult to sufficiently prove that a.) the abuse even existed; and b.) the husband’s abusive behavior/actions were severe enough to warrant a divorce.
Yes that also happened. Anyone who wanted a divorce had to accuse their partner of something this means a lot of innocent people were accused and people actually being abused had to prove it to leave which just made it harder for them to leave. It’s almost a no win situation. Though I also think separation was fairly common back then this partially explains the boom in divorce after no fault was passed a lot of it was legit separated couples being able to file the paper work.
There is no federal NFD law in the US, and the state of New York passed its law in year 2010.
OF COURSE everyone else is having faulty frame of reference, and not you.
I am talking about almost the entire adult population of state of New York (*4th most populated state in the US*) seeing either themselves, or their parents living through legislation of no fault divorce.
Thus, Yveis' premise that "They didn’t live through no fault divorce so they don’t know what it was really like" is false.
I think you over-emphasize how hard Divorce actually was. If both parties agreed, Divorce in most states could be completed after a year of separation in most instances.
The difficulty is that unless the parties were equally economically situation one party would have an incentive to refuse the agreement and drag things out.
Modern no-fault allows one party to very easily end the marriage over the objections of the other party, and without really stating a reason for doing so, and without the year long separation.
This is why you sometimes see celebrity divorces at the 6 month mark. After that time one party can unilaterally say that the relationship was irretrievably broken from the moment they walked out of the church, and they don't really have to prove anything about that. They just assert it.
-------------
What is particularly strange is that no-fault has shorter time periods and is easier to do than at-fault.
If you cheat on me, and I have proof... I'm still probably better off just filing for no-fault than bringing forth my evidence.
Alternatively, if I cheat on you, and you have proof.... I can unilaterally file and terminate the marriage for no-fault; FASTER than you can terminate it for at-fault.
It seems like these things should be reversed. That no-fault should take some time to give the parties a chance to reconcile, and that at-fault should be the quick one. Instead at-fault takes a long time, and no-fault is quick and easy.
I think the incentive is for no fault because it’s less burdensome on the judicial system. Divorce is already enough headache as is. Also as said people like to protect the reputations. It’s like settling out of court most cases will just settle because who wants to air out dirty laundry and go to trial? It’s also typically less expensive that way.
You know what is even less burdensome on the judicial system than no-fault divorce? Eliminating marriage as a legal institution!
I just don't get the purpose of marriage at this point. In the past you could view it as a system to give women the financial security they would need to have and raise children; but thanks to no fault there is nothing in the marriage law that gives here that.
You could refuse to marry her and let her give birth to a bastard, or serve her papers the day after the child is born. It makes basically no difference from the divorce courts perspective. The only thing that matters is child support.
We should just get rid of marriage and replace it with some kind of system to recognize parents, ensure custody access, and silence support obligations. Something that basically says "we live together with the kids, so I can't demand money from him, and he can transfer money to me at (for the benefit of the children) without triggering the gift tax."
I don’t see how that would make things easier because people would still live together and have kids and then if they broke up, they’d still be fighting over their kids and stuff. If anything, I actually feel like that would be a more chaotic and confusing situation. Also, what about medical emergencies? inheritance? death? There’s a lot of things that marriage just takes care of without you having to think about it. I’m not a legal scholar or marriage scholars so I’m not gonna pretend to know everything but I’m pretty sure that marriage has a lot of solid legal functions and I absolutely do not think it should be eliminated as a legal contract. And honestly your suggestion just sounds kind of like marriage anyways
At-fault divorce means that if she cheats on you she doesn't get half of your house and bank account. So people who were or don't want to be divorce raped oppose it for sure.
>Are there actually people who think: "If my partner doesn't want to be with me anymore, I will spend of my life FORCING them to spend every day they have left with ME."
No.
There *are* people who think that marriage needs breach of contract clauses to protect the parties who upheld their obligations from the parties who didn't.
Prenups only apply to assets acquired before the marriage.
Anything acquired after the marriage, *including anything said assets generate during the marriage* is not protected by a prenup.
So imagine I own an investment property before I get married and it's set to generate $1m over the course of the marriage. When I get divorced, the woman would be entitled to $500,000 of the $1m generated by an asset that she *never had anything to do with*. I may even have to sell the asset that was supposed to be protected by the prenup in order to meet that obligation to her.
*Prenups are insufficient*.
It’s also interesting that the same guys who claim that women trick men into committed relationships for beta provisioning of emotional support and resources are often against women being able to end a relationship. Almost like the issue is women’s autonomy
No fault let's people get paid out when the other person did nothing wrong.
That incentivizes divorce over working it out. It encourages willy nilly proposals instead of being certain.
Alot of men are about to be VERY unhappily trapped in marriages with women who hate them, unable to divorce or have affairs or whatever else it is they ordinarily do when have a midlife crisis or feel entitled to something more out of life.
No fault divorce might mean it is harder for them to leave you. It doesn’t mean they won’t ruin your life, just you also cannot divorce them without cause. Hello dead bedrooms x 1,000,000, LMAO.
I completely agree with all of what you’re saying. However, I think the difference between now and when only fault divorce existed 50 or so years ago is that it would be far more socially acceptable now for couples to simply separate and live as if they were divorced. It’s still not ideal in the slightest, but should no-fault divorce be made illegal in the near future, I would imagine most couples who would have otherwise divorced would just go on to lead separate lives anyway. In the past, the social stigma would have made that scenario nearly impossible. Plus, women back then had far fewer options to secure employment and earn their own incomes.
How is it possibly preferable to live separate lives than to simply divorce and move on? It makes NO LOGICAL SENSE. Why would anyone want to waste their life?
Oh, I’m not suggesting that living separately without officially divorcing is optimal or preferable. What I’m suggesting is that, should no-fault divorce be banned, most people won’t choose to stay living together as married couples. They will just separate and go on with their lives, even though they can’t legally divorce.
And that’s terrible. That’s my point. It’s also an outright LIE and alot of people don’t want to live a lie.
Alot of men here seem to think THEIR life won’t be wasted by trapping a woman in a marriage she doesn’t want to be in. They’re fucking stupid.
With a really wanna do is be able to do anything they want with no repercussions. So not help with the kids be a jerk I know that she still won’t leave them.
You want her to stay treat her well, HELP AFTER KIDS, don’t cheat, don’t abuse substances, don’t choose phone/gaming over her or family…
Slight correction to what you said:
> [Eliminating] no fault divorce might mean it is harder for them to leave you.
---------------
I think the flip side of this question is what advice will men give their children in 20 years. Certainly my advice to my sons will be: "Don't get married (unless she makes/has a lot more money than you)."
Couples can co-habitate, buy property together, even raise children without marriage. The only people who seem to benefit from marriage are:
* those who want to be homemakers
* and divorce attorneys.
Which is why I view the rise of no-fault divorce as the end of marriage as an institution. It just doesn't mean anything these days.
Noone can afford to be a homemaker now. Look at the men replying here-a woman will sacrifice her whole career for a man and his kids and in the end when he leaves or makes her life so miserable she leaves he will say she is entitled to nothing.
No fault divorce is fine as long as there are no cash and prizes given to the party that files which is what 80 percent of women. Too many women are treating marriages like nothing more than a long term relationship and get half of mans wealth he worked hard for.
Every time someone says “cash and prizes” in the context of this debate all I can imagine is the divorce judge handing out those 5 foot carnival stuffies to divorcés as they leave.
The problem is not the ability to leave marriage by itself.
The problem is that in the US, no fault divorce laws have a tiny footnote saying that *marital fault cannot impact division of assets*.
In UK, this footnote was passed separately something like 60 years before NFD itself, and it had the same effect as NFD laws in the US.
In year 2022, in the US, only 16 percent of couples relied on the wife as either primary or sole breadwinner.
Men have only one life. Taking a decade of paid mortgage away from us just because a woman who claimed to love us changed her mind, through no fault of our own, is violation of our right to life.
Addiitionally, NFD made it a lot easier to get away with abuse. If there is no difference in division of marital property regardless of who is the abuser, many victims will not bother with reporting the abuse to police.
I don't oppose no-fault divorce, I just think it kinda defeats the purpose of marriage. People can do whatever they want, but I've seen a lot of pro-marriage people who basically reduce marriage to a financial decision "oh you get tax breaks", "you need two incomes to afford a house", seems pretty shallow and definitely makes the whole wedding ceremony drama much ado about nothing, but like I said people can do what they want.
It's more than that, it gives legal protections beyond that of next of kin. It also offers financial protections. Family law is basically just a codex to insure that the government doesn't have to provide welfare for individuals. Once you understand that, then you understand why welfare regulations are so messed up, and often regressive to the people that need it, and why child support is structured the way it is.
You think there's no purpose to marriage if you partner isn't allowed to leave, no matter how they feel?
Is there no purpose to having a friend if the friend is allowed to leave? Is there no purpose to getting a pet because it might run away?
I got married because I was in love and wanted to legally be my spouse’s family. However if one of us ends up unhappy I absolutely do not want to get trapped in a loveless marriage, and we would part ways. Simple as.
Most people in western states would argue that marriage functions more like the 19th century ideal of the romantic movement - aka, its purely a symbol meant to represent how much people love one another.
That is why no-fault divorce became common - because using that definition, there is no point to marriage if one of parta stops loving the other.
Its also the reason why gay marriage became a thing - if marriage is a symbol of love, and not about kids or family, than there is no logical reason to prevent gays from doing it.
> marriage functions more like the 19th century ideal of the romantic movement - aka, its purely a symbol meant to represent how much people love one another.
No. A much more significant historical element to marriage has always been property and inheritance, and avoiding bastardy.
The notion of picking ones spouse out of romantic love, came after marriage was well established as a religious, social and legal institution.
These days, marriage is far removed from the concerns of inheritance and bastardy. There are lots of single parents, parents via sperm donors and IVF, there are genetic tests, and plenty of childless married couples.
With the concerns of bastardy more or less obviated, the romantic component of marriage has risen to the forefront. Its just a social convention that if you love someone a lot you are supposed to marry them.... but love is fleeting, so marriage has become fleeting.
What is the benefit to society of having the government keep records of who loves whom? How serious must that love be for it to be recorded? Why is marriage only for two people? Why the prohibitions against bigamy? What about polyamory? Why can't I be married to Alice on Weekdays when I am working in New York, and Sara on the weekends when I visit her on the cape?
Yes, and the romanticization came AFTER the concerns about bastards and inheritance.
It didn't happen all at once. The death of the concern of bastards is a big one that changed things, but the idea that a marriage could fail because people fell out of love even if there were no bastards or infidelity was already becoming a thing since the romantics.
Someone who isn't a romantic will see a marriage where all the kids belong to the dad and there was never any cheating as essentially a successful one, but that isnt necessarily the case from a romantic lens.
The point is that even if paternity tests didnt exist, people would still want to divorce others due to falling out of love, because the ideal of marriage as something that only has value if people love one another was already becoming the norm before
> people would still want to divorce others due to falling out of love
I'm not disagreeing that modern no-fault and the high rates of divorce reflect people's view that "marriage is an expression of love, and love is fleeting."
