Do you believe people should be forced to remain married against their will?

[Del Tachi]

Dishonest poll.  Did New York State have "forced marriage" until 2010?  lol

And having to demonstrate fault in divorce cases is not "forced marriage."  Marriage is an agreement people freely enter into; if they later want to get out of it, there is nothing onerous about making them demonstrate a justified reason.  You have to do the same to get out of rental leases, sales agreements, mortgages, employment contracts, etc. 

Ideally, divorce should be processed as an adversarial civil action with one party having to demonstrate fault or culpability of the other.  There are many justified reasons for divorce - adultery, abandonment, felony, abuse, etc.  Judges need to hear these reasons and the totality of circumstances surrounding the dissolution of a marriage if they are going to fairly determine alimony, maintenance, property division, child custody, etc.   

[Del Tachi]

Dishonest poll.  Did New York State have "forced marriage" until 2010? 

It did, yes. Not sure what the argument otherwise would be

And having to demonstrate fault in divorce cases is not "forced marriage."  Marriage is an agreement people freely enter into; if they later want to get out of it, there is nothing onerous about making them demonstrate a justified reason.  You have to do the same to get out of rental leases, sales agreements, mortgages, employment contracts, etc.

Ideally, divorce should be processed as an adversarial civil action with one party having to demonstrate fault or culpability of the other.  There are many justified reasons for divorce - adultery, abandonment, felony, abuse, etc.  Judges need to hear these reasons and the totality of circumstances surrounding the dissolution of a marriage if they are going to fairly determine alimony, maintenance, property division, child custody, etc.   

You can generally get out of a contract if both parties mutually consent to termination, and you certainly don't need to show the state a reason. Why do you think the rules for divorce should be so radically different than the other types of agreement you listed?

But that generally isn't how divorce works.  No-fault divorces can be filed in most states by one spouse even if the other doesn't agree to it. 

[Del Tachi]

No-fault divorce with kids involved is narcissistic hedonism. Make parents demonstrate good cause or wait until the kids are grown up.

There are no circumstances where forcing parents to stay together against their will when kids are involved isn't cruel to the kids

Disagree.  Adults pursuing divorce are more than perfectly capable of being emotional, selfish and short-sighted much to the detriment of their kids (and this routinely does happen.)

And there are plenty of justified reasons to get divorced - abandonment, adultery, abuse, etc.  It's probably way better for parents to get divorced in those cases, but we're only talking about no-fault divorces here.   

[Del Tachi]

No-fault divorce with kids involved is narcissistic hedonism. Make parents demonstrate good cause or wait until the kids are grown up.

Kids are gonna realize if their parents are unhappy and don't really want to be together.  That situation is not going to make them happy. 

How can this be true when all of the social science literature suggests kids from divorced/single-parent households have much worse outcomes than kids with married parents?  Marriage offers a whole suite of advantages to families for which state policy can never be a perfect substitute

[Del Tachi]

Dishonest poll.  Did New York State have "forced marriage" until 2010? 

It did, yes. Not sure what the argument otherwise would be

And having to demonstrate fault in divorce cases is not "forced marriage."  Marriage is an agreement people freely enter into; if they later want to get out of it, there is nothing onerous about making them demonstrate a justified reason.  You have to do the same to get out of rental leases, sales agreements, mortgages, employment contracts, etc.

Ideally, divorce should be processed as an adversarial civil action with one party having to demonstrate fault or culpability of the other.  There are many justified reasons for divorce - adultery, abandonment, felony, abuse, etc.  Judges need to hear these reasons and the totality of circumstances surrounding the dissolution of a marriage if they are going to fairly determine alimony, maintenance, property division, child custody, etc.   

You can generally get out of a contract if both parties mutually consent to termination, and you certainly don't need to show the state a reason. Why do you think the rules for divorce should be so radically different than the other types of agreement you listed?

But that generally isn't how divorce works.  No-fault divorces can be filed in most states by one spouse even if the other doesn't agree to it. 

And that's how it should be.  One spouse shouldn't be able to hold the other hostage. 

Should a landlord be able to hold a tenant hostage?  One party cannot initiate termination of a lease agreement without cause.  Why should marriage be any different? 

[Del Tachi]

Dishonest poll.  Did New York State have "forced marriage" until 2010? 

It did, yes. Not sure what the argument otherwise would be

And having to demonstrate fault in divorce cases is not "forced marriage."  Marriage is an agreement people freely enter into; if they later want to get out of it, there is nothing onerous about making them demonstrate a justified reason.  You have to do the same to get out of rental leases, sales agreements, mortgages, employment contracts, etc.

Ideally, divorce should be processed as an adversarial civil action with one party having to demonstrate fault or culpability of the other.  There are many justified reasons for divorce - adultery, abandonment, felony, abuse, etc.  Judges need to hear these reasons and the totality of circumstances surrounding the dissolution of a marriage if they are going to fairly determine alimony, maintenance, property division, child custody, etc.   

