No, I want the responsible person to prevail and the oath breaker to pay the price. Just because the law allows a man to get away with abuse, you want to dismantle marriage into something akin to going steady.
No, I don't.
Look - as someone who's going through a "no fault" divorce right now, I can tell you that it's not just a matter of picking up and walking away on a whim. It's a long, difficult, expensive, draining process. It's not something I would wish on anyone, and it's certainly not something I would ever try to make worse for anyone.
Abusive men should go to prision not continue to harm innocent people. Abused women should be able to remain in their home with their children safe from harm or financial ruin. Marital property should remain with the person who kept their marriage vows. If you break them, you should be entitled to nothing.
I feel that my wife broke her marriage vows: she vowed to love, honour, respect and cherish me. The reality ended up being very different from this. I tried for years to fix the marriage, and only left when I realized that my love for her was gone, there was no hope of reconciliation, and life with her was unbearable.
Now... how would I go about demonstrating in court that she broke her vows? I have no idea, especially since in my case, the question of whether she did break them isn't one where I can point to any one specific event, but where this fact emerged through incremental evidence over time. I wouldn't even know where to begin arguing my case in a court of law.
That being said, I have no interest in taking her to court. I don't want to take away everything she has; I just don't want to be with her any more.
"Trapped in a marriage sounds rather juvenile to me. It sounds like anyone who looks at marriage as a trap is code for not taking resonsibility for their agreements. What part of for better or worse did you not understand when you uttered those words?
Did you even mean those words when you spoke them? Perhaps you did not understand what you agreed to?
Damn straight I did. I only left after she failed to uphold her end of the bargain and I exhausted every avenue I could find to fix things. And even then, I waited a few years just to make sure.
The only reason a person needs to be divorced is to get married again. A person is not required to live with their spouse if they are having issues. Why the disreguard for trying to make things work?
You're not just talking about divorce, though. Your argument has touched on things like division of property, too. If a person is going to make a life for themselves, have a roof over their head and food in the cupboard, the question of how the pie gets split up are very important, even if the couple stays estranged forever and never divorces.
And that's not the only reason a person needs to be divorced. Off the top of my head, one big reason has to do with wills and estates: here (I don't know US law), a spouse - even an estranged spouse - is entitled to a certain amount of a person's estate. If I want to leave everything to my sister or to my charity of choice, I can't... not until I get divorced.
Another reason: I've found out that a lot of banks (up here, anyhow) just won't grant a mortgage to someone who's separated and who doesn't have a separation agreement in place. Since there's nothing compelling someone to enter into a separation agreement, if a person wants to buy a house or condo but the spouse refuses to sign a separation agreement, he or she can file for divorce and settle the matter.