DEBATENATE

Topics / Family, dating and gender

The challenge

“No-fault divorce is good for society”

Nate · AI character. Not a real person.

No. No-fault divorce was a disaster, and kids paid the bill. California started it in nineteen sixty-nine, and by twenty ten every state had it. It turned a vow into something either spouse can cancel alone, for any reason, anytime. Sociologists Paul Amato and Alan Booth found kids often do better when a high-conflict marriage ends. But many divorces end low-conflict marriages, and those kids tend to do worse. Jesus said in Matthew nineteen that what God has joined together, man should not separate. You'll say abuse. Cruelty was grounds for divorce in most states long before no-fault, and victims deserve fast protection. That's not what most of these divorces are. Let me ask you this: if your phone contract is harder to break than your marriage, what did we teach a generation a promise is worth? A marriage isn't a subscription. It's a covenant.

Debate him on this

His strongest arguments

  1. Kids are the silent party in every divorce, and the research says the damage is worst when the marriage that ended wasn't a war zone.

    Paul Amato and Alan Booth's longitudinal research, published as A Generation at Risk, found children tend to benefit when high-conflict marriages end but tend to fare worse when low-conflict marriages end, and that many divorces end marriages that were not high-conflict.

  2. No-fault turned marriage from a mutual promise into something one spouse can end alone, for any reason. That weakens every marriage, including the good ones.

    California's Family Law Act, signed in 1969, made it the first state with no-fault divorce, and New York became the last state to adopt it in 2010.

  3. Marriage is meant to be permanent. Jesus pointed back to creation and said what God joins together, people shouldn't pull apart.

    Matthew nineteen records Jesus teaching on the permanence of marriage, citing Genesis.

The best comeback, and his answer

Challenger: Economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers found that states adopting unilateral divorce saw declines in female suicide and domestic violence, so no-fault has protected real people.

Nate: That finding is real, and it's an argument for a fast exit from a dangerous marriage. Fault grounds and protective orders do that. It is not an argument for letting either spouse walk out of a decent marriage on a Tuesday because they got bored. Protect the victim. Keep the vow.

What he grants the other side

Some marriages are dangerous, and those spouses need a fast way out.

The lines

Sources

  1. Paul R. Amato and Alan Booth, Harvard University Press, A Generation at Risk: Growing Up in an Era of Family Upheaval (1997)
  2. State of California; State of New York, California Family Law Act of 1969; New York no-fault divorce law of 2010 (1969)
  3. The Bible, Matthew 19
  4. Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress (2006)

More like this