You can generally get out of a contract if both parties mutually consent to termination, and you certainly don't need to show the state a reason. Why do you think the rules for divorce should be so radically different than the other types of agreement you listed?

But that generally isn't how divorce works.  No-fault divorces can be filed in most states by one spouse even if the other doesn't agree to it. 

How does it benefit the couple or society to force them to stay together against one or both of their wills?

The societal benefit is that marriage encourages people to share resources and plan for the future in a way that benefits multiple outcomes like household income, parenting quality, health insurance, home ownership, etc.

If your spouse is a deadbeat or abusive then you probably aren't going to capture most of these benefits, but that's establishing cause for a divorce.  We're explicitly talking about the no-cause scenario ITT.   

[Del Tachi]

Dishonest poll.  Did New York State have "forced marriage" until 2010? 

It did, yes. Not sure what the argument otherwise would be

And having to demonstrate fault in divorce cases is not "forced marriage."  Marriage is an agreement people freely enter into; if they later want to get out of it, there is nothing onerous about making them demonstrate a justified reason.  You have to do the same to get out of rental leases, sales agreements, mortgages, employment contracts, etc.

Ideally, divorce should be processed as an adversarial civil action with one party having to demonstrate fault or culpability of the other.  There are many justified reasons for divorce - adultery, abandonment, felony, abuse, etc.  Judges need to hear these reasons and the totality of circumstances surrounding the dissolution of a marriage if they are going to fairly determine alimony, maintenance, property division, child custody, etc.   

You can generally get out of a contract if both parties mutually consent to termination, and you certainly don't need to show the state a reason. Why do you think the rules for divorce should be so radically different than the other types of agreement you listed?

But that generally isn't how divorce works.  No-fault divorces can be filed in most states by one spouse even if the other doesn't agree to it. 

How does it benefit the couple or society to force them to stay together against one or both of their wills?

The societal benefit is that marriage encourages people to share resources and plan for the future in a way that benefits multiple outcomes like household income, parenting quality, health insurance, home ownership, etc.

That's the social benefit of marriage. I asked what is the benefit of forcing people to do it against their will?

Well, ideally we should want as many people as possible to be and stay married as to reap the rewards of these social benefits.

Allowing people to get divorced for no reason makes it too easy.  If one spouse can file for divorce without cause, there is less incentive for people to stay together and work things out.  If people find reasons to stay together, then most unhappy marriages will only be unhappy for a short period of time.     

Irreconcilable differences between spouses can be justification for a divorce, but it should generally only be allowed after a good faith effort by both parties to save their marriage has been demonstrated (>6 months.) 

[Del Tachi]

Dishonest poll.  Did New York State have "forced marriage" until 2010? 

It did, yes. Not sure what the argument otherwise would be

And having to demonstrate fault in divorce cases is not "forced marriage."  Marriage is an agreement people freely enter into; if they later want to get out of it, there is nothing onerous about making them demonstrate a justified reason.  You have to do the same to get out of rental leases, sales agreements, mortgages, employment contracts, etc.

Ideally, divorce should be processed as an adversarial civil action with one party having to demonstrate fault or culpability of the other.  There are many justified reasons for divorce - adultery, abandonment, felony, abuse, etc.  Judges need to hear these reasons and the totality of circumstances surrounding the dissolution of a marriage if they are going to fairly determine alimony, maintenance, property division, child custody, etc.   

You can generally get out of a contract if both parties mutually consent to termination, and you certainly don't need to show the state a reason. Why do you think the rules for divorce should be so radically different than the other types of agreement you listed?

But that generally isn't how divorce works.  No-fault divorces can be filed in most states by one spouse even if the other doesn't agree to it. 

And that's how it should be.  One spouse shouldn't be able to hold the other hostage. 

Should a landlord be able to hold a tenant hostage?  One party cannot initiate termination of a lease agreement without cause.  Why should marriage be any different? 

I find this argument rather absurd.  An agreement to stay married to someone for the rest of your life is not, by its very nature, a normal agreement.  It's quite different in what it entails than a landlord/tenant or any similar agreement.  I shouldn't even have to explain why.

"I shouldn't have to explain why" really means "I don't have a reason why."

Our society's traditional insistence on virtue has been replaced with the "Me, Me, Me!" do-whatever-makes-you-happy morality of a Disney movie.  People are quick to justify their behavior only on the basis of it not actively *hurting* someone else, while ignoring the inability of a bare do-no-harm principle to build real human trust, connection, and community.  We then all stand back and gawk over why our civic culture is sicker than ever before.   

It takes a collective insistence on fixed virtues to cultivate the kind of environment where societies and families naturally flourish.  Skating through life letting people do "whatever makes them happy" leaves a lot of broken families and individuals along the way.   

