Eliminate "No-Fault Divorce" To Strengthen Marriage and Discourage Gay Marriage

[WinterBorn]

The best way to reduce divorce rates and to discourage gay marriage is to bring back "no fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held liable and forced to pay damages.

The promise of sexual exclusivity (fidelity) is a very important part of marriage. This needs to be clearly written into all civil marriage contracts and enforced by the divorce courts. Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer divorces and much fewer gay men would be interested in marriage.

And why is that? (By the way, don't forget women can be gay, too).

Most gay men do not practice sexual fidelity with their significant other. This is not consistent with the traditional definition of marriage. Lesbians usually do honor sexual exclusivity. Therefore traditional marriage is different from gay unions which are different from lesbian unions.

Don't you agree?

No, I do not agree. I think there may be studies that show more promiscuity for gays. But that does not say anything about those in a committed relationship or their fidelity.

I also think your desire to prevent divorce, while noble sounding, becomes an invasion of privacy and an assault on individual liberty. Who are you to tell these couples they cannot divorce? They obviously no longer want to be married. Why punish them? Unless it is strictly to change the statistics to make straight marriages look better.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Most gay men do not practice sexual fidelity with their significant other. This is not consistent with the traditional definition of marriage. Lesbians usually do honor sexual exclusivity. Therefore traditional marriage is different from gay unions which are different from lesbian unions.

Don't you agree?

Of course not. Your premise is predicated on the mistaken notion that preventing same-sex couples equal access to marriage law somehow ‘benefits’ society, where there is no objective, substantiated evidence in support of that position.

I also think your desire to prevent divorce, while noble sounding, becomes an invasion of privacy and an assault on individual liberty.

Which is consistent with conservative dogma: contempt for privacy rights and an assault on individual liberty.

 

[garyganu]

The best way to reduce divorce rates and to discourage gay marriage is to bring back "no fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held liable and forced to pay damages.

The promise of sexual exclusivity (fidelity) is a very important part of marriage. This needs to be clearly written into all civil marriage contracts and enforced by the divorce courts. Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer divorces and much fewer gay men would be interested in marriage.

So if one partner cheats, rather than just end it and both get on with their lives, you think they should drag it out with unproven accusations, unproven counter-accusations and lots of hostility would improve the situation?

If one of them is cheating, chances are pretty good that the marriage is over. Aside from some men out for sexual conquest, marital infidelity is a symptom of other problems in the relationship. Dragging out the divorce process is not going to help.

Courts do NOT make judgments on "unproven accusations'. If one party breaks the contract they should be held accountable like in every other legal contract. We are a nation of laws not men. No one rises above the law.

 

[WinterBorn]

The best way to reduce divorce rates and to discourage gay marriage is to bring back "no fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held liable and forced to pay damages.

The promise of sexual exclusivity (fidelity) is a very important part of marriage. This needs to be clearly written into all civil marriage contracts and enforced by the divorce courts. Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer divorces and much fewer gay men would be interested in marriage.

So if one partner cheats, rather than just end it and both get on with their lives, you think they should drag it out with unproven accusations, unproven counter-accusations and lots of hostility would improve the situation?

If one of them is cheating, chances are pretty good that the marriage is over. Aside from some men out for sexual conquest, marital infidelity is a symptom of other problems in the relationship. Dragging out the divorce process is not going to help.

Courts do NOT make judgments on "unproven accusations'. If one party breaks the contract they should be held accountable like in every other legal contract. We are a nation of laws not men. No one rises above the law.

If the wronged partner doesn't want to push it, why should we? No, courts do not make judgements on unproven accusations. But those unproven accusation certainly fly around in a hostile divorce. The only one who wins a hostile divorce is the lawyers.

But, again, if the injured spouse doesn't want to push it, what gives you (or society) the right to do so? Why demand such and invasion of privacy and loss of liberty?

Is it to lower divorce rates? If we outlaw No-Fault divorces, do you think people will cheat less? Or will it just mean more people don't divorce quickly? Doesn't forcing people to stay married if they don't want to be married actually help destroy the institution of marriage?

 

[garyganu]

If one of them is cheating, chances are pretty good that the marriage is over. Aside from some men out for sexual conquest, marital infidelity is a symptom of other problems in the relationship. Dragging out the divorce process is not going to help.

Correct. The OP has once again demonstrated reactionary idiocy.

No, but the cheater would lose their proverbial shorts financially- that's what happens when you break a contract. The innocent party prevails. The cheater can go off and cheat to their hearts content- but when there is accountability to the contract, it is taken more seriously- that's a fact. Divorce rates skyrocketed due to to NFD laws.

