Marriage, what psychologists have to say

[grahamg]

Wow !! What a great life I've missed. Wish you'd imparted this info years ago. My wife and I have wasted all these years with each other when there's a wealth of hidden pleasure out there within our reach. And we've misled our children into thinking that they should select a mate carefully and plan to live out their lives with them.

All the carnal pleasures that were available to both of us but we passed them up just plugging along together. Too late now.

Quite, and I'm sure everyone of us would like to simply ignore these psychologists, or social scientists, but as we can all see, our governments, and judicial systems are all slowly changing policies surrounding marriage and divorce, all informed by some kind of "science" one would have thought(?).

 

[RadishRose]

I disagree with the author.

Divorce is agony, in one way or another, to one or the other, or to both. More than just the couple suffer as well.

Until there is healing, which can be either rapid or never, I don't see how one can really feel happy.

but as we can all see, our governments, and judicial systems are all slowly changing policies surrounding marriage and divorce

I don't believe this, except in the cases of same sex unions. I could be wrong, but that's my 2 cents.

 

[C'est Moi]

Who gives a rat's rear end about what Psychology Today says? Not me.

No kidding. Hogwash makes my eyes glaze over.

 

[grahamg]

CarolfromTX said:
Who gives a rat's rear end about what Psychology Today says? Not me.


No kidding. Hogwash makes my eyes glaze over.

I've no argument with anyone disliking any of the social scientists views, or psychologists views, with this exception or caveat, and it is you have to appreciate a whole lot of work has been going into their "research papers" on marriage or divorce.

The first article I quoted in the opening post, mentioned eighteen different studies carried out looking into the happiness of individuals in marriages, or those choosing to leave a marriage. That's a whole lot of work being done, no one can deny, so someone is funding that research, and I can't think of anyone other than our governments who might be funding it all(?).

Maybe they're concerned about the mental health of the population, or the effects of divorce upon the mental health of the public could be one reason, or our governments could claim the justification for providing the funding to be a desire what may promote the overall happiness of the public.

In the UK the law surrounding divorce is likely to be changed again soon, to become more in line with the divorce law in Australia, or other jurisdictions I believe, so it is hard to argue there is no pressure upon our governments or within governments to change or develop divorce laws.

 

[grahamg]

Here is a summary of proposed changes to UK divorce law:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/divorce-reform-swiftly-returns-to-parliament/5102641.article

"The government has swiftly put long-awaited divorce reform back on the agenda after reintroducing legislation to end what the justice secretary called 'needless antagonism'.

The Divorce, Separation and Dissolution Bill, which was introduced in June, came to a standstill twice - as a result of September's unlawful prorogation of parliament and December's general election. The bill, which introduces provisions for no-fault divorce, had passed through two readings in the Commons and the committee stage. Yesterday, it was introduced to the House of Lords.

Current law requires spouses to evidence at least one of five 'facts': adultery, behaviour, desertion, two years' separation (if the other spouse consents to the divorce), or five years' separation (if the other spouse disagrees).

The bill will replace the requirement to evidence conduct or separation 'fact' with the provision of a statement of irretrievable breakdown. The possibility of contesting the decision to divorce will be removed. The court will be able to make a conditional order after 20 weeks has passed from the start of proceedings.

Justice secretary Robert Buckland said: 'The institution of marriage will always be vitally important, but we must never allow a situation where our laws exacerbate conflict and harm a child’s upbringing. By sparing individuals the need to play the blame game, we are stripping out the needless antagonism this creates so families can better move on with their lives.'

Family lawyers, who have long campaigned for no-fault divorce, welcomed the latest development.

Nigel Shepherd, former chair of family law group Resolution, said: 'After a series of false starts last year, we are delighted that government has chosen no-fault divorce as the focus for one of its first bills tabled in the new parliament. For far too long, far too many couples have been effectively forced to assign fault during the divorce process in order to satisfy outdated requirements.'

Joanna Farrands, a partner at London and Surrey firm Barlow Robbins, acknowledged concerns that the divorce process could become too easy. 'However, the bill provides a good compromise, delivering reform without undermining the institution of marriage,' she said.

