Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
40th anniversary of unilateral divorce
Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2009-10-05 06:10
I didn't realize it, but it's the 40th anniversary of unilateral divorce. Article here. Excerpt:
'Thus, the noble purpose of no-fault divorce was to remove the contentious, annoying legal requirement for couples to prove anything other than their desire to divorce. After all, the thinking went, if marriage was the union of two people, and one person wanted out, then the union was no longer viable.
Except that wasn't the whole story.
"The key to understanding the problem is to recognize that the grounds for divorce did not go from fault to no-fault; they went from mutual consent to unilateral," said Allen Parkman, University of New Mexico economics professor and author of books on divorce.
Under the fault system, "most divorces were negotiated and eventually [happened] based on mutual consent," Mr. Parkman said. But once one person could legally end the marriage, "there was no longer any need for negotiations."'
My take on this (knowing what we know about how much divorce impacts kids now that we've had "no-fault" for 40 years) is that if there are kids involved you better be able to show fault if your divorcing -- otherwise you're at fault for doing that to your kids. In other words, prove fault or lose custody. Divorce rates with children would likely plummet. It's not likely to happen though, with women initiating divorce in families with children at least 75% of the time.
More criticism of "no-fault" divorce can be found here.
- Log in to post comments
Comments
I generally don't have a
I generally don't have a problem with "no-fault" divorce. It's not really the problem. The problems with civil marriage are 1. Post-marital theft (asset distribution to the non-working spouse) and slavery (alimony, QDROs, and child support (ie alimony under a different name), and 2. child abduction (aka custody) arrangements. Personally I would like to see civil marriage end and give marriage back to the religious institutions where it belongs. All we need are civil unions that carry no post-break-up baggage. $ should never be comingled in joint accounts in the first place and custody of the children should be given to the parent who can actually afford to take care of them. No alimony, No QDROs, No child support payments mean no more welfare queens living off their ex-husbands. I can dream can't I.
If you removed the money
If you removed the money transfer from divorce, you would impoverish who knows how many attorneys and bureaucrats?! As long as Government gets a part of the take, there will always be a cash element to divorce. If you want to get rid of the wealth redistribution associated with divorce, get Government out of the marriage/divorce business.
I, too, can dream.
Almost moot
If a wife and husband earn similar amounts, she doesn't even have to divorce him. She can snatch the kids, set up residence elsewhere, file for separation and "temporary" custody (CS=ยข$). Without the formality of divorce, she can get all the benefits of a divorce because her getting ***custody*** is a foregone conclusion.
BTW, if father takes the kids, it's an Amber Alert.
manonthestreet Yes I think
manonthestreet
Yes I think all the posts above have grasped the correct point. Divorce should not be difficult. What makes it difficult is that a man is stripped of whatever assets he has ( and sometimes some he does not have) and these are given to the woman minus the states cut.
Marriage is the real devil in all this. It has become nothing more than a hideous trick perpetrated on men. Yes there are the flowers and the bride dressed up in flowing white - but what is really happening is that a man is making a terrible contract that takes away his freedom as an individual.
But who thinks of that when the church bells are ringing and the party is in full swing?Who has this explained to them so that what they do they do with fore knowledge?
Also remember that the laws governing marriage can and will change during the lifetime of a larriage making the situation of the man worse and worst.
If you go back through the
If you go back through the history of civil marriage and all of its constructs (such as alimony) you see very clearly that marriage is nothing more than a welfare system. Women know this but men, for the most part, do not. When you sign up with the state to marry your girlfriend what you're really doing is signing up to take care of her if she can't or simply refuses to take care of herself so the state doesn't have to. That's it. She hits the lottery. This is why she was so happy you proposed.