You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

Marriages end for scores of other reasons having nothing to do with infidelity or contract violations. Forcing couples to stay in marriages which have clearly ended is needlessly cruel. No-fault divorce allows adults to amicably agree to end a contract neither benefits from.

I find it rather amusing that conservatives continually ridicule liberals for wanting the gov't to fix everything for them. They make fun of them for "nanny state" remarks.

And here, these social conservatives want the gov't to interfere in people's marriages and divorces. They want the gov't to make it harder to get a divorce, in hope of lowering the divorce rate.

Government is the arbitrator in all contract disputes. This is part of "keeping the peace". Why should marriage contracts be any different?

 

[WinterBorn]

Correct. The OP has once again demonstrated reactionary idiocy.



You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.

Marriages end for scores of other reasons having nothing to do with infidelity or contract violations. Forcing couples to stay in marriages which have clearly ended is needlessly cruel. No-fault divorce allows adults to amicably agree to end a contract neither benefits from.

I find it rather amusing that conservatives continually ridicule liberals for wanting the gov't to fix everything for them. They make fun of them for "nanny state" remarks.

And here, these social conservatives want the gov't to interfere in people's marriages and divorces. They want the gov't to make it harder to get a divorce, in hope of lowering the divorce rate.

Government is the arbitrator in all contract disputes. This is part of "keeping the peace". Why should marriage contracts be any different?

If both parties want the contract dissolved without a fuss, why should we not allow it? In many contracts, if both parties want it dissolved it is dissolved without issue or punishment. Why should marriage contracts be any different?

 

[garyganu]

The best way to reduce divorce rates and to discourage gay marriage is to bring back "no fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held liable and forced to pay damages.

The promise of sexual exclusivity (fidelity) is a very important part of marriage. This needs to be clearly written into all civil marriage contracts and enforced by the divorce courts. Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer divorces and much fewer gay men would be interested in marriage.

Wow, small government legislating people's lives. Nice. Kinda expected from the Christian Taliban.

Governmental always arbitrates civil disputes. That is one of the legitimate functions of government, the courts.

 

[WinterBorn]

The best way to reduce divorce rates and to discourage gay marriage is to bring back "no fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held liable and forced to pay damages.

The promise of sexual exclusivity (fidelity) is a very important part of marriage. This needs to be clearly written into all civil marriage contracts and enforced by the divorce courts. Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer divorces and much fewer gay men would be interested in marriage.

Wow, small government legislating people's lives. Nice. Kinda expected from the Christian Taliban.

Governmental always arbitrates civil disputes. That is one of the legitimate functions of government, the courts.

Yes, and in this case we have both parties involved wanting to dissolve a contract. Let them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The best way to reduce divorce rates and to discourage gay marriage is to bring back "no fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held liable and forced to pay damages.

The promise of sexual exclusivity (fidelity) is a very important part of marriage. This needs to be clearly written into all civil marriage contracts and enforced by the divorce courts. Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer divorces and much fewer gay men would be interested in marriage.

And why is that? (By the way, don't forget women can be gay, too).

Most gay men do not practice sexual fidelity with their significant other. This is not consistent with the traditional definition of marriage. Lesbians usually do honor sexual exclusivity. Therefore traditional marriage is different from gay unions which are different from lesbian unions.

Don't you agree?

Most straight husbands cheat, too. The issue is not orientation but the value of commitment.

American men, and some women, don't do well in this. It has been a failure of parents and church to teach this value well since 1900.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no way to make people honor committment or fulfill their promises. They have to be raised that way. This isn't a failure of the government or the system that permits easy divorce. It's a failure of personal integrity and that can't be legislated.

 

[bodecea]

The best way to reduce divorce rates and to discourage gay marriage is to bring back "no fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held liable and forced to pay damages.

The promise of sexual exclusivity (fidelity) is a very important part of marriage. This needs to be clearly written into all civil marriage contracts and enforced by the divorce courts. Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer divorces and much fewer gay men would be interested in marriage.

And why is that? (By the way, don't forget women can be gay, too).

Most gay men do not practice sexual fidelity with their significant other. This is not consistent with the traditional definition of marriage. Lesbians usually do honor sexual exclusivity. Therefore traditional marriage is different from gay unions which are different from lesbian unions.

Don't you agree?

1. You know this how?

2. Is it a result of being gay or being Male?

 

[Unkotare]

This gary guy obviously has his issues, but it is interesting to see the liberals here reflexively opposed to anything that smacks of personal responsibility.

 

[WinterBorn]

This gary guy obviously has his issues, but it is interesting to see the liberals here reflexively opposed to anything that smacks of personal responsibility.

