Abstract
The movement for no-fault divorce was prompted by many concerns, but one of the most significant was the perception of a growing disjunction between law and experience. Specifically, formal insistence that moral blame was the only justification for ending a marriage seemed inconsistent with the complex character of married life. Reports suggest that spouses desiring a divorce responded to this disjunction by colluding to manufacture evidence of fault even when partners regarded each other as blameless in legal terms. Courts evidently were party to this deception, often granting a divorce on the basis of evidence that a disinterested observer would regard as suspect. Furthermore, some commentators suggested that the language of guilt and innocence fostered acrimony between spouses and actually made reconciliation more difficult. In short, one of the chief evils of a fault-based divorce system appeared to be that legal rules seemed to correspond only dimly with the organization of everyday married life. At best, law was regarded as an annoyance, which dictated stylized accounts of marital discontent at odds with actual experience. At worst, law may have corroded the capacity for flexibility, subtle adjustment, and forgiveness that marriage tends to require.
Recommended Citation
Regan, Jr., Milton C.
(1994)
"Market Discourse and Moral Neutrality
in Divorce Law,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1994:
No.
2, Article 4.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1994/iss2/4