Marriage, what psychologists have to say

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.
Are you sure there are still some states that don't have it?
 

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."

I apologise if I've said this already on the thread, but I used to discuss divorce etc. with my young daughter, (a subject she was fairly well versed on, and her views at ten were that what she had in regard to her relationships with her now divorced parents was "okay", but parents staying together might have been "better"!). When she used to put forward the view that if she were "unhappy in her marriage she would just get divorced", my comment in response was "Dont get married then"!

As far as I can remember the marriage vows I took included the words, "I take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others keep thee only unto her/him , to love and to cherish, till death us do part,......."

I'd say that was a fair comment to make to my daughter, if marriage now means, "I take thee N. to my wedded wife, until you or I are no longer happy, and then I will not assign any fault to you, (and I will not accept any criticism or fault on my part), and divorce do us part, whether you or I are worse for it, or poorer, or ill, or no one better takes my fancy, and only until all those things are avoided will the marriage be expected to last until death" ;) .
 
I apologise if I've said this already on the thread, but I used to discuss divorce etc. with my young daughter, (a subject she was fairly well versed on, and her views at ten were that what she had in regard to her relationships with her now divorced parents was "okay", but parents staying together might have been "better"!). When she used to put forward the view that if she were "unhappy in her marriage she would just get divorced", my comment in response was "Dont get married then"!

As far as I can remember the marriage vows I took included the words, "I take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, and forsaking all others keep thee only unto her/him , to love and to cherish, till death us do part,......."

I'd say that was a fair comment to make to my daughter, if marriage now means, "I take thee N. to my wedded wife, until you or I are no longer happy, and then I will not assign any fault to you, (and I will not accept any criticism or fault on my part), and divorce do us part, whether you or I are worse for it, or poorer, or ill, or no one better takes my fancy, and only until all those things are avoided will the marriage be expected to last until death" ;) .

I respectfully disagree with your position on this. As would many on this forum, I think, given the number of people on here who've been divorced, or have loved ones that were divorced.

I'm lucky to have married the right person the first time. Not all are so fortunate. I certainly don't begrudge them a second go at it.
 
I respectfully disagree with your position on this. As would many on this forum, I think, given the number of people on here who've been divorced, or have loved ones that were divorced.

I'm lucky to have married the right person the first time. Not all are so fortunate. I certainly don't begrudge them a second go at it.

I know you think we're on opposite sides on this argument, and I do feel I'm on the opposite side to you too, at least so far as making divorce even easier, but it is wrong to characterise my position as trying to argue against divorce, not least because as I keep saying I'm a beneficiary of the ending of my unhappy marriage, as is my ex. (however, as I keep saying the protections I had under the law then were very helpful to me too).

Have you noticed the other thread on this section of the forum containing all the witty cartoons etc. about "better or worse"?

Couldn't be a more appropriate and fortunate coincidence could it. :).
 
A modern tale from the USA I came across (I'm sure similar tales are occurring here in the UK too):

"My ex wife and I married back in 2016. At this time our daughter was 2 years old. About 2 months later we divorced. We both have 50/50 custody of our daughter and I pay $*** a month for child support, along with her day care, pre-school and sports she wants to participate in. I don’t pay child support through FSR or anything. I just pay her directly. My ex wife, who has had 2 more kids with her live in boyfriend, has decided that she wants to be a stay at home mom and is now demanding more money and saying that she can’t afford to support our daughter on $*** a month. Half the time she sends her to my house in clothes 2 sizes too small. My ex wife does not attend any school functions or sporting events. Our daughter is now in kindergarten and struggling in school and my ex wife refuses to do her homework with her. Our daughter is now in kindergarten and struggling in school and my ex wife refuses to do her homework with her. I’m now engaged and have a 6 month old daughter, along with a mortgage. My fiancé works part time but tries to stay home as much as possible with our new little one."
 
Maybe if those characters in the above story waited to be married & committed before procreating, things would work out differently. I'm not a conservative person by nature, but this growing custom of having kids before marriage, or no marriage at all, then having more kids with a new relationship causing step and half siblings boggles my mind. Confusing and complicated, I think.
 
It's also been my experience that the jerk you marry is a carbon copy of the jerk you just divorced. May as well stick with the same jerk. Cheaper.
 
