• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

abolishing unilateral no-fault divorce by initiative?

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
California has one of the easiest constitutional amendment procedures in the nation. Ten percent of the voters propose, and a simple majority (not 3/5, not 2/3, but a simple majority) ratify the amendment. The only thing that makes it harder than a regular statute is that the proposal process requires 10% of the signatures, instead of 8% for statutory initiatives.

I just checked the 2009 estimated census for California:

California QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

About fifty percent of them are women. It doesn't state the percentage of men, but it should come without saying that there are 50% men in California.

This means, if an initiative to abolish unilateral no-fault divorce is voted across sexual lines (all men vote yes, all women vote no), it should not pass. However, in any given area, there are some female sympathizers with the men who suffer under the feminist agenda. If you want to divorce your husband just because you don't like to look at his face, anymore, you shouldn't be allowed to take half his assets without taking any of his debts, therefore, slashing his net worth by a tremendous amount. There are some women out there who agree that that's wrong.

Using the few women who sympathize with the men, we might can get the majority we need to amend the California Constitution with the following amendment:

"Divorce, in the state of California, shall only be granted at the consent of both divorcees, or if a divorcee who is not consenting has committed either domestic violence, child abuse, or adultery, without consent of the petitioning party."

Notice, that last clause, "without consent of the petitioning party." If you agree, beforehand, "hey, let's try swinging" there's no adultery. If you say "hey, let's do some BDSM," there's no domestic violence.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No thanks. I definitely think it should be easier to divorce in this country and more difficult to get married. Instead, I'd rather make an amendment that divorcees have to share the debt they incur as a couple. That will get rid of the issue you're worried about in your post.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No thanks. I definitely think it should be easier to divorce in this country and more difficult to get married.
And, how, exactly, would you make it more difficult to get married?

Specifically, what kind of red tape would you use?

Instead, I'd rather make an amendment that divorcees have to share the debt they incur as a couple.
Would that be fair to the creditors? The bank has a $90,000 mortgage with Mr. and Mrs. Smith; now, they have a $45,000 mortgage with John Smith, and a $45,000 mortgage with Jane Smith, and they get no say in that bullcrap.

That will get rid of the issue you're worried about in your post.
And create more issues to replace the old ones.

Besides, it doesn't solve the problem of the fact that divorce is earth-shattering to men, even if he has very few of his own debts, because he still looses half his assets. So, unless he has absolutely zero debts of his own, his net worth is reduced by more than half. If he has a student loan that he took out before he got married, but still has a balance of $5,000 on, and his assets go from $9,000 to $4,500, he suddenly has a negative net worth, and he did nothing to deserve this! His only fault was marrying a women who had no real intentions of staying with him until death do us part.

"If you love it, you'd better put a ring on it."

In other words,

"If you love it, you'd better give it half your crap."
 
Last edited:

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
And, how, exactly, would you make it more difficult to get married?

Specifically, what kind of red tape would you use?
I'd make it so nobody under the age of 30 could get married. That's if I didn't outlaw it completely as a legal institution and instead made it only a religious institution.


Would that be fair to the creditors? The bank has a $90,000 mortgage with Mr. and Mrs. Smith; now, they have a $45,000 mortgage with John Smith, and a $45,000 mortgage with Jane Smith.
I'll leave it up to the lawyer to figure out who gets which debt.

And create more issues to replace the old ones.
Maybe, but I think forcing one person into a marriage they don't want to be in just because of alimony and credit scores overrides all of that.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'd make it so nobody under the age of 30 could get married.
That is complete and utter bullcrap.

That's if I didn't outlaw it completely as a legal institution and instead made it only a religious institution.
Won't happen.

Popular as the idea may seem, SCOTUS has identified marriage as a fundamental right.

I'll leave it up to the lawyer to figure out who gets which debt.
Still, you're making the bank pick up the tab on the red tape of splitting the debts.

Maybe, but I think forcing one person into a marriage they don't want to be in just because of alimony and credit scores overrides all of that.
Nobody's forcing anyone to get married.

"Why won't you marry me? Is it because you don't love me?"
"No, it's because about 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and I don't want to fall victim to that. And, if you loved me, you'd understand that."
"Then WE'RE THROUGH!"
"FINE!"

