Folks...here is an article in today's newspaper. can you imagine??? No more "no-fault" divorces?!?!?!

Fixing No-Fault Divorce

Isn't that the way it used to be? Our state is a fault state but they have the catch all "irreconcileable (sp?) differences" clause which pretty much addresses the "I love you but I am not in love with you anymore" reason and in my opinion gives those people with no reason an out.
Does anyone agree with this or am I way off base?

I am going to paste the article in here...that way if they move it, we wont lose it. Here it is:

Yes, that is the way it is now. So, any spouse can decide to leave, even if the other spouse wants to stay. This law would change that. The only way under this new law, that you could get divorced, is if 1. your spouse committed adultery, spousal abuse, etc (fault) and you wanted to divorce them; or 2. both spouses agree to divorce.

A wayward spouse would have no cause for divorce...and thus no way out, if the BS did not want to divorce.

I love it! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I hope it passes, but it will be too late for me <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />. My case comes up next week (unless we can agree on something before), and my attorney has convinced me that it will be less costly all around to go the "no-fault" route. Custody is already decided, property (mine) is the issue, and she says that fault (his) won't really make much of a difference. I've agreed, but I told her that I really don't believe in no-fault.

I don't want it to pass. Yes, I think it should be more difficult to get a divorce, but what this will lead to is more marriages that end up broken WITHOUT a divorce. Instead, married couples will just go their separate ways, stay married, and live separate lives because they can't get a divorce otherwise. Or, they just won't get married to begin with.

Example:

Wife decides she doesn't love her husband anymore. So, tells him she wants a divorce. She hasn't cheated on him, he hasn't cheated on her, there has been no abuse, the relationship just broke down for whatever reason.
Husband doesn't want her to leave and denies her the divorce. Therefore, there can be no divorce, as there is no consent.
Wife just leaves the husband anyway, and goes on with her life, married, but living by herself.

This law will have an opposite effect... Oh, it will reduce the divorce rate, that's a fact... but the only reason will be because it will also reduce the marriage rate. It will INCREASE the number of co-habitating couples, because they will be afraid of getting married due to how difficult it could be to get a divorce if it came to that.


That will be 27,000 MORE broken families that are being forced to stay together by draconian laws. 27,000 MORE potential domestic violence and abuse cases. 27,000 MORE potential cases of adultery which could have otherwise been avoided...

These people are the same short-sighted, close-minded people who limited marriage to a man-woman-only clause and probably also want to deny same-sex couples ANY sort of civil union protections.... they can't look forward far enough to see the consequences of their actions. They act only on what they think is morally JUST, without properly weighing in the facts.

I'm glad this bill isn't passing in Missouri...

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. I will leave out the religious aspect of it for a minute. But, what contract do you know of where one party can decide to just up and leave? And the other party has no recourse?


All not true. Draconian? The only thing draconian is people who do not live up to their responsibilities and live up to their word. The last I checked...the marriage is "until death do us part." The abuse issue is always a red herring. As I said, abuse will allow the other spouse (the abused spouse) to divorce the abuser. It is one of the "fault" conditions.


Marriage is one-man-one-woman. That is the definition. Legally, there may be other ways of 'joining' people together. But it cant be by calling it a marriage. It would be like calling myself an automobile. Well, the last I checked, the definition of an automobile is not what I am. And neither is a same sex union a marriage. Some states have allowed same sex unions. Others do not. As a Virginian, I have no right to tell Massachusetts to not have these unions. It is up to the citizens of that state what they want. But the same goes the other way. People in Massachusetts should not expect Virginians to accept these unions if the people of Virginia dont want to recognize them. If a person is gay and wants to have such a union, move to Boston. But dont expect the same sort of rights in Richmond.


Of curse they do. What the people who want "no-fault" divorces want is to not look forward and see the consequences of their actions. The destruction fo their children. It is these people that are the problem.


