The Return to Fault-Based Divorce (1 Viewer)

[Iron]

Opposition ready to debate fault-based divorce | The Courier-Mail

[Tony Abbott], senior Liberal frontbencher and prominent Catholic politician revealed at the weekend that he will make the case for a return to a fault-based system of divorce in his new book in a push to strengthen family values.

Bring it on, woo. Thoughts on this potentially very exciting new potential opposition policy? It would assure them my vote, I must say

 

[B_B_J]

Tony Abbott (born 4 November, 1957), is well known within Australia as the foul-mouthed national figurehead of the Catholic Church, and as being a member of the famous comic duo Abbott and Costello. He also happens to be a politician, apparently. He has been the voice behind many attempts to pass abortion legislation through the Australian Parliament, rather ironically considering he was actually a failed abortion himself, and his name has been heard many times recently in relation to the controversy over the RU468 abortion pill, of which he is a staunch supporter. He is known as Beelzebub to many but most simply refer to him as fuck-up.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Tony_Abbott

 

[Iron]

mister abbott get ur rosaries off mai ovaries

na he's awesome

 

[Serius]

You are right, it is a pretty exciting idea. I dont support it, but nevertheless it does raise some interesting questions. Is there actually any negitive consequence to being found at fault, like there is in i think california? over there the one at fault gets less [and in extreme cases, none] of the share of the couples possessions.

It kind of seems like a good idea, cheating on your partner is a terrible thing....but at the same time, wouldnt this encourage more spying and distrust over all? so if you didnt love them anymore and wanted a divorce, hire people to sleep with them covertly, hire private investigators to spy on them and collect evidence then YOU WIN at divorce courts.

 

[loquasagacious]

You are right, it is a pretty exciting idea. I dont support it, but nevertheless it does raise some interesting questions. Is there actually any negitive consequence to being found at fault, like there is in i think california? over there the one at fault gets less [and in extreme cases, none] of the share of the couples possessions.

It kind of seems like a good idea, cheating on your partner is a terrible thing....but at the same time, wouldnt this encourage more spying and distrust over all? so if you didnt love them anymore and wanted a divorce, hire people to sleep with them covertly, hire private investigators to spy on them and collect evidence then YOU WIN at divorce courts.

So if we assume that some people make some bad decisions get married, have kids and it isn't working.

In an ideal world they reach this conclusion mutually, divorce and have an amicable arrangement around joint custody. Fault-based divorce would seem to undermine the basis of any amicable seperation and therefore actually be deterimental to familes.

 

[mcflystargirl]

this is good in the following ways:
1. If divorce is harder to get then it might encourage people think more about if they should marry in the first place, i believe to many have the opinion that if they get married, and are un-happy it is not an issue all they have to do is get a divorce. This is terrible view of marriage to have, as you are making promises to be with that person for the rest of your life

2. people who are married might be more willing to work through there problems then having a messy divorse

It i bad in that:
1. any kids involved will have to go through a tougher time then they already do

 

[loquasagacious]

this is good in the following ways:
1. If divorce is harder to get then it might encourage people think more about if they should marry in the first place, i believe to many have the opinion that if they get married, and are un-happy it is not an issue all they have to do is get a divorce. This is terrible view of marriage to have, as you are making promises to be with that person for the rest of your life

2. people who are married might be more willing to work through there problems then having a messy divorse

It i bad in that:
1. any kids involved will have to go through a tougher time then they already do

1. only works if the no-fault laws are only applicable to new marriages.
2. Unhappy married life > happy divorce ?

 

[Lentern]

I found this quite amusing.

 

[quik.]

Were I ever to get married I would have a prenup for situations such as cheating or whatever

Can't really see how these laws would even benefit, you should just take your shit and divide dual assets as fairly as possible, if you disagree lawyer up and make sure you pay for the better one

 

[Iron]

At the core of the fault based system was the need to protect the children of the marriage - from poverty/becoming wards of the state to general psychological ruin based on the assumption that a child needs the balance of a ying and a wang to properly develop.