The guy can always do that. Crying and saying you don't love her is not duress.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Roughly 1/3 of divorces are initiated by men, so your plan wouldn't work even based on the absurd hypothesis that people would vote on gender. Pre-nups are more than capable of handling debt sharing and asset splitting, if you don't want to get one than you have to deal with the consequences.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I'd make it so nobody under the age of 30 could get married.
So, if a pair of 20-year-old lovebirds meet each other, they have to wait ten years to get married, but if those same lovebirds meet on their 30th birthday, they can get married five minutes from now?

Roughly 1/3 of divorces are initiated by men,
Which means that TWICE that many are initiated by women.

Tell me, what fraction or percentage of divorces end up favorable to the man? Oh, and please provide citation to answer this question.

so your plan wouldn't work even based on the absurd hypothesis that people would vote on gender.
How is it absurd?

Pre-nups are more than capable of handling debt sharing and asset splitting, if you don't want to get one than you have to deal with the consequences.
Ok, can you define "pre-nups?"
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That is complete and utter bullcrap.

Won't happen.

Popular as the idea may seem, SCOTUS has identified marriage as a fundamental right.
Nowhere does it state where we can lower or raise the age of marriage, nowhere does it state that the government, corporations, or any other institutions have to be involved in it. I wouldn't outlaw marriage - people can get married. I would just banish government involvement in marriage.


Still, you're making the bank pick up the tab on the red tape of splitting the debts.
Nobody's forcing the banks to give out credi.


Nobody's forcing anyone to get married.

"Why won't you marry me? Is it because you don't love me?"
"No, it's because about 50% of all marriages end in divorce, and I don't want to fall victim to that. And, if you loved me, you'd understand that."
"Then WE'RE THROUGH!"
"FINE!"

The guy can always do that. Crying and saying you don't love her is not duress.
But you're forcing a person to stay married. And you, and nobody else, should have that right for any reason.
 

Jerry

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,124
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And, how, exactly, would you make it more difficult to get married?

Specifically, what kind of red tape would you use?
30 y/o might be a bit high, but I support raising the age minimum. Couples should have to successfully complete a personal finance course and in-depth premarital counseling during the 2 year minimum they will have to know eachother before submitting a marriage application.
 
Last edited:

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So, if a pair of 20-year-old lovebirds meet each other, they have to wait ten years to get married, but if those same lovebirds meet on their 30th birthday, they can get married five minutes from now?
If a 22-year-old has sex with an 18-year-old, it's completely and totally legal. If an 21-year-old has sex with a 17-year-old, he's a sex offender. And that's a difference of 1 year, not 10.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Nowhere does it state where we can lower or raise the age of marriage, nowhere does it state that the government, corporations, or any other institutions have to be involved in it. I wouldn't outlaw marriage - people can get married. I would just banish government involvement in marriage.
You can't do that.

The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. In fact, SCOTUS has a history of reducing the barriers to marriage! Take Loving v. Virginia for example.

Nobody's forcing the banks to give out credit.
This proposal will only lessen the likelihood that they'll give out mortgages to married couples!

But you're forcing a person to stay married. And you, and nobody else, should have that right for any reason.
If it took two to enter into the marriage, it should take two (or a fault to stand in for the other one) to exit it.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
If a 22-year-old has sex with an 18-year-old, it's completely and totally legal. If an 21-year-old has sex with a 17-year-old, he's a sex offender. And that's a difference of 1 year, not 10.
Your point?

Who's talking about sex? We're talking about marriage!

In the recent decades, marriage and sex have become mutually exclusive concepts.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You can't do that.

The Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. In fact, SCOTUS has a history of reducing the barriers to marriage! Take Loving v. Virginia for example.
That was about discrimination. I would allow 30-year-olds of any race to marry. So that example doesn't apply.


This proposal will only lessen the likelihood that they'll give out mortgages to married couples!
Then I guess they'll just have to rent apartments.

If it took two to enter into the marriage, it should take two (or a fault to stand in for the other one) to exit it.
Nope. It only takes one person to end a relationship. The state has no right to force another person into a relationship and doesn't have the right to force a person to stay in a relationship.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Your point?

Who's talking about sex? We're talking about marriage!