Again, not so. Facts? Kids suffer tremendously from divorce. Mroe so than if the parents just stayed together and fought all of the time! Ideally, you dont want that. But it is better than divorce! And morally just? The state should not be about condoning or upholding immoral behavior. Which is why Virginia is a fault state. Abuse is immoral. Adultery is immoral. Abandonment is immoral. There is a moral code in Virginia. It is different from California or other states. They all are. And it is different from other nations. As I said, if someone wants to live a certain way, I am sure there is a state or country out there that will let them. But not in my Virginia!!


Give it time!

And I like the fact that that a spouse that leaves with no fault cannot remarry. They screwed up their responsibility the first time. Why would the state allow them another shot at it?? In order to screw up more lives??

Maybe in a fault state, if the BS decides to divorce the WS...then the WS should be banned (for a long period or for life) from being allowed to remarry in that state.

You see, I am all for people being held to their word. To live up to their obligations and their responsibilities. Divorce is killing this nation. It is destroying our children. The family is becoming a dinosaur.

If you make a promise, live up to it! Even if it turns out to be not what you expected. The spouse and the state should hold you to that promise.

Living up to your word is what is called character and honor.

Something many in this society are sorely lacking!

Marriage is unlike any other contract in many ways. You couldn't legally contract for many marital 'benefits' -- like sexual fulfillment. Marriage is a 'catch all' contract that simply describes a special type of relationship between two people. It would be interesting to see someone try to write a different type of contract that includes all the normal things in a marriage and see how enforceable all the clauses would be.


Marriage is <what> "till death do we part?" Just being legally married? Or, is it the love, honor, cherish that's "death do we part?" How do you enforce love, honor, or cherishing?

You can't.

I just don't see the point in tying someone into a relationship that they don't want to be in. *shrugs* Nothing about this change addresses making healthier marriages. All it really does it make it so people can't legally re-marry. As RogueX says, there's no law that compels someone to live with their spouse, meet their needs, love their spouse, go to marriage counseling, etc.

I think that most spouses wouldn't want to "hold" a spouse that demonstrably doesn't want to be married to them. (I'm not talking about while they're in a fog -- but if they TRULY had no desire to be with the spouse... would most people want to live that way? Maybe they would and I'm just different. ) If they did, I'm not sure those are the people we should help exercise that type of control over another human being.


I've seen literature (though I don't have it at hand right now) that suggests that kids are better off in divorced homes than homes that are constant battle fields.


Is it character if you're compelled to do it instead of doing it by choice? I wouldn't call that character. I think character is choosing something you know is right. If you're given no options and no choices then *shrugs* who needs character? Just do what you're allowed to do because only the right things are available.

Just my thoughts,

Mys

At first it looks great but I think Rogue has a lot of valid points.

I can also see this as a punishment tool for some.

Oh you cheated now you want to leave. I will never D you so you can never get remarried.

Oh you don't like the fact I go out with the boys/girls everynight after work and party while you stay home with the kids fine D me. Oh wait you can't unless I consent.

Sorry I turned into a big nasty drunk that can't/won't help support our family but hey you signed the contract.

Besides adultery there are plenty of valid reasons one spouse may want a D and the other doesn't.

Usually the selfish one that has it better wouldn't want a D.

As much as I hate no fault D I think they are probably best after the dust has cleared.

I would like to tweak it to say if adultery occured the spouse that had it would lose some marital assets.

They can screw up those lives by co-habiting just as easily.

This law might create unintended consequences of more "non-marriage" families. People without a marriage license can have children just as easily as wedded couples. Those children are in even worse situations if the relationship breaks up because the system isn't really designed to work in those situations.

I know that no solution fixes all things and this law is just intended to deal with a specific aspect of marraige. I just think that it's worth considering some of the unintended consequences that might spring up before enforcing any particular action.

Mys

myschae and frognomore do well in reinforcing some of the things I said. Personally, I don't want to see more divorces. I think that, instead of making it harder to get divorced, they should make it harder to get married. They should make marriage actually MEAN something. You should really, really have to WANT to be married to someone before you can do it.

