Most states want marriages to be hard to end, because they are in the public interest.

I have what may be an anarchist bent, and would love to think that adults know when they're done. Then again, Paris Hilton sure can afford someone to drive her around when she's hammered, so what I'd like to think isn't as informed by the real world as it could be.

Since marriages that should be over can't be in the public interest. I guess it makes sense for the state to just increase the level of difficulty and see who still bothers--I'm assuming the bad marriages that stay are less of a negative than the ones that could be saved.

My finger lesion hurts.

Which reminds me, that one of the krav students rebelled against the 2007 rule that you had to wear official krav gear to class. He (law student) said it was a breach of contract to institute that willy nilly. I won't let him into my classes because he decided to take a stand--somewhat like the state, I think it's in the public interest for people to consider their stands carefully and not think they can back out of them immediately as it suits.

I think I'm the only instructor who's hardlining him on this, but still. Illegal? Really? I'd think that memberships must have standard language in them to allow the company to tweak as they went along. I don't remember what our contracts look like, but it seems weird.

Because you might change your mind? What's the rationale behind making that official?

It can be a way to have a no-fault divorce (instead of one person saying the other did X wrong which can be done without waiting is my impression).

I should correct a misapprehension-- I don't mean to imply that in states requiring separation, the separation is required in all circumstances. In New York the only way to get a no-fault divorce is by living separate and apart for one year. Otherwise you need cruelty, abandonment, imprisonment or adultery.

Yeah, to get a no fault divorce in Massachusetts, we filed and then it went into effect a year later. I think it's to make sure neither party is being coerced, since you lose a lot of rights (like the right to SS benefits or to property) once a marriage is officially severed.

North Carolina has the 1 year rule. My brother and his ex wife had to be legally separated for 1 year, which meant jumping through all these hoops and filling out paperwork.

I think the idea was to try and save marriages, but all it did was keep them from getting on with their lives like they wanted to do.

What's the technical definition of separated here? Does it apply both before and after divorce has been filed for?

wikipedia and no-fault divorce: [link]

basically, its a commie innovation

In my brother's case he and his wife had to live apart, file some paperwork (I think) and maybe a few other things BEFORE they could even file for divorce.

The actual process of filling out and filing the paperwork and getting the divorce was fairly quick (considering he was living in another country).

I have what may be an anarchist bent, and would love to think that adults know when they're done.

Some states like it one way, and states like California don't require separation. You can choose where you live and where you marry. Such is the supposed benefit of the federalist system. After awhile all legislative policy starts looking like moralizing. And for myself I think on the macropolitical level it is preferable to encourage marriage, even though I don't think divorce laws do that.

You can choose where you live and where you marry.

If I marry in one state but live somewhere else, and then divorce in a third state, is there a consistent way to determine what law applies where?

(now I'm off reading Wikipedia on legal fiction--if only any of this information would be useful or retained)