In the recent decades, marriage and sex have become mutually exclusive concepts.
My point is that just as there's a difference in maturity and education levels between the ages of 17 and 18, there are also differences in maturity and education levels between the ages of 20 and 30, and I think 30-year-olds have gained the experience necessary to handle a marriage better than a 20-year-old.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Which means that TWICE that many are initiated by women.
So?

Tell me, what fraction or percentage of divorces end up favorable to the man? Oh, and please provide citation to answer this question.
What exactly would you consider "favorable"?

How is it absurd?
You made a completely untrue assumption that all men would vote against it, which I disproved by showing that a large portion of men have initiated the divorce themselves.

Ok, can you define "pre-nups?"
Its a contract signed between the potential spouses in which they agree beforehand on how the assets will be divided if the marriage goes south.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That was about discrimination. I would allow 30-year-olds of any race to marry. So that example doesn't apply.
So, it's not age discrimination?

Then I guess they'll just have to rent apartments.
Dude, NO ONE is going to agree to that!

Home ownership is part of the American Dream!

Nope. It only takes one person to end a relationship. The state has no right to force another person into a relationship and doesn't have the right to force a person to stay in a relationship.
If that's the case, it should be no strings attached. Unilateral no-fault divorce should not be, in any way, detrimental to the person not requesting the divorce. Rather, the person requesting the no-fault, unilateral divorce should be the one to have their crap taken away, and they should have to pay alimony, and they should loose custody of the kids.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The point is this:

TWICE AS MANY DIVORCES ARE INITIATED BY WOMEN AS BY MEN!

How can you not see the point, there?

What exactly would you consider "favorable"?
After the divorce, is the man satisfied with the result?

You made a completely untrue assumption that all men would vote against it, which I disproved by showing that a large portion of men have initiated the divorce themselves.
But, how many men have initiated a unilateral no-fault divorce?

Its a contract signed between the potential spouses in which they agree beforehand on how the assets will be divided if the marriage goes south.
As of right now, that kind of contract is void and against public policy. We would need a statute or amendment to make that a possibility.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
So, it's not age discrimination?
Is letting teenagers under the age of 18 having sex age discrimination?


Dude, NO ONE is going to agree to that!

Home ownership is part of the American Dream!
So is marrying the person you love, and being able to leave them if you no longer love them for whatever reason.


If that's the case, it should be no strings attached. Unilateral no-fault divorce should not be, in any way, detrimental to the person not requesting the divorce. Rather, the person requesting the no-fault, unilateral divorce should be the one to have their crap taken away, and they should have to pay alimony, and they should loose custody of the kids.
Nah. They should share an equal amount of debt, but not split the debt on a single item. Whoever gets custody of the kids is whoever can better afford to take care of the kids and/or offer a more stable environment for the kids, and only if the divorcing couple can't work it out themselves.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Is letting teenagers under the age of 18 having sex age discrimination?
Not sure, exactly, what you mean, here.

So is marrying the person you love, and being able to leave them if you no longer love them for whatever reason.
So is making a person whole whom you have wronged.

Nah. They should share an equal amount of debt, but not split the debt on a single item.
So, if the married couple, collectively, have debts of $120,000, and $90,000 is on the mortgage, how would that be mathematically possible?

Whoever gets custody of the kids is whoever can better afford to take care of the kids and/or offer a more stable environment for the kids,
And, to what objective standard would that be held without providing a natural advantage for one gender or another?

Remember, a lot of divorce courts favor mothers because, think about it: Typically, the mother:

has already carried the child for nine months, the moment its born.
goes to the child's PTA meetings.
takes the child shopping for back-to-school products.
helps the child with his or her homework.

It's rare that the father bonds with the children without the mother also around, and the mother definitely bonds with the children in the absence of the father more often than the father does in the absence of the mother.

and only if the divorcing couple can't work it out themselves.
And, to what objective standard would you have the court decide "okay, they can't work it out themselves; it's time for us to step in?"
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Here, let me pitch a new amendment:

There shall be no divorce in the state of [insert state here] without the presumption or establishment of fault.

Divorce, in the state of [insert state here], shall be presumed to be at the fault of the one requesting the divorce, unless proven otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence.
Do you like that one, better?

"He slept with another women!" Prove it. If you can't prove it, then you're the one at fault for this divorce. After all, if you requested the divorce, it's natural to assume that, without a good reason, it's your fault. Just as quitting a job gets you no unemployment insurance benefits because it's your actions that terminated the employment relationship, it is your actions that terminated the marriage unless you can prove otherwise.