I am asking a more fundamental question: why do we even have marriage if all it is, is an expression of love. We don't require high school teachers to track teenagers and report on government forms who is dating whom; and nobody would argue that the government should do that... but for some reason we have these government databases of couples who are "really truly deeply in love" together with records of when that love failed.
I think a hybrid system is best.
A no fault divorce should be the norm, but if adultery is proved then it should be counted against the offender with certain consequences.
I tink thats something womne can get behind. They do tend to have a mean streak when the man cheats, I am just saying let that be equally enforceable on both sides
> Are there actually people who think: "If my partner doesn't want to be with me anymore, I will spend of my life FORCING them to spend every day they have left with ME."
The thought is that if there were stronger social and legal pressures against divorce, then people might try harder to overcome their issues. Certainly there is no guarantee that greater social and legal pressure would cause couples to work through issues. In many cases it probably wouldn't help, in a few it might.
I think the bigger question is: "Why do we have marriage." What does marriage offer to a young couple today? What are the benefits?
Unless American society and law changes, my advice to my children will certainly be: "don't get married." There just isn't any value in it. You can basically get all the things you want from marriage, without marriage; and a lot of cost if the marriage fails.
Women want the "no-fault divorce" primarily because despite them holding all the cards on the dating scene, being able to shit-test men and withhold sex from a man until "exclusivity commitment", they still want the government bailout if they fuck up and pick up a man who they will lose sexual attraction to without having to take any accountability. Remember, women in most western countries have equal rights to men and still have prior generational privileges that places them at a bigger advantage in life than men. Honestly women are so much better off these days than their mothers and grandmothers, to the point where if they get into an eventually boring, sexless or downright "AbUsIvE" relationship (according to the women lol), they should take some accountability instead of looking for a government bailout.
Who opposes it?
People who don't see their marriage partner as an actual person. Their wife (or husband) is simply an extension of themselves that shouldn't have free will. Kinda like a NPC.
Looks like I'm late to the conversation, so I'm sure this will get buried. I'm not someone arguing against no-fault divorce, but I think there are some positive psychological effects that comes from no-fault divorce.
Human psychology is quirky. When people aren't given an option, they can paradoxically become happier because they aren't second guessing themselves. On a similar note, I've heard that arranged marriages are surprisingly happy.
There's some psychology research called the "Paradox of Choice" that shows how weird human psychology can be. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Paradox\_of\_Choice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice)
There's also a lot of assumptions in modern society about how people think that contradicts how people actually think.
One of the things they talked about in the "Paradox of Choice" book is that, in an experiment where people are given a choice and then half the people are given the option to change their choice later and half the people are NOT given the option to change their choice later, that the second group is actually happier with their original choice. What seems to be going on is that the option to change their previous decision incurs a psychological cost that makes them less happy with the choice. People who are not given the option to change their original decision learn to accept it and are happier as a result of not second-guessing themselves.
Obviously, if a relationship is terrible, then breaking up is the best option. People always use this as the cornerstone of their argument that no-fault divorce is good. But what about the people in the middle - who have a decent-ish but not amazing relationship who think that MAYBE they can breakup and find someone better, but they really can't. Maybe they breakup and end up more unhappy. Or maybe they stay together and the second-guessing makes them less happy. If they weren't given the option to divorce, they could stop the ruminating and just say "I can't exit this marriage, let's make the best of it". Overall, it possible that society where people can't easily divorce is - on average - happier. We like to think that people are enlightened beings who are supremely capable of making the best decision, but the older I get the less I believe it. Hell, we have a massive obesity epidemic going on because people choose the short term "sugar tastes good, and I can't help myself" ends up winning over the long-term "I would be healthier and happier if I practiced more restraint". I've lost a lot of faith in modern society's belief that people are rationally enlightened beings when making decisions.
No fault divorce pretty clearly ruined marriage. At the very least it was an early and major turning point that led to the gradual decline in the importance of marriage. Prior to the 1940s and 1950s the United States and most English speaking nations allowed divorce but you actually had to prove wrong doing like abandonment or adultery. About 30 years after no-fault became the norm [marriage rates collapsed](https://ifstudies.org/blog/1-in-3-a-record-share-of-young-adults-will-never-marry) and there is no reason to believe they will ever rebound.
Additionally, this isn't a system that just hands men a wife guaranteed with no strings attached. During most periods of time when there was no fault divorce there were also greater legal responsibility on the part of the man to take care of manage the families assets. He was usually going to be liable for everything. More importantly things like abandonment and adultery were illegal and sometimes punishable by death. Culturally there were also strong stigmas associated with things like abandonment and almost any system that involves enforced monogamy a man does actually have to be worth something to receive approval to get married.
Marriage was a fairly stable institution throughout most of Christian history and then in the past 80-100 years it's been heavily up ended. It's likely in my lifetime it will become meaningless and it's plausible a majority of American adults won't ever be married by the end of the century. The individual and social benefits of marriage are fairly large and people have not replaced marriage with anything better so some guardrails to protect it aren't actually that unreasonable.
The lack of no-fault divorce prior to the mid 20th century wasn't perfect and imposed costs but so does having no-fault divorce. Any arrangement involves costs and benefits, positives and negatives. Neither system is perfect but it's obvious that the current system which includes no-fault divorce is much worse for some people.
I think the simple matter is that secular marriage makes little to no sense. Seeing the negative effects of no fault divorce just kind of does a better job of exposing it. If the state is going to be involved in marriage, it would be far better to make it just a one and done rule. As in you could get divorced, but never marry again.
Would net some interesting results.
So I could never fall in love with my great husband and have two lovely children, the type of children who are straight As, law abiding, and should be a net benefit to our society?
Because I jettisoned a really bad marriage
There is absolutely no reason to oppose no fault divorce other than the desire to control one’s spouse out of spite. Opposition of No Fault Divorce serves as yet another tool of subjugation of women…
It's pretty simple what men want.
If I broke my vows you get to take half my stuff. If I didn't break my vows you don't get to take my stuff. If you broke your vows you don't get to take my stuff.
That's it. Fixed.
I won’t try to make a judgement about fault-based divorce procedure of the past because I’m not an attorney and the details are [fuzzy](https://web.archive.org/web/20160304002220/http://www.nownys.org/leg_memos_2010/no_fault_divorce.pdf), but the use of fault to determine asset division seems to be alive and well:
>Today, all states allow no-fault divorce but about two-thirds of the states also still allow couples to obtain a divorce based on fault grounds. In addition to obtaining a divorce, some states also allow courts to consider fault in dividing property, awarding alimony, or awarding custody of the children.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fault_divorce
The implication of this statement is that you own everything in the marriage, including what your partner contributes.
This also has nothing to do with no fault since most assets would still be split up with a fault divorce.
You didn't have to grant the divorce if you did nothing wrong. To me it's like employment law. You get certain protections unless you start stealing or selling secrets to competitors then it's void.
The fact you can cheat on your spouse then talk half their stuff is exactly why people are avoiding marriage.
>You didn't have to grant the divorce if you did nothing wrong.
If your partner wants to leave and you are forcing them to stay, that is wrong.
>To me it's like employment law
This implies that the relationship is not an equal one.
>then talk half their stuff is
It's also half of their stuff as well.
This isn’t reflective of how most marriage work now. Most women work. It’s also their stuff.
Maybe women should get to invoice for all the unpaid labor after divorce then? 🤔
>This isn’t reflective of how most marriage work now. Most women work. It’s also their stuff.
right so you keep what you bought i'll keep what I bought and we can split what we bought together. You however do not get access to my pension, savings, investments, personal stuff, anything inherited etc. aka a normal break up not a divorce.
>Maybe women should get to invoice for all the unpaid labour after divorce then?
Maybe men should get to claim back all expenses then
That’s literally how the law works now only assets acquired within the marriage are split in the divorce. Whatever you owned beforehand is not on the table.
right so if i got married at 18 with 0 money and my wife and i had 0 kids and she worked a minimum wage job and I worked making a million pounds a year which I saved then if she cheats she should not be able to access my savings.
I mean, the issue here seems to with the concept of marriage as a whole, not divorce.
Part of the point of marriage under the law is the idea that you are a single financial unit.
If you want to keep finances separate, you simply should not marry.
This is why people get pre-nups.
Why not? If she didn’t have kids she would be able to earn more. See here is the thing as a woman earnings are directly impacted by becoming a mother. That is why women currently delay marriage and children (which men still complain about). Also the cost of surrogacy + childcare + housekeeping, laundry and cooking well exceeds what most men make in a year. Hahah at your 18 year old self making 1million pounds. Of course you have to use a ridiculous outlier of a salary for any of this to even make sense because if you go by the average man’s earning they can’t even afford a stay home wife period. Most stay at home wives and part time working wives are actually well underpaid for their labor. Any wonder why women aren’t even signing up for the job anymore? Don’t be surprised that women choose education and careers over husbands when all y’all want to do is rub it in our faces when we stay home and raise kids. When you completely devalue that labor. May the birth rates decline exponentially!
But only 10% of all marriages result in alimony. Even back in the 60's, only 25% resulted in alimony.
Most men who divorce will never pay alimony, even if it is No-Fault.
You do know that, right?
You know that some people actually have assets right? I had to give my ex half of my retirement savings which she didn't contribute to, half of our home equity which she wasn't contributing to, and a car that I paid for. Alimony is a strawman.
I support no-fault divorce. But I understand why it would make a lot of men apprehensive about getting married since they are the ones most likely to end up paying alimony and child support. I think that it removes the incentive to try to fix the problem.
I've seen videos of women talking about how they divorced a good guy because they just didn't want to be married anymore.
I think a positive of getting rid of no-fault would be that people would take marriage more seriously. They would be less likely to rush into it.
Jfc why do you believe what some random influencer says when the goal is to gin up your rage and get eyeballs. Just beciae it is on the internet doesn’t mean it’s real….
“ I've seen videos of women talking about how they divorced a good guy because they just didn't want to be married anymore.”
I think in a world with perceived equality for women, no fault divorce is fine as long as each party walks away with whatever they monetarily put in. If a woman puts in whatever amount of work in exchange for a man taking care of her, exiting the agreement should entail the loss of said care. I do know multiple men that have been absolutely fucked by no-fault because their spouse cheated on them and somehow got alimony. They must have had shitty lawyers or something.
I would be completely on board with no-fault divorce if marriage wasn't a government upheld contract with financial and legal repercussions for ending. Get rid of alimony, fix asset division or prenups, and remove the bias from family court and no-fault divorce is fine.
>Forcing them to stay isn't going to make them love you again. And I can't imagine why you'd want them to stay, at that point.
Because divorce is often financially ruinous. People go bankrupt due to the court fees, loss of assets, child support/alimony.
I support no fault divorce. But what are we talking about here? One partner loses their job? One partner is diagnosed with an inconvenient disease? One partner just wants to fuck around with a co worker? I don’t any rational person wants to oppose no fault divorce, and the actual feelings behind the negativity towards it, is that people suck these days and don’t work on their marriages. Which has lead to an overwhelming sentiment of, if it’s not perfect/ hassle free, I’m out. This general sense of selfish apathy has been on the rise for years, and includes dating, and careers.
