Challenging the No-Fault Divorce Regime
“When divorce is difficult or impossible to secure, marriage is thought of as an enduring, tighter community, and small irritants can be forgotten or forgiven. When divorce is easy to secure, partners in a marriage tend to think of themselves as individuals first before marriage partners” - IFS
- 308 views
Some really good ideas here. Reversing no-fault divorces would be a big mistake in my opinion but I like the suggestions about making divorce less lucrative. It’s outrageous that the initiator of the divorce so often gets the kids most of time, most of the money, etc.
Reversing no-fault divorces would be a big mistake in my opinion
What do you mean? Do you mean, "If John Doe and Jane Roe obtained a divorce under no-fault divorce laws, we should not attempt to reverse their situation"? If so, I agree.
Or do you mean, "Reversing [laws that allow] no-fault divorces would be a big mistake"? If so, I'm curious why.
Per Matthew 19, divorce would not exist without sin and hardness of heart somewhere. "No-fault divorce" is unintelligible from a biblical perspective; there is a fault somewhere if a couple is getting divorced, in one or both the spouses.
Unfortunately, society looks at divorce court as a way to protect individuals during divorce from harms that arise during the divorce; but people aren't looking at divorce as a harm in and of itself.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
Regarding no fault divorce, it's worth noting that there is not an inflection point as states adopted no fault divorce. More or less, the causes for divorce went on as usual, but the huge fights in court (and rampant false accusations) stopped. And one of the most interesting things I've seen is that divorce rates spiked around 1950, more or less when a people who got married as they were being sent off to war realized that they had acted in haste, and thus could repent at leisure. The overall marriage rate peaked about then at about 65%, and since then it's dropped to a little less than 50%. I link it here.
The question is why, I guess, and for that, I tend to blame the economics of divorce. Specifically, you've got things like the tax code, welfare law, and family law all working together to make it cheaper to live singly. I've seen multiple people plot out how to pillage their husbands in divorce court, and I've watched them as they complete making ends meet at the county welfare office. I actually worked for a company that was right next door to the welfare office, and yes, a lot of the women who worked there walked next door during lunch or coffee breaks.
Now I don't want single moms to starve, of course, but I do think that we ought to rein in the incentives for single motherhood. For starters, curtail alimony and have a presupposition of joint child custody with no child support payments would be a great start.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I believe it would be a mistake to reverse laws that allow for no-fault divorce laws. I don’t believe the state is a reliable arbiter of these types of things. I completely agree that a “no-fault” divorce is a misnomer but I wouldn’t want the state determining what faults are acceptable.
You mentioned Matthew 19. What about 1 Cor. 7 for example? Could the state judge a religious matter like that effectively? Even in the case of adultery, is a prolonged legal battle in which the government tries to solve who cheated first a reasonable thing for government to do?
I understand your position and once held it. None of us want marriage to be the charade that it has become. I just think there are better ways.
Discussion