Why did no-fault divorce actually happen?

https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/5145-mnookin-and-kornhauser—1979—bargaining-in-the

Ironically, to enforce the Bible, in places.
Specifically the places where it wasn’t working. [1]

“Divorce was granted
only after an official inquiry by a judge, who had to determine
whether “appropriate grounds”-very narrowly defined in terms of
marital offenses-existed.6 When a divorce was granted, the state asserted
broad authority to structure the economic relationship of the
spouses and to maintain regulatory jurisdiction over the children
and their relationship to the parents.7 Doctrines such as collusion,8
connivance,9 and condonation’0 were meant to curtail the degree to
which parties themselves could bring about a divorce through agreement;
the procedural requirements reflected the view that everyone
was “a suspicious character.”

Among other things, no-fault divorce is also responsible for a lower spousal suicide rate, probably homicide (harder to measure) and certainly lower rates of domestic abuse. Overturning it requires an open admission these things do happen, one or both parties can be absolutely awful at their job and they still maintain the right to decide their intimate business over whatever State they happen to be stuck in. Appealing to tradition doesn’t really work when some of those values were very poorly aligned with the law at the time, to keep up Pollyanna appearances. To go back to all the old laws, men would have to prove good character (what is that? nobody would get married) and women would be able to press charges for seduction (rape by fraud is already historically present in the law books, i.e. nobody would get married). A lot of the modern “dating” process would also be swiftly made illegal.

Funny they never mention that.

And if men were the sex wriggling to get away, it begs two questions. Firstly, why the fuck did they propose? Second, wouldn’t that constitute abandonment on his part? A grave matter, severely punished, we all know of deadbeats who’d be whipped into shape by a return of fault laws. No-fault divorce treats men equally to women (justice is blind ‘n all), because they’re given the benefit of the doubt where they could be abandoned too.

A list of unisex faults and standards of proof are required, rooted in the post-Reformation Bible, instead of a reversion to a system that blatantly did not work. Two ruined lives plus children is not a success. For example, allowing divorce but banning re-marriage would silence many vocal oppositions. If there’s a limit on abortion and insurance claims, there should logically be one on an oath including “til death do you part”. These faults should be acknowledged in the marriage contract itself, along with ways to avoid them, and an expanded edition to make sure both parties really intend to follow through on their oath (which should be set in stone for legal reasons).

1 https://www.compellingtruth.org/grounds-for-divorce.html

“In the Old Testament, God allowed divorce if a man’s heart became so hardened against his wife that she was actually better off without him

…That isn’t rare. Calculate the odds of marrying anyone with mental problems nowadays. Any mental problem.

Unhappy wives used to hire men to fake affairs and “accidentally” get caught until the 30s when the only common American grounds for divorce was adultery. Your system needs work. Increase your marriage age to 18 for starters, you monsters. Child brides are both a Muslim and an American thing.

If you have a problem with keeping the age of consent at the age of adulthood…. what about voting?

Some simple changes and why:

  1. a hard limit on the number of times anyone can marry excepting widowhood.
  2. a grievance period for widows where marriage is not allowed, depending on how long they were married.
  3. if someone’s sexuality changes, they’re considered to have defrauded the other party of their agreed companionship.
  4. long engagements only, 6-12 months?
  5. one party letting themselves go completely is taken as a clinical indicator (already is) of passive-aggression or depression
  6. no addicts, taking up any addiction is grounds for no-fault divorce on behalf of the other party due to the brain damage effectively killing the person they married and rely upon
  7. marriage is not considered a license to any form of abuse, higher conduct is expected compared to strangers
  8. abandonment includes social, you agreed to be there for one another not at the club/bar/party
  9. romance must go both ways
  10. if someone turns out to be a psychopath (the only condition that can fake it until the wedding), divorce is allowed and the proven psychopath’s influence over the other party limited to account for their condition (ideally you test before marriage?)
  11. 18+, I hope this one is obvious.
  12. if one party works from home it is counted as work for the marriage
  13. real Christians only, married in a Christian ceremony
  14. complaining about their marriage online illegal (other people’s marital status or marriages too) – privacy law
  15. no atheists (think of the divorce risk), they don’t need a “piece of paper”, remember?
  16. adulterers can be sued again, but per act and depravity – would branding be too far?
  17. all bastard children from adultery aborted (risky but I’ll put it, it spares the legitimate children their rights)
  18. no adulterous unions could wed (because obviously they can’t be trusted with it)
  19. a cap on how much weddings can actually cost because... Jesus….
  20. earnings prior to marriage not counted in divorce proceedings, including inheritance, which skips over the spouse to the children.

I flatter myself these are common sense.

The State owns your children

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/mum-jailed-for-abducting-children-189525/

If you don’t quietly let the State hand them over to pedophiles and abusers in the “care system”, for big slavery bucks, you go to a big building full of them. But that’s old news, now they’re coming after all the other parents.