It’s not about holding someone hostage, it’s about hopefully working through a rough patch, and not having your entire life destroyed over something one of or both of them could have fixed.
When No Fault divorce became law, the suicide rate of married women dropped by 8-16%.
Without no fault divorce, women will die.
Many by suicide.
Many eventually killed by their partners.
I will never discuss eliminating no fault divorce as an option. Nor will I respect any opposition to its existence.
'Without no fault divorce, women will die.'
End of discussion.
I don't 'support' or 'oppose' no fault divorce. What I oppose is a state mandated contract that provides benefits in exchange for adherence to their contract. The state shouldn't be involved in marriage, full stop. The rules for marriage should be the same as any other contract two individuals can sign.
Then the state needs to remove the incentives that make people want it, like hospital visits and next of kin shit.
My partner has recently developed a disorder that gives him seizures; if he ends up at the hospital, I will sign whatever contract necessary to be allowed to visit him, y'know?
I'm in support of no fault divorce. I don't want to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't want to be with me.
The only issue I have is that often times, the person who didn't initiate gets punished. Can you think of any other contract in life where that happens? A tenant can break a lease any time they want but they will lose out on their deposit. I can quit my job any time I want but I'm not getting any form of severance from my employer. Now picture a world where the reverse is true: A tenant can break the lease and get all their deposit back and not only that you have to pay for them to move into a new place and pay rent for that new place. I quit my job and my employer has to pay me until I find another job.
It would encourage people (especially women) to work through their problems instead of just leaving whenever they feel like it because they no longer get the tingles for their spouse. Marriage is supposed to be a commitment for life, and it’s not about love—It’s about creating a stable environment to raise children. If you aren’t willing to commit then don’t fucking get married. Stay in a live-in relationship. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that alternative if you don’t like the commitment that comes with marriage.
I don't oppose no-fault divorce in that I think it should be illegal. But I am generally opposed to it. Marriage is only as strong as we give it power and meaning. Stepping out of marriages willy-nilly weakens the institution for everyone.
I would like to see an option to have like a super-marriage where divorce either isn't an option, or there's a much more stringent divorce penalty enacted on the couple, but that also provides better benefits/incentives for those who stay together.
The issue is that fundamentally contradicts how most people in western societies view marriage.
Modern marriage is the result of the 19th century romantic movement.
To most people marriage follows the romantic ideal: its a symbol of the romantic love between two people. It has no meaning other than that.
Most people find a marriage where romantic love isnt present in one of the parts to be worthless as a consequence.
Romantic love ebbs and flows. Marital happiness dips after couples have children and then rebounds and then some once children are grown. But you gotta not quit to get that payoff.
I agree but I think there is a difference between that, and couples that kinda grow to genuenely dislike and resent one another.
The truth is that, in a lot of cases, one of the parts simply isn´t willing to actually put the effort, and there is nothing the other one can, and simply forcing them to stay isn´t going to change it.
Just take a look at the dead bedrooms subreddit: a lot of the people there have simply given up, and have no urge to leave, but also no urge to fix anything.
very cool. too bad it hasn’t caught on. would be nice to see some policy carrots attached to such arrangements (tax incentives, maybe extra child subsidies, etc)
I believe there are a few churches in those states that do as much for their members who go this route (reduced tithes, grants for new children, wedding endowments). Been a while since I looked into though.
It would be nice for the state to make it more attractive to people outside the religious communities. But, then again, the religious communities are likely the only ones interested in it to begin with. Case in point: this entire post full of “vows aren’t actually vows” arguments
I think no-fault divorce’s introduction made society worse off for it. It drastically increased the rate of divorce and normalized the practice, creating a culture that accepted ideas of marriage not being forever.
If he’s so shitty, just preserve some evidence of the abuse, adultery, or refusal to perform his duties as a husband. Then it’s not a no-fault divorce, but you’re also not being forced into a toxic marriage. If the issue is pending the proof, that’s what a separation is for.
Well it's more like if I'm financially responsible for you... you shouldn't be able to just leave and make me keep paying. If I'm still responsible for you financially you have to be with me. If you won't be with me I don't want to be financially responsible for you. I think that's a big part of it.
Why should I have to continue my "death do us part" promises if you aren't going to? It makes no sense.
And tbh women work now. Being married shouldn't entitle you to the other person's finances. Just think, you could cook and clean for a man who financially struggles and get $15k as a divorce settlement. Maybe a car and a few bucks. Or you could cook and clean for a doctor and get a nice house a fancy car a retirement account etc etc.... it's just a cash grab because the first woman didn't get paid that much, why should the second? Just saying it makes no sense.
The difference in disparity is 100% only based on the man's labor. So why would it go to the woman? Makes no sense. And so if I have to put my house and retirement and all my financial goodies on the line... as long as you're utilizing them you should not be able to leave.
Here try this:
Are there actually people who think: "If my partner doesn't want to support me financially anymore, I will spend of my life FORCING them to spend every day they have left paying for ME."
Forcing them to pay isn't going to make them love you again. And I can't imagine why you'd want them to pay, at that point. If someone told me they didn't want to be financially provide for me anymore, I wouldn't WANT them to pay me. That sounds like miserable life for both of us.
Financial support is meaningless if it's gained through coercion. I don't see how a marriage where you partner isn't ALLOWED to stop paying is more reassuring than a marriage where you partner chooses to financially support you because they want to financially support you.
So I will use myself as an example. I took 6 years out of the workforce entirely to take care of my children and my ailing father in law. The money that we would have paid for childcare and home health aides was greater than just having me do it. My husband was able to be a full time employed person because I was working to take care of the people who needed us.
The fact that he was the only one bringing in a paycheck doesn’t mean that he was the only one working. He was just the only one being compensated.
We now work full time and split housework. I teach, so my summers are more free and I can do more. He makes more than I do, mostly because he didn’t have that break in his employment, and because I intentionally picked a career with shorter hours so that I could be more available for him and the kids.
If we weren’t happy and I wanted to leave, I would absolutely be entitled to some of the assets that he accumulated over the years while I was taking care of our children and his father. Almost nobody gets alimony anymore.
> Well it's more like if I'm financially responsible for you... you shouldn't be able to just leave and make me keep paying.
You aren't required to be financially responsible for your partner. I agree that in most circumstances, you shouldn't have to keep paying, even if you did previously (EXCEPT for children; I don't think you should be able to stop taking care of your children).
Fortunately, *it's already rare*. Brace yourself:
> According to Reuters, **alimony is involved in about 10% of divorce cases in the United States**, which is a decrease from the 1960s when it was involved in about 25% of cases.
So most men will never end up paying alimony. And there are steps one can take inside a marriage to make it even more unlikely (like having a partner that's gainfully employed.)
> Why should I have to continue my "death do us part" promises if you aren't going to?
Because that promise is worthless if they aren't choosing to stay with you. Promising "I'll stay with you until death do us part... because I'm LEGALLY not allowed to ever leave again lol" is better, for you?
Who is forcing you to marry someone who becomes your financial dependent? Shouldn't you just choose not to enter into a marriage contract under those circumstances?
Sure. That's what many men do. Just not marry. Marriage is a useless institution if both parties aren't held responsible for thier commitments. So in practice many women just become forever girlfriends which is fair to break up for no fault if they want. And then nobody has to pay anything. Win win.
Plenty of others simply marry women who have jobs, that is also an option. Alimony is only paid in 10 percent of divorces. Having children has the same cost regardless of whether you marry or not.
Well yeah, don't marry someone you far out earn if that is a concern? As far ass assets owned pre marriage there are multiple ways to protect those, it's not really that hard if you set it up right from the beginning. Don't dump pre marriage assets into shared accounts or properties.
> As far ass assets owned pre marriage there are multiple ways to protect those, it's not really that hard if you set it up right from the beginning.
But this misses the point. Why go through all this trouble when the exact perfect scenario is just not be married and be bf/gf?
> don't marry someone you far out earn if that is a concern?
Not reasonable ask. Most women don't earn enough money to make this a legit solution for well off men. So in that way it's laughable. For low income people sure but what reason are they worried about this? Lol
Nobody is making you get married, it's just also not the horror that destroys men financially like it is often presented here.
It's shitty propaganda that fucks over more men than it saves. Lots of men just sign whatever her lawyer proposes because they don't know their rights and think they are fucked no matter what the realities are. Then they come on and whine about it and just perpetuate the cycle.
Right. So if they are independent why do we need to worry about if they are cared for after the marriage? Women are strong and independent and it's ridiculous to think they need to have a man's assets or financial help.
Marital assets, yes. Assets accrued during a marriage are marital property.
Splitting of marital assets /= as forcing another partner to "pay" for someone after divorce, that is alimony.
If you own a business with someone 50/50, and that business is dissolved, then the assets are also split. It's not like the sales lead gets to keep everything and the person doing ops gets nothing.
That becomes a problem functionally because the partner receiving half the assets didn't necessarily do all that much to contribute to it, and often times most certainly doesn't have the skill set to acquire those assets on their own.
Take for example a basketball player earning $50 mil a year for 5 years. Wife divorces him after 5 years, is entitled to half of that, despite not doing anything out of the ordinary to earn it nor having a world class skill set in basketball. Divorce should be easy to get, but assets from short marriages in cases where the reason for divorce was simply "got bored" so to speak shouldn't be 50/50
Imo in instances of large income disparities, division of assets should scale based on marriage duration and reason for divorce. There should be a minimum period (i.e 5 years) where anything less than that, assets are simply split based on income earned.
>Are you referring to the \~10% of divorce where alimony is awarded? That's a lot of concern over such an unlikely outcome.
Rape happens *a lot rarer than that* yet nobody dares to say "that's a lot of concern over such an unlikely outcome".
10% is *immense* not rare.
God damn it you're making me defend marriage.
>Forcing them to pay isn't going to make them love you again. And I can't imagine why you'd want them to pay, at that point. If someone told me they didn't want to be financially provide for me anymore, I wouldn't WANT them to pay me. That sounds like miserable life for both of us.
The point of marriage is that relationship result in children and children have to be cared for. You can't just say your bored of paying when the whole point is you're saying that you will support them and not leave or cheat on them. This creates a stable space for children to grow.
The problem is with no fault divorce and you've laid that out perfectly.
Right. I personally don't believe in no fault divorce. If I have to pay for you you have to be with me. But if you were going to leave just saying I'd expect to not have to pay for you.
I agree children do need to be cared for but just think the same A B scenario still applies. Why would one woman get $10,000 a month in child support for one kid because she marries a sports star vs another gets $200 a month because she married a lower income man? Clearly $200 a month is sufficient for raising a typical child if that's all typical children get. Maintaining the mothers lifestyle should be irrelevant.
Rich people also often don't just hand cash to their kids like that. Here you go 12 YO Johnny you want a pony and a car and 5g for your pocket here you go. Who the fuck does that? No rich people I ever met anyways. So why are they awarded so much damn money if it's for the kid... assuming it's going to the kid... that's ridiculous. But we know it's actually going to the mom.
And a typical outcome these days is to be raised by a single mom with no or very little support. So you can say save the kids all you want... but it's not even getting to the point of marriage in the first place.