I'm totally for this, not least because I believe that couples will more likely work things out, if not for the sake of the children, then because of jonny law. The result is that the marital couple actual grow and mature into deeper and richer human beings and know that they arent free to do whatever pleases themselves. It would restore a moral basis and meaning to marriage which will flow into a regrowth of all society. I mean, it's not uncommon to hear Christians like me put most of this country's problems down to Whitlam and no-fault.

We talk so much about rights; I think it's time to look at a few duties.

 

[jb_nc]

lol thats a joke, tony abbot is a fucking idiot

 

[Graney]

"Something akin to Matrimonial Causes Act marriage ought to be an option for people who would like it," Mr Abbott told Fairfax newspapers.

I don't get it, is it an option, or is it enforced?

 

[TommySix]

I don't get it, is it an option, or is it enforced?

So offer two kinds of marriage? Marriage 'Lite' and Marriage 'Full Version' ?

There is no point to a fault based system besides as a limiter on who gets what and how much. Divorces are messy enough as they are and traumatic for both parties as well as the children and two unhappy parents being forced to stick together will just cause mental break down that will filter down to the children.

If the die hard Christians want it, then THEY can choose to stick it out and not impose their ludicrous standards on others through legislation.

 

[loquasagacious]

The basis of the proposal is to discourage divorce by blaming and punishing a partner.

Implicit in this are two contentious propositions:
- Divorce is a bad thing
- One partner is to blame

I think we can all acknowledge that while divorces may be messy they are still better than a loveless, resentful or even violent marriage. They are therefore not a bad thing.

The failure or success of a marriage comes down to both partners. Sure it's probably only one partner who cheats, but why are they cheating? Because the relationship isn't working. Why isn't the relationship working? Any myriad of reasons but mostly they are reasons which involve two people. Falling out of love takes two, just like falling in love.

 

[Iron]

Violence shouldnt be an issue. If assault etc is occuring within the union, then there would be a valid reason for the abused partner to apply for divorce based on the illegal conduct of the other spouse. The violent partner would be at fault and divorce would be granted.

In terms of lovelessness and resent, I again plead to you to think of the children. There is no such thing as the perfect marriage, or even the perfect casual relationship. People should take off the rose-tinted glasses and realise that nothing is going to make them perfectly happy in this world. I think we can all agree on this. I'd agree that both are to blame to some extent, especially morally, but at the end of the day there is one act that breaks the law and the partner who dared stray outside its tight bounds should be punished. How is it fair to tarnish the reputation of the partner who was willing to persevere with the relationship? Why socially ruin them? What about the children!??

 

[JonathanM]

In terms of lovelessness and resent, I again plead to you to think of the children. There is no such thing as the perfect marriage, or even the perfect casual relationship. People should take off the rose-tinted glasses and realise that nothing is going to make them perfectly happy in this world. I think we can all agree on this. I'd agree that both are to blame to some extent, especially morally, but at the end of the day there is one act that breaks the law and the partner who dared stray outside its tight bounds should be punished. How is it fair to tarnish the reputation of the partner who was willing to persevere with the relationship? Why socially ruin them? What about the children!??

I can see your point though and I would agree that in most cases divorces may be frivolous. What would be your take on divorces due to infidelity (a common cause)?

 

[Iron]

I can see your point though and I would agree that in most cases divorces may be frivolous. What would be your take on divorces due to infidelity (a common cause)?

I'm very happy with that cause. The faithful partner is vindicated as morally upright in a court of law, rather than sharing equal blame for marital failure.

The point is that a spouse shouldnt be able to 'end' something as important as a marriage unilaterally and for any reason. There are too many other stakeholders involved, not least the children and parents etc who contribute significant financial and emotional donations. That being said, there are many good reasons to end a marriage and no one is suggesting that we overlook these

 

[Tully B.]

As a child of divorced parents, I am quite against this. As many have said before me, an unhappy marriage is far worse than a divorce, no matter how messy it may be.

 

[TommySix]

How is it fair to tarnish the reputation of the partner who was willing to persevere with the relationship? Why socially ruin them? What about the children!??

It takes two to make a relationship work, if one wants out, the other has no choice but to let him/her leave. How does this socially ruin the other partner?

 

[absorber]

There's rarely a divorce where purely one party's at fault. This is why no-fault divorce exists.