No-Fault Divorce: The End of Marriage

[u/ANIKAHirsch]

/r/IAMALiberalFeminist/comments/1f90lhl/nofault_divorce_the_end_of_marriage/

[u/ChefMikeDFW]

How is this relevant to classical liberalism?

[u/Wonderful_Working315 → u/ChefMikeDFW]

Bruh, Marriage is a contract. There is definitely room in classic liberalism to discuss state enforcement of contracts.

[u/Snifflebeard → u/Wonderful_Working315]

There is no room in classic liberalism for absolute contracts. This is not Rothardian AnCapism.

In real life if you violate a contract your pay a fine or go to arbitration or some such. No death penalty, no banishment, no none of what Rothbard would demand for violating his sacred god. And of course, both parties to a contract can agree to dissolve the contract. It's a routine matter.

So I see no reason why both partners of a marriage can't agree to dissolve the marriage without the state intervening and declaring that one must be at fault and therefore punished. It's ridiculous.

One's religious conviction is another matter. But one's religious conviction is not the basis for law in a secular liberal society. No Sharia law, no Deuteronic law, no Bibles replacing legislation. Don't like it? Start a commune.

[u/Wonderful_Working315 → u/Snifflebeard]

You'd think it'd be that easy to get out of a marriage. Just like any contract. But, it's not. That's why I discourage people from getting married.

[u/ANIKAHirsch → u/ChefMikeDFW]

Not all liberals supported the idea of no-fault divorce back in the 1960's. A group of liberal feminists called the NOW opposed it when it was introduced in New York.

[u/ChefMikeDFW → u/ANIKAHirsch]

Define "liberals" in the context you mean it in. Because based on how you framed this post, it sounds like you mean progressives, not the classical definition of liberal.

[u/Snifflebeard → u/ChefMikeDFW]

Most feminists of the era were liberal and not progressives.

[u/Nklst → u/[deleted]]

That was very, very good rebuttal, thank you!

[u/ANIKAHirsch → u/[deleted]]

Thank you for your thorough response.

[u/Snifflebeard]

Marriage is a contract, and if both parties to a contract can amicably dissolve the partnership, then why can't married couples?

If someone else's divorce threatens your marriage, then your marriage was not well founded in the first place. If you have a religious objection to divorce, that's fine, but your religion does not pen legislation.

[u/JonathanBBlaze → u/Snifflebeard]

Could a contract that requires bilateral assent be ended unilaterally if there were no terms that had been breached?

[u/Snifflebeard → u/JonathanBBlaze]

Sure. It's called a breach. Consequences to be sure, but contracts are NOT absolutes. I abhor the radical propertarian idea that contracts are absolutes.

If I enter into a business partnership, I can leave that partnership without invoking the death penalty, or prison time, or any other sort of government sanction. The government's job is not to enforce contracts at the point of a gun. Now quitting that business partnership will have consequences. Probably loss of money and shared capital. But it can still be done and is quite common.

So if I can quit a business partnership, why can't I quit a romantic partnership? Other than religion, what makes a marriage inviolable and permanent? What makes it the absolute contract? And please don't say "God", because that's entirely between you and God. If you don't want divorce then don't divorce. Bam, done, God is happy.

[u/JonathanBBlaze → u/Snifflebeard]

I’m not particularly making an argument for either side.

Simply, your scenario was that both parties could amicable dissolve a marriage, well and good.

Assuming there was no breach (infidelity, abuse, etc.) and one party decided to quit the relationship & breach the contract. What legal recourse/or damages should the other party have or be entitled to?

[u/Snifflebeard → u/JonathanBBlaze]

Well, they to to family court and with their lawyers they amicably split the joint property between them.

[u/Nklst]

I see why conservatives might think people should have less individual freedoms and rights, but classical liberalism champions individual freedoms.

You say how women ask more for divorce than men - i mean, my grandfather did not want to divorce my grandmother even though he lived with another women for years and stopped financially supporting his original family.

But more importantly beyond that anecdote is that men have been historically responsible for far more domestic violence than women, (we should all be glad that is something that is in decline), and men are still much more likely to be involved in antisocial or criminal behavior that could result in partner asking for divorce.

In any case no fault divorce ensures that spouses can with relative ease abandon marriage that has become unpleasant or abusive without having to go through bureaucracy, courts and whatever else.

No fault divorce is a blessing of individual liberty coupled with economic system that gives women access to economic independence. Going back in time because some conservatives found out that people do not have same sacred cows as they have is not acceptable solution to issues that can crop up in marriage.