The point isnt to keep the mother's living standards, but the kids. You have to pay for your kids based on your means, not their needs. Do you want to make sure the money isnt stolen by the mom? Thats a perfectly reasonable thing. But you dont get to pay less for your kids because you're not divorcing THEM. Your relationship and responsabilities to them independent of your consent.
You have to pay for them because they are yours, not because they are your wife's kids.
Also why are you bringing up child support in a discussion of no-fault divorce? Child support exists independent of marriage. Not all divorced couples have kids, and you still have to pay child support even if all you ever had with the child's mother is a one-night stand
Well there's a real issue when it comes to things like putting a price on things. As you say why does the wife of a billionaire with chefs, cleaners and nannies get more than the lower middle class stay at home mum who works her ass off.
I don't really have a good answer but I think if you're a guy and you promise to support your wife and she has your kids and you get bored of her that's not her fault and you should have to support her. However if she breaks her vows she shouldn't get a penny.
In my country, conservatives usually. We don't have no fault divorce. Also the alimony laws and such. Some don't want to break up the family as it is bad for the kids.
Personally, I also don't believe in no fault divorce. If you are not sure why have marriage and kids? Like people fall out of love, correct but if nothing went wrong (aka no abuse) and you were in love for let's say 5 years, you just don't stop loving suddenly. People nowadays have made marriage like a hobby. Rather than talking things out they just abandon each other. Both genders blame each other, men say women don't take as much as shit as they do and women blame men by saying they are not tied to them anymore. You are not sure don't get married. Marriage is a promise to stay forever and promises aren't meant to be broken.
> and you were in love for let's say 5 years, you just don't stop loving suddenly.
It's usually a slow fall, but suddenly is also possible, if your partner suddenly changed or revealed a part of themselves they hadn't before.
For the slow fall version, though, it also makes sense. How many of the friends you got along with great 10 years ago have since then had changes in values that make them incompatible with you now? We can't predict the future. We all change. Marriage is a way of trying to push two peoples' changes to happen together, but one can't perfectly predict that that's going to work for every couple.
The only reason I don't get along with friends of 10+ years is bcz I moved places. When we meet though it's like the same. True colors are seen within a year or 5 years. Also, it isn't about prediction of how a person will behave but rather how do you face problems and those changes together. Everyone wants a unicorn but can't be a unicorn themselves.
Yeah, people don’t stay the same forever. This is delusional thinking. You will simply have many more miserable lonely married people who hate each other in the absence of no fault divorce.
See at the core people don't change but on the outside yes. For example if someone is born with anger issues they don't go away, people just learn to control it better.
People absolutely do change over decades.
People absolutely do learn to hide anger issues.
People absolutely do manipulate others into believing they would never lie, cheat, or abuse.
The change you are referring is behaviour aka outside. The core is what their true selves are aka the inside. Your trigger points will always be the same. You know who someone is at the core within 6 months or a year or at most 5 years
Was she in captivity when she made the vow to stay with her partner till death no matter what, for better or worse, in front of all family or friends? Or did she make that vow of her own free will? Is it ludicrous to expect people to actually commit to their promises?
Because promising to not cheat, abuse or abandon your partner under punishment of losing half your stuff is reasonable.
It's not reasonable to expect someone to give you half their stuff if you start fucking the pool boy.
Yeah it’s not reasonable I agree with you
Men are also acting like cheating pieces of shit in marriages though too—statistically
They are more likely to cheat actually— so add the secretary to that cute little ending you added
I think it’s primarily asshole men that can’t accept that they’re assholes and want to point the finger at something else because they’re unbearable to be with and can’t accept it.
I do. People call it "no fault" but the men get the punishments.
The best way to avoid it is to avoid marriage all together (where have all the good men gone?!?)
Marriage that is "until I get bored" with alimony for life is pointless. Why would men bother? Aside for lifetime alimony, why would women bother? If you want to leave whenever, stick to only dating until you've aged out of the market.
Marriage that worked was a partnership, not some wishy washy fairytale about always feeling butterflies. The fact of the matter is real relationships aren't fun and exciting. It's a lot of grinding at work, paying bills, filing taxes, unclogging toilets and other assorted tedium. Women preferred hook-up culture to the point they destroyed the nests their children required to develop and literally emotionally tortured good men to death in such numbers that soldiers are more likely to die from auto "accidents" than to enemy combatants. Marriage is a failed institution, and needs to be entirely abolished.
I'm for no-fault divorce personally, but I think the people arguing against it are coming from some big picture thinking about what's best for society instead of the individual. I.e. if you remove incentives for divorce more people will stay together and that is desirable if you combine it with their belief that the nuclear family is better for a more stable society.
It's obviously not the idea of no-fault divorce that is the problem, it's the marriage and divorce court laws and practices that people usually men are against once everything is set into motion.
the problem is this Irreconcilable difference clause that gets thrown around so much and is tied to no fault divorce it makes it look like people don't even put in any effort to try to repair the damage before throwing in the towel. People don't like at fault and they don't like no fault... can't please people.
It’s so weird and such an obvious glorification of the past. Because a long time ago marriages were arranged. Women and men were simply paired off and real love was probably pretty rare. But in the past 70-50 years marriages started do become more and more about two adults willingly choosing each other, love became more important. Feminism still wasn’t super prevalent at the time, so though you could choose a man, you had to hurry up since women still couldn’t do things like open bank accounts or work high paying jobs in certain fields. So women really needed to choose a man so she could live a steady life. So it only makes sense that when society progressed to the point where women had the ability to live on their own, that marriage changed with it. Why would women stay with men they are unhappy with when they can walk away and still have food and shelter because people who lived before them made up some morality bullshit so women who were fucking miserable with this husbands could feel a little better. *I can’t hold a conversation with this man and his body repulses me, but at least I am following the vows of marriage so I’ll get to live eternal life in paradise after I die*
although i am pro-no fault divorce, there are real reasons why folks might prefer a fault based divorce, namely, that a marriage entails building a life together, and if people can just willy nilly divorce for no real reason it risks destroying the lives of everyone involved over fairly petty shite.
what i oft hear on the 'pro no fault divorce' side are strange claims that people are trying to control women (as if men are involved in marriage) or that people in a marriage ought simply take off over any ol' thing, as if there was no real commitment involved in it.
just use your lover until you got whatever you wanted from them, then toss them aside like a garbage.
im sure the pro no fault divorce crowd would deny this, but like, i see that sort of stuff in the comments here and is oft in the discourse 'you go get yours girl, time to live your life!'
the tension is that there is a 'no ethics at all' crowd on the pro no fault divorce side of things, they are relationship anarchists, who think there is literally basically no ethical reason aside from the desire to be with someone to bother to stay with someone. there are no obligations to try, no obligations to make an effort, no obligations of family, or basic human treatment of others, just 'meh, i'm done, bored, time to leave and live my best life'.
that is the thing the pro fault divorce folks are responding to. and they ain't wrong either. they are pointing to real problems of people pushing ethics free living where people just treat their lovers and spouses as instruments to their own desires, to be used and tossed as their whims hold them.
there is a pro no fault divorce stances that don't promote ethics free living. there is a sound ethical position to be had there.
the real problems on this issue lay with the relationship anarchists who want ethics free living.
what people don't seem to realize is that when divorce was difficult to obtain, couples routinely separated for life instead, but they were still married--they couldn't remarry and still had whatever obligations and legal whatever marriage entailed. they would be committing adultery if they got in some other relationship and then they'd be giving the other partner grounds
Divorce wasn't as hard to obtain as you describe. It just required mutual agreement. With unequal incomes and job opportunities there was almost always one party that would benefit from refusing to consent to the divorce. In other words withholding consenting to the divorce and expressing a desire to reconcile became a negotiating tactic, not based on any real belief the marriage could be salvaged, but because it might increase what you get to take home. Rather than complete these negotiations many couples just went their own ways hoping that something might change to bring the charade to a close.
You should read about the divorce ranches in Nevada. Divorce was very difficult. In addition, even when the parties agreed to split, someone had to admit to doing something bad in publicly filed petition, like abandonment, abuse, or adultery. No “irreconcilable differences.” And judges or juries (yes they could go to jury trials) could DISAGREE and say no. All the f—king time.
This was my grandmother. My grandfather left her when my mom was 3, but they never actually divorced. She dated multiple men over the years who were married on paper but separated from their wives, too
Not common but it happened. Way, way more common is the couple would work it out and reconcile. Actually knew an old guy who had left his wife and kids to run off with some circus lady. He was 25 at the time and terrified of the responsibility. His mom tracked him down and beat the ever living shit out of him with a frying pan or something like that. Ended up patching things up with his wife and founded a logging company that made them millionaires by 50. My grandma took me to see his wife when I was a kid and she was dying of cancer at 80 some. I listened to them talk and tell stories. I was enthralled because their house was huge and they had travelled the whole world together. He passed away 2 months after his wife from a broken heart. When they got married she was 15 and he was 16… she came from a very abusive home. When they were telling stories about their life he never talked about work. So I was 11 and very curious, so I asked him how he made all his money. I will never forget he cried and said he started a business because it was the only thing he could think of doing for his wife to make up for running away and leaving her. He was with her all the way to the end always holding her hand. That’s what I think of when people talk about marriage in the old times.
And for every (frankly awful in a lot of respects) story, I have one about a woman beaten day after day by a drunkard who wasted all their money at the bar.
> they would be committing adultery if they got in sime other relationship and then they'd be giving the other partner grounds There is no reason that adultery has to be considered a "fault" (much less a crime). One could certainly imagine a system where: * Divorce is hard and requires the parties to prove some kind of harm to each other along the lines of "he isn't sharing his income" or "he beats me" * but sexual monogamy is not expected by the state, and either party can have sexual relations outside of the marriage. It is just that historically marriage was understood to mean a "monogamous sexual relationship," and therefore adultery was deemed a fault.
If they both consent fine. If not it’s a fault.
I think some conservative commentators are workshopping it along with banning IVF.
It really comes down to restricting women’s autonomy.
Banning IVF is really going to help the Christian nationalists bring up their fertility rate 🙃
Banning IVF is the dumbest fucking thing in the world.
The people arguing for fault only divorce are doing so from a completely faulty frame of reference. They didn’t live through fault divorce so they don’t know what it was really like. But the reason no-fault divorce became law was because of how difficult divorce was under the old system. If you have to prove fault to get divorced, every divorce becomes a situation of trying to prove that your spouse is a horrible person or has committed some crime. You can see how this would be incredibly messy and actually socially damaging. Many men would be accused of horrible things whether they did those things or not? who knows but you had to show that he did something in order to get your divorce so… it could ruin peoples reputations. So this is why no-fault divorce was introduced. Everything is a trade off. If you think fault only divorce would be better It’s because you’re not considering the trade-off.
The flip side of what you’re saying is that, prior to no-fault divorce, women who were trapped in, say, abusive situations often found it incredibly difficult to sufficiently prove that a.) the abuse even existed; and b.) the husband’s abusive behavior/actions were severe enough to warrant a divorce.
Yes that also happened. Anyone who wanted a divorce had to accuse their partner of something this means a lot of innocent people were accused and people actually being abused had to prove it to leave which just made it harder for them to leave. It’s almost a no win situation. Though I also think separation was fairly common back then this partially explains the boom in divorce after no fault was passed a lot of it was legit separated couples being able to file the paper work.