There should be some sort of requirements for marriage. A test, observation, etc. Some sort of proof that the family unit will stay stable. Maybe, instead of all that, there just be a legal requirement to see a MC once per quarter just to check up on how things are and to help the couple deal with whatever problems may have crept up. If a pro-marriage MC is involved from the get-go, even when things are good, it won't be so hard to go to the MC when things really DO turn sour.


Kids suffer more from a bitter, argumentative household. My parents divorced when I was 13. While I didn't become a saint, but I didn't turn out an axe murderer, either. I'm a fairly decent person, so far as I can tell. And, like myschae said, there is a fair amount of scientific evidence that says that a safe and secure divorced home is better, psychologically, than a home where the parents stayed together and fought all the time. Violence begets violence, after all.


Yeah.. you see, this is a serious issue. Last I checked, we lived in a single, unified country. But with states being able to pass their own laws as they do, what we really live in is a bunch of little kingdoms that all answer to a larger king. We shouldn't call ourselves 'Americans.' We should call ourselves 'Virginians' or 'Missourians,' or whatnot. With how the Federal Law/State Law system works in this country, we CANNOT effectively call ourselves the 'United' States of America. How can we be United if something I can do in this state is considered invalid or even illegal in another state? Explain that?


Neither should the state be about defining morality, either. At least, not if that morality is borne from a religious background. Separation of church and state, anyone?

I do understand the unintended consequences. That's why this would have to be worked through.

First off, I have no problem if a BS tells a WS "you cheated and now I am not going to let you divorce." What's the problem there? The WS is completely wrong, and really should have no say in the solution. The BS can either choose to remain married or to divorce the WS. The choice should remain with the BS and the BS alone.

We are getting too wrapped around the axle here about these "consequences." The issue is that reputable studies show that divorce is destroying our kids. Marriage is a joke in this society now. The family is a dinosaur.

But if we look back into the past, when divorce was not so easy to get (before no-fault), all of these unintended circumstances running rampant didnt exist. Why would we think they would now? Sure, proportionally, there will be a small amount in any solution that will abuse the system. But overall, the majority would be helped by this.

I talk about character and honor. Yes...it is honorable and right and shows good character to stay in your marriage. even when your wife is cheating on you and trying to leave you for 4+ years (ooopppss...that's me!). No, it is not honorable to divorce and place that load on your children. No, it is not right for a husband and wife to say "hey, I'm tired of you. Let's end this." And then dump the mess on the kids.

Yes, it is honorable to stay in a marriage...even if loveless at the time...because of the kids and because of your word. A promise is a promise. Or at least it used to be!

In the military, we run on character and honor. And yes...even if we dont feel like it...even if we dont like what we are supposed to be doing...the honorable thing is to do our duty. And if we dont? Well, we go to jail (or can even be shot in a time of war).

Marriage is first and foremost NOT about being happy! It is a commitment. In today's society, it is a meaningless commitment because everyone is now buying into the "if it aint working, get out."

As I said, I havent even talked abotu religion here. Teh state has a vested interest in stopping this destructive behavior. I like the idea that if you divorce and dont have cause (or if you are the WS and your spouse divorces you), that the state will not issue another marriage license to you.

If a child care provider laid the kind of emotional destruction on the children they are licensed to watch, as parents lay on their children in divorce...those providers would lose their licenses and probably end up in jail.

But instead, we dont worry about the kids. We talk about "love, and feelings, etc" and how it isnt fair to those two people to live in a marriage that isnt making them happy. Well, boo-hoo!!! When I watch these kids...it makes me not really care about that at all!

Again, I think if we look back in the past before no-fault, we can see we didnt really have the problems described above. No-fault is a selfish act. it destroys marriages. It destroys families. And it emotionally handicaps children for their entire lives. And it stunts the people who are divorcing (anyone see that second marriages have an even greater rate of divorce???).

It is time to "slap" people in the face and say "grow up...it aint all about you!" Do your duty. Live up to your word and your responsibilities. Even if it hurts. No one promised you happiness! Sometimes, doing your duty sux.