Parallel changes will be made to the law governing the dissolution of a civil partnership. The proposed legislation will not cover other areas of matrimonial law such as financial provision."

 

[JaniceM]

So many of the replies here are absolutely refreshing!!! and great to hear!!!

@grahamg: it seems less about "science" than "trend." and while trends are getting stupider by the day, some of it originated decades ago. Example: "no-fault divorce." I agree nobody should be stuck in a really bad marriage, but it began treating human beings as "disposable." In my opinion, if a genuine commitment was there in the beginning, it should be permanent- unless there's a really good reason to end it.

As I see it, part of the problem is genuine commitment isn't always there in the beginning- couples who take the approach "let's see if this works out" is almost a guarantee that it won't.
Second, as was mentioned, people are led to believe the marriage or the other person is somehow "defective" if they're not "happy" 24/7. In other words, unreasonable expectations.

A third thing I've encountered a lot in recent years: the approach that individuals should be "friends" before establishing a commitment. It might sound sensible, but nobody I knew in the older generations took this approach- men/women being "friends" just did not happen. Yet for most, they had solid marriages that lasted.

 

[StarSong]

So many of the replies here are absolutely refreshing!!! and great to hear!!!

@grahamg: it seems less about "science" than "trend." and while trends are getting stupider by the day, some of it originated decades ago. Example: "no-fault divorce." I agree nobody should be stuck in a really bad marriage, but it began treating human beings as "disposable." In my opinion, if a genuine commitment was there in the beginning, it should be permanent- unless there's a really good reason to end it.

As I see it, part of the problem is genuine commitment isn't always there in the beginning- couples who take the approach "let's see if this works out" is almost a guarantee that it won't.
Second, as was mentioned, people are led to believe the marriage or the other person is somehow "defective" if they're not "happy" 24/7. In other words, unreasonable expectations.

A third thing I've encountered a lot in recent years: the approach that individuals should be "friends" before establishing a commitment. It might sound sensible, but nobody I knew in the older generations took this approach- men/women being "friends" just did not happen. Yet for most, they had solid marriages that lasted.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Plenty of folks in my parents' and grandparents' generation who suffered through miserable marriages because the women were stuck with a houseful of kids, a crappy marriage, no job or marketable skills, no financial resources, and no power. The rest of their lives sucked because of a poor choice made at age 20.

In the 1960s, people started refusing to remain in terrible marriages and demanded no-fault divorces that were easier to obtain, included alimony and (in CA, at least) community property laws.

I don't know anyone who entered a marriage with the idea of "let's see if this works out" in mind. However, I do think many modern marriages have remained healthy because the possibility of divorce exists. There's a limit to how much BS a spouse will put up with before calling it quits.

I've never been divorced (thank heavens) but am the product of a terrible marriage. It should have ended decades before it was finally put to rest when my parents were in their 80s. A long, ugly story.

 

[grahamg]

Maybe yes, maybe no. Plenty of folks in my parents' and grandparents' generation who suffered through miserable marriages because the women were stuck with a houseful of kids, a crappy marriage, no job or marketable skills, no financial resources, and no power. The rest of their lives sucked because of a poor choice made at age 20.

In the 1960s, people started refusing to remain in terrible marriages and demanded no-fault divorces that were easier to obtain, included alimony and (in CA, at least) community property laws.

I don't know anyone who entered a marriage with the idea of "let's see if this works out" in mind. However, I do think many modern marriages have remained healthy because the possibility of divorce exists. There's a limit to how much BS a spouse will put up with before calling it quits.

I've never been divorced (thank heavens) but am the product of a terrible marriage. It should have ended decades before it was finally put to rest when my parents were in their 80s. A long, ugly story.

In the UK there is a radio show called "The Moral Maze" hosted by a BBC presenter called Michael Buerk, who used to present the news etc.