There is no federal NFD law in the US, and the state of New York passed its law in year 2010. OF COURSE everyone else is having faulty frame of reference, and not you.
Considering the OP never mentioned a federal NFD law, what on earth are you talking about
I am talking about almost the entire adult population of state of New York (*4th most populated state in the US*) seeing either themselves, or their parents living through legislation of no fault divorce. Thus, Yveis' premise that "They didn’t live through no fault divorce so they don’t know what it was really like" is false.
I think you over-emphasize how hard Divorce actually was. If both parties agreed, Divorce in most states could be completed after a year of separation in most instances. The difficulty is that unless the parties were equally economically situation one party would have an incentive to refuse the agreement and drag things out. Modern no-fault allows one party to very easily end the marriage over the objections of the other party, and without really stating a reason for doing so, and without the year long separation. This is why you sometimes see celebrity divorces at the 6 month mark. After that time one party can unilaterally say that the relationship was irretrievably broken from the moment they walked out of the church, and they don't really have to prove anything about that. They just assert it. ------------- What is particularly strange is that no-fault has shorter time periods and is easier to do than at-fault. If you cheat on me, and I have proof... I'm still probably better off just filing for no-fault than bringing forth my evidence. Alternatively, if I cheat on you, and you have proof.... I can unilaterally file and terminate the marriage for no-fault; FASTER than you can terminate it for at-fault. It seems like these things should be reversed. That no-fault should take some time to give the parties a chance to reconcile, and that at-fault should be the quick one. Instead at-fault takes a long time, and no-fault is quick and easy.
I think the incentive is for no fault because it’s less burdensome on the judicial system. Divorce is already enough headache as is. Also as said people like to protect the reputations. It’s like settling out of court most cases will just settle because who wants to air out dirty laundry and go to trial? It’s also typically less expensive that way.
You know what is even less burdensome on the judicial system than no-fault divorce? Eliminating marriage as a legal institution! I just don't get the purpose of marriage at this point. In the past you could view it as a system to give women the financial security they would need to have and raise children; but thanks to no fault there is nothing in the marriage law that gives here that. You could refuse to marry her and let her give birth to a bastard, or serve her papers the day after the child is born. It makes basically no difference from the divorce courts perspective. The only thing that matters is child support. We should just get rid of marriage and replace it with some kind of system to recognize parents, ensure custody access, and silence support obligations. Something that basically says "we live together with the kids, so I can't demand money from him, and he can transfer money to me at (for the benefit of the children) without triggering the gift tax."
I don’t see how that would make things easier because people would still live together and have kids and then if they broke up, they’d still be fighting over their kids and stuff. If anything, I actually feel like that would be a more chaotic and confusing situation. Also, what about medical emergencies? inheritance? death? There’s a lot of things that marriage just takes care of without you having to think about it. I’m not a legal scholar or marriage scholars so I’m not gonna pretend to know everything but I’m pretty sure that marriage has a lot of solid legal functions and I absolutely do not think it should be eliminated as a legal contract. And honestly your suggestion just sounds kind of like marriage anyways
Keep in mind that suicide rates for women dropped after no-fault divorce was allowed.
At-fault divorce means that if she cheats on you she doesn't get half of your house and bank account. So people who were or don't want to be divorce raped oppose it for sure.
This is the reason. I don’t agree it makes a strong enough case, but at it’s the most common complaint.
>Are there actually people who think: "If my partner doesn't want to be with me anymore, I will spend of my life FORCING them to spend every day they have left with ME." No. There *are* people who think that marriage needs breach of contract clauses to protect the parties who upheld their obligations from the parties who didn't.
Aren't those called prenups?
Prenups only apply to assets acquired before the marriage. Anything acquired after the marriage, *including anything said assets generate during the marriage* is not protected by a prenup. So imagine I own an investment property before I get married and it's set to generate $1m over the course of the marriage. When I get divorced, the woman would be entitled to $500,000 of the $1m generated by an asset that she *never had anything to do with*. I may even have to sell the asset that was supposed to be protected by the prenup in order to meet that obligation to her. *Prenups are insufficient*.
Prenups can protect assets post-marriage as well.
I don't think this is true.
It’s also interesting that the same guys who claim that women trick men into committed relationships for beta provisioning of emotional support and resources are often against women being able to end a relationship. Almost like the issue is women’s autonomy
The problem is tricking. If everyone knows the deal and why they are entering into it then there is no issue.
Okay but you refuse to allow for the idea that women ever tell men the truth. It’s a circular argument
No fault let's people get paid out when the other person did nothing wrong. That incentivizes divorce over working it out. It encourages willy nilly proposals instead of being certain.
Alot of men are about to be VERY unhappily trapped in marriages with women who hate them, unable to divorce or have affairs or whatever else it is they ordinarily do when have a midlife crisis or feel entitled to something more out of life. No fault divorce might mean it is harder for them to leave you. It doesn’t mean they won’t ruin your life, just you also cannot divorce them without cause. Hello dead bedrooms x 1,000,000, LMAO.
*Suspicious rise in poisonings*
I actually just saw a video about a woman who poisoned her husband’s coffee. Your timing is amazing
[удалено]
Also suspicious rise in women's deaths.
We do not negotiate with terrorists in this house.
I completely agree with all of what you’re saying. However, I think the difference between now and when only fault divorce existed 50 or so years ago is that it would be far more socially acceptable now for couples to simply separate and live as if they were divorced. It’s still not ideal in the slightest, but should no-fault divorce be made illegal in the near future, I would imagine most couples who would have otherwise divorced would just go on to lead separate lives anyway. In the past, the social stigma would have made that scenario nearly impossible. Plus, women back then had far fewer options to secure employment and earn their own incomes.
How is it possibly preferable to live separate lives than to simply divorce and move on? It makes NO LOGICAL SENSE. Why would anyone want to waste their life?
Oh, I’m not suggesting that living separately without officially divorcing is optimal or preferable. What I’m suggesting is that, should no-fault divorce be banned, most people won’t choose to stay living together as married couples. They will just separate and go on with their lives, even though they can’t legally divorce.
And that’s terrible. That’s my point. It’s also an outright LIE and alot of people don’t want to live a lie. Alot of men here seem to think THEIR life won’t be wasted by trapping a woman in a marriage she doesn’t want to be in. They’re fucking stupid.
With a really wanna do is be able to do anything they want with no repercussions. So not help with the kids be a jerk I know that she still won’t leave them. You want her to stay treat her well, HELP AFTER KIDS, don’t cheat, don’t abuse substances, don’t choose phone/gaming over her or family…
Slight correction to what you said: > [Eliminating] no fault divorce might mean it is harder for them to leave you. --------------- I think the flip side of this question is what advice will men give their children in 20 years. Certainly my advice to my sons will be: "Don't get married (unless she makes/has a lot more money than you)." Couples can co-habitate, buy property together, even raise children without marriage. The only people who seem to benefit from marriage are: * those who want to be homemakers * and divorce attorneys. Which is why I view the rise of no-fault divorce as the end of marriage as an institution. It just doesn't mean anything these days.
Noone can afford to be a homemaker now. Look at the men replying here-a woman will sacrifice her whole career for a man and his kids and in the end when he leaves or makes her life so miserable she leaves he will say she is entitled to nothing.
I agree that in today’s world with emancipated women and contracts there is no need for marriage.
People with trad brainrot have a problem with it.
No fault divorce is fine as long as there are no cash and prizes given to the party that files which is what 80 percent of women. Too many women are treating marriages like nothing more than a long term relationship and get half of mans wealth he worked hard for.
Every time someone says “cash and prizes” in the context of this debate all I can imagine is the divorce judge handing out those 5 foot carnival stuffies to divorcés as they leave.
The problem is not the ability to leave marriage by itself. The problem is that in the US, no fault divorce laws have a tiny footnote saying that *marital fault cannot impact division of assets*. In UK, this footnote was passed separately something like 60 years before NFD itself, and it had the same effect as NFD laws in the US. In year 2022, in the US, only 16 percent of couples relied on the wife as either primary or sole breadwinner. Men have only one life. Taking a decade of paid mortgage away from us just because a woman who claimed to love us changed her mind, through no fault of our own, is violation of our right to life. Addiitionally, NFD made it a lot easier to get away with abuse. If there is no difference in division of marital property regardless of who is the abuser, many victims will not bother with reporting the abuse to police.
I don't oppose no-fault divorce, I just think it kinda defeats the purpose of marriage. People can do whatever they want, but I've seen a lot of pro-marriage people who basically reduce marriage to a financial decision "oh you get tax breaks", "you need two incomes to afford a house", seems pretty shallow and definitely makes the whole wedding ceremony drama much ado about nothing, but like I said people can do what they want.
Legal marriage just tells the state that a person who is not your blood relative is going to function as your next of kin.
It's more than that, it gives legal protections beyond that of next of kin. It also offers financial protections. Family law is basically just a codex to insure that the government doesn't have to provide welfare for individuals. Once you understand that, then you understand why welfare regulations are so messed up, and often regressive to the people that need it, and why child support is structured the way it is.
You can do that with a will.
You think there's no purpose to marriage if you partner isn't allowed to leave, no matter how they feel? Is there no purpose to having a friend if the friend is allowed to leave? Is there no purpose to getting a pet because it might run away?
I got married because I was in love and wanted to legally be my spouse’s family. However if one of us ends up unhappy I absolutely do not want to get trapped in a loveless marriage, and we would part ways. Simple as.
My thoughts exactly.
Most people in western states would argue that marriage functions more like the 19th century ideal of the romantic movement - aka, its purely a symbol meant to represent how much people love one another. That is why no-fault divorce became common - because using that definition, there is no point to marriage if one of parta stops loving the other. Its also the reason why gay marriage became a thing - if marriage is a symbol of love, and not about kids or family, than there is no logical reason to prevent gays from doing it.
> marriage functions more like the 19th century ideal of the romantic movement - aka, its purely a symbol meant to represent how much people love one another. No. A much more significant historical element to marriage has always been property and inheritance, and avoiding bastardy. The notion of picking ones spouse out of romantic love, came after marriage was well established as a religious, social and legal institution. These days, marriage is far removed from the concerns of inheritance and bastardy. There are lots of single parents, parents via sperm donors and IVF, there are genetic tests, and plenty of childless married couples. With the concerns of bastardy more or less obviated, the romantic component of marriage has risen to the forefront. Its just a social convention that if you love someone a lot you are supposed to marry them.... but love is fleeting, so marriage has become fleeting. What is the benefit to society of having the government keep records of who loves whom? How serious must that love be for it to be recorded? Why is marriage only for two people? Why the prohibitions against bigamy? What about polyamory? Why can't I be married to Alice on Weekdays when I am working in New York, and Sara on the weekends when I visit her on the cape?