But doing right always is honorable.

We also have reputable studies showing that violent families that stay together destroy our children as well.


No, they did exist. It was just taboo to talk about them or make them public, so everyone stayed silent about their 'personal business.' Affairs, abuse, etc... all of that still existed, but it was tolerated and just swept under the rug.


So, in your mind:

Wrong + Wrong = Right.

Because forcing another human being to do ANYTHING against their will, even if it is staying to their word, is wrong. We have dominion and control over ONLY ourselves and our own lives and our children's lives, until they become adults. We do not have the right to dictate how another person lives, no matter what the circumstance.

And, unlike what you may think, I do worry about the kids! I worry about my son, growing up in a home without a loving family! But I would MUCH rather him grow up in a peaceful environment with his mother and father apart and each individually happy than forced to stay together and constantly arguing. He would be MUCH worse off in the latter scenario.

Oh, I agree with making it harder. How to do that would be the issue!


I am sorry. But the most exhaustive studies show that this is not true!


You suffered because of the divorce. Yo uare not the person you could have and should have been because your parents selfishly split up your family.


Nope...we dont! As a politcal scientist (which I am!), we live a representative republic. Created by the people AND the states. The states are still sovereign (check the 10th Amendment!!). Only the laws SPECIFICALLY outlined in the Cosntitution can the Federal government do legally. You see, the Federal government was created to do the bidding of the people AND the bidding of the States. Not the other way around!


No. The states were the sovereign entities. They created the Federal government for SPECIFIC reasons. Outside of those reasons, the Federal government has no Consitutional right to get into those States business. If the Founders could see what we have done with what they created...they would have just kept the States apart. Because there was no way they ever wanted the Federal government involved in their business.


Yes. This is how we have always looked at ourselves until after the Civil War. This is the way this all was intended!! This is the system that we devised over 200 years ago. The problem is, no one knows that because 1. our Federal government has far exceeded its legal mandates; and 2. children are no longer taught the truth about the Constitution and what it means.


Easy. We are united on specific issues. We are united on the issues, as outlined in our Consitution. In every other sense, we are not united. We are unique. In Virginia, we have a way that we live that is unique to Virginians. Our accent is unique. Our values and customs are unique. While very similar to most other Americans...they are also different. And the same goes for the other states.

We have the death penalty in Virginia. We want it here. In other states, the people there do not want it. Is it right to force the death penalty on those people in those states? Is it right to force Virginians to give up the death penalty?

Is it right for the Federal government to force the States to do things that they dont want to do...when the Federal government has no Constitutional, legal right to do so?

Remember, the States created the Federal government...not the other way around!!


Separation of church and state is a prime example of the ignorance of this society!! The Founders NEVER intended religion to not be involved in the state. Remember, the Constitution was written to be a limit on the Federal government...not on the States or the people. It was written to outline and define what the Federal government could and could not do. One of those things was that the Federal government could not establish a state religion. It could not get involved in religion specifically.

But, that in no way limits the states or the people. The people have all the right in the world to get involved in religion. So do the states. The Constitution is a limit on the Federal government!

And remember, our Founders stated over and over again that our Republic and its Constitution and laws are based on the Judeo-Christian morals and norms. There is a basis for our laws.

Everyone says that the Constitution is the basis of our laws. Not true! The Constitution lies atop the Declaration of Independence. It was the Declaration that outlined who we were and why we had the legal right to separate from England and form a new country. At the basis of the Declaration is the one paragraph which this entire American experiment rides on. And that is:


You see, the Founders based this nation on the notion that our rights, our Consitution, our laws, are based on the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights... This nation was formed and our Constitution, Bill of Rights and laws all are based on the notion that you have rights given to you by God that no one can take away.

So, the state is involved in issues of morality. That's why a 39 year old man cannot marry and have sex with a 9 year old boy. Why? Because of morality. Could our society change that morality? Could one day we decide a a nation that men having sex with young boys is "moral?" Sure. Except for the fact that our laws are rooted in the religion...rooted in the Bible.

