I have a family ethics and policy class this semester. The most obvious topic that we discuss is divorce. However, we hadn't made it that far in the book yet. Today we were supposed to read the divorce chapter in the book. I don't know why, but I found it to be not only hilarious but brilliant.
(Blah, blah, blah… talking about the history of divorce) Then the topic turns to changes in divorce. The book basically says that divorce is easier than ever in the United States. But as early as 30 years ago it wasn't so easy. "… Courts used to require evidence of wrongdoing, such as adultery, desertion, or cruelty." (The mental image starts to get funnier)
"The result was a veritable industry of sham divorces. In New York, for instance, where adultery was the only grounds for divorce for most of the 20th century, people would hire a model and a photographer and stage a phony adulterous situation in a hotel room. If a judge wanted evidence of mental cruelty, a lawyer would advise a client to accuse the spouse of name-calling; if a judge wanted evidence of physical cruelty, the client would be advised to claim to have been slapped by a spouse."
However, beginning in 1970 every state adopted a form of no-fault divorce. These laws eliminate the requirement that one partner be found guilty.
Just think about the sheer and utter hilarity of what I would like to call "Whose Fault Divorce." Maybe we wouldn't require evidence, but the accusations would certainly be welcomed. Everyone interested would be invited to attend. Each party would get on the stand and plead their case. Then at the end all of the dirty laundry would be aired. Everyone could openly choose sides. It would really eliminate a lot of backstabbing.
I know that this may sound a bit crazy. But, if you think about it, this is what happens when any two people dissolve a relationship. Inevitably people want to know who, what, when, where, why, and how. With a No-Fault divorce one person ends up looking like a fool. In my opinion it is usually the nice, level-headed, calm person who ends up looking the worst.
I don't believe that there is ever a no-fault divorce. From experience, I believe the ending of a relationship is a choice. So, why do we go around pointing the finger attempting to take the blame off of ourselves? We're big boys and big girls. Why can't we just say, "I didn't like him anymore" or "she got fat and I never thought she was very pretty anyway" or "he just got on my freaking nerves and I thought he was a jerk." I'm guilty of trying to blame for a break-up. But, now I wish I would have just said, "I just feel like I can do better."
I have no problem with people stating the facts. If he slapped you in the face, then say it. If she spit in your Cheerios, then say it. Heck, sometimes it's even necessary to say what happened. Take it from me, sometimes it's necessary to air out the truthful dirty laundry. But, I don't advocate for people telling lies such as, "he was gay" or "he was doing drugs." If he's not gay, and he's not on drugs, then don't say that he is.
Breaking up is a process. There's no need to lie about it. Just consider the possibilities of "Whose Fault Divorce" it's a great way to get the truth out there, even if it isn't anyone's business.