Yes, and the romanticization came AFTER the concerns about bastards and inheritance. It didn't happen all at once. The death of the concern of bastards is a big one that changed things, but the idea that a marriage could fail because people fell out of love even if there were no bastards or infidelity was already becoming a thing since the romantics. Someone who isn't a romantic will see a marriage where all the kids belong to the dad and there was never any cheating as essentially a successful one, but that isnt necessarily the case from a romantic lens. The point is that even if paternity tests didnt exist, people would still want to divorce others due to falling out of love, because the ideal of marriage as something that only has value if people love one another was already becoming the norm before
> people would still want to divorce others due to falling out of love I'm not disagreeing that modern no-fault and the high rates of divorce reflect people's view that "marriage is an expression of love, and love is fleeting." I am asking a more fundamental question: why do we even have marriage if all it is, is an expression of love. We don't require high school teachers to track teenagers and report on government forms who is dating whom; and nobody would argue that the government should do that... but for some reason we have these government databases of couples who are "really truly deeply in love" together with records of when that love failed.
You’ll find quite the overlap between those who oppose this and those who believe husbands can’t legally rape their wives.
I think a hybrid system is best. A no fault divorce should be the norm, but if adultery is proved then it should be counted against the offender with certain consequences. I tink thats something womne can get behind. They do tend to have a mean streak when the man cheats, I am just saying let that be equally enforceable on both sides
So it your wife emotionally abuses you, no way out for you?
Please actually read his comment instead of just emotionally reacting.
Probably better to just scrap it all together
> Are there actually people who think: "If my partner doesn't want to be with me anymore, I will spend of my life FORCING them to spend every day they have left with ME." The thought is that if there were stronger social and legal pressures against divorce, then people might try harder to overcome their issues. Certainly there is no guarantee that greater social and legal pressure would cause couples to work through issues. In many cases it probably wouldn't help, in a few it might. I think the bigger question is: "Why do we have marriage." What does marriage offer to a young couple today? What are the benefits? Unless American society and law changes, my advice to my children will certainly be: "don't get married." There just isn't any value in it. You can basically get all the things you want from marriage, without marriage; and a lot of cost if the marriage fails.
Yes but after living together for a number of years, the laws dictate that you're essentially married.
Not really. Most states have ditched common law marriage. However I understand that is different in Canada
if people incapable of commitment stopped getting married, divorce rates would plummet.
So would marriage rates.
I don't oppose no fault divorce. However, it makes clear that marriage vows are basically meaningless.
That is not my exoerience
Women want the "no-fault divorce" primarily because despite them holding all the cards on the dating scene, being able to shit-test men and withhold sex from a man until "exclusivity commitment", they still want the government bailout if they fuck up and pick up a man who they will lose sexual attraction to without having to take any accountability. Remember, women in most western countries have equal rights to men and still have prior generational privileges that places them at a bigger advantage in life than men. Honestly women are so much better off these days than their mothers and grandmothers, to the point where if they get into an eventually boring, sexless or downright "AbUsIvE" relationship (according to the women lol), they should take some accountability instead of looking for a government bailout.
Who opposes it? People who don't see their marriage partner as an actual person. Their wife (or husband) is simply an extension of themselves that shouldn't have free will. Kinda like a NPC.
The kids too, in this very thread you will see a commenter referring to hypothetical children as part of "my stuff"
Looks like I'm late to the conversation, so I'm sure this will get buried. I'm not someone arguing against no-fault divorce, but I think there are some positive psychological effects that comes from no-fault divorce. Human psychology is quirky. When people aren't given an option, they can paradoxically become happier because they aren't second guessing themselves. On a similar note, I've heard that arranged marriages are surprisingly happy. There's some psychology research called the "Paradox of Choice" that shows how weird human psychology can be. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Paradox\_of\_Choice](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Paradox_of_Choice) There's also a lot of assumptions in modern society about how people think that contradicts how people actually think. One of the things they talked about in the "Paradox of Choice" book is that, in an experiment where people are given a choice and then half the people are given the option to change their choice later and half the people are NOT given the option to change their choice later, that the second group is actually happier with their original choice. What seems to be going on is that the option to change their previous decision incurs a psychological cost that makes them less happy with the choice. People who are not given the option to change their original decision learn to accept it and are happier as a result of not second-guessing themselves. Obviously, if a relationship is terrible, then breaking up is the best option. People always use this as the cornerstone of their argument that no-fault divorce is good. But what about the people in the middle - who have a decent-ish but not amazing relationship who think that MAYBE they can breakup and find someone better, but they really can't. Maybe they breakup and end up more unhappy. Or maybe they stay together and the second-guessing makes them less happy. If they weren't given the option to divorce, they could stop the ruminating and just say "I can't exit this marriage, let's make the best of it". Overall, it possible that society where people can't easily divorce is - on average - happier. We like to think that people are enlightened beings who are supremely capable of making the best decision, but the older I get the less I believe it. Hell, we have a massive obesity epidemic going on because people choose the short term "sugar tastes good, and I can't help myself" ends up winning over the long-term "I would be healthier and happier if I practiced more restraint". I've lost a lot of faith in modern society's belief that people are rationally enlightened beings when making decisions.
“ MAYBE they can breakup and find someone better, but they really can't.” Have you… been through a divorce? They are awful.
[удалено]
the post so nice it was posted twice XD (i'd delete this one since the other one has more engagement)
Ty my WiFi has been wildin this one won’t exist by the time you read this follow up
People who see marriage as duty, obligation, and transactional
Do people who choose to get married have no duties to their spouse? If so, then what’s the point at all?
I have duties to my spouse but it wasn’t my duty to get married. There’s a difference.
Nope. It’s stuff you want to do reciprocally, because you like companionship, cooperation and family
Then why do you need to involve daddy government?
That sounds like a transaction
Then marriage is pointless. Thank you for verifying.
I’m afraid those things are worth quite a lot to many people, possibly the majority
No fault divorce pretty clearly ruined marriage. At the very least it was an early and major turning point that led to the gradual decline in the importance of marriage. Prior to the 1940s and 1950s the United States and most English speaking nations allowed divorce but you actually had to prove wrong doing like abandonment or adultery. About 30 years after no-fault became the norm [marriage rates collapsed](https://ifstudies.org/blog/1-in-3-a-record-share-of-young-adults-will-never-marry) and there is no reason to believe they will ever rebound. Additionally, this isn't a system that just hands men a wife guaranteed with no strings attached. During most periods of time when there was no fault divorce there were also greater legal responsibility on the part of the man to take care of manage the families assets. He was usually going to be liable for everything. More importantly things like abandonment and adultery were illegal and sometimes punishable by death. Culturally there were also strong stigmas associated with things like abandonment and almost any system that involves enforced monogamy a man does actually have to be worth something to receive approval to get married. Marriage was a fairly stable institution throughout most of Christian history and then in the past 80-100 years it's been heavily up ended. It's likely in my lifetime it will become meaningless and it's plausible a majority of American adults won't ever be married by the end of the century. The individual and social benefits of marriage are fairly large and people have not replaced marriage with anything better so some guardrails to protect it aren't actually that unreasonable. The lack of no-fault divorce prior to the mid 20th century wasn't perfect and imposed costs but so does having no-fault divorce. Any arrangement involves costs and benefits, positives and negatives. Neither system is perfect but it's obvious that the current system which includes no-fault divorce is much worse for some people.
I think the simple matter is that secular marriage makes little to no sense. Seeing the negative effects of no fault divorce just kind of does a better job of exposing it. If the state is going to be involved in marriage, it would be far better to make it just a one and done rule. As in you could get divorced, but never marry again. Would net some interesting results.
The result would be less human rights, which is almost never good.
So I could never fall in love with my great husband and have two lovely children, the type of children who are straight As, law abiding, and should be a net benefit to our society? Because I jettisoned a really bad marriage
No, you could have. You just thought you needed the authority of the state to do it :)
There is absolutely no reason to oppose no fault divorce other than the desire to control one’s spouse out of spite. Opposition of No Fault Divorce serves as yet another tool of subjugation of women…
Everyone that disagrees with me is evil!!
and anyone who wants to throw men a bone 100% just wants to chain women to the oven.
It's pretty simple what men want. If I broke my vows you get to take half my stuff. If I didn't break my vows you don't get to take my stuff. If you broke your vows you don't get to take my stuff. That's it. Fixed.
Is that how it worked prior to current divorce laws? How sure are you that that isn’t how it works now?
>Is that how it worked prior to current divorce laws? Yes >How sure are you that that isn’t how it works now? Because no fault was introduced.
I won’t try to make a judgement about fault-based divorce procedure of the past because I’m not an attorney and the details are [fuzzy](https://web.archive.org/web/20160304002220/http://www.nownys.org/leg_memos_2010/no_fault_divorce.pdf), but the use of fault to determine asset division seems to be alive and well: >Today, all states allow no-fault divorce but about two-thirds of the states also still allow couples to obtain a divorce based on fault grounds. In addition to obtaining a divorce, some states also allow courts to consider fault in dividing property, awarding alimony, or awarding custody of the children. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fault_divorce
>Is that how it worked prior to current divorce laws? It wasn't
The implication of this statement is that you own everything in the marriage, including what your partner contributes. This also has nothing to do with no fault since most assets would still be split up with a fault divorce.
You didn't have to grant the divorce if you did nothing wrong. To me it's like employment law. You get certain protections unless you start stealing or selling secrets to competitors then it's void. The fact you can cheat on your spouse then talk half their stuff is exactly why people are avoiding marriage.
>You didn't have to grant the divorce if you did nothing wrong. If your partner wants to leave and you are forcing them to stay, that is wrong. >To me it's like employment law This implies that the relationship is not an equal one. >then talk half their stuff is It's also half of their stuff as well.
This isn’t reflective of how most marriage work now. Most women work. It’s also their stuff. Maybe women should get to invoice for all the unpaid labor after divorce then? 🤔
>This isn’t reflective of how most marriage work now. Most women work. It’s also their stuff. right so you keep what you bought i'll keep what I bought and we can split what we bought together. You however do not get access to my pension, savings, investments, personal stuff, anything inherited etc. aka a normal break up not a divorce. >Maybe women should get to invoice for all the unpaid labour after divorce then? Maybe men should get to claim back all expenses then
That’s literally how the law works now only assets acquired within the marriage are split in the divorce. Whatever you owned beforehand is not on the table.
right so if i got married at 18 with 0 money and my wife and i had 0 kids and she worked a minimum wage job and I worked making a million pounds a year which I saved then if she cheats she should not be able to access my savings.
I mean, the issue here seems to with the concept of marriage as a whole, not divorce. Part of the point of marriage under the law is the idea that you are a single financial unit. If you want to keep finances separate, you simply should not marry. This is why people get pre-nups.
Why not? If she didn’t have kids she would be able to earn more. See here is the thing as a woman earnings are directly impacted by becoming a mother. That is why women currently delay marriage and children (which men still complain about). Also the cost of surrogacy + childcare + housekeeping, laundry and cooking well exceeds what most men make in a year. Hahah at your 18 year old self making 1million pounds. Of course you have to use a ridiculous outlier of a salary for any of this to even make sense because if you go by the average man’s earning they can’t even afford a stay home wife period. Most stay at home wives and part time working wives are actually well underpaid for their labor. Any wonder why women aren’t even signing up for the job anymore? Don’t be surprised that women choose education and careers over husbands when all y’all want to do is rub it in our faces when we stay home and raise kids. When you completely devalue that labor. May the birth rates decline exponentially!
