The Next Front in the GOP’s War on Women: No-Fault Divorce

[scombrid]

But individual rights and liberty has to end up the point where the general public becomes harmed and affected. If my individual rights to end a relationship too early causes my kids to be 10 times more likely to be in trouble.....then that right has gone too far for society.


It is not inconsistency it is common sense and good judgement.

Does that apply to vaccination, education, environmental regulation, etc...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I was more curious about RVonse's response to the idea that he may be able to deem the worthiness of someone else's marriage with respect to their ability to "stand true to their vows". This presumes a certain sacredness to marriage that not all agree with. A vow is not a legally binding agreement. To the extent that a marriage is a legal arrangement and a divorce is a dissolution of that legal arrangement, I think that it should be up to the members of the marriage to determine how and why that is dissolved.

Perhaps there is a bit of inconsistency in the conservative viewpoint here. There's a vocal backing of parents' rights over state's rights, certainly when it comes to schooling of children, but to presume that the state has an interest in the well-being of the child over the will of the parents (i.e., that they may deny the dissolution of the marriage for the "sake of the children") seems in conflict with that and looks more like the kind of government overreach that conservatives always seem to be arguing against.

You will have no argument at all with me that government should if possible stay away from individual liberty and rights. It's fair to say I am far much more of a libertarian than you are.

But individual rights and liberty has to end up the point where the general public becomes harmed and affected. If my individual rights to end a relationship too early causes my kids to be 10 times more likely to be in trouble.....then that right has gone too far for society.

Wait... are you saying that parental related marriages need to become compulsory?

Look up the statistics for children brought up in 2 parent traditional homes versus those with a single mom. Why should my 2nd amendment rights be taken away because someone else's kid has gone crazy with gang violence?

It is not inconsistency it is common sense and good judgement.

Odd, it looks like you are saying people who aren't you need their rights restricted and people who are you shouldn't have their rights impacted or regulated.

 

[Elixir]

How would a libertarian draw the line between parental freedom and government oversight?

It isn’t libbertards’ job to fix anything; they’re way too busy complaining and vilifying to be bothered with that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Dissolving a marriage is not easy.

Source: I am divorced, in the easiest way possible in my state, and it still cost me thousands of dollars.

As a friend said, divorces are expensive. The reason they cost so much money is because they are worth it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Dissolving a marriage is not easy.

Source: I am divorced, in the easiest way possible in my state, and it still cost me thousands of dollars.

As a friend said, divorces are expensive. The reason they cost so much money is because they are worth it.

I'm aware of a couple adjacent marriages that dissolved without much effort. Both involved very young children.

Expensive divorces typically involve assets that one party doesn't want to share.

 

[bilby]

Dissolving a marriage is not easy.

Source: I am divorced, in the easiest way possible in my state, and it still cost me thousands of dollars.

As a friend said, divorces are expensive. The reason they cost so much money is because they are worth it.

I'm aware of a couple adjacent marriages that dissolved without much effort. Both involved very young children.

Expensive divorces typically involve assets that one party doesn't want to share.

In my experience (no kids, twice divorced, three times married, apparently a slow learner), divorce dramatically lowers the wealth of both parties, even when no children are involved, and even when the explicit costs are minimal. It's a lot more expensive to run two single person households than one two person household.

This hidden cost is the reason why many people feel that they were ripped off by their ex; They feel as though they should have come out of the marriage with more than they end up with, and making the false assumption that the divorce was a zero-sum game, conclude incorrectly that somehow their ex got far more than their fair share.

Of course, if either or both parties are intransigent about the division of assets it's very easy for lawyers and courts to siphon off a big additional chunk of wealth, which serves to dramatically amplify that effect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

But without any kids (from the marriage) staying together should be irrelevant to the state. I know nothing about this new Texas law but if I was writing such a law it would heavily take that into consideration.

The problem here is that "keep the family structure intact" isn't actually a possible option in many cases. You can keep the piece of paper, you can't actually ensure they function properly in their parental roles. Cultures where divorce doesn't happen don't magically have more successful relationships, they just have enemies under the same roof--probably worse for kids than divorce.

What about all the other marriages (with children) that could have and/or should have remained intact? But were dissolved simply because it was so easy and no one was accountable for standing true to their vows?

Holding no one accountable for their actions is not a good foundation for a sound marriage.

