Just a generalization, but of the people I know that come from "broken" homes, they seem to have had marriage problems of their own.

I had (emphasis on had) a friend whose father was married 5 different times. Its no wonder to me that every girlfriend my friend had, he treated like shit.

I also have a friend whose parents got divorced, but he seems normal. At least he does now, after being in the Navy for 5 years.

Basically all of my friends come from "broken" homes except one of them. The only difference between us and them is, our parents got married at an older age (30's).

Of course. Big time. So, would it be desirable social policy, IF it led to couples tryin' to "work it out" in situations where there truly is hope? Absolutely.

That said, American obsession with truly radical notions of "freedom," "choice," and "egalitarianism" would trump any consideration of what many would call "marginal" benefits. We are too selfish, too arrogant, and too blind to see past our own personal gratification and "happiness."

The irony is that numerous studies I've read over the years state that, generally (of course), divorced people more often than not make the same choices and often marry someone else later who is remarkably similar to their former spouse. Of course, there are exceptions, and some people who "learn" from their experiences--make no mistake about that. Many though, end up no happier in their new relationships than they were in their old--and yet the divorce has also negatively impacted their children.

So, would making divorce more difficult be a net gain for society? Probably. Is it going to happen? Not a chance. We are too narcisistic (I am as well) for it to ever happen.

It started out as a mutually agreeable divorce in Texas, which is a community property state. However, as things progressed, she got increasingly more greedy and bitter (at the prodding of her parents, primarily), changed legal representation 3 times and dragged the process out over a year, even though there were no children.

On the day scheduled for the actual hearing (or whatever it's called), her legal counsel managed to postpone the thing after Bob Dole sat at the courthouse for 3 hours, then finagled a last-minute change of venue (or whatever its called) later in the day. After getting dressed and driving the 25 miles to the new location, the judge was already in a pissy mood because they had been waiting for 45 minutes, completely ignoring that the was no advance notice of the time and location change. On top of that, she managed to manufacture claims of infidelity out of thin air while offering no evidence of such behavior and sobbing uncontrollably.

The end result was an irritable, Bible-thumping judge who decided that Bob Dole was such a POS that the whole concept of community property wasn't worth observing, and he gave her pretty much everything. Bob Dole got a lot of debt that wasn't even his (50% of her student loans, for example), the automobile with a bank note attached, his La-Z-Boy recliner, and not much else.

Bob Dole was left so financially crippled that appealing the decision (which Bob Dole was told that in Texas, would have gone right back to the same damned judge that made the decision for the first level appeal) wasn't really a viable option.

Seven out of every ten men in prison come from a broken home.

There is no job description for society so I'll assume that your first statement is a statement of opinion rather than an assertion of fact.

Considering the vast amount of time you spend posting on the Planet and reading studies, how do you ever find time to work?

I wonder if that could be broken down in to 2 categories: Children whose parents are divorced, or children whose parents were never married.

Of course I do. Add up all my time "posting" and it would be a total of less than one-two hours, depending on the day....of the ten that I typically spend at school each day.

I've become a very talented multi-tasker. And I type about 80-90 words per minute. :thumb:

The types of hurdles I have in mind are things like denying custody and support to a spouse who leaves against the wishes of the other spouse and without any grounds for doing so (e.g. abuse, infidelity, addiction, etc.). On the other hand, if it were mutual or if the spouse who wants to leave has grounds for the divorce then custody and support would be available. If a person wants to leave a marriage that hasn't been marred by the types of things mentioned above, then they should be able to do so. They just shouldn't be able to take the kids and a portion of the spouse's future earnings with them. And they probably ought to be at a disadvantage when it comes to separating the marital property.

Does that really matter?

I'm sorry to hear your story. It's all too common IMO. This is the kind of thing that leads me to my position. If she had no evidence of misbehavior on your part, she shouldn't have been able to take you to the cleaners like she did. It's not right. Thank goodness there weren't children involved.

I think there could be, and most likely is a difference between children whose parents divorced at a young age, and a child who never knew their father.

It is doubtful that we would have divorced had there been children involved.

Bottom line, kids are put at risk. There are no excuses for that.

But the root of the problem lies elsewhere, not divorce. Making it harder to divorce would not change that statistic, IMO. People will still rush in to marriage, and have children too quick.