Maybe if those characters in the above story waited to be married & committed before procreating, things would work out differently. I'm not a conservative person by nature, but this growing custom of having kids before marriage, or no marriage at all, then having more kids with a new relationship causing step and half siblings boggles my mind. Confusing and complicated, I think.

Its a moot point as to whether the people featured above would have been better married or not married, and all the complicated "blended families" resulting, but it is hard to argue making divorce easier to obtain will reduce the numbers isnt it(?). :whistle::rolleyes:.
 
Couldn't wait to get out of it then, (perhaps, not to put words in your mouth?), so a system where you can dissolve a marriage without any hindrance a good thing(?). :whistle:.
If he would've been open to counseling and at least trying to work things out, then I might have stayed. But, after crying real tears in front of me and telling me he loved me and begging me to stay while he was seeing another woman and then telling me he never loved me he just married me so I wouldn't leave. And then there's all the women who get abused in any and all ways. Yes, without hinderance is good. If there's a chance they could work it out then yeah, try. But, otherwise, they should be free to go. Same with the man.
 
Its a moot point as to whether the people featured above would have been better married or not married, and all the complicated "blended families" resulting, but it is hard to argue making divorce easier to obtain will reduce the numbers isnt it(?). :whistle::rolleyes:.
Making it hard to obtain isn't gonna stop it. If they can't get their divorce they'll just leave either way. And by making it difficult they are putting the lives of abused spouses and children in danger.
 
Its a moot point as to whether the people featured above would have been better married or not married, and all the complicated "blended families" resulting, but it is hard to argue making divorce easier to obtain will reduce the numbers isnt it(?). :whistle::rolleyes:.
No, it is very easy to argue. Government has no place messing in the personal happiness of it's citizens, even for their "own good." Condescending and abusively instrusive. Maybe you feel the need to be instructed on how to live by this higher power, most don't.
 
No, it is very easy to argue. Government has no place messing in the personal happiness of it's citizens, even for their "own good." Condescending and abusively instrusive. Maybe you feel the need to be instructed on how to live by this higher power, most don't.


You can do away with marriage altogether for my money, then you'll have nothing at all to worry yourself over, concerning our goernments interfering in your life(?)

However, just to be absolutely clear as to what you think you're arguing, are you saying making divorce easier wont increase the numbers of blended families? :cautious:.
 
Making it hard to obtain isn't gonna stop it. If they can't get their divorce they'll just leave either way. And by making it difficult they are putting the lives of abused spouses and children in danger.

I'm not trying to stop divorce, only protect the "injured party" (in the meaning of the term in our courts up until the present day, though soon to be banished from the courts power to have a consideration for the husband or wife who didn't wish their marriage to end, or break their marriage vows).

Cant see why making marriages more difficult to get out of than the example I gave above, where the man claimed he'd got out of his marriage in two months, might make anyone any more or less in danger than they were in the first place, (do you think making someone wait two years, as is the case right now in the UK, is likely to lead to more violence than allowing people to divorce in two months, if that is what happened in the above instance?). Do you think love can be just turned off or on at will? :(.
 
Its a moot point as to whether the people featured above would have been better married or not married, and all the complicated "blended families" resulting, but it is hard to argue making divorce easier to obtain will reduce the numbers isnt it(?). :whistle::rolleyes:.

You can do away with marriage altogether for my money, then you'll have nothing at all to worry yourself over, concerning our goernments interfering in your life(?)

However, just to be absolutely clear as to what you think you're arguing, are you saying making divorce easier wont increase the numbers of blended families? :cautious:.
In commenting on blended families I was not attempting to control the lives of those who choose this path. It's not up to me, and I would not use government or my opinions to control the lives of others. I'm an observer, not a control freak. I don't know about the U.K., but here in the U.S. I have found social and economic issues playing a role. Anyway, where you wrote: "just to be absolutely clear as to what you think you're arguing," do you have any awareness as to how condescending that sounds?
As well as "you'll have nothing at all to worry yourself over." Did I indicate worry when I meant speculation? If so, I'm here to clarify I'm not worried, just noticing.
 
In commenting on blended families I was not attempting to control the lives of those who choose this path. It's not up to me, and I would not use government or my opinions to control the lives of others. I'm an observer, not a control freak. I don't know about the U.K., but here in the U.S. I have found social and economic issues playing a role.
Break

I've suggested a way of avoiding all government control via the courts into whatever your citizens might do when choosing a partner to live with, or not live with, (albeit in a condescending manner I accept), and find no desire to express an opinion as to its merits.

