As soon as the atheist Lenin and Bolshevism took over Russia they also confiscated church property and made divorce “easy.”
So you may ask why an easy divorce does damage to marriage. Let’s go back to our original point that marriage is a contract.
If a contract is very easy to get out of, then the contract is not as valuable.
The marriage contract protects children first, thus if it is easily cancelled we are sending the message that children are not valuable.
The reason America traditionally held that divorce is supposed to be difficult is – a contract that is hard to get out of is one that should not be entered into lightly.
“The best way to compel young people to consider marriage seriously is to impress them that it cannot be dissolved for trivial reasons.” – Painesville Telegraph, Nov 1, 1921
Before “No Fault Divorce,” marriage contracts had traditionally been economically skewed in favor of woman as they should be. Women have the biological burden of child birth and early childhood nurturing. As a result of their greater time, economic, and physical commitment to the budding family, the mother and wife should and would continue to be compensated after a divorce. Thus any weakening in the marriage contract disproportionally hurts women economically. Feminists should be for a strong marriage contract, but most feminists are God-haters first and foremost.
Divorce makes men, particularly fathers, significantly richer. When a father separates from the mother of his children, according to new research, his available income increases by around one third. Women, in contrast, suffer severe financial penalties. Regardless of whether she has children, the average woman’s income falls by more than a fifth and remains low for many years.
– London Observer January 24, 2009
An article from The Sunday Chronicle May 2, 1919 writes about easy divorce in Lenin’s Russia and how it resulted in the abuse of women. As the quality of marriage deteriorated more infants were given up for adoption and the Communist State was more than happy to take control in the State run orphanages. However, in a few short years the homeless child situation grew so bad in Russia that the communists were forced to repeal some of these laws and revert back to more traditional marriage.
In America the weakening of the marriage contract has been slow and steady allowing the public to get used to the new immoral standard, thus limiting the outcry and opposition. Imagine what the outcry would have been if American would have gone from a child rarely being raised without a father, as was the case in 1900, to the 30% fatherless statistic in 2013, all in a few short years.
“Easy” or “No Fault Divorce” was sold to the American public as a way for women to escape abusive marriages. Those opposing the “No Fault Divorce” advocates were the traditional marriage advocates. The traditional marriage advocates were accused of being uncompassionate and pro-abuse of women while their critics ignored the fact that abuse has always been a valid reason to seek and be granted a divorce.
There are studies that show the rate of abuse dropping 16% after “No Fault Divorce” legislation was passed. The studies indicate that many women would stay in abusive situations as they did not want to go to court and publicly air all the embarrassing dirty laundry so often associated with divorce. Even though domestic violence in marriage dropped, it was sadly more than compensated by rise in domestic violence in non-marriage relationships. Many abusive men no longer found it necessary to marry in the first place, thus skewing the statistics. Overall, domestic violence against women increased.
Policy: Reform was needed to prevent domestic abuse and public humiliation, but the answer was not “No Fault Divorce”, the answer is less fault for women, more fault for men, and a private divorce executor(s) in the same manner that will’s have executors.