[Roger Kaputnik]

Before no-fault divorce (NFD), one or the other party would have to sue the other for divorce. In fact, this is still the case in The Empire State. Let's discuss why this would be an improvement.

[MC Born & Raised]

OK, I'll bite.

I may be off-base here, but it seems to me marriage has been bastardized (pardon the irony) to the point that it doesn't really mean anything anymore. It's so easy to both get married and then get divorced, that people simply get married on a whim. If it doesn't work out, simply file the necessary paperwork. Problem solved.

I guess I'm not even so sure that's a bad thing, but I prefer to think of marriage as a special time in someone's life. It just doesn't seem like people feel that way anymore. It just doesn't seem important. Does that make sense?

Maybe that's just the way society is going, and to each his or her own, I suppose. It's just too bad that being married and the process of getting married doesn't seem like that big a deal.

[JHeath]

I agree with MC Born & Raised here. While we all understand that sometimes things just don't work out the way we've hoped or planned, it does seem like the divorce has just gone through the roof. What ever happened to taking the vows more seriously?

[Dave]

While I'm not sure exactly how things work in Indiana, in Illinois (where I am a licensed attorney, but standard disclaimers* apply) what we would refer to as a "no fault" divorce involves a bit more than a quick trip to the courthouse. If the couple is in agreement, they still have to live separately for six months (if they are not in agreement, this is typically live apart for two years) before the court will grant the divorce. Not something one does overnight. Different states no doubt have different waiting periods.

Doing away with no fault would simply result in legal fictions, such as allegations of mental cruelty or adultery. I understand that the Empire State at one time had quite a little industry of manufactured adultery situations, where people would basically hire a photographer/private investigator to show "proof" of adultery, which could simply be a picture of a spouse and a member of the opposite sex entering a hotel room (the presumption being that a man and a woman in a hotel room could only be there for one reason.)

I can understand, and even agree with, the feeling that a marriage is something that should be preserved if possible, especially if children are involved, but requiring two people to stay together when they make each other miserable makes no sense to me. I was in a marriage like that a number of years ago, and the divorce was one of the best things that we ever did. We went to counseling (I still feel a bit sorry for the counselor, at times the counselor and I would just look at each other and shrug) but my ex just could not grasp the concept that communication involved a bit more than her talking and me listening. I hope she's happier now (haven't communicated (by any definition of the word) with her in over seven years), and I know for a fact that I am.

Outside of Hollywood celebrity types, I don't know of anyone who's gotten married on a whim. Heck, my brother is on wife number three right now. He caught wife number one in the act of committting adultery, was married to wife number two for over thirty years and when she retired from her job was unbearable to live with (she had been a corporate executive, went from having about 500 people to boss around down to one, and she bossed my brother around 500 times as much to compensate), and he's currently quite happy with wife number three. He's of the opinion that the first marriage may have been a failure, but the second one wasn't because their son is a well adjusted adult and 29 good years isn't too bad.

Can anyone suggest a good reason to make divorce more difficult? I'm seeing you all saying that divorce is a bad thing, but sometimes the alternative is worse.


* Disclaimer: I am not your attorney. This is not to be taken as legal advice. If you have legal questions, you should consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction. Do not take before using heavy machinery. User should wear gloves. Not for internal use. Only YOU can prevent forest fires!

[Southsider2k12]

I think there are two different issues at stake here, that boil down to two basic things. The legal institution of marriage, and the religious institution of marriage. Because of the constitutional separation of church and state, these two functions really should remain different, to be honest, more different than they do in today's legal atmosphere. From the legal standpoint, this is a simple contract situation. As I understand it, when both parties who are contractually obligated to each other decide that they will both let each other out of the contract, the contract becomes null and void. Not very romantic is it? I guess the question becomes can we force people to stand up to a contract, when the situation becomes a little more muddied (such as children)?

Now from a religious standpoint, the church is completely free to institute whatever pomp and circumstance (within legal reason of course) that is wants to associate with any rite that it offers. If the church decides that you are married, unless certian circumstances occur, then guess what, you are married in the eyes of God.

[Ang]

I was married for 4 years. Before we got married, my husband was a wonderful man. We laughed and had really good times. He was great with the kids and my son loved him very much. Then we got married and it all changed. Didn't take long either. After our daughter was born, he got even worse. At first I stayed with him because I believed in the institution of marriage--for better or for worse and all that. But, when the physical abuse started, it was time to go. It only took one time and I was out the door. That no-fault divorce thing worked great for me. Six months after I filed, I was legally single again. He moved back to his home state and I haven't had any contact with him in over 5 years. It sucks for my daughter, and I get no child support at all. But, having him completely out of my life is worth it, to tell the truth.

On a different note, this gal in my office just got divorced. She was with her ex for 20-something years, but they were only married for 7 years. One day she decided she didn't want to be married to him anymore. She told him how she felt, he was heartbroken but because he loves her, he gave her what she wanted. They amicably worked out the property, who gets what, etc. They filed and 30 days later were legally divorced. He lived with her that whole time and for two weeks after the divorce was final. He found an apartment but it wasn't ready before then. Her reason for wanted a divorce? She met someone else. She didn't date the guy and wasn't intimate, she just figured the grass was greener somewhere else and wanted to try it out. I couldn't believe that divorce happened so fast. Made me think "drive-thru divorce"

[Dave]

Southsider, I agree pretty much with what you said. I've been of the opinion for a while that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business. The government should do civil unions, which would have various legal ramifications reguarding children, inheritance, and the like. If a couple wants to get married, on the other hand, well, that would be a religious ceremony which would take place in a church.
A somewhat related story -- when I got married, I was living in Illinois, but the church my ex decided to get married in was just across the border into Indiana. We had a Cook County, Illinois, wedding license, so to be legal the wedding ceremony had to be in Illinois. As it turns out, the place we were going to have the rehearsal dinner and reception was just inside the Illinois line (as in, the place right next door was in Indiana). So we actually got married at the rehearsal dinner, and did the church ceremony the next day in Indiana.

[Roger Kaputnik]

I agree with Southsider re the difference between civil and church matters.

The two parties have agreed to be bound contractually, and to break the contract, one party must be found to be violating the terms of the contract, or there must be a free agreement to end the contract. Now, if there are children involved, they have to be represented somehow as parties to the contract.

[Dave]

Guardians ad litem (guardians for the purpose of litigation) are often appointed for minor children in divorce cases, at least in Illinois. The courts are quite concerned about the welfare of the kids in divorce. I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure that there is some kind of interview by a court appointed representative of minor children in almost all, if not all, divorce cases in Illinois, anyway.

[Roger Kaputnik]

Essentially, I am looking at protection from philanderers, beaters, drunks, gold-diggers, neglectful parents, and the ilk. I think that removing NFD as an options forces the parties to the contract, even unwitting ones like the children, and the legal system, to find fault--even shared--and posit responsibility.