Why is no-fault divorce a settled issue in every state?

[Steve from Lambeth]

No-fault divorce was famously made law in California under Ronald Reagan. From there, it spread to all fifty states until New York finally passed it in 2010.

I'm not here to debate its merits - that goes in Individual Politics. What I am asking is: how did no-fault divorce gather enough steam to become law in every state, and stay that way? You would imagine that, at the very least, the more conservative Deep South states, and maybe Utah, would be holdouts - but all of them have fallen in line, it's rarely under attack (and routinely defended as a guarantor of women's rights when it is), and the only serious attempt I've seen at reversing it came out of a cranky Oklahoman legislator whose idea was left to rot.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Because one of the few things we can collectively agree on is that marriage can be a mistake.

[Bernie Derangement Syndrome Haver]

Conservatives aren't against it because it actually affects their lives and would be a freedom taken away from them.

[LAB-LIB]

Because most people are at least a little bit normal.

[darklordoftech]

Can you think of a reason to oppose no-fault divorce? If not, there's your answer.

[GM Team Member and Deputy PPT WB]

there's a handful of state legislators who try to make it an issue again (I remember one in OK) but it's one of those things that outside of hyper-religious nuts very few people support. Even in the bible belt there's plenty of divorces.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Proving fault is a difficult thing in a divorce case, especially when, in many cases, there are prior bad acts to go around on both sides.

The, too, there is the bias of judges.  Prior to no-fault divorce, my mother divorced my stepfather.  The reasons she had were not overwhelming, and he did not want a divorce (although he went along with it in the end).  She hired a lawyer and filed in the neighboring county.  The lawyer (the wife of a well-connected Republican State Senator) was able to shop for a judge and got the case before the moderate Jewish Judge instead of the conservative Catholic Judge.

This conservative Catholic Judge had recently presided over a divorce action brought by a woman who had been in an abusive situation for 20 years.  The Judge asked the woman why she hadn't filed before this.  In denying the decree, the Judge said:  "If you can stand this man for 20 years, you can stand him for the rest of your life."  This was the early 1970s. 

I don't believe that people ought to get divorced for frivolous reasons, but I don't believe people ought to have to stage incidents in sleazy motels to provide "evidence" of grounds for divorce.  We have no-fault divorce because there are people in marriages who (A) have made mistakes and (B) are legitimately unhappy because one party wasn't who they said they were (not to mention vicious acts of abuse that merit criminal justice intervention).

[Pres Mike]

Can you think of a reason to oppose no-fault divorce? If not, there's your answer.

I can think of a couple of reasons

Mostly gold diggers taking advantage of older men

[lfromnj]

Because even in Louisiana where people can enter a covenant marriage only like 2% of people do so?

[dead0man]

Can you think of a reason to oppose no-fault divorce? If not, there's your answer.

I can think of a couple of reasons

Mostly gold diggers taking advantage of older men

a gold digger's end goal is divorce and 50%, thankfully, that's getting harder to do every year.  Divorce still strongly (and unfairly) favors the mother in most places, but the ex-wife has lost a lot of her courtroom advantages in the last several decades.

[Pres Mike]

Can you think of a reason to oppose no-fault divorce? If not, there's your answer.

I can think of a couple of reasons

Mostly gold diggers taking advantage of older men

a gold digger's end goal is divorce and 50%, thankfully, that's getting harder to do every year.  Divorce still strongly (and unfairly) favors the mother in most places, but the ex-wife has lost a lot of her courtroom advantages in the last several decades.

How so?

And when I bring up the issue in other threads, a lot of atlas users get uppity

[Del Tachi]

A legislative history of the debates on no-fault divorce in State Legislatures would be a fascinating study.  I haven't found one.

[Ferguson97]

Because banning it is a cartoonishly unpopular position.

https://x.com/usa_polling/status/1785915952346870087

Support for Banning Pregnant Women From Divorcing Their Spouse:

Oppose: 87%
Support: 4%

Change Research / Apr 22, 2024 / n=2745

[SnowLabrador]

Because the government shouldn't be in the business of deciding whether you marry or divorce a certain person.

[Skill and Chance]

Can you think of a reason to oppose no-fault divorce? If not, there's your answer.

Increased risk of someone with a major substance abuse problem having joint or even primary custody of your kids?

Increased risk of someone who cheated on you when you were faithful to them taking most of your life savings and/or receiving years of alimony? 

No fault divorce has the benefit of keeping things simple, lowering legal expenses, and particularly for couples without children, allowing them to move on quickly.  At the end of the day, I think the best thing would be to no-fault as the default assumption but also make fault-oriented prenups (e.g. infidelity clauses) enforceable if people choose to enter into them.