Every week they call upon a range of experts or public figures to try to examine any question in the public domain. I haven't just heard them discuss divorce, but have no doubt it will have been covered on the quite long running show at some point, or aspects of divorce and marriage will have been discussed, I'm confident is the case.

However, my point in mentioning this radio show is that those taking part in discussions point out sometimes, the fact there are competing rights at play, in so many the issues under debate.

You say you were the product of an unhappy marriage, and I'm not going to argue with you obviously, but would you feel or wish that marriage had never taken place, hence you'd never been born? Could it not be that there was once love between your parents, and therefore good enough reason for them to marry in the first place?

If the whole drift of our government's policies on marriage/divorce is always toward making divorce easier, at what point does abandoning the idea of marriage altogether become a better proposal? Marriage used to be looked upon as a pillar of the state in the UK, and only communist countries were supposed to see the family unit as a threat, and wish to discourage it, or lead to its demise.

 

[Keesha]

I’ve never been married traditionally; only common law ( 30plus ) so didn’t make any vows to God or sign any document but I believe our commitment to one another is just as strong as the average marriage.

Just because we don’t share last names doesn’t mean we don’t share true commitment.

Maybe marriages lasted longer before because they had to. That doesn’t mean they were happy marriages. Past marriages were more dependent than they are today and there weren’t as many opportunities so more people stayed married possibly because they had to. They had no other choice.

Maybe those that marry now stay together because they ‘want’ which trumps staying because they ‘have’ to, in my opinion.

 

[C'est Moi]

Maybe marriages lasted longer before because they had to. That doesn’t mean they were happy marriages.

Exactly. A generation ago, divorce carried a huge stigma, combined with the second-class status of women making it impossible to live on one's own.

 

[StarSong]

In the UK there is a radio show called "The Moral Maze" hosted by a BBC presenter called Michael Buerk, who used to present the news etc.

Every week they call upon a range of experts or public figures to try to examine any question in the public domain. I haven't just heard them discuss divorce, but have no doubt it will have been covered on the quite long running show at some point, or aspects of divorce and marriage will have been discussed, I'm confident is the case.

However, my point in mentioning this radio show is that those taking part in discussions point out sometimes, the fact there are competing rights at play, in so many the issues under debate.

You say you were the product of an unhappy marriage, and I'm not going to argue with you obviously, but would you feel or wish that marriage had never taken place, hence you'd never been born? Could it not be that there was once love between your parents, and therefore good enough reason for them to marry in the first place?

If the whole drift of our government's policies on marriage/divorce is always toward making divorce easier, at what point does abandoning the idea of marriage altogether become a better proposal? Marriage used to be looked upon as a pillar of the state in the UK, and only communist countries were supposed to see the family unit as a threat, and wish to discourage it, or lead to its demise.

Obviously I don't wish that I'd never been born. And yes, my parents were very much in love during their early years.

My father's endless, open philandering had eroded that love by the time I was about ten years old (probably earlier), so twenty years into their marriage. My mother was good and stuck. She was a former waitress married to a highly paid executive.

When I was ten, she had five kids (four in elementary school or younger), a dependent widowed mother who lived with us, and a husband who told her if she left him he'd put her in poverty and take the kids. Not that he'd have wanted us, he was just that vindictive.

I don't think the answer is to eliminate marriage, but neither do I think it wise to eliminate divorce, or make it more difficult to obtain.

 

[grahamg]

Obviously I don't wish that I'd never been born. And yes, my parents were very much in love during their early years.

My father's endless, open philandering had eroded that love by the time I was about ten years old (probably earlier), so twenty years into their marriage. My mother was good and stuck. She was a former waitress married to a highly paid executive.

When I was ten, she had five kids (four in elementary school or younger), a dependent widowed mother who lived with us, and a husband who told her if she left him he'd put her in poverty and take the kids. Not that he'd have wanted us, he was just that vindictive.

I don't think the answer is to eliminate marriage, but neither do I think it wise to eliminate divorce, or make it more difficult to obtain.

But would you make divorce easier to obtain?

