The Return to Fault-Based Divorce (2 Viewers)

[absorber]

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.

This

 

[Iron]

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?

I think your language 'socially ruin' is exaggerated, but not without merit. Being divorced isnt exactly a credit to you; it shows a profound failure in your personal life that could spill over into other areas - like an employer considering your position re reliability, control etc. It's not fair that one partner is able to inflict this damage on another for any reason. The other big issue is the children who need both parents and, left to themselves/without law, parents are too selfish to realise this until it's too late and the children grow up to hate them and view the world in similar uncompromisingly selfish terms

 

[loquasagacious]

Private eyes dread a return to infidelity on camera

PICTURE this: a husband so desperate to escape an unhappy marriage that he commits fraud to "expose" himself in an act of infidelity. He hires a prostitute to act as his lover and a private investigator to burst into a motel room and photograph them in flagrante delicto.

Australia's private investigators can recall the boom days of a seedy, sordid business, when a spouse would go to such extremes to get a divorce. Until the arrival of no-fault divorce laws in 1975, a marriage could not be dissolved unless one spouse was found, in effect, to be the guilty party. Commonly it was for adultery, more often for desertion. Otherwise cruelty, drunkenness, imprisonment or insanity might be grounds for divorce.

Now Tony Abbott , the prominent Liberal and Catholic, wants to turn back the clock.

 

[Iron]

Hahaha. If they want to destroy their own reputation like that, then let them. The point is that marriage should be srs business. A party to a business contract cant withdraw for whatever reason he/she likes. How is marriage, involving the most fundamental relationships of a society, less important?

 

[Tully B.]

Just because we don't treat marriage like any other business contract doesn't mean we don't consider it important, rather we think it quite different in nature. This is a contract which binds 2 people, not just financially but socially as well. There are many more reasons why a marriage should happen to break up then a business contract, and many more consequences if that breaking up is prevented.

 

[loquasagacious]

Hahaha. If they want to destroy their own reputation like that, then let them. The point is that marriage should be srs business. A party to a business contract cant withdraw for whatever reason he/she likes. How is marriage, involving the most fundamental relationships of a society, less important?

And what about the even more tawdry business of entrapment? A loveless marriage exists and partners have a very strong incentive to push their partner to adultery. Culminating of course in one partner hiring a private investigator / prostitute to lure their partner into infidelity.

This would see scenarios like those presented in Cheaters become the norm, hardly a desirable outcome.

 

[Iron]

Haha I applaud cheaters for its attempt, albeit dubious, to morally bring unfaithful partners to account for their selfish and dishonest actions.
If one partner can be lured out of their marital committments, then they deserve to be divorced.

 

[loquasagacious]

And what about the notion that the majority of men can be lured out of their commitments? Some argue that there exists an evolutionary and social conditioning to never turn down a free-ride (unless she's really ugly).

 

[Iron]

I wouldnt really accept that. Youre either faithful to your partner or youre not imo. If all it takes to break your vows is a hired prostitute, then sobeit. Actually, id recommend all priests to hire prostitues of all varieties - male, female, gay etc to follow couples who have registered their intention to get married in the church

 

[Tully B.]

Knowing priests, they'd probably hire the prostitutes for more than just "information".

*Braces for Iron rage*

 

[Iron]

Abbott's divorce proposal 'ludicrous' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Mr Abbott's plan would see heterosexual couples offered an alternative to the current law allowing divorce after a 12-month separation.

"The point I make in the book is that a society that is moving towards some kind of recognition of gay unions, for instance, is surely capable of providing additional recognition to what might be thought of as traditional marriage," Mr Abbott told Fairfax newspapers.

"Something akin to a Matrimonial Causes Act marriage ought to be an option for people who would like it.

"Even though [marriage] is probably the most important commitment that any human being can make, in fact there are many, many contracts which are harder to enter and harder to get out of than this one."

--
But Mr Dowding does not think there is any room for Mr Abbott's argument in Australian politics.

"I don't like people who are right-wing judgemental Catholics trying to bring their religious politics into Australian life," he said.

