I know people that did this! TWICE! After the second divorce when they got back together AGAIN, they just didn’t get married. So when they broke up, again, they didn’t need to go through an actual divorce.
1 Like
Learning from mistakes is great! I’m married, but I definitely find the process a little weird - like you are standing there promising to stay together forever without saying the, “Unless we don’t, because we might not,” part that we all know is there. A friend of mine (who has never been divorced but his wife has) really objects to the term “failed marriage.” It means that a successful marriage is one in which someone has died.
4 Likes
Absolutely, a simple and accessible divorce process is essential to protecting a woman’s safety and right to divorce. But there’s no such thing as a “no questions asked” divorce - it’s still a legal proceeding under which the division of debt, assets, parental responsibility, and support must be addressed. An uncontested divorce is as close as it comes to a no questions asked divorce, and basically that’s just where both parties have agreed to all of those things in advance, and are not looking for adjudication. And that’s different than the question of a fault/no fault divorce, which is what we’re really talking about here. Nobody should be denied a divorce because they have to prove “fault” of the other party, and certainly in the states that do require the proof of fault, domestic violence should count for that.
Don’t forget, the divorce process protects women just as much as men; without some judicial involvement or at least the potential of that, many women would be (and have been) left unsupported, and burdened with the full responsibility of child care.
Your responsibility to care for your children isn’t connected to marriage (well, not where I’m from, I don’t know if some states have bizarre laws surrounding this). A lot of the time custody and support decisions arise during divorce for obvious reasons, but they aren’t the same thing. People run off without getting divorced too, people who were never married raise children together.
But I think the question is whether we need to protect society against frivolous divorces by whimsical people. And I think the answer obviously no since those people are extremely few in number (if they exist) and there isn’t a reason to stop them from getting divorces they want anyway.
I used to work for a woman who was still married to a man she hadn’t seen in nearly a decade (and who she didn’t really plan on ever seeing again) and the government wasn’t coming to intervene. Society’s interest in who gets married and how long those marriages last seems pretty minimal to me.
2 Likes
Is that the question? That’s not what I meant to imply. Most divorces have significant legal considerations, from the division of debt and assets, to the custody and care of the children. What I’m saying is that people need to be able to consider those consequences, and not either be the one left holding the bag, nor be the one who simply files for your “no questions asked” divorces and walks away from their debt and responsibilities.
Okay, we’ve got an issue of why vs. how here. When you said:
I thought you were saying the state has an interest in why a divorce is happening - whether a person should be second guessed by the court house as to their reasons for no longer wanting to be in a marriage and therefore possibly denied the divorce if the reasons aren’t good enough. That’s what the issue for grounds for divorce is about.
How a divorce is happening is another thing - who gets what property, what responsibilities people have. I am saying there should be “no questions asked” about why only.
2 Likes
Because until relatively recently in this country, and currently in some others, the wife is actually chattel. It would be like your dog wanting a divorce. Only the owner gets to decide.
4 Likes
What I said earlier was poorly phrased. I only meant that there is a reason that we don’t allow one person to declare “we’re divorced!” and walk away - the courts have a responsibility to ensure that due care is taken in the matter, there is time for the other party to understand the consequences and get, if necessary, legal representation, and that the parties are fairly treated with respect to assets, debts, support, and responsibilities. The “why” should not be a matter for consideration, though sadly in some states it does, and worse, in some states apparently domestic abuse is not a valid response.
Interesting fact though: did you know that women’s organizations initially opposed “no fault” divorces because they felt it would let philandering husbands get off easy when they married their mistress?
1 Like
That’s absolutely not true. You can get divorced in any state you want. And all other states have to honor the divorce (standard Constitutional issue).
And we just resolved a misunderstanding on an internet message board!
What a day!
4 Likes
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