That's the question you have to pose I feel, and where is it appropriate to stop making it easier, because there can be little doubt that has been the direction of travel for fifty odd years.

I used to tell my own daughter (at ten years of age) that if she thought she should get a divorce if she were unhappy in a marriage then she should not get married in the first place, (she's happily married BTW, to a great guy she should know very well as she knew him from her first school).

I hope her marriage continues to be happy, but if there are hiccups, or even spells of unhappiness that could be overcome, then I'd hope she has as much "stickability" as my dear old mum had, and used to talk about).

Your mother had plenty of grounds for divorce in almost any era, so no argument there either.

 

[StarSong]

I think divorce is sufficiently easy to obtain right now, at least in the US. Can't comment on other countries.

If your daughter became deeply unhappy in her marriage I would think that divorce would indeed be in order. Not talking standard marital bumps and shallows, but serious problems that aren't being solved.

 

[grahamg]

I think divorce is sufficiently easy to obtain right now, at least in the US. Can't comment on other countries.

If your daughter became deeply unhappy in her marriage I would think that divorce would indeed be in order. Not talking standard marital bumps and shallows, but serious problems that aren't being solved.

Well, may you say that regarding my daughter, and feel you might know what is best for her, but I doubt very much my own mother would have shared your view, and she thought a great deal of her granddaughter when she was alive.

By any measure you might recognise, my mother's marriage should have failed, (probably in the first six months). I wont go into too much detail, but my father was a heavy drinker for most of his life, having deceived my mother about his drinking habits before they married (they'd courted for seven and a half years before they married so she should have known, but didn't). They fell out "all the time", and yet out of these maybe unpromising beginnings, and ongoing troubles they forged a great marriage for themselves, that was the making of both of them.

My mother had numerous breakdowns, that my father was in no way responsible for, and yet he proved time and time again to be her saviour, and never ever thought of abandoning her, as I believe a friend I mentioned earlier in this thread may end up doing concerning his wife who suffers depression.

So, as you can see we come at this topic from very different perspectives, but I'm not arguing against divorce, simply against making it even easier to obtain a divorce, removing some of the protections people like myself relied upon when we were going through that trauma.

 

[Ronni]

It will be 48 years for us this April. We are just like a comfortable pair of old shoes. We both need a lot of personal space,which we give each other. I know what ticks him off and he knows what ticks me off. We use this knowledge occasionally, It keeps the blood flowing. On a whole we have figured out a happy existence, no counselor needed.

I've read that a marriage requires work. In my opinion if you need to work at it you shouldn't be in it .

@Ruth n Jersey I would respectfully disagree.

I'm not married yet, but I know how much work it's taken for Ron and me so far to iron out the bumps as we've navigated living together, finding the compromises necessary to accommodate each other, the countless conversations we've had as we've encountered things that needed to be worked out between us. It wasn't particularly grueling most of the time, but it was definitely time consuming and sometimes tedious.

It was and continues to be an investment, one we're both very willing to work at and on because our relationship is worth the time and the effort. Just because we love each other and are committed to each other doesn't guarantee a good relationship. Taking care of the things that interfere with the relationship is what guarantees it.

My daughter and her husband have been to counseling several times over the course of their marriage. They've had some ups and downs, but have NEVER wavered in their commitment to each other, and have done whatever was necessary to overcome both the acute, and the chronic issues that have risen in the course of their marriage. They HAVE worked at it, HARD at times. They've invested time and money, have stayed up late after the kids were in bed to work at the exercise the counselor gave them, solved a variety of logistics in order to have date nites, time without kids, when it would have been easier and a lot less hassle to just stay home, both tired from very full days with work and kids and family. It has been work. They're both strong personalities and working through stuff sometimes takes effort. But they both maintain that the health of the relationship is more important than individual egos and preferences.

I'm not challenging you! Even though it sounds like it I guess. Perhaps we are just using different definitions of "work."

 

[StarSong]

Well, may you say that regarding my daughter, and feel you might know what is best for her, but I doubt very much my own mother would have shared your view, and she thought a great deal of her granddaughter when she was alive.