And why do you assume there are a decent number of such marriages?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You will have no argument at all with me that government should if possible stay away from individual liberty and rights. It's fair to say I am far much more of a libertarian than you are.

But individual rights and liberty has to end up the point where the general public becomes harmed and affected. If my individual rights to end a relationship too early causes my kids to be 10 times more likely to be in trouble.....then that right has gone too far for society.

Look up the statistics for children brought up in 2 parent traditional homes versus those with a single mom. Why should my 2nd amendment rights be taken away because someone else's kid has gone crazy with gang violence?

It is not inconsistency it is common sense and good judgement.

The problem here is that you assume that keeping the marriage existing on paper is going to help.

And you're assuming the gang kids were from broken marriages rather than not married.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In my experience (no kids, twice divorced, three times married, apparently a slow learner), divorce dramatically lowers the wealth of both parties, even when no children are involved, and even when the explicit costs are minimal. It's a lot more expensive to run two single person households than one two person household.

No. You are mixing up "wealth" with "standard of living". Yes, divorce lowers the standard of living but unless they fight and give a hefty chunk to the lawyers it does nothing to wealth--although many overlook the fact that half of the wealth was their partner's.

 

[bilby]

In my experience (no kids, twice divorced, three times married, apparently a slow learner), divorce dramatically lowers the wealth of both parties, even when no children are involved, and even when the explicit costs are minimal. It's a lot more expensive to run two single person households than one two person household.

No. You are mixing up "wealth" with "standard of living". Yes, divorce lowers the standard of living but unless they fight and give a hefty chunk to the lawyers it does nothing to wealth

That's a rather pointless nitpick. Particularly given that ...

--although many overlook the fact that half of the wealth was their partner's.

Most of the wealth of a married couple who own their own home is tied up in the home. Unless one of them can afford to buy out the other, they will need to sell (and will tend to need to take an early, hence low, offer), which will be considerably less than they could have expected to get if the sale were unforced, and probably dramatically less than they might have anticipated it's future worth to be.

Add to that the costs of then acquiring a new home (x2), in which lawyers, agents, bankers, and insurers all take their cuts, and it's a very expensive business.

Did I mention I have actually done this; Twice? I'm inclined to take my actual experience as more valuable than your guesses about how things might be in theory.

 

[RVonse]

Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

But without any kids (from the marriage) staying together should be irrelevant to the state. I know nothing about this new Texas law but if I was writing such a law it would heavily take that into consideration.

The problem here is that "keep the family structure intact" isn't actually a possible option in many cases. You can keep the piece of paper, you can't actually ensure they function properly in their parental roles. Cultures where divorce doesn't happen don't magically have more successful relationships, they just have enemies under the same roof--probably worse for kids than divorce.

What about all the other marriages (with children) that could have and/or should have remained intact? But were dissolved simply because it was so easy and no one was accountable for standing true to their vows?

Holding no one accountable for their actions is not a good foundation for a sound marriage.

And why do you assume there are a decent number of such marriages?

Because there are no fault divorce laws and other financial incentives (aka welfare and tax laws) given for not making a traditional marriage work.

I'm not saying the government should make 2 partners who hate each other live together. But it should not be government's role to create reasons and incentives for traditional marriage not to work. And "no fault divorce" is making it too easy especially if one of the partners is doing everything right and the other partner is trying to get out for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

But without any kids (from the marriage) staying together should be irrelevant to the state. I know nothing about this new Texas law but if I was writing such a law it would heavily take that into consideration.

The problem here is that "keep the family structure intact" isn't actually a possible option in many cases. You can keep the piece of paper, you can't actually ensure they function properly in their parental roles. Cultures where divorce doesn't happen don't magically have more successful relationships, they just have enemies under the same roof--probably worse for kids than divorce.

What about all the other marriages (with children) that could have and/or should have remained intact? But were dissolved simply because it was so easy and no one was accountable for standing true to their vows?

Holding no one accountable for their actions is not a good foundation for a sound marriage.

And why do you assume there are a decent number of such marriages?

Because there are no fault divorce laws and other financial incentives (aka welfare and tax laws) given for not making a traditional marriage work.

I'm not saying the government should make 2 partners who hate each other live together. But it should not be government's role to create reasons and incentives for traditional marriage not to work. And "no fault divorce" is making it too easy especially if one of the partners is doing everything right and the other partner is trying to get out for all the wrong reasons.