Take God out? Then we have no unalienable rights. Then we are free to do whatever we like. Then we are free to define morality anyway we like. Then we are free to change our laws and allow even the most disgusting of behaviors.

I understand what you are saying here. But when it comes to this Republic, to what this nation is and was intended to be...the people today have been duped. And unfortunately, should we continue down this path...we will eventually lose this gift that the Founders gave us and end up with a tyranny far worse than any dictator or king. We do not have, nor want a democracy. We have a Republic.

Nope.


So, the bank forcing me to pay back the personal loan I took from them would be wrong, because they would be forcing me to live up to my word and forcing another human being to do anything against their will is wrong?


We have a right to insist that others live up to their word.


We have a right to hold a person to their word.


I do not agree. And the recent studies show that isnt the case. Divorce undermines them, undermines their security. Destroys their family. Gives them examples of how NOT to live their life, but little example of how TO live their life.

Children of divorces are more likely to suffer emotional issues, more likely to divorce themselves, more likely to get in trouble. These are facts.

Most people will choose to divorce, if their spouse is just not going to come back. My issue is that for the majority, it is just too easy to divorce! It shouldnt be easy. It should be very, very hard! Difficult. If a person does not want to live up to their word, then they should find it very hard and very painful and very difficult to not live up to their word and responsibilities.

Just as the bank would make it very hard, painful and difficult on me if I dont live up to my word.

I worry about unintended consequences because I see many 'good ideas' that have benefited our society have unintended consequences.

Examples:

- equality and greater access to the work place has made infidelity much more practical (and widespread) for women. Greater access to the workplace and the "drive" towards 2 income families (many families can't make ends meet anymore on one income) has created generations of children who are 'raising' themselves.

- the internet has made meeting people easier, affairs easier, and it's made things MUCH easier for pedophiles tolling for underage children to abuse.

- no fault divorces have made marriage more disposable

- paternity testing has made it easier for women to hold men responsible for their children -- and possibly reduced incentive for women to be more careful.




The family is definitely becoming harder and harder to maintain. I think it's more than "just" divorce that's the culprit. Divorce is usually just another bad option among an array of bad options. Somewhere along the line, in our quest to "improve" society, we've managed to make what used to be a functional, convienent way of living -- dysfunctional and inconvienent. There are so many things wrong with the environment of our society that is making it toxic for relationships that I don't even think you can blame it on simple things like people lacking committment. There's so much going on.

I guess I'm an optimist. I think most people are well-intentioned but ill equipped to cope with whatever is going on in our society. Maybe what needs to happen is that marriage needs to evolve into something that fits better in our society. I don't know what that would look like to be functional but the things I've listed above aren't going to go away. Marriage as an institution is going to have to find some way to fit into the pressures of modern life or less and less people are going to choose it (as we've seen happen).

The answer is not to force people to choose it, anyway.


If we look into the past -- even the recent past -- society wasn't the way it is today. I'm a returning student finishing up my degree. I took about 10 years off. The difference between class today and class when I went before is amazing. When I first went to college, people still used pay phones if they had to make calls between classes. There was a time when I would go for HOURS and be totally UNREACHABLE. And, somehow, everyone survived. These days, it's almost impossible to find anyone who isn't connected in some way almost continuously. You hear phones going off all the time! In class -- during tests... at movie theaters.. in restaurants...

Cell phones aren't going to go away. They are annoying -- especially to those of us who remember much quieter days. But, the world has CHANGED around us. Connectivity is assumed.

The internet - with all it's joys and problems -- isn't going away. I remember when the internet was just the net and you used gopher and archie in a text environnent. I remember how exciting it was when Spry mosaic made the "Web" graphical by being the first browser in wide release that understood http.

Women in the work place aren't going away.


I define character as making choices. Doing something because you have to do it and you simply have no other options is just choosing the default in my opinion. It's like saying that it's phenomenal not to levitate. Isn't it amazing that my feet never leave the ground for long?