Does No Fault divorce remove any personal responsibility? Does it require punishment and lengthy court hearings to be responsible?

What gary is doing is having the gov't override what the two people involved want as far as an ending to the marriage. That, in my opinion, is gov't interference where it is unwarranted.

 

[Toro]

The best way to reduce divorce rates and to discourage gay marriage is to bring back "no fault divorce" laws. Cheating on your wife or husband is a "breach of contract" and the guilty party should be held liable and forced to pay damages.

The promise of sexual exclusivity (fidelity) is a very important part of marriage. This needs to be clearly written into all civil marriage contracts and enforced by the divorce courts. Marriage is about rights and responsibilities to each other. Modern society has taken all of the responsibility out of marriage. If people were held accountable for their actions, we would see much fewer divorces and much fewer gay men would be interested in marriage.

Good idea. The wedding rate will drop to 10% and we can all live common law.

The family is overrated anyways.

 

[garyganu]

So if one partner cheats, rather than just end it and both get on with their lives, you think they should drag it out with unproven accusations, unproven counter-accusations and lots of hostility would improve the situation?

If one of them is cheating, chances are pretty good that the marriage is over. Aside from some men out for sexual conquest, marital infidelity is a symptom of other problems in the relationship. Dragging out the divorce process is not going to help.

Courts do NOT make judgments on "unproven accusations'. If one party breaks the contract they should be held accountable like in every other legal contract. We are a nation of laws not men. No one rises above the law.

If the wronged partner doesn't want to push it, why should we? No, courts do not make judgements on unproven accusations. But those unproven accusation certainly fly around in a hostile divorce. The only one who wins a hostile divorce is the lawyers.

But, again, if the injured spouse doesn't want to push it, what gives you (or society) the right to do so? Why demand such and invasion of privacy and loss of liberty?

Is it to lower divorce rates? If we outlaw No-Fault divorces, do you think people will cheat less? Or will it just mean more people don't divorce quickly? Doesn't forcing people to stay married if they don't want to be married actually help destroy the institution of marriage?

If the "wronged partner" doesn't want to push it, so be it. But states like California have community property laws where the assets are decided equally regardless of who was wronged. In this case, the wronged partner has no choice.

 

[garyganu]

I find it rather amusing that conservatives continually ridicule liberals for wanting the gov't to fix everything for them. They make fun of them for "nanny state" remarks.

And here, these social conservatives want the gov't to interfere in people's marriages and divorces. They want the gov't to make it harder to get a divorce, in hope of lowering the divorce rate.

Government is the arbitrator in all contract disputes. This is part of "keeping the peace". Why should marriage contracts be any different?

If both parties want the contract dissolved without a fuss, why should we not allow it? In many contracts, if both parties want it dissolved it is dissolved without issue or punishment. Why should marriage contracts be any different?

The husband and wife are not the only parties involved if their are children. Most divorces involve children who virtually always want their parents to stay together. Plus, step parents have a much higher rate of abusing their children than biological parents.

 

[garyganu]

Wow, small government legislating people's lives. Nice. Kinda expected from the Christian Taliban.

Governmental always arbitrates civil disputes. That is one of the legitimate functions of government, the courts.

Yes, and in this case we have both parties involved wanting to dissolve a contract. Let them.

I have no objection if both parties agree and there are no children involved.

 

[garyganu]

And why is that? (By the way, don't forget women can be gay, too).

Most gay men do not practice sexual fidelity with their significant other. This is not consistent with the traditional definition of marriage. Lesbians usually do honor sexual exclusivity. Therefore traditional marriage is different from gay unions which are different from lesbian unions.

Don't you agree?

Most straight husbands cheat, too. The issue is not orientation but the value of commitment.

American men, and some women, don't do well in this. It has been a failure of parents and church to teach this value well since 1900.

many people steal. If they get caught, they are punished. Aren't they?

 

[garyganu]

There is no way to make people honor committment or fulfill their promises. They have to be raised that way. This isn't a failure of the government or the system that permits easy divorce. It's a failure of personal integrity and that can't be legislated.

Murder, theft, drug abuse, assault, perjury, etc, are also failures of personal integrity. We DO legislate morality in most all laws on the books.

 

[garyganu]

And why is that? (By the way, don't forget women can be gay, too).

Most gay men do not practice sexual fidelity with their significant other. This is not consistent with the traditional definition of marriage. Lesbians usually do honor sexual exclusivity. Therefore traditional marriage is different from gay unions which are different from lesbian unions.

Don't you agree?

1. You know this how?

2. Is it a result of being gay or being Male?

1) I know many gays who exhibit this pattern. Plus, statistical studies bear it out.
2) Both. Men need women to keep them in check.