Maybe government mandated prenups are the solution.

 

[RVonse]

Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

But without any kids (from the marriage) staying together should be irrelevant to the state. I know nothing about this new Texas law but if I was writing such a law it would heavily take that into consideration.

The problem here is that "keep the family structure intact" isn't actually a possible option in many cases. You can keep the piece of paper, you can't actually ensure they function properly in their parental roles. Cultures where divorce doesn't happen don't magically have more successful relationships, they just have enemies under the same roof--probably worse for kids than divorce.

What about all the other marriages (with children) that could have and/or should have remained intact? But were dissolved simply because it was so easy and no one was accountable for standing true to their vows?

Holding no one accountable for their actions is not a good foundation for a sound marriage.

And why do you assume there are a decent number of such marriages?

Because there are no fault divorce laws and other financial incentives (aka welfare and tax laws) given for not making a traditional marriage work.

I'm not saying the government should make 2 partners who hate each other live together. But it should not be government's role to create reasons and incentives for traditional marriage not to work. And "no fault divorce" is making it too easy especially if one of the partners is doing everything right and the other partner is trying to get out for all the wrong reasons.

Maybe government mandated prenups are the solution.

That would certainly be a step in the right direction. Just holding people accountable makes a lot of sense IMO. If only one partner is seriously screwing up than that person should be accountable for their actions. Let the person who really did screw up take a big financial hit in the settlement. Marriages with children should at least be incentivized by the government to act like adults and stay together wherever possible.

In the end, the couple may still become separated but at least government would not be helping to make it happen.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

...especially if one of the partners is doing everything right and the other partner is trying to get out for all the wrong reasons.

I apologize for being so blunt but that is the stupidest and most uninformed argument I have ever heard for why divorce should not be allowed. I would expect something like that to come from a child that believes in Princess Alice.

 

[Toni]

Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

But without any kids (from the marriage) staying together should be irrelevant to the state. I know nothing about this new Texas law but if I was writing such a law it would heavily take that into consideration.

The problem here is that "keep the family structure intact" isn't actually a possible option in many cases. You can keep the piece of paper, you can't actually ensure they function properly in their parental roles. Cultures where divorce doesn't happen don't magically have more successful relationships, they just have enemies under the same roof--probably worse for kids than divorce.

What about all the other marriages (with children) that could have and/or should have remained intact? But were dissolved simply because it was so easy and no one was accountable for standing true to their vows?

Holding no one accountable for their actions is not a good foundation for a sound marriage.

And why do you assume there are a decent number of such marriages?

Because there are no fault divorce laws and other financial incentives (aka welfare and tax laws) given for not making a traditional marriage work.

I'm not saying the government should make 2 partners who hate each other live together. But it should not be government's role to create reasons and incentives for traditional marriage not to work. And "no fault divorce" is making it too easy especially if one of the partners is doing everything right and the other partner is trying to get out for all the wrong reasons.

"Create reasons and incentives for traditional marriage not to work?"

I think that you do have a point, although perhaps not the point you think you do have. In fact, many states have their welfare benefits structured so that they work against low income families if the parents stay together. Would it not be much more beneficial to allow people to keep their benefits, or at the very least, those related to birth control, pregnancy, childbirth and recovery, medical care for the entire family, SNAP and WIC, housing subsidies, subsidized childcare, affordable education/job training in order for people who make babies together to be able to stay together, legally married, and provide that better security for the children? I know families where the parents do NOT get married specifically because when they marry, they lose benefits they need for their children. Note: In every case, both parents are working.

It has taken me decades to get there but I am getting to the point where I DO support a universal basic income, along with universal health care, decent, affordable (subsidized) housing, childcare subsidies and enough good childcare options to meet demand, and free/affordable/sliding scale higher education and job training.

YES there are absolutely people who will milk the system for every penny they can grift. That is true now and will be true of any system anytime anywhere. Heck, we had a POTUS who used the office and is currently using his campaign for the grift, not because he had any sense of a duty to country or service to his country/fellow humans. People grift. Not all people and not even most people. But some do. Some people shop lift. Some people rob banks. Not many and rule breaking should be discouraged whenever it can be. But not at the expense of children growing up in an insecure environment, not knowing if they'll be able to finish out a semester at school, much less a school year, or if they will have food on the table at home instead of whatever the free meals at school are, and utilities on consistently, and get to go to the doctor when they or someone else in the family is sick.

