No Fault Divorce On Equal Footing

Which marriages meet the requirements for dissolution is defined by legal standards. Over the last 200 years, the grounds for divorce in Western societies have expanded. These expansions have made divorce more accessible. Although the divorce rate has increased, there is not a clear link between the accessibility and this increase. Other key influences effecting divorce rates include economic, social, cultural, demographic and institutional factors.

There is a staggeringly large amount of divorces in the United States (US). In total, the US had a recorded total of 2,140,272 marriages in the year 2014 alone, and of those marriages, 813,862 ended up in divorce or annulment (Center for Disease Control). This means that as recently as 2014, there was a divorce rate of approximately 40%. This supports the statistics that the divorce rate for the US has stayed within 40-50% since the 1970’s (Austin Institute, 2014). While the numbers themselves are important, it is also important that the causes for the high divorce rate be explored, so that it can be known what pitfalls to avoid when participating in such an important union as marriage. There are many causes of divorce in the US such as conflicting gender roles, socioeconomic status, religious conflicts, physical abuse, emotional abuse, alcohol addictions, and many more (Amato & Previti, 2003). This paper will look at many of these reasons, but it will also focus on the differing reasons reported by men and women.

In Andrew J. Cherlin’s essay “American Marriage In Transition”, he discusses how marriage in America is evolving from the universal marriage. Cherlin’s definition of the universal marriage in his essay is the man is the breadwinner of the household and the woman is the homemaker. In the 20th century according to Cherlin, the meaning of marriage has been altered such as the changing division of labor, childbearing outside of marriage, cohabitation, gay marriage and the result of long- term cultural and material trends (1154). During the first transition of marriage, Cherlin discusses how in America, Europe, and Canada the only socially accepted way to have sexual relations with a person and to have children is to be married (1154). The second change in marriage occurred in 2000, where the median age of marriage in the United States for men is 27 and women is 25 (1155). Many young adults stayed single during this time and focused on their education and starting their careers. During the second change, the role of law increasingly changed, especially in the role of law in divorce (1155). It is proven in today’s research marriage has a different definition than what it did back in the 1950’s. Today marriage can be defined as getting married to the same gender or getting remarried to someone who already has kids. The roles in a marriage are evolving to be a little more flexible and negotiable. However, women still do a lot of the basic household chores and taking care of the

Marriage is a relationship is about coming together in which two people have promised themselves being with each other. However, marriage in the United States has changed in the 1950s from what it is today. Marriage in the 1950s was different because there was no such idea of a divorce because women had to fix their marriage. (Tartakovsky). Yet, marriage that occurs today people can get a divorce in America. Marriage is better today in America than in the 1950s because of more freedom and not being pressured into marriage in society. This time period 2015 for me is more preferable to live in for marriages instead of in the 1950s. Although marriage is a union between two people, there is a

Today, alternative long-term relationships are growing in times in heterosexual and LGBTQ relationships. Cohabitation is defined by “Recent Changes in Family Structure” as quote: “an intimate relationship that includes a common living place and which exists without the benefit of legal, cultural, or religious sanction.” Between 2005 and 2009 2/3 of relationships approximately were preceded by cohabitation (“Rise of Cohabitation” 2014.) This arrangement is less committed and therefore it takes longer to end, without much emotional devastation of a pricey divorces. Most marriages still begin with cohabitation. However, it is becoming less and less likely that cohabitation will end in a marriage. Marriage is still common in today’s culture, with approximately 60.25 million married couples in 2016 (“Number of married couples in the United States from 1960 to 2016 (in millions)” 2016.) This is evident why it is killing the nuclear family standard. People are having less desire to fully commit to a marriage in the first place. 1950 social standards would have never accepted an unmarried couple as a part of a normal life so only can a legal marriage constitutes the ideal set forth. Another, way to break the standard is remove some components.