By any measure you might recognise, my mother's marriage should have failed, (probably in the first six months). I wont go into too much detail, but my father was a heavy drinker for most of his life, having deceived my mother about his drinking habits before they married (they'd courted for seven and a half years before they married so she should have known, but didn't). They fell out "all the time", and yet out of these maybe unpromising beginnings, and ongoing troubles they forged a great marriage for themselves, that was the making of both of them.

My mother had numerous breakdowns, that my father was in no way responsible for, and yet he proved time and time again to be her saviour, and never ever thought of abandoning her, as I believe a friend I mentioned earlier in this thread may end up doing concerning his wife who suffers depression.

So, as you can see we come at this topic from very different perspectives, but I'm not arguing against divorce, simply against making it even easier to obtain a divorce, removing some of the protections people like myself relied upon when we were going through that trauma.

Graham, I was merely commenting on your earlier remark about divorce not being an option for an unhappy marriage. Obviously I don't know your daughter or her marriage, so my reply was a generic one.

Your parents apparently worked eventually worked things out. I'm glad for them. Most people don't want to remain in very bumpy marriages to heavy drinkers, nor should they have to go through extraordinary lengths to dissolve such a marriage.

What protections against easy divorce are you referring to? Perhaps there's something going on in the UK that I'm unaware of.

 

[Ruth n Jersey]

@Ruth n Jersey I would respectfully disagree.

I'm not married yet, but I know how much work it's taken for Ron and me so far to iron out the bumps as we've navigated living together, finding the compromises necessary to accommodate each other, the countless conversations we've had as we've encountered things that needed to be worked out between us. It wasn't particularly grueling most of the time, but it was definitely time consuming and sometimes tedious.

It was and continues to be an investment, one we're both very willing to work at and on because our relationship is worth the time and the effort. Just because we love each other and are committed to each other doesn't guarantee a good relationship. Taking care of the things that interfere with the relationship is what guarantees it.

My daughter and her husband have been to counseling several times over the course of their marriage. They've had some ups and downs, but have NEVER wavered in their commitment to each other, and have done whatever was necessary to overcome both the acute, and the chronic issues that have risen in the course of their marriage. They HAVE worked at it, HARD at times. They've invested time and money, have stayed up late after the kids were in bed to work at the exercise the counselor gave them, solved a variety of logistics in order to have date nites, time without kids, when it would have been easier and a lot less hassle to just stay home, both tired from very full days with work and kids and family. It has been work. They're both strong personalities and working through stuff sometimes takes effort. But they both maintain that the health of the relationship is more important than individual egos and preferences.

I'm not challenging you! Even though it sounds like it I guess. Perhaps we are just using different definitions of "work."

I understand Ronni, I guess because I never experienced this I assumed there didn't have to be any work involved. The hubby and I have had our differences but not to the point of really having a problem over it where we had to discuss it for hours on end or needing a counselor. My apologies and admiration for those who have gone the extra mile to save their marriage.

 

[Ronni]

I understand Ronni, I guess because I never experienced this I assumed there didn't have to be any work involved. The hubby and I have had our differences but not to the point of really having a problem over it where we had to discuss it for hours on end or needing a counselor. My apologies and admiration for those who have gone the extra mile to save their marriage.

Well to be completely fair, I should add that Ron and I both came into the relationship with a degree of baggage, I from 30+ years of abuse from my ex, and he from years of living with an alcoholic and somewhat mentally unstable woman.

My daughter and Son in Law too have had to overcome challenges related to their upbringing. Paige also suffered greatly at the hands of her misogynistic, abusive and controlling father, and William was raised by drug addicted and criminal parents, with almost daily beatings as his Normal.

Perhaps these relationships would have been as unproblematic as yours had it not been for the challenges that had to be overcome to even begin to approach marital health.