 

[Patooka]

But it should not be government's role to create reasons and incentives for traditional marriage not to work.

I guess it's a good thing that they don't then.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But it should not be government's role to create reasons and incentives for traditional marriage not to work.

I guess it's a good thing that they don't then.

Plus we all know that people and government are different things, that government is bad and people are good. We all know that. Amirite?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In my experience (no kids, twice divorced, three times married, apparently a slow learner), divorce dramatically lowers the wealth of both parties, even when no children are involved, and even when the explicit costs are minimal. It's a lot more expensive to run two single person households than one two person household.

No. You are mixing up "wealth" with "standard of living". Yes, divorce lowers the standard of living but unless they fight and give a hefty chunk to the lawyers it does nothing to wealth

That's a rather pointless nitpick. Particularly given that ...

It's pointless for those who have little in the way of savings. It is not pointless amongst those who have appreciable assets.

--although many overlook the fact that half of the wealth was their partner's.

Most of the wealth of a married couple who own their own home is tied up in the home. Unless one of them can afford to buy out the other, they will need to sell (and will tend to need to take an early, hence low, offer), which will be considerably less than they could have expected to get if the sale were unforced, and probably dramatically less than they might have anticipated it's future worth to be.

Add to that the costs of then acquiring a new home (x2), in which lawyers, agents, bankers, and insurers all take their cuts, and it's a very expensive business.

Did I mention I have actually done this; Twice? I'm inclined to take my actual experience as more valuable than your guesses about how things might be in theory.

The pressure to sell isn't that great if they're being civil about it. A hostile divorce is very bad for both parties.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Because an intact family structure is very important to the children and it is in societies best interest to keep that family structure intact. Even if one of the partners isn't getting sexed like they want.

But without any kids (from the marriage) staying together should be irrelevant to the state. I know nothing about this new Texas law but if I was writing such a law it would heavily take that into consideration.

The problem here is that "keep the family structure intact" isn't actually a possible option in many cases. You can keep the piece of paper, you can't actually ensure they function properly in their parental roles. Cultures where divorce doesn't happen don't magically have more successful relationships, they just have enemies under the same roof--probably worse for kids than divorce.

What about all the other marriages (with children) that could have and/or should have remained intact? But were dissolved simply because it was so easy and no one was accountable for standing true to their vows?

Holding no one accountable for their actions is not a good foundation for a sound marriage.

And why do you assume there are a decent number of such marriages?

Because there are no fault divorce laws and other financial incentives (aka welfare and tax laws) given for not making a traditional marriage work.

The existence of no-fault laws is simply about recognizing that marriages can fail without one big cause.

And I see you're back on the welfare queen bit--you're forgetting the spouse is still on the hook for child support. And there's very rarely a tax advantage for splitting up--the only case where splitting has much of a tax benefit is when they have similar incomes but one has very large deductions that are being limited by the combined income. Typically this means very large medical bills. Without this the usual result is higher total taxes. The marriage penalty was mostly removed long ago.

I'm not saying the government should make 2 partners who hate each other live together. But it should not be government's role to create reasons and incentives for traditional marriage not to work. And "no fault divorce" is making it too easy especially if one of the partners is doing everything right and the other partner is trying to get out for all the wrong reasons.

I see no such incentives other than in right wing outrage.

And even if they don't start out hating each other the resentment of being tethered to the other one is likely to end up with hate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That would certainly be a step in the right direction. Just holding people accountable makes a lot of sense IMO. If only one partner is seriously screwing up than that person should be accountable for their actions. Let the person who really did screw up take a big financial hit in the settlement. Marriages with children should at least be incentivized by the government to act like adults and stay together wherever possible.

In the end, the couple may still become separated but at least government would not be helping to make it happen.

Rarely is it one party innocent, one party guilty. Most failures are mutual even if the trigger is one-sided. (Hint: Adultry is usually a result of the breakdown of a marriage, not the cause of it. Straying is usually because the relationship was neglected, it's usually not out of the blue. Of the marriages I've seen ended by adultry every one had clear signs of trouble before the adultry happened, although the non-straying partner was blind to them.)