'No fault' divorce

[nclib]

Option 1 for me.

[WalterMitty]

absolutely.

[??????????]

Option 3 is the only sane choice.

[David S]

If two people find they can no longer get along together they should divorce. Why stay married and be miserable together?

[dazzleman]

I think no fault divorce has been a disaster for children.  It has been one of those factors that has forced both parents into the workforce, because they lose the security that marriage used to bring.

Marriage is supposed to be a contract, albeit a loose one, but still a contract.  What good is a contract if it can be violated at will for any reason, without the consent of the other party.  No-fault divorce cheapens marriage, and has contributed to the breakdown in our family structure, with all the negative effects that has.

I don't believe that anybody should be forced to remain in an abusive marriage.  I also think that divorce should be allowed if both parties agree they want it.  But I think it's wrong to force divorce on a person who does not want it if there are not valid grounds.

Many divorces could be avoided in my opinion if people were more committed to preserving their marriages.  This would be much better for society.  But no-fault divorce makes it too easy to quit a marriage rather than work out the problems.  It's easier to move on to greener pastures, which often are not so green after all, considering that the divorce rate in second marriages is higher than in first marriages.

Divorce is extremely damaging when children are involved, and in many cases it would be better to work out marital problems rather than divorce.

[??????????]

If two people find they can no longer get along together they should divorce. Why stay married and be miserable together?

Yes, its easier to just quit when things get tough. We should definately be teaching our children that lesson.

[Richard]

If two people find they can no longer get along together they should divorce. Why stay married and be miserable together?

Yes, its easier to just quit when things get tough. We should definately be teaching our children that lesson.

I agree with StatesRights.  If you need a divorce, you shouldn't have married.

You signed a contract.  You can't just annul a contract through a decision.  The contract is a life-long contract.

[John Dibble]

If two people find they can no longer get along together they should divorce. Why stay married and be miserable together?

Yes, its easier to just quit when things get tough. We should definately be teaching our children that lesson.

I agree with StatesRights.  If you need a divorce, you shouldn't have married.

You signed a contract.  You can't just annul a contract through a decision.  The contract is a life-long contract.

Then why are there pre-numps?

Oh, and contracts can legally be annulled if all parties involved wish to do so.

[Richard]

Then why are there pre-numps?

There shouldn't be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not if the contract forbids it, and marriage by definition is a life-time commitment.

[dazzleman]

Pre-nups at this point are a necessary evil, to a large extent because of no-fault divorce.

If two parties come to a marriage with largely unequal assets (which is more common today than in the past because people are often older when they get married, and one party may have accumulated significant assets prior to marriage), and marriage laws themselves provide little protection against the unilateral breaking of that contract, it is only prudent that the person with greater assets take extra measures to compensate for the deficiencies in the laws.

I don't like pre-nups, but I do so why some people would want them in the current social and legal environment in which we exist.

[John Dibble]

Then why are there pre-numps?

There shouldn't be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not if the contract forbids it, and marriage by definition is a life-time commitment.

Find me one U.S. or Canadian civil marriage contract that forbids divorce.

Oh, and about that definition:

mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

marriage

n 1: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)*

*did not add

[David S]

If two people find they can no longer get along together they should divorce. Why stay married and be miserable together?

Yes, its easier to just quit when things get tough. We should definately be teaching our children that lesson.

I agree with StatesRights.  If you need a divorce, you shouldn't have married.

You signed a contract.  You can't just annul a contract through a decision.  The contract is a life-long contract.

It is a mutually agreed upon contract. If both parties want to dissolve it why should government interfere? Especially when children are not involved.

[dazzleman]

If two people find they can no longer get along together they should divorce. Why stay married and be miserable together?

Yes, its easier to just quit when things get tough. We should definately be teaching our children that lesson.

I agree with StatesRights.  If you need a divorce, you shouldn't have married.

You signed a contract.  You can't just annul a contract through a decision.  The contract is a life-long contract.

It is a mutually agreed upon contract. If both parties want to dissolve it why should government interfere? Especially when children are not involved.

I agree that the marriage contract should be dissolvable with mutual agreement, especially if there are no children involved.  If there are children involved, some type of counseling should be mandated, in my opinion, prior to the granting of a divorce to try to ensure the best outcome for the children.  It shocks me today how little people take their childrens' well-being into consideration in matters of marriage and divorce.  This is definitely a negative consequence of this "no-fault, no responsibility" society that we have unfortunately created.

Another messy facet is the financial arrangements in a divorce, and this is the cause of a lot of problems.  It is not so easy to pull apart lives that have been merged.

[David S]

If two people find they can no longer get along together they should divorce. Why stay married and be miserable together?

Yes, its easier to just quit when things get tough. We should definately be teaching our children that lesson.