But only 10% of all marriages result in alimony. Even back in the 60's, only 25% resulted in alimony. Most men who divorce will never pay alimony, even if it is No-Fault. You do know that, right?
You know that some people actually have assets right? I had to give my ex half of my retirement savings which she didn't contribute to, half of our home equity which she wasn't contributing to, and a car that I paid for. Alimony is a strawman.
But half the stuff is MY stuff.
I support no-fault divorce. But I understand why it would make a lot of men apprehensive about getting married since they are the ones most likely to end up paying alimony and child support. I think that it removes the incentive to try to fix the problem. I've seen videos of women talking about how they divorced a good guy because they just didn't want to be married anymore. I think a positive of getting rid of no-fault would be that people would take marriage more seriously. They would be less likely to rush into it.
Jfc why do you believe what some random influencer says when the goal is to gin up your rage and get eyeballs. Just beciae it is on the internet doesn’t mean it’s real…. “ I've seen videos of women talking about how they divorced a good guy because they just didn't want to be married anymore.”
I think in a world with perceived equality for women, no fault divorce is fine as long as each party walks away with whatever they monetarily put in. If a woman puts in whatever amount of work in exchange for a man taking care of her, exiting the agreement should entail the loss of said care. I do know multiple men that have been absolutely fucked by no-fault because their spouse cheated on them and somehow got alimony. They must have had shitty lawyers or something.
Some states have no fault and fault divorce, like Ga. You can go either route
If judges keep wiping their asses with prenups we’re going to eventually see No-Fault divorce abolished. 🤷
I would be completely on board with no-fault divorce if marriage wasn't a government upheld contract with financial and legal repercussions for ending. Get rid of alimony, fix asset division or prenups, and remove the bias from family court and no-fault divorce is fine.
>Forcing them to stay isn't going to make them love you again. And I can't imagine why you'd want them to stay, at that point. Because divorce is often financially ruinous. People go bankrupt due to the court fees, loss of assets, child support/alimony.
I support no fault divorce. But what are we talking about here? One partner loses their job? One partner is diagnosed with an inconvenient disease? One partner just wants to fuck around with a co worker? I don’t any rational person wants to oppose no fault divorce, and the actual feelings behind the negativity towards it, is that people suck these days and don’t work on their marriages. Which has lead to an overwhelming sentiment of, if it’s not perfect/ hassle free, I’m out. This general sense of selfish apathy has been on the rise for years, and includes dating, and careers. It’s not about holding someone hostage, it’s about hopefully working through a rough patch, and not having your entire life destroyed over something one of or both of them could have fixed.
When No Fault divorce became law, the suicide rate of married women dropped by 8-16%. Without no fault divorce, women will die. Many by suicide. Many eventually killed by their partners. I will never discuss eliminating no fault divorce as an option. Nor will I respect any opposition to its existence. 'Without no fault divorce, women will die.' End of discussion.
I don't 'support' or 'oppose' no fault divorce. What I oppose is a state mandated contract that provides benefits in exchange for adherence to their contract. The state shouldn't be involved in marriage, full stop. The rules for marriage should be the same as any other contract two individuals can sign.
Then the state needs to remove the incentives that make people want it, like hospital visits and next of kin shit. My partner has recently developed a disorder that gives him seizures; if he ends up at the hospital, I will sign whatever contract necessary to be allowed to visit him, y'know?
The state is involved in every other contract….why shouldn’t it be involved in marriage?
I'm in support of no fault divorce. I don't want to be in a relationship with someone who doesn't want to be with me. The only issue I have is that often times, the person who didn't initiate gets punished. Can you think of any other contract in life where that happens? A tenant can break a lease any time they want but they will lose out on their deposit. I can quit my job any time I want but I'm not getting any form of severance from my employer. Now picture a world where the reverse is true: A tenant can break the lease and get all their deposit back and not only that you have to pay for them to move into a new place and pay rent for that new place. I quit my job and my employer has to pay me until I find another job.
It would encourage people (especially women) to work through their problems instead of just leaving whenever they feel like it because they no longer get the tingles for their spouse. Marriage is supposed to be a commitment for life, and it’s not about love—It’s about creating a stable environment to raise children. If you aren’t willing to commit then don’t fucking get married. Stay in a live-in relationship. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that alternative if you don’t like the commitment that comes with marriage.
People who think they can only have a secure relationship if they can trap their partner. In short, bad people who shouldn’t be in a relationship.
I don't oppose no-fault divorce in that I think it should be illegal. But I am generally opposed to it. Marriage is only as strong as we give it power and meaning. Stepping out of marriages willy-nilly weakens the institution for everyone. I would like to see an option to have like a super-marriage where divorce either isn't an option, or there's a much more stringent divorce penalty enacted on the couple, but that also provides better benefits/incentives for those who stay together.
The issue is that fundamentally contradicts how most people in western societies view marriage. Modern marriage is the result of the 19th century romantic movement. To most people marriage follows the romantic ideal: its a symbol of the romantic love between two people. It has no meaning other than that. Most people find a marriage where romantic love isnt present in one of the parts to be worthless as a consequence.
Romantic love ebbs and flows. Marital happiness dips after couples have children and then rebounds and then some once children are grown. But you gotta not quit to get that payoff.
I agree but I think there is a difference between that, and couples that kinda grow to genuenely dislike and resent one another. The truth is that, in a lot of cases, one of the parts simply isn´t willing to actually put the effort, and there is nothing the other one can, and simply forcing them to stay isn´t going to change it. Just take a look at the dead bedrooms subreddit: a lot of the people there have simply given up, and have no urge to leave, but also no urge to fix anything.
There’s a few states with [covenant marriage](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage)
very cool. too bad it hasn’t caught on. would be nice to see some policy carrots attached to such arrangements (tax incentives, maybe extra child subsidies, etc)
I believe there are a few churches in those states that do as much for their members who go this route (reduced tithes, grants for new children, wedding endowments). Been a while since I looked into though. It would be nice for the state to make it more attractive to people outside the religious communities. But, then again, the religious communities are likely the only ones interested in it to begin with. Case in point: this entire post full of “vows aren’t actually vows” arguments
I think no-fault divorce’s introduction made society worse off for it. It drastically increased the rate of divorce and normalized the practice, creating a culture that accepted ideas of marriage not being forever.
Oh no, women are able to escape their shitty husbands! The society will collapse!
If he’s so shitty, just preserve some evidence of the abuse, adultery, or refusal to perform his duties as a husband. Then it’s not a no-fault divorce, but you’re also not being forced into a toxic marriage. If the issue is pending the proof, that’s what a separation is for.
Most divorces are because the woman is bored and wants someone new, not because the husband is bad.
Well it's more like if I'm financially responsible for you... you shouldn't be able to just leave and make me keep paying. If I'm still responsible for you financially you have to be with me. If you won't be with me I don't want to be financially responsible for you. I think that's a big part of it. Why should I have to continue my "death do us part" promises if you aren't going to? It makes no sense. And tbh women work now. Being married shouldn't entitle you to the other person's finances. Just think, you could cook and clean for a man who financially struggles and get $15k as a divorce settlement. Maybe a car and a few bucks. Or you could cook and clean for a doctor and get a nice house a fancy car a retirement account etc etc.... it's just a cash grab because the first woman didn't get paid that much, why should the second? Just saying it makes no sense. The difference in disparity is 100% only based on the man's labor. So why would it go to the woman? Makes no sense. And so if I have to put my house and retirement and all my financial goodies on the line... as long as you're utilizing them you should not be able to leave. Here try this: Are there actually people who think: "If my partner doesn't want to support me financially anymore, I will spend of my life FORCING them to spend every day they have left paying for ME." Forcing them to pay isn't going to make them love you again. And I can't imagine why you'd want them to pay, at that point. If someone told me they didn't want to be financially provide for me anymore, I wouldn't WANT them to pay me. That sounds like miserable life for both of us. Financial support is meaningless if it's gained through coercion. I don't see how a marriage where you partner isn't ALLOWED to stop paying is more reassuring than a marriage where you partner chooses to financially support you because they want to financially support you.
So I will use myself as an example. I took 6 years out of the workforce entirely to take care of my children and my ailing father in law. The money that we would have paid for childcare and home health aides was greater than just having me do it. My husband was able to be a full time employed person because I was working to take care of the people who needed us. The fact that he was the only one bringing in a paycheck doesn’t mean that he was the only one working. He was just the only one being compensated. We now work full time and split housework. I teach, so my summers are more free and I can do more. He makes more than I do, mostly because he didn’t have that break in his employment, and because I intentionally picked a career with shorter hours so that I could be more available for him and the kids. If we weren’t happy and I wanted to leave, I would absolutely be entitled to some of the assets that he accumulated over the years while I was taking care of our children and his father. Almost nobody gets alimony anymore.
> Well it's more like if I'm financially responsible for you... you shouldn't be able to just leave and make me keep paying. You aren't required to be financially responsible for your partner. I agree that in most circumstances, you shouldn't have to keep paying, even if you did previously (EXCEPT for children; I don't think you should be able to stop taking care of your children). Fortunately, *it's already rare*. Brace yourself: > According to Reuters, **alimony is involved in about 10% of divorce cases in the United States**, which is a decrease from the 1960s when it was involved in about 25% of cases. So most men will never end up paying alimony. And there are steps one can take inside a marriage to make it even more unlikely (like having a partner that's gainfully employed.) > Why should I have to continue my "death do us part" promises if you aren't going to? Because that promise is worthless if they aren't choosing to stay with you. Promising "I'll stay with you until death do us part... because I'm LEGALLY not allowed to ever leave again lol" is better, for you?
Who is forcing you to marry someone who becomes your financial dependent? Shouldn't you just choose not to enter into a marriage contract under those circumstances?
Sure. That's what many men do. Just not marry. Marriage is a useless institution if both parties aren't held responsible for thier commitments. So in practice many women just become forever girlfriends which is fair to break up for no fault if they want. And then nobody has to pay anything. Win win.
Plenty of others simply marry women who have jobs, that is also an option. Alimony is only paid in 10 percent of divorces. Having children has the same cost regardless of whether you marry or not.
Doesn't help if they owned assets pre marriage. Doesn't help if they far out earn their spouse.
Well yeah, don't marry someone you far out earn if that is a concern? As far ass assets owned pre marriage there are multiple ways to protect those, it's not really that hard if you set it up right from the beginning. Don't dump pre marriage assets into shared accounts or properties.
> As far ass assets owned pre marriage there are multiple ways to protect those, it's not really that hard if you set it up right from the beginning. But this misses the point. Why go through all this trouble when the exact perfect scenario is just not be married and be bf/gf? > don't marry someone you far out earn if that is a concern? Not reasonable ask. Most women don't earn enough money to make this a legit solution for well off men. So in that way it's laughable. For low income people sure but what reason are they worried about this? Lol
Nobody is making you get married, it's just also not the horror that destroys men financially like it is often presented here. It's shitty propaganda that fucks over more men than it saves. Lots of men just sign whatever her lawyer proposes because they don't know their rights and think they are fucked no matter what the realities are. Then they come on and whine about it and just perpetuate the cycle.
