Please, PLEASE spare me the “rebuttal” about how we need divorce so that people can get out of abusive or damaging situations. You know why? It’s because I want to say, “No shit, Sherlock. Wow, you’re brilliant!” (That was sarcasm, by the way.)
Let me ask you a question: who EVER advocated for people to stay in abusive situations? Show me ONE reference. Just one. And it needs to be one that is commonly known. After all, that’s the thrust of your rebuttal–that lots of people like me would remove divorce permanently from the legal landscape.
I hang in some very socially conservative circles, and nobody I know advocates for that.
Even when divorce was (supposedly) harder than it is now, somebody had to do something really bad in order to for the victim to get a divorce… and so… the other person had to do something really bad for the victim to get a divorce. And that satisfies your criteria.
So nobody was stopping divorces. And you know what? It was better when we required that somebody had to do something bad. The divorce took less time. The person at fault probably didn’t get custody of the kids, and probably didn’t get half the assets either. Why? Because they had done something really bad, and we (rightly) didn’t want to reward bad behavior. So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
And in case you hadn’t noticed, we really don’t need any more divorce apologists. For example, HuffPost Divorce is doing a great job on that front. I’m sure you’ve seen their tagline:
Marriages come and go, but divorce is forever
Isn’t that special? So please, if you insist on being a divorce apologist, go write for HuffPost Divorce. And if you do, be sure to hold up your kids as human shields for your “liberty” and “sexual freedom.” It’s a great way to bury your head in the sand and pretend that permanently disfiguring your child’s family is liberating and healthy.