[Del Tachi]

Well, ideally we should want as many people as possible to be and stay married as to reap the rewards of these social benefits.

Allowing people to get divorced for no reason makes it too easy.  If one spouse can file for divorce without cause, there is less incentive for people to stay together and work things out.  If people find reasons to stay together, then most unhappy marriages will only be unhappy for a short period of time.

Irreconcilable differences between spouses can be justification for a divorce, but it should generally only be allowed after a good faith effort by both parties to save their marriage has been demonstrated (>6 months.) 

That's a reason to give a couple personal advice to stay together and work things out. That is not a justification to legally prohibit them for divorcing. 

No one should be legally prohibited from divorcing if they can justify why.  It's when there's no stated reason for divorce that the state has the responsibility to step-in and pump the brakes.     

Also, it hasn't been said yet but this is a good point:  allowing no-fault divorce allows a lot of abusers and adulterers to get off scot-free.  That's why women's rights organizations mostly opposed no-fault divorce laws back in the 1950s-70s.  If a man is abusing or cheating on his wife, family courts need to consider those factors when determining alimony, spousal support, child custody, etc.

[Del Tachi]

No-fault divorce with kids involved is narcissistic hedonism. Make parents demonstrate good cause or wait until the kids are grown up.

Kids are gonna realize if their parents are unhappy and don't really want to be together.  That situation is not going to make them happy. 

How can this be true when all of the social science literature suggests kids from divorced/single-parent households have much worse outcomes than kids with married parents?  Marriage offers a whole suite of advantages to families for which state policy can never be a perfect substitute

You're never going to get the anti-family crowd to acknowledge the selfishness of no-fault divorce. Most people these days are all-in on the idea that "growing apart" is a fair reason for destroying a family and forcing children to adjust to life in a broken home while navigating the already difficult experience of growing up.

You and DT don't seem to grasp that just because you believe something is morally wrong doesn't necessarily mean you have a moral right to use the law to force that belief on others. 

What else is even the point of the law, human society, etc. than to enforce and uphold a collectively held set of moral beliefs and attitudes? 

[Del Tachi]

But the majority opinion isn't always right.  Some things should be left up to the individual.  Otherwise, how can we even claim to believe in personal liberty?

This is itself a moral judgment.  I thought you said the law wasn't supposed to enforce morality?

And I find this whole argument about divorce being "emotionally damaging"--whether to children or anyone else--to be downright pathetic.  We've gone to war--and killed many innocent bystanders in the process--for things much less tangible that the right to have or not have consensual relationships/marriages of one's choosing. 

Decades of research have shown that divorce negatively affects children.  I'm sorry if this is inconvenient for your "live and let live" sexual ethic. 

Taking a stand that the option for no-fault divorce is necessary for "the right to have or not have relationships/marriages" is bizarre.  I'll ask again - were people not allowed to freely marry in New York State prior to 2010?  or the UK before 2020?  or in most U.S. states and Western countries prior to the most recent 20-30 years?

[Del Tachi]

But the majority opinion isn't always right.  Some things should be left up to the individual.  Otherwise, how can we even claim to believe in personal liberty?

This is itself a moral judgment.  I thought you said the law wasn't supposed to enforce morality?

Ah yes, there's no right more precious than the right to oppress other people...

You don't even know what you're talking about. 

[Del Tachi]

I also think it's quite disturbing that so many Republicans on this forum, who on average are more moderate than non atlas Republicans, support "forcing people to remain married against their will" because that tells me a huge number of non atlas Republicans support that and worse.

Disagree.  Divorce is such a readily accepted and common circumstance in our country that few people spend much time thinking about it.  Ideological online conservative types are exactly the type of folks you'd expect to have well-formed issue opinions about divorce.  The bulk of actual Republican voters are not particularly (socially) conservative to the same extent folks like ER are. 

[Del Tachi]

Decades of research have shown that divorce negatively affects children.  I'm sorry if this is inconvenient for your "live and let live" sexual ethic.

If you're so concerned with the negative impacts on children, then why would you allow divorce in the case of cheating? You've said that infidelity is sufficient grounds for a divorce, so why is that an acceptable reason to allow these negative effects to take place, but not merely falling out of love?

You say it yourself.  Adultery is a violation of the oath of marriage, whereas "merely" falling out of love isn't.  An act of infidelity voids the marriage contract; shifting feelings do not.  That being said, there are plenty of couples who reconstitute and recommit their marriages in the aftermath of adultery (many do so exactly for the sake of their children.)  Why is the same too much to ask for married couples who have simply lost feels?     

Taking a stand that the option for no-fault divorce is necessary for "the right to have or not have relationships/marriages" is bizarre.  I'll ask again - were people not allowed to freely marry in New York State prior to 2010?  or the UK before 2020?  or in most U.S. states and Western countries prior to the most recent 20-30 years?

No, they were not.

This is a patently ridiculous thing to believe.