I'm not just talking about that, Mortarman. I don't see the point in trying to make someone stay who doesn't want to because there is no realistic way to eliminate the option that they just leave.

I'm talking about the very practical side that says it's really, really difficult to compel anyone (even a child) to do something they really don't want to do. You have to be willing to really increase the consequences. I don't think our society has the stomach to raise consequences 'enough' to really make a difference (and I'm not sure it should).

I AM worried about the kids. Believe it or not, I'm worried about the fate of marriage. I think that marriage is becoming an unattractive option for people. I'm not sure this won't make it even less attractive. Society has a vested interest in figuring out a solution to the problem. I'm not saying this shouldn't pass -- I just wish people would look a lot harder at the unintended consequences of what might happen and have some sort of a plan for how to 1.) figure out if things are going awry and 2.) figure out a plan to manage the issues as they arise rather than waiting until they've just become a bigger mess.

It's too easy to tout something as a solution and then point at the numbers and say "See! All better" while convienently ignoring the rest of the destruction that was wreaked. When ddt came out everyone wanted to believe it was the 'answer' to the pest problem. No one wanted to admit that it was making the shells of eagles so thin that the species was declining.

We've (our society) done that type of 'head in the sand- here's an easy, cheap, convienent fix' way too much. And look where it gets us every time. I just wish we'd stop doing that. And, I wish people would be a lot more skeptical about "solutions" that seem too easy to hard problems.



Again, if you look back 10 years people managed to exist without being in constant communication. And, yet, today that seems to be a huge problem. If you look back 70 years, people managed to live on one income and dedicate one person full-time to raising the children. If you look back 90 years, people used to live without 100 channels on tv and a dvr or 2 cars. If you look back 7 years, a whole lot of people used to live without the world wide web.

The past is different, Mortarman. Society has changed. There might not be more pressure but it's in different spots. We need to live in today and address problems for tomorrow because the one thing we do know is that tomorrow will be different from today just like today is different than yesterday.


Then why even allow divorce at all? Why not just slap the BS in the face and say "Sorry you're hurt but do your friggin duty, why don't you?" Sometimes, doing your duty sux.


Our states recognize reciprocity with respect to certain things like marriage and driver's licenses. If there were no reciprocity, then if you married in Va then went to Wisconsin, you'd have to get remarried -- oh, and you wouldn't be able to drive legally, either.



Mys

this right here is the meat of the issue

Pep

MM... I think this might be a first for me...I need to disagree with a small thing you have stated...

"Again, not so. Facts? Kids suffer tremendously from divorce. Mroe so than if the parents just stayed together and fought all of the time!"

I believe this to be false. There is no credible study that shows this. I will go by the saying that children would rather be from a broken home than to live in one. I speak from personal experience (my own and my sons) and from much reading on my part. It would benefit a child to get out of a situation where his parents "fought all the time."

A couple of studies to look at:

http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/530961.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2536077.html

I agree that it should be harder to get a divorce... but I think this concept goes too far because it would allow for an emotionally abusive person to maintain a hold on someones life. There are just too many variables to make this work as written.

I hope you are well MM.

MM... the problem with comparing this to other types of contracts is that there are provisions in contracts that allow for it to be broken should the parties not live up to the terms of the agreement. The way this is written, it would require everyone to get a lawyer and to spell out exactly what is acceptable and not acceptable to them in a marriage. That way if one spouse removes intimacy from the other...a person is not obligated to a sexless life because some organization said they cannot divorce.
Another important concept is that when you compare this to other agreements is a basic premise in law... tow parties can agree to anything in contract so long as it is not illegal. Well, anyone that is getting married KNOWS that divorce is an option. Everyone that gets married... no matter what the vows are (because the vows are not the contract, the marriage license/certificate is)KNOWS that divorce is available to them. Hence the agreement that they entered into is not one that is unbreakable in the eyes f the law or by the terms of the contract. If we lived in a society where divorce was not permissable... then those would be the terms of the contract. But as it stands right now... there is NOTHING in the mariage contract that makes it unbreakable.