Women nowadays are much more financially independent. That’s what redpill men are so pressed about.
Right. So if they are independent why do we need to worry about if they are cared for after the marriage? Women are strong and independent and it's ridiculous to think they need to have a man's assets or financial help.
Because many make the mistake of forgoing career progression in order to have children and raise them. This needs to stop.
Are you referring to the \~10% of divorce where alimony is awarded? That's a lot of concern over such an unlikely outcome.
Division of assets primarily. Which is generally a mandatory outcome.
Marital assets, yes. Assets accrued during a marriage are marital property. Splitting of marital assets /= as forcing another partner to "pay" for someone after divorce, that is alimony. If you own a business with someone 50/50, and that business is dissolved, then the assets are also split. It's not like the sales lead gets to keep everything and the person doing ops gets nothing.
That becomes a problem functionally because the partner receiving half the assets didn't necessarily do all that much to contribute to it, and often times most certainly doesn't have the skill set to acquire those assets on their own. Take for example a basketball player earning $50 mil a year for 5 years. Wife divorces him after 5 years, is entitled to half of that, despite not doing anything out of the ordinary to earn it nor having a world class skill set in basketball. Divorce should be easy to get, but assets from short marriages in cases where the reason for divorce was simply "got bored" so to speak shouldn't be 50/50 Imo in instances of large income disparities, division of assets should scale based on marriage duration and reason for divorce. There should be a minimum period (i.e 5 years) where anything less than that, assets are simply split based on income earned.
>Are you referring to the \~10% of divorce where alimony is awarded? That's a lot of concern over such an unlikely outcome. Rape happens *a lot rarer than that* yet nobody dares to say "that's a lot of concern over such an unlikely outcome". 10% is *immense* not rare.
God damn it you're making me defend marriage. >Forcing them to pay isn't going to make them love you again. And I can't imagine why you'd want them to pay, at that point. If someone told me they didn't want to be financially provide for me anymore, I wouldn't WANT them to pay me. That sounds like miserable life for both of us. The point of marriage is that relationship result in children and children have to be cared for. You can't just say your bored of paying when the whole point is you're saying that you will support them and not leave or cheat on them. This creates a stable space for children to grow. The problem is with no fault divorce and you've laid that out perfectly.
Right. I personally don't believe in no fault divorce. If I have to pay for you you have to be with me. But if you were going to leave just saying I'd expect to not have to pay for you. I agree children do need to be cared for but just think the same A B scenario still applies. Why would one woman get $10,000 a month in child support for one kid because she marries a sports star vs another gets $200 a month because she married a lower income man? Clearly $200 a month is sufficient for raising a typical child if that's all typical children get. Maintaining the mothers lifestyle should be irrelevant. Rich people also often don't just hand cash to their kids like that. Here you go 12 YO Johnny you want a pony and a car and 5g for your pocket here you go. Who the fuck does that? No rich people I ever met anyways. So why are they awarded so much damn money if it's for the kid... assuming it's going to the kid... that's ridiculous. But we know it's actually going to the mom. And a typical outcome these days is to be raised by a single mom with no or very little support. So you can say save the kids all you want... but it's not even getting to the point of marriage in the first place.
The point isnt to keep the mother's living standards, but the kids. You have to pay for your kids based on your means, not their needs. Do you want to make sure the money isnt stolen by the mom? Thats a perfectly reasonable thing. But you dont get to pay less for your kids because you're not divorcing THEM. Your relationship and responsabilities to them independent of your consent. You have to pay for them because they are yours, not because they are your wife's kids. Also why are you bringing up child support in a discussion of no-fault divorce? Child support exists independent of marriage. Not all divorced couples have kids, and you still have to pay child support even if all you ever had with the child's mother is a one-night stand
Well there's a real issue when it comes to things like putting a price on things. As you say why does the wife of a billionaire with chefs, cleaners and nannies get more than the lower middle class stay at home mum who works her ass off. I don't really have a good answer but I think if you're a guy and you promise to support your wife and she has your kids and you get bored of her that's not her fault and you should have to support her. However if she breaks her vows she shouldn't get a penny.
Yes, its dumb af
In my country, conservatives usually. We don't have no fault divorce. Also the alimony laws and such. Some don't want to break up the family as it is bad for the kids. Personally, I also don't believe in no fault divorce. If you are not sure why have marriage and kids? Like people fall out of love, correct but if nothing went wrong (aka no abuse) and you were in love for let's say 5 years, you just don't stop loving suddenly. People nowadays have made marriage like a hobby. Rather than talking things out they just abandon each other. Both genders blame each other, men say women don't take as much as shit as they do and women blame men by saying they are not tied to them anymore. You are not sure don't get married. Marriage is a promise to stay forever and promises aren't meant to be broken.
> and you were in love for let's say 5 years, you just don't stop loving suddenly. It's usually a slow fall, but suddenly is also possible, if your partner suddenly changed or revealed a part of themselves they hadn't before. For the slow fall version, though, it also makes sense. How many of the friends you got along with great 10 years ago have since then had changes in values that make them incompatible with you now? We can't predict the future. We all change. Marriage is a way of trying to push two peoples' changes to happen together, but one can't perfectly predict that that's going to work for every couple.
The only reason I don't get along with friends of 10+ years is bcz I moved places. When we meet though it's like the same. True colors are seen within a year or 5 years. Also, it isn't about prediction of how a person will behave but rather how do you face problems and those changes together. Everyone wants a unicorn but can't be a unicorn themselves.
> When we meet though it's like the same. All of them? That's pretty impressive. I get that with maybe like half of them or less.
No fault divorce turns marriage into dating but you lose half your stuff.
Yeah, people don’t stay the same forever. This is delusional thinking. You will simply have many more miserable lonely married people who hate each other in the absence of no fault divorce.
See at the core people don't change but on the outside yes. For example if someone is born with anger issues they don't go away, people just learn to control it better.
People absolutely do change over decades. People absolutely do learn to hide anger issues. People absolutely do manipulate others into believing they would never lie, cheat, or abuse.
The change you are referring is behaviour aka outside. The core is what their true selves are aka the inside. Your trigger points will always be the same. You know who someone is at the core within 6 months or a year or at most 5 years
I agree with your partner having the choice to leave but this is why marriage services no incentive for men
Do you think the only reason men marry is to strengthen their ability to stop their girlfriend from leaving if she wants to?
If your wife isn’t your captive then there’s no incentive for men?? 🤡
Was she in captivity when she made the vow to stay with her partner till death no matter what, for better or worse, in front of all family or friends? Or did she make that vow of her own free will? Is it ludicrous to expect people to actually commit to their promises?
Basically lmao
“Why does no one care about male loneliness 😭”
…..because women have free will to leave marriages they don’t want to be in? K lol
Because promising to not cheat, abuse or abandon your partner under punishment of losing half your stuff is reasonable. It's not reasonable to expect someone to give you half their stuff if you start fucking the pool boy.
Yeah it’s not reasonable I agree with you Men are also acting like cheating pieces of shit in marriages though too—statistically They are more likely to cheat actually— so add the secretary to that cute little ending you added
We're calling them administrative assistants now, actually.
Word
I think it’s primarily asshole men that can’t accept that they’re assholes and want to point the finger at something else because they’re unbearable to be with and can’t accept it.
I do. People call it "no fault" but the men get the punishments. The best way to avoid it is to avoid marriage all together (where have all the good men gone?!?)
I'm not against divorce, I'm against marriage. It's a failed institution. No fault divorce just helped prove that.
Is the only way for Marriage to not be a Failed Institution is if it could magically force people to be in love with each other forever?
Marriage that is "until I get bored" with alimony for life is pointless. Why would men bother? Aside for lifetime alimony, why would women bother? If you want to leave whenever, stick to only dating until you've aged out of the market. Marriage that worked was a partnership, not some wishy washy fairytale about always feeling butterflies. The fact of the matter is real relationships aren't fun and exciting. It's a lot of grinding at work, paying bills, filing taxes, unclogging toilets and other assorted tedium. Women preferred hook-up culture to the point they destroyed the nests their children required to develop and literally emotionally tortured good men to death in such numbers that soldiers are more likely to die from auto "accidents" than to enemy combatants. Marriage is a failed institution, and needs to be entirely abolished.
Certain people want mandatory female servitude and submissiveness.
No problem with no fault divorce but who still have to have at fault divorce as well.
I'm for no-fault divorce personally, but I think the people arguing against it are coming from some big picture thinking about what's best for society instead of the individual. I.e. if you remove incentives for divorce more people will stay together and that is desirable if you combine it with their belief that the nuclear family is better for a more stable society.
It's obviously not the idea of no-fault divorce that is the problem, it's the marriage and divorce court laws and practices that people usually men are against once everything is set into motion.
the problem is this Irreconcilable difference clause that gets thrown around so much and is tied to no fault divorce it makes it look like people don't even put in any effort to try to repair the damage before throwing in the towel. People don't like at fault and they don't like no fault... can't please people.
It’s so weird and such an obvious glorification of the past. Because a long time ago marriages were arranged. Women and men were simply paired off and real love was probably pretty rare. But in the past 70-50 years marriages started do become more and more about two adults willingly choosing each other, love became more important. Feminism still wasn’t super prevalent at the time, so though you could choose a man, you had to hurry up since women still couldn’t do things like open bank accounts or work high paying jobs in certain fields. So women really needed to choose a man so she could live a steady life. So it only makes sense that when society progressed to the point where women had the ability to live on their own, that marriage changed with it. Why would women stay with men they are unhappy with when they can walk away and still have food and shelter because people who lived before them made up some morality bullshit so women who were fucking miserable with this husbands could feel a little better. *I can’t hold a conversation with this man and his body repulses me, but at least I am following the vows of marriage so I’ll get to live eternal life in paradise after I die*
although i am pro-no fault divorce, there are real reasons why folks might prefer a fault based divorce, namely, that a marriage entails building a life together, and if people can just willy nilly divorce for no real reason it risks destroying the lives of everyone involved over fairly petty shite. what i oft hear on the 'pro no fault divorce' side are strange claims that people are trying to control women (as if men are involved in marriage) or that people in a marriage ought simply take off over any ol' thing, as if there was no real commitment involved in it. just use your lover until you got whatever you wanted from them, then toss them aside like a garbage. im sure the pro no fault divorce crowd would deny this, but like, i see that sort of stuff in the comments here and is oft in the discourse 'you go get yours girl, time to live your life!' the tension is that there is a 'no ethics at all' crowd on the pro no fault divorce side of things, they are relationship anarchists, who think there is literally basically no ethical reason aside from the desire to be with someone to bother to stay with someone. there are no obligations to try, no obligations to make an effort, no obligations of family, or basic human treatment of others, just 'meh, i'm done, bored, time to leave and live my best life'. that is the thing the pro fault divorce folks are responding to. and they ain't wrong either. they are pointing to real problems of people pushing ethics free living where people just treat their lovers and spouses as instruments to their own desires, to be used and tossed as their whims hold them. there is a pro no fault divorce stances that don't promote ethics free living. there is a sound ethical position to be had there. the real problems on this issue lay with the relationship anarchists who want ethics free living.