Although marriage is a societal value, there has been a sharp increase in the instances of alternative family relationships, a phenomenon the law has been relatively quick to respond to. BOCSAR figures show that from 1987 to 2007, the number of married couples developed from 63% to 62%, which in the same period the number of de facto relationships (both heterosexual and homosexual) grew from 6% to 9%. As such, a new movement sources desire for

The expenses for divorce have increased over the past several decades since divorce became a prominent thing in society. The cost of the divorce industry is approximately $50 billion a year, which comes from the pockets of divorcing couples and the taxpayers who support the state agencies involved (McElroy, 2014). According to a study done by the Marriage and Religion Research Institute, marriages have been proved to promote economic growth, while divorce slows it down. When couples are divorced, it means there will be more households which means more housing, power and resources are required (Haury, 2012). However, with the way that the law is currently, it saves time and money than it would if it were any different. With a longer waiting period like Cathy Meyer suggests, it would cost even more

The United States of America is the land of the free and the home of the brave; however, it can also be called the country that holds the highest divorce rates. America’s divorce rate in 2010 was at forty one percent and is still currently growing (Divorce Rates by Country). Forty percent of these divorces had children involved (Divorce Rates in America). With such shocking statistics, it is easy to see that America’s divorce system is in dire need of change. Since divorce can ruin families, harm a child’s all around well-being, and holds the potential of being prevented, there should be more strict regulations to receive a divorce and a stronger push for covenant marriages.

Throughout history, divorce has remained a controversial topic. Perceptions of divorce have drastically changed essentially because the value of marriage has changed. Marriage was once seen as a practical necessity and an irrevocable commitment. The view of marriage caused divorce to be perceived as a stigma. Divorce in earlier generations was not granted by the court system unless there were extenuating circumstances (Evolution). For example, if the woman in the marriage was unable to conceive children the divorce would be granted to the man. This remained the standard practice until the 1970’s with the introduction of “no-fault divorces” (Croteau).

In her essay “ Dispelling The Myth Of Gender Bias In The Family Court System,” Cathy Meyer, a certified marriage educator and divorce coach, tries to prove that courts have no bias and are not the cause of mothers obtaining custody in the majority of divorces. To support her conclusion, Meyer includes quantitative information and her own experience. Although she includes facts, Meyer fails to explain each fact and focuses on mentioning more of her own opinion.

Under Texas state law, divorcing couples’ marital property is divided based on what is considered just and right by the court. As such, each spouse may not be entitled to, or receive, an equal share. Rather, the court will take into consideration a number of factors in order to decide who should be awarded what. These factors may include how long the couple was married, the contribution that each spouse made to the household over the course of their marriage and the future earning potential of each spouse.

But this has not always been so. The system existing before the adoption of the Family Law (Scotland) Act which was to be found in the now repealed section 5 of the Divorce (Scotland) Act 1976 was characterised and criticized for its lack of clear guidance and objectives regarding the making of settlements and the great judiciary discretion it led to . Courts could take into account all the circumstances they wished and the English legal framework established by the aforementioned Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 was more developed that the position prevailing in Scotland at that time . “A key aim of the 1985 Act was therefore to create a much clearer framework to inform decisions about the financial consequences of divorce” . This as undeniably

In the world today, many men and women believe divorce is always a dreadful thing that occurs, but there is actually a beneficial side to it. Divorce has been around for many years and mainly just men were the only ones capable to make the decisions. Until, The Guardian states,” The 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act allowed ordinary people to divorce.” Under this new law, it was capable for women to make the decision, they just had to prove the facts to withhold a divorce. Following 1857, in 1923 there was a private member’s bill that allowed women to petition for a divorce for adultery. However, it only made it a little bit easier, they still needed to prove the reason. A few years later, they were able to pass another law, this law allowed divorce

It is believed that men are the least affected by divorce. However this doesn’t mean that they do not suffer at all. Indeed, men suffer financially from divorce; they are obliged to support their children as well as their ex-wives. And because before divorce the responsibility was shared by both husband and wife, divorced men cannot always afford to pay alimony, thus they may be

Historic change in American matrimony is especially pronounced in three areas: the equalizing of the respective rights and duties of wives and husbands, the dissolution of marital prohibitions based on race, and the evolution from state-defined grounds for divorce to couple-defined no fault divorce. The most recent area of debate is whether the state should sanction marital consent between same-sex couples. Although such a prospect is unthinkable to some, earlier forms of legal marriage are equally unimaginable now.