She made the children over the course of nine months, they belong to her. It was an investment of her literal body and some women die doing it. She did her job, including feed them – again, with her body. She gave them life and kept them alive.

If the former husband is unfit for the job, the successor takes over. That’s what divorce means. He’s still trying to have husband’s rights (over where she lives, the caregiver) without the responsibility. That won’t last.

Narcissistic divorcees refuse to let their former relatives be happy.

(That would include where the female happens to be one).

This isn’t a victory for “men”, or deadbeat* “husbands”, either. The State is over-ruling everyone, pay attention. No freedom of movement, like a slaughterhouse. It also rides roughshod over the new husband, whose rights are being denied.

*abandonment is Biblical grounds for divorce

Marriage isn’t a Christian duty

Tradlarpers lie about the Bible.

As in, blatant lying.

https://www.christianity.com/bible/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=46&c=7

Specifically (and atheists shouldn’t marry, that’s repeated* throughout the Bible) on Marriage:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+7&version=NIV
I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7 I wish that all of you were as I am. ”
“8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.”
“17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18 Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commands is what counts. 20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them.”
“But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.”
“38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, but he who does not marry her does better.

I don’t criticize MGTOW for being unmarried…. as long as they’re moral.

I do criticize larpers who insist everyone must marry (like vain them) as if that were 1. possible or 2. desirable.

They think they have a right to “give away” these people’s bodies!

*There’s an interesting point in a commentary, since it’s against marrying diversity:

“The Greek word for “unequally yoked together” is not found elsewhere, and was probably coined by St. Paul to give expression to his thoughts. Its meaning is, however, determined by the use of the cognate noun in Leviticus 19:19 (“Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind“).”

However, a man can only love as a husband sacrificially

https://www.compellingtruth.org/when-marry.html

Your mother no longer comes first, nor your friends.

https://www.compellingtruth.org/grounds-for-divorce.html

Divorce is acceptable for abuse, adultery, abandonment of either party.

The poorer, innocent party should receive alimony for supporting the richer’s efforts to earn it.

Re-marriages of the sinning party are not Biblical.

Divorce risk factors

http://emorywheel.com/professors-study-marriage-economics/

Diamonds aren’t the problem, it’s the premium pricing that’s the problem.
People are living longer than ever, we need harder rocks.

It’s easy to find cheap, good quality diamonds and arrange a setting for the stone.

Husband/wife is a status.

Status-obsessed materialists (who want to get married but not be married) tend to divorce more because of the narcissism, and overt narcs tend to pair up with covert ones.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/understanding-narcissism/201712/how-the-3-types-narcissists-act-first-date

Once the money is gone, the spark fizzles out.

The study also found a correlation between marriage age and duration, which Francis wrote are positively related, meaning the older the person was when he or she got married, the longer the marriage was likely to last.

Maturity, waiting for the hormones to settle and personality to crystallize, few societies in history married off someone younger than 21-25, outside times of war (Regency, American Independence) but then only for re-population purposes, knowing it was less than ideal.

Another notable finding was that the larger differences in age and education between husbands and wives were associated with a higher risk of divorce,

Assortative mating wins again.

College IQ men marrying high-school IQ women is dysgenic.

 as was reporting that looks were important in marriage.

Vain men, bad husbands. As soon as she gets a little wrinkle, his “love” dies.

Evil people confuse lust with love. When the lust is spent, they claim to fall “out” of love. There is no falling “out” of true love, you can only be betrayed and detach. The love doesn’t go anywhere.

Marriage will get less expensive when it becomes more common.
As it is, only rich people can afford to marry.

That’s right, classism again.

Social media would make it a little gimmicky.

Abolishing no-fault divorce and making it hard (or impossible) to re-marry after a set N times would make people respect the institution again, nothing less will work.

Really, our era has the term “starter marriage” – nothing else will work.

If society didn’t get rid of rites of passage for both sexes, the social value of over-spending on a wedding would plummet. For women, debutante balls were important. Now the expense is carried over into bridal models.

Your kids

Little Emperor Syndrome is genetic. I never met a brat without brat parents.

Great point, but reverence for marriage itself is what we’re aiming at. It isn’t about any individual being ‘happ-y’, like every divorcee ever crows, humans aren’t like dogs, happiness doesn’t happen – it’s a useful excuse to do whatever they want in the moment, usually swinging, the true origin of hookup culture. Liberals started acting like everything was all ‘for the children’ the moment they wanted access to the neophyte brains of the conservative’s children. A behaviourist once said ‘give me the boy at 7 and I’ll give you the man’. You give a liberal your kids from 3-18… and they’re a drooling moron.

Once the ‘consenting adults’ excuse to morality doesn’t apply, they have NOTHING.