I know of one young couple who married about two years ago. They seemed like the perfect couple, but after a year or so they began having constant arguments. Both became miserable to the extent of not being able to pay attention at work, and being constantly depressed. They are now separated and in the process of divorce. Both agreed to the divorce and both are much happier now and are getting their lives back to normal again separately. I don't know what the basic problem was but divorce seems to be the right answer. No children are involved.

Why should the state say no?

[Lunar]

Freedom of choice, option 1.

I think an unhappy household is also a crappy place to raise children.

[A18]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The vows "as long as you both shall live" and "until death do you part" are worth noting.

[Richard]

Then why are there pre-numps?

There shouldn't be.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not if the contract forbids it, and marriage by definition is a life-time commitment.

Find me one U.S. or Canadian civil marriage contract that forbids divorce.

Oh, and about that definition:

mar·riage
Pronunciation: 'mar-ij
Function: noun
1 : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a legal, consensual, and contractual relationship recognized and sanctioned by and dissolvable only by law —see also DIVORCE
2 : the ceremony containing certain legal formalities by which a marriage relationship is created

marriage

n 1: the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce)*

*did not add

We've been through this.  I really couldn't care what the government defines as marriage.  I doubt I'll even let them know when I marry.  The marriage I stand by is common law and tradition.  Not some fake monstrosity created by the government.

[Richard]

If two people find they can no longer get along together they should divorce. Why stay married and be miserable together?

Yes, its easier to just quit when things get tough. We should definately be teaching our children that lesson.

I agree with StatesRights.  If you need a divorce, you shouldn't have married.

You signed a contract.  You can't just annul a contract through a decision.  The contract is a life-long contract.

It is a mutually agreed upon contract. If both parties want to dissolve it why should government interfere? Especially when children are not involved.

What part of "as long as you both shall live" and "until death do you part" do you not understand?

[David S]

If two people find they can no longer get along together they should divorce. Why stay married and be miserable together?

Yes, its easier to just quit when things get tough. We should definately be teaching our children that lesson.

I agree with StatesRights.  If you need a divorce, you shouldn't have married.

You signed a contract.  You can't just annul a contract through a decision.  The contract is a life-long contract.

It is a mutually agreed upon contract. If both parties want to dissolve it why should government interfere? Especially when children are not involved.

What part of "as long as you both shall live" and "until death do you part" do you not understand?

What part of "it isn't the government's business" do you not understand?

[??????????]

If two people find they can no longer get along together they should divorce. Why stay married and be miserable together?

Yes, its easier to just quit when things get tough. We should definately be teaching our children that lesson.

I know of one young couple who married about two years ago. They seemed like the perfect couple, but after a year or so they began having constant arguments. Both became miserable to the extent of not being able to pay attention at work, and being constantly depressed. They are now separated and in the process of divorce. Both agreed to the divorce and both are much happier now and are getting their lives back to normal again separately. I don't know what the basic problem was but divorce seems to be the right answer. No children are involved.

Why should the state say no?

Did they try counseling? Talking it out or anything? Or did they just quit?

[Richard]

If two people find they can no longer get along together they should divorce. Why stay married and be miserable together?

Yes, its easier to just quit when things get tough. We should definately be teaching our children that lesson.

I agree with StatesRights.  If you need a divorce, you shouldn't have married.

You signed a contract.  You can't just annul a contract through a decision.  The contract is a life-long contract.

It is a mutually agreed upon contract. If both parties want to dissolve it why should government interfere? Especially when children are not involved.

What part of "as long as you both shall live" and "until death do you part" do you not understand?

What part of "it isn't the government's business" do you not understand?

True, it isn't the government's business.  Government shouldn't give out marriage licenses of any sort anyways, and there should be no special treatment to married people.

[Platypus]

isn't no-fault already the law over there? It's been in place here for a while now.

[Hitchabrut]

Yes

[David S]

If two people find they can no longer get along together they should divorce. Why stay married and be miserable together?

Yes, its easier to just quit when things get tough. We should definately be teaching our children that lesson.

I know of one young couple who married about two years ago. They seemed like the perfect couple, but after a year or so they began having constant arguments. Both became miserable to the extent of not being able to pay attention at work, and being constantly depressed. They are now separated and in the process of divorce. Both agreed to the divorce and both are much happier now and are getting their lives back to normal again separately. I don't know what the basic problem was but divorce seems to be the right answer. No children are involved.

Why should the state say no?

Did they try counseling? Talking it out or anything?

Yep.

[Akno21]

Two parents who can't stand each other or two single parents. Both options stink, but I've got to go with freedom.

The important thing to understand is that marriage is already messed up, I don't know how gay marriage would hurt it more than heteros who don't understand what it really means.