Other than that, the established rules of divorce will still hold water, depending on the applicable state law.

Thoughts?
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Not sure, exactly, what you mean, here.
What I'm saying is that the state legislating that teenagers under the age of 18 cannot have sex for their own protection. Likewise, it is my belief that the state may legislate the age at which people can get married. Even if it's above the age of 18. My suggestion is 30.


So is making a person whole whom you have wronged.
Divorce doesn't necessarily mean someone is wronged. That's why it's called "no-fault."


So, if the married couple, collectively, have debts of $120,000, and $90,000 is on the mortgage, how would that be mathematically possible?
I'd rather leave it to the lawyers who are directly involved in the case to decide than make a dictate to apply to all cases.


And, to what objective standard would that be held without providing a natural advantage for one gender or another?

Remember, a lot of divorce courts favor mothers because, think about it: Typically, the mother:

has already carried the child for nine months, the moment its born.
goes to the child's PTA meetings.
takes the child shopping for back-to-school products.
helps the child with his or her homework.

It's rare that the father bonds with the children without the mother also around, and the mother definitely bonds with the children in the absence of the father more often than the father does in the absence of the mother.
That's not every case. I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we'd get plenty of cases where mothers got shafted by the system and the courts ruled in favor of the father.

And, to what objective standard would you have the court decide "okay, they can't work it out themselves; it's time for us to step in?"
That would be decided by the judge and the lawyers directly involved, not some distant legislative body.
 

rathi

Count Smackula
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
4,730
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
How can you not see the point, there?
Because you haven't made one. Where exactly would you like to go with such information?

After the divorce, is the man satisfied with the result?
I don't think anyone is typically satisfied with a divorce, they tend to be rather emotionally damaging and painful. No amount of law is going to change that.

But, how many men have initiated a unilateral no-fault divorce?
80% of divorce is unilateral, with 1/3 being initiated by a man.

As of right now, that kind of contract is void and against public policy. We would need a statute or amendment to make that a possibility.
You have are simply making **** up.

Premarital (Prenuptial) Agreements - Divorce & Family Law Center
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Here, let me pitch a new amendment:



Do you like that one, better?

"He slept with another women!" Prove it. If you can't prove it, then you're the one at fault for this divorce. After all, if you requested the divorce, it's natural to assume that, without a good reason, it's your fault. Just as quitting a job gets you no unemployment insurance benefits because it's your actions that terminated the employment relationship, it is your actions that terminated the marriage unless you can prove otherwise.

Other than that, the established rules of divorce will still hold water, depending on the applicable state law.

Thoughts?
That's bull****. How about we make a law that disestablishes marriage as a legal union and if people want to stay with each other they can and if they don't want to stay with each other they can leave each other and leave it as a religious ceremony only?
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What I'm saying is that the state legislating that teenagers under the age of 18 cannot have sex for their own protection. Likewise, it is my belief that the state may legislate the age at which people can get married. Even if it's above the age of 18. My suggestion is 30.
Yes, because 18 is the age of majority. It is at the age of 18 that a person is presumed mature enough to take responsibility for their own actions. Beyond that, it is discrimination.

Divorce doesn't necessarily mean someone is wronged. That's why it's called "no-fault."
Then, why is one person on the receiving end of an alimony bill, child support bill, and loosing half of his or her stuff.

You want an example of how someone has been wronged? There's one right there.

I'd rather leave it to the lawyers who are directly involved in the case to decide than make a dictate to apply to all cases.
And, how would we do that without short-changing the bank?

That's not every case. I'm sure if we looked hard enough, we'd get plenty of cases where mothers got shafted by the system and the courts ruled in favor of the father.
Then, find some for me.

That would be decided by the judge and the lawyers directly involved, not some distant legislative body.
That would only make divorce even more volatile than it already is. There are no precedents! There is no way to predict how it's going to go down!
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
That's bull****. How about we make a law that disestablishes marriage as a legal union and if people want to stay with each other they can and if they don't want to stay with each other they can leave each other and leave it as a religious ceremony only?
Because marriage is a fundamental right!

You can't do that!

Marriage is a fundamental right.
So is free speech.

You have about as much chance taking away one as you do the other!
 
Top Bottom