I feminists aren't anti-marriage why are they the primary instigators of no-fault divorce law?

Question

A quick search will find the National Organisation of Women Lawyers, and specifically women's rights lawyer Herma Hill Kay as the key instigators of the law:

https://www.abanet.org/nawl/about/history.html

The Uniform Divorce Bill
"The greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken" is the description given by committee chair Matilda Fenberg to NAWL's pioneering work to create a Uniform Divorce Bill. At the 1947 NAWL convention in Cleveland, it was voted to draft and promote a bill that would embody the ideal of no-fault divorce. A draft prepared by Fenberg, working with NAWL past presidents Helen M. Cirese and J. Helen Slough, was approved at the 1952 convention in Berkeley, California."

http://www.boalt.org/bhwa/hhkay.html

"Herma Hill Kay helped shape family law and anti-discrimination law, most notably as the co-author of California's no-fault divorce act."

With no-fault widely understood as the reason for rise in divorce, why would feminists instigate it?

Incidentally (because I know it will get challenged despite being widely known). Sources showing no fault a primary cause of increase in divorces:

U. OKLA. STUDY SHOWS NO-FAULT LAW IS WHAT INCREASED DIVORCE
http://patriot.net/~crouch/adr/nakonezny.html

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9708/gallagher.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/03/1072908951471.html?from=storyrhs

Ausblue - "In Australia for donkey years you only have to be seperated for 12 mths & you can have a divorce."

That is no fault divorce in Australia, see the last link in my sources for more information.

Answer 1

you are learning grasshoppa.

Answer 2

I think most feminists do fall in love with guys & marry them & some stay married if the guy is nice to her!!!
That goes for all women, if they are treated great they stay in love visa versa
Women don't leave their husbands if they are treated like a Princess so to speak, treated how they were in the beginning of the relationship
That law was invented ( no fault divorce ) I suppose for when they just fell out of love & you don't need adultry or violence to have a divorce
I don't agree with it myself because if you set up a home & especially when kids are involved, a marriage should be worked on to fix it up I think
But so many people today are to lazy & I suppose to busy to work on a marriage & if someone really is not happy with their mate it may be a good law really because why would you want to be with a person who doesn't want to be with you
In Australia for donkey years you only have to be seperated for 12 mths & you can have a divorce

Answer 3

Uhhh. Where's your complaint?
If you are a jerk and the woman you are married to is willing to accept HALF the fault for your divorce via a "no fault" procedure,
I'd say you got a hell of a lot more than you should have...being the jerk you are.

So dude, are you honestly complaining about a process that might get you way more than you deserve?

Answer 4

-Just because you believe someone should have the freedom to enter and leave a marriage when they see fit does not mean you are anti-marriage.

-Believing that someone is entitled to make their own decision does NOT mean you believe one choice is better than the other.

-No-fault divorce is NOT the so-called reason for rise in divorce. People entering into commitments without careful consideration and today's quick-fix soceity are probably better reasons.

-Being a feminist does not mean you are a crazy, man-hating political activist, or that you think women are better than men. It simply means that you believe WOMEN AND MEN DESERVE EQUAL RIGHTS. Men can be feminists, too! Turning "feminist" into a dirty word that's equated with shaved head, boot-wearing, militant lesbians (Nothing against lesbians, you know I love you ;). That's just the image that's used to scare conservatives.) only hurts the feminist movement. Wake up, sister! YOU are personally being hurt by this crappy attitude!

Answer 5

You are a broken record; asking the same inane questions day in and day out. Obcessed, fixated...unbelievably thick. Here's MY same cut-and-paste-response to YOUR same cut-and-paste-question. Let's reiterate for the benefit of the intellectually challenged: why is there no-fault divorce? What was there before no-fault divorce, and why was it changed? PAY ATTENTION THIS TIME NOW, HERE'S THE ANSWER YET AGAIN:

Modern "no-fault" divorce came about because of widespread disgust among lawyers, judges, and the general public with the legal fictions that had become commonplace since the mid-20th century…

Prior to the no-fault divorce revolution, a divorce could be obtained only through a showing of fault. This was something more than not loving one another; it meant that one spouse had to plead that the other had committed adultery or abandonment or some other similarly sinful act. However, the other spouse could plead a variety of defenses like recrimination. Often, a judge might find that the defendant had not committed the alleged act, or that both spouses were at fault for the fact that the marriage was dysfunctional. Either way, the judge would refuse to dissolve the marriage….

New York was notorious for its "collusive adultery", in which both sides deliberately agreed that the wife would come home at a certain time and discover her husband committing adultery with a "mistress" obtained for the occasion.[1] She would then swear to a carefully tailored version of these facts in court (committing perjury in the process), the husband would sheepishly admit to a similar version of the facts, the judge would convict the husband of adultery, and the couple would be divorced…


… by 1950, wives were pleading cruelty in 70 percent of divorce cases in San Francisco.[2] In case after case, wives would testify to the same pitiful facts: their husbands swore at them, hit them, and generally treated them terribly.
This procedure was described by California Supreme Court justice Stanley Mosk in a passionate dissent:

Every day, in every superior court in the state, the same melancholy charade was played: the "innocent" spouse, generally the wife, would take the stand and, to the accompanying cacophony of sobbing and nose-blowing, testify under the deft guidance of an attorney to the spousal conduct that she deemed "cruel." — In re Marriage of McKim, 6 Cal. 3d 673 (1972) (Mosk, J., dissenting) [3].

… such empty procedures were appalling to both lawyers and judges, who felt that it made oaths meaningless and threatened to destroy the integrity of the American justice system (by making lying in court into a commonplace occurrence).
Indeed, as early as the 1930s, a treatise on American family law had complained:
"In divorce litigation it is well known that the parties often seek to evade the statutory limitations and thus there is great danger of perjury, collusion, and fraud .... In many cases no defense is interposed, and often when the case is contested the contest is not waged with vigor or good faith.[4]"

Starting in the 1960s, numerous commentators pointed out that it might be best to recognize that two spouses who were determined to end their marriage would get what they wanted by any means necessary. Therefore, they argued, the law should adapt by providing a straightforward procedure for ending a marriage, rather than forcing a couple who just couldn't get along to choose between living together in "marital hell" or lying under oath in open court. The most prominent advocate of this position was law professor Herma Hill Kay (the future dean of Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley's law school)[5].

"No-fault" divorce was pioneered in the United States by the state of California with the passage of the Family Law Act of 1969.

OK, WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED IN TODAY'S LESSON?

WE HAVE LEARNED THAT DIVORCE LAWS WERE CHANGED BECAUSE THE WAY THINGS WERE, PEOPLE WERE HAVING TO COMMIT PERJURY LEFT, RIGHT AND CENTER. NOW STOP YOUR INCESSANT WHINING: IF YOU HAVE A BETTER SOLUTION, THEN WHAT IS IT? IF YOUR "SOLUTION" CONSISTS OF GOING BACKWARDS IN TIME - TO A TIME WHEN PEOPLE WERE FORCED TO COMMIT PERJURY IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A DIVORCE, THAT'S NOOOOOOOOOOO SOLUTION

SO KEEP YOUR GOB SHUT.

Answer 6

Because traditionally, when there was a divorce, the man got everything. With no falt, there is an even split, or both parties keep their own stuff.

Answer 7

No fault divorce law protects both parties.

Answer 8

you get mad if a guy opens a door for you then your mad if he doesn't.