The Christian right is coming for your marriage. Or, at least your ability to amicably end your marriage. Since 1969, the concept of no-fault divorce has been a legal precedent and widely accepted by the public. Prior to that, obtaining a divorce was very difficult. In order to have your divorce granted by the state, you would have to prove you had been wronged by adultery, abandonment, or cruelty. What constituted “cruelty” was less clear – you can prove you’re being hit and still be forced to stay in your marriage. No-fault divorce stripped that hurdle and made it so you wouldn’t have to prove you’ve been wronged. All you had to prove was that things were not working out.
But post-Dobbs, what was a fringe issue on the far right has entered the mainstream right as extremists have taken hold of the GOP and now the end to no-fault divorce is on the table. It isn’t immediately clear if there’s a more widely organized effort to weaken or dismantle divorce laws, but there are legal efforts being made in order to strip yet more rights away from the masses.
The Benefits of No-Fault Divorce
The idea of no-fault divorce may be taken for granted these days, especially when the term “irreconcilable differences” pops up in the media whenever a celebrity couple splits. Or, if you ask a Denver divorce attorney, “irretrievably broken.“
In 1969, then-Governor Ronald Reagan signed the country’s first no-fault divorce bill into law. By 2010, all fifty states had no-fault divorce laws on the books. It makes sense that, for the public, divorce would be a serious headache, but not an insurmountable obstacle. Since these laws have been legal precedent, the process of filing and obtaining a divorce was far simpler that it had been.
Strips the Need to Prove Extreme Scenarios
No-fault divorce reduces conflict by stripping the requirement to prove adultery, abuse, or abandonment. Divorce is rife with conflict in and of itself, even in the most ideal of scenarios. The adversarial process is not only difficult for the couple, but for any children they may have. This unnecessarily exacerbates familial tensions with the risk of causing long-term negative psychological impacts. Children in these emotionally heightened situations suffer more than children whose parents divorce under no-fault laws.
When you’re required to show extreme situations like adultery, abuse, or abandonment, it can create an incentive where couples fabricate these scenarios. One person may move out of the state to prove abandonment or they will fabricate or force an affair. These are absurd burdens that people have to take on when their state’s laws are that restrictive. People who cannot afford to move to another state are forced to prove extreme scenarios they may not actually be experiencing.
Prevents Abuse and Domestic Violence
Fault-based divorce can create an insurmountable obstacle for victims of domestic abuse. Even if you are being hit and have bruises to show, that can sometimes not be enough to prove your case in court. Evidence is difficult to gather and there’s always the risk of retaliation. Many, many women who attempted to divorce their husbands but lacked the necessary evidence ended up dead by their husband’s hands, or in some cases, by their own. No-fault divorce offers a clear path for victims of violence to escape dangerous or life-threatening marriages. States that adopted no-fault divorce laws saw a drop in female suicide and domestic abuse for both men and women.
Streamlined Court Process
This is an underappreciated reality of no-fault divorce. Anyone even casually familiar with courtroom operations knows how backed up they are. Any reason to reduce the full dockets is a positive for everyone. Courts have more than enough to deal with without adding contentious divorces than necessary into the mix. There’s also a reduction in costs for both the judicial system and the parties involved. These proceedings can be lengthy and very costly. The quicker the end of a marriage, the easier it is on everyone involved.
The Freedom to Divorce is Part of a Free Society
Having no-fault divorce laws is part of what makes our society a free one. The freedom to leave a marriage that is no longer fulfilling or healthy without having to prove extreme scenarios should be as easy as starting a marriage. Keeping miserable people together out of some religiously guided moral imperative is dumb. The freedom to divorce is as much a fundamental part of our sense of liberty and autonomy as the freedom of speech. Part of the pursuit of happiness is being able to leave a miserable situation without proving anything to a court.
Legal Avenues for the Christian Right
Despite ending no-fault divorce being a massively unpopular policy decision, there are still active pushes by the far right to make it happen anyway. After all, abortion rights being very popular didn’t stop the ultra conservative Supreme Court from overturning Roe v. Wade. There are a few paths that can be taken that could eventually lead to the end of no-fault divorce laws in the United States.
Legislative Reforms
Perhaps the clearest, most direct approach to weaken or undo no-fault divorce laws would be to introduce and advocate legislation. This would involve mobilizing grassroots activists and lobbying state legislators for support. In Oklahoma, for example, a bill was introduced that would modify the grounds for support and would require the courts to consider a degree of fault. In Texas, the State Republican Party, on its 2024 platform, “urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws, to support covenant marriage, and to pass
legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six months after the date of filing for divorce.” Federally speaking, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (himself in a covenant marriage) and Ohio Senator JD Vance have publically supported tightening divorce laws. These efforts are scattered but very real. One only has to look at the Dobbs decision to know how these efforts can permeate.
Judicial Activism
What was once derided by conservative judges is now being practiced by them in the effort to roll back progress in the name of Christianity. This refers not to interpreting the law honestly but to influence policy decisions. It’s a flawed judicial philosophy that courts can and should go beyond applicable law in consideration of broader societal implications. Examples include Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, and many more. It is sometimes criticized as “legislating from the bench.”
In the case of ending no-fault marriages, it would mean bringing cases that question the legal basis of no-fault divorce laws to sympathetic judges and crafting compelling arguments that support the opinion that no-fault divorce is harmful to society. As long as there is some kind of legal tether for arguers to hold onto, a sympathetic judge can decide to weaken or undo no-fault divorce laws in their state.
Public Policy Campaigns
Aimed at changing public opinion, a public policy campaign can be an effective way to advocate the end of no-fault divorce. This is probably the most difficult option for the Christian right, as the idea of obtaining a divorce, no questions asked, is pretty settled in the public consciousness. That doesn’t mean they won’t try. Through community outreach, media placements, and educational programs, the Christian right could chip away at the public’s acceptance little by little. By framing divorce as an amoral and damaging process only to be used in the most extreme of circumstances, they can weaken support for it.
Reverting to No-Fault Divorce is Dangerous
Maintaining no-fault divorce feels like the obvious thing to do. It is safer, easier, and freer to allow people the right to leave an unsatisfying or dangerous relationship no questions asked. Forcing people to stay in unhealthy, unhappy, or dangerous relationships is asking people to find burdensome loopholes, emotionally traumatize themselves and their family, even risk their lives. That, you’d think, would be enough to dissuade advocates against no-fault divorce. But it isn’t about making society better, it’s about controlling it. And that never fares well for anyone.