I agree however, just as you say you've found, quote: "social and economic issues playing a role" - perhaps aspects worth of wider discussion by those wishing to engage with those issues. :rolleyes:.
 
I agree however, just as you say you've found, quote: "social and economic issues playing a role" - perhaps aspects worth of wider discussion by those wishing to engage with those issues. :rolleyes:.
I have no desire to further engage with you on anything. You, sir, are boorish. Your emoticon screams it.
 
I'm not trying to stop divorce, only protect the "injured party" (in the meaning of the term in our courts up until the present day, though soon to be banished from the courts power to have a consideration for the husband or wife who didn't wish their marriage to end, or break their marriage vows).

Cant see why making marriages more difficult to get out of than the example I gave above, where the man claimed he'd got out of his marriage in two months, might make anyone any more or less in danger than they were in the first place, (do you think making someone wait two years, as is the case right now in the UK, is likely to lead to more violence than allowing people to divorce in two months, if that is what happened in the above instance?). Do you think love can be just turned off or on at will? :(.
Making a couple who hate each other stay together? Uh yes. It would just grow more violent each day and might result in more deaths.
 
Making a couple who hate each other stay together? Uh yes. It would just grow more violent each day and might result in more deaths.

It is not necessary to try to portray my position as advocating people who hate one another should stay together at all, so why do you try to do it?

Maybe take a look at the "Better or worse" thread in this section of the forum, and you'll get a better idea of what I believe, and it would appear, many others think about the need for couples to at least try to make the best of marriage, where this is possible. My dear mother was told by her parents, to "refuse nothing only blows" when she married, and as I've said before she used to talk abut "stickability", an aspect of her character she found she needed quite often to make it through successfully the sixty odd years of their marriage until she died (ditto my dad).
 
It is not necessary to try to portray my position as advocating people who hate one another should stay together at all, so why do you try to do it?

Maybe take a look at the "Better or worse" thread in this section of the forum, and you'll get a better idea of what I believe, and it would appear, many others think about the need for couples to at least try to make the best of marriage, where this is possible. My dear mother was told by her parents, to "refuse nothing only blows" when she married, and as I've said before she used to talk abut "stickability", an aspect of her character she found she needed quite often to make it through successfully the sixty odd years of their marriage until she died (ditto my dad).
There's a difference between a successful marriage and people enduring life sentences. What's laudable about squandering a life's opportunity at happiness simply because of vows made at age 20-ish? Sorry, martyrdom doesn't impress me, nor does "stickability."

I would never advise my children to "refuse nothing, only (beatings)." Nor to mete out everything but beatings. Life is too short to be miserable or to remain tethered to a tyrant.
 
There's a difference between a successful marriage and people enduring life sentences. What's laudable about squandering a life's opportunity at happiness simply because of vows made at age 20-ish? Sorry, martyrdom doesn't impress me, nor does "stickability."

I would never advise my children to "refuse nothing, only (beatings)." Nor to mete out everything but beatings. Life is too short to be miserable or to remain tethered to a tyrant.

I don't know how many tyrants there are out there, or whether the majority of them are men, but I'm not doubting our forum friend above's warnings concerning fears or dangers arising in some marriages, (its nuanced, though because as I said earlier you'd probably have condemned my own father, but his seven children, and my mother, would all have had a much harder life without his protection, business sense, strength of character, etc.).

The other aspect of children being in danger in some marriages, whilst quite true, and I've no reason to doubt it or question it, but as I'd know probably much better than "our forum friend" who highlighted dangers above, many father's I used to meet twenty years ago in my father's rights campaigning days in the UK would express real fear for their own kids, exposed to the "new daddy", or new man in their ex.'s lives. More divorce, or easier divorce, doesn't therefore necessarily create less risks to children, and some authoritative government organisations have pointed out the very opposite could well be true.

Its upsets some people to say these things, because we all have our own framework or set of beliefs we try to stick to, (the "stickability" business my dear mum used to be so strong on, she couldn't help it though, she was made that way!).

BTW my mother brought me up, and my brother up from a very early age to never hit a woman (/one of my five sisters), and neither of us ever have done. If more mothers felt able to impart that kind of behaviour into their children, you'd have to say the world would be a better place in terms of domestic abuse at least. My dad never hit either of us boys either, so that obviously helps too, but I'd give ,my mother most of the credit. :).
 


Back
Top