"We're not a bunch of Americans. We don't go round with our politicians pretending to be deeply religious and demanding that everyone else be while they go around committing adultery on the side, as they do in America.

"And we don't want to be in a position where people with right-wing and intolerant attitudes, like Tony Abbott, control what people believe.

Wait, so is Abbott just proposing to make fault-based divorce optional upon registration? That's weak as bru.

 

[matthew.mclean]

The so called "social ruining" would be exacerbated by returning to a fault system.

Imagine the burning question on every body's mind as soon as an acquaintance divorces, were you the guilty one or were they the guilty one?

The Liberal party has always promoted individual choice, it would be surprising if they moved towards a policy that legally stifled those values they claim to champion.

Yet perhaps laws regarding divorce do need adjusting, not those regulating the cause for dissolution rather those that deal with settlement.

Say for example, one partner commits adultery, the ramifications of which could cripple the marriage, tarnish the children and plague the lives of all parties involved. The status quo would not punish the perpetrator of infidelity nor effect the settlement they receive.

Now, I'm aware that pre-nuptal agreements can counter this, but no one wants to add to their wedding vows "honey, I want to be with you forever, but just in case sign this".

If fault was introduced into settlement laws, then maybe, just maybe, husbands and wives would put in that extra little bit of effort into making their marriage work. It's a shame that with divorce-rates almost in the majority, we see marriage as a disposable institution. So maybe the conservative Abbott is right, we do need to move on this issue. Perhaps though we should move forward, rather than back.

 

[loquasagacious]

And the law proposed is optional so if enacted couples would get several choices:

De facto: Hey you have a toothbrush at my house?! And your furniture?! Oh well hope this works out...

Marriage: I will love you and hope for the best....

Pre-nup: I will love you in sickness and in health, until such time as I no longer do, at which point this pre-nup agreement will expedite our divorce.

Fault-based: I will love and cherish you 'till death do us part... or until we fall out of love at which point I will stay with you because I am legally obliged to do so, when I grow tired of that I will attempt to trick or otherwise encourage you into being the at fault spouse.

 

[Tully B.]

loquasagacious' post may seem cynical to some, but it's quite a fitting summary of the situation.
Now, the question which needs to be asked (especially since the husband and wife seem to be fucked no matter what they do) is what is best for the children?

 

[JonathanM]

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.

Same here. However, although I would probably be psychologically better off due to there being less fights etc. (WW3, srsly), in a practical/physical sense it's an absolute pain in the arse having divorced parents, especially with shared custody (half my stuff in two different houses, transportation problems, having to get double of stuff like school uniforms etc.).

 

[Tully B.]

Yeah, it's pretty damn annoying. I stay at either house for half of the week, and I always forget where my stuff is. It shits me to christmas when I forget school books. Still better than dealing with fighting parents though.

 

[JonathanM]

Yeah, it's pretty damn annoying. I stay at either house for half of the week, and I always forget where my stuff is. It shits me to christmas when I forget school books. Still better than dealing with fighting parents though.

Best excuse for handing in homework late or wearing the wrong uniform tho, amirite?

 

[Iron]

Yeah, I suppose that it would have a similar 'pre-nup' problem, as it would be seen as the most hard-core marriage you can get and, I assume, most couples about to wed are sure that the marriage will last forever, or will at least be reluctant to acknowledge that they dont see the union lasting long (why get married then?). Going for the current, weaker form of marriage would be awkward.

I therefore resupport this push and the subtle moral manipulation therein. Right-wing Catholics ftw

 

[loquasagacious]

Yeah, I suppose that it would have a similar 'pre-nup' problem, as it would be seen as the most hard-core marriage you can get and, I assume, most couples about to wed are sure that the marriage will last forever, or will at least be reluctant to acknowledge that they dont see the union lasting long (why get married then?). Going for the current, weaker form of marriage would be awkward.

I therefore resupport this push and the subtle moral manipulation therein. Right-wing Catholics ftw

That would only apply if the proposal was opt-out not opt-in.

 

[Iron]

Herm? I mean, like, pre-nups are opt-in, but it's still a sensitive issue for a partner to raise it, because youre essentially showing that you anticipate an end of the marriage before it begins