Before the 1960s, it was really hard to get divorced in America.
Typically, the only way to do it was to convince a judge that your spouse had committed some form of wrongdoing, like adultery, abandonment, or “cruelty” (that is, abuse). This could be difficult: “Even if you could prove you had been hit, that didn’t necessarily mean it rose to the level of cruelty that justified a divorce,” said Marcia Zug, a family law professor at the University of South Carolina.
Then came a revolution: In 1969, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan of California (who was himself divorced) signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce law, allowing people to end their marriages without proving they’d been wronged. The move was a recognition that “people were going to get out of marriages,” Zug said, and gave them a way to do that without resorting to subterfuge. Similar laws soon swept the country, and rates of domestic violence and spousal murder began to drop as people — especially women — gained more freedom to leave dangerous situations.
Today, however, a counter-revolution is brewing: Conservative commentators and lawmakers are calling for an end to no-fault divorce, arguing that it has harmed men and even destroyed the fabric of society. Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers, for example, introduced a bill in January to ban his state’s version of no-fault divorce. The Texas Republican Party added a call to end the practice to its 2022 platform (the plank is preserved in the 2024 version). Federal lawmakers like Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and House Speaker Mike Johnson, as well as former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, have spoken out in favor of tightening divorce laws.
Maybe instead of getting rid of divorce, just make divorce fair for both parties?
That's what no-fault divorce is. All assets are split 50/50 with no emphasis or prejudice given to who caused the divorce with infidelity, violence, etc.
Not only is it fair, its way, way easier than establishing blame and then some kind of punitive split of assets that will be fought over and appealed even more than the current system of "equal, equal."
The fair has already been solved. It's what we have now.
So, if you are married for a day (after, lets say a drunken wedding in Vegas), the person you are married to gets 50% of your assets and you get 50% of theirs? I think a fairer way is either keep all assets separate or have some sort of automatic pre-nup for all marriages.
No, generally that marriage would be annulled. Its far too short for any mingling of assets, so none would be split.
Generally any individual assets prior to a marriage stay individual. If you own a house outright and marry, your spouse doesnt immediatly get half of it. If you buy a house after you marry, then yes the house is split as its an asset that both parties put value into. It's like an automatic pre-nup for marriages that already exists.
Despite the ridiculous scenario you imagined above, judges and lawyers aren't actually idiots. You dont have to make up hypotheticals to figure out how asset sharing in marriage or divorce works. The law is pretty clear, and there are millions of examples of both you can easily research instead of deciding there is something to be outraged about.
That guy is just repeating what he heard on the radio or from some drunk guy at a bar. He's not putting any thoughts into it.
Besides what you mentioned, there are pre-nups, post-nups, trusts, and other complicated ways that rich families use to protect their assets from gold-diggers. Marriage is a legal contract and it can be modified with other legal contracts.
In a lot of cases, "trust fund kids" don't even own their house or car. It's all held in a trust so no one, not even them, can have it. If they divorce there's nothing to split but some cash and whatever furniture or toys they own.
In practice, I believe the pre or post-nup gives some consideration (money) to the spouse who isn't rich so they won't sue. But it's not 50/50 because the trust fund kid legally doesn't own much.
Yeah, Im not even sure if he knows what hes arguing about.
All of these "problems" these conservatives are whinging about are already understood and settled with our current system. The default works well for the vast majority, and when it doesnt, you can change it. Easy.
Issue in that case I rather see as why is it allowed to enter into legally binding agreements when you aren't sober. Why there isn't a (forced) period to review the papers.
Marriage is a legally binding agreement. Let's treat it as such.
The law can't protect dumbasses from themselves, unfortunately.