 

[grahamg]

I picked up on this section of a post on another thread, and thought it relevant here, mainly because of the admiration shown for those men who show steadfastness:

"A real man is one who shows respect to his Mother and Father, treats his family and friend,
and strangers on the street with the same respect as well. he loves his children and wife and
stays through the thick and thin. a man who will never lift his hand to a woman`s
face in anger. who will also treat her like a lady with dignity and respect always..
Who shows her how much he truly cares and loves her by telling her and surprising
her with flowers ohh my !I have yet to have that LOL... and so on.honest,
caring, gentle, kind, be a good provider, and many other things.and be at peace with himself "

 

[Ronni]

I picked up on this section of a post on another thread, and thought it relevant here, mainly because of the admiration shown for those men who show steadfastness:

"A real man is one who shows respect to his Mother and Father, treats his family and friend,
and strangers on the street with the same respect as well. he loves his children and wife and
stays through the thick and thin. a man who will never lift his hand to a woman`s
face in anger. who will also treat her like a lady with dignity and respect always..
Who shows her how much he truly cares and loves her by telling her and surprising
her with flowers ohh my !I have yet to have that LOL... and so on.honest,
caring, gentle, kind, be a good provider, and many other things.and be at peace with himself "

Not to get off track here, but these kinds of things...the "real man" and "real woman" type generalities, they kinda piss me off. I think it harks back to my gender stereotyping thread. Men and women both would be wise to follow the advice above, it's good advice for every human, no matter the gender.

 

[StarSong]

Not to get off track here, but these kinds of things...the "real man" and "real woman" type generalities, they kinda piss me off. I think it harks back to my gender stereotyping thread. Men and women both would be wise to follow the advice above, it's good advice for every human, no matter the gender.

Ronni, I was thinking along those same lines as I read those words. All of us should aspire to those qualities in every relationship, including with children.

 

[grahamg]

Ronnie wrote:Not to get off track here, but these kinds of things...the "real man" and "real woman" type generalities, they kinda piss me off. I think it harks back to my gender stereotyping thread. Men and women both would be wise to follow the advice above, it's good advice for every human, no matter the gender.
Starsong wrote:Ronni, I was thinking along those same lines as I read those words. All of us should aspire to those qualities in every relationship, including with children.

As my ex. used to say "In a perfect world" this or that might be the way to behave, (cue knowing look ).

 

[grahamg]

In England and Wales, changes to the divorce process in the UK could be just around the corner. One of the most prominent campaigners for no fault divorce is Baroness Hale, the most senior judge in the UK.

I am watching with interest to see how the discussion evolves, while considering what the introduction of a no fault divorce system could mean for divorcing couples in England and Wales. I’d like to take this opportunity to take a look at the divorce process as it currently stands, the implications of a reform and the key arguments from both sides of the no fault divorce debate.

What is the Current Process for Divorce?

Under existing divorce law in England and Wales, in order to be granted a divorce it’s necessary to prove that the marriage has broken down to a point where it cannot be saved. This needs to be proven by citing one of the 5 legally recognised reasons for marital breakdown: adultery, unreasonable behaviour, desertion, 2 years of separation or 5 years of separation.

This means that someone in the marriage has to be at fault or the couple will need to have lived separately for a considerable length of time, in order for a divorce to be granted. One person will need to begin the divorce proceedings, stating the reason for the marriage breakdown, and the other person then needs to respond, either agreeing or disagreeing with this statement. If they disagree, then the person who began the proceedings will need to provide more evidence to support their statement (such as evidence of how their spouse has behaved unreasonably, proof that they have been deserted, or evidence of adultery).

Getting a divorce England and Wales can take a considerable length of time. There are numerous factors which need to be considered and sometimes there will be joint assets or children that also need to be taken into consideration.

What Would No Fault Divorce Look Like?

Under a no fault divorce system, couples would be able to formally end their marriage without either person being held at fault. No fault divorce would be a more administrative process, rather than a Court procedure.

If a couple have naturally grown apart, or are separating amicably then there will not be a requirement to lay blame on either person. Nor would the couple need to wait until they have been separated for 2 years in order to divorce without anyone being held accountable.

What are the Arguments for No Fault Divorce?

Baroness Hale feels that there is a strong case for no fault divorce to be introduced into UK law. She believes that being able to say the relationship has simply failed, without holding either person accountable, could ease some of the stress and pain that couples often endure during separation.

She also believes that this process would make it easier for couples to settle the terms of their divorce, without getting caught up in long-winded, acrimonious legal battles in Court.

Other campaigners have suggested that the current process for divorce can cause the relationship between the divorcing couple to deteriorate even further, as one person dredges up and documents evidence of the other’s behaviour.

What Are the Arguments Against no fault Divorce?

On the other side of the coin, some people oppose the proposition to introduce no fault divorce to UK law. Some believe that making the divorce process easier could be damaging to the sanctity of marriage. There is an argument that couples may not think carefully enough before entering into a marriage if they feel that they can easily divorce if it doesn’t work out.

Some have cited other potential risks associated with making divorce more straight-forward and more accessible, feeling that this could lead to more couples opting for divorce as soon as difficulties arise instead of taking the time to try to save their relationship.

If someone has been subjected to unreasonable behaviour in a marriage or their spouse has committed adultery, then there is also an argument that the offending spouse should not have the option of getting a divorce without being held to account.

In place of a no fault divorce option, it has been suggested that there could be an opportunity instead to educate people on the implications of marriage and the financial risks that they could face if the marriage breaks down. This could encourage people to consider the true gravity of the marriage contract and think more carefully before tying the knot, possibly negating the need for an easier divorce option.

What the Future Holds

The truth is that there can never be a “one size fits all” approach to divorce, which makes the matter of amending divorce law all the more delicate. The infinitely complex nature of relationships means that every marriage breakdown brings with it its own unique challenges.

Divorce can be a difficult and heart wrenching time for families, there are often highly charged emotions on all sides and lives can be turned upside down. The sensitive and complicated reality of divorce means that any changes that are made to the law are likely to take a considerable amount of time to implement.

We may see a no fault divorce process implemented in the future, or it may be decided that this is not the right approach. In the meantime, I will observe the “no fault divorce” debate with interest.

 

[JaniceM]

I still believe the old approach needed improvement, but the changes in recent decades have not been improvements.
One example came to mind when I read the What Are the Arguments Against no fault Divorce? section. When I was kinda new to this city, there was a short article in the local newspaper where some local politician said he didn't want Covenant Marriage to ever be allowed in this state "because fewer people would get married if they believed it would be difficult to get a divorce." Do that many people take marriage vows while thinking about ending the marriage?!?

Like I said previously, the old approach was not o.k. Nobody should have to suffer in a bad marriage because divorce is too difficult, has stigma attached to it, etc. But I do believe people should need to have a reason- and even realizing the marriage was a mistake is a legitimate reason. But I don't think people should "bail out" with "We grew apart" or "We wanted different things," etc. And when there are children involved, nobody seems to think about the effects on them, they're treated like nothing more than other types of "community property."

 

[StarSong]

Wow. Had no idea that your divorce laws were so different from ours. Contested divorces are a thing of the past here. In 1909, Nevada was the first state to allow uncontested divorces. The filer had to establish 6 months residency though. By 1931 that period was dropped to 6 weeks. The most commonly cited grounds were "extreme cruelty" and the courts didn't require corroborating evidence.

Since all states were required by US law to recognize every other state's marriages & divorces, Nevada became a haven for quickie divorces that would have been contested in other states.

Today, 47 out of 50 US states permit uncontested, no-fault divorces. Property division and spousal support laws vary. California has community property laws (most assets get split down the middle) and most spousal support is figured by a mathematical formula.

By my observation, most parents agonize over how divorce would affect their children. A sure recipe for making the process uglier, more expensive, and more damaging to all involved: requiring proof of fault or blame, and/or denying one party the right to split when he/she desires to do so.

I've seen quite amicable divorces where parties have co-parented well, and were cordial and supportive of one another. Also very ugly ones where the parties waited until they detested one another before splitting.

My grandmother used to say, "There's nothing deader than dead love." I agree.