
The Divorce Colony - kawera
https://read.atavist.com/the-divorce-colony?no-overlay&preview
======
padobson
I can't read this article, or others like it, without feeling like something
is wrong. What kind of society would force someone to travel from Paris to New
York to Sioux Falls, where they have to take up residence for 90 days, so they
can maintain their own love life?

Even today, divorce is usually fraught with emotional turmoil. Months and
years can be dedicated to equitable financial separation, child custody,
living arrangements, etc, etc, etc. The toll it takes on a family is often
irrevocable.

Then of course there's all the discrimination throughout history, starting
with women but then of course moving to polygamy, miscegenation and gay
marriage.

All of it makes me think that marriage laws themselves are a huge mistake.
Couples who want to make their relationship legally binding should have to
draft a civil contract that defines their relationship - stating clearly
what's expected of both parties and how the relationship is fairly dissolved.

Basically, what we tend to call a pre-nuptial agreement should simply lose the
"pre".

~~~
wtbob
> What kind of society would force someone to travel from Paris to New York to
> Sioux Falls, where they have to take up residence for 90 days, so they can
> maintain their own love life?

I'll counter with a different question: what kind of society would destroy
families on the slightest pretext, or without any pretext at all? And why is
'maintaining [one's] own love life' worth destroying a family?

> The toll it takes on a family is often irrevocable.

Which is why it used to be so rare: because folks realised how terrible
divorce really is.

The only good thing I can see about no-fault divorce is that it's reduced the
number of spousal murders.

I agree with you that the marriage laws no longer make any sort of rational
sense, and that civil marriage should be a civil contract, although from a
different angle: the sacrament which united my parents together has absolutely
no resemblance to the legal fiction abused by, say, Kim Kardashian.

> stating clearly what's expected of both parties and how the relationship is
> fairly dissolved

Seems to me that 'til death do us part' is a pretty big item in most marriage
ceremonies…

~~~
icebraining
If the marriage is only holding due to a contract, the family has already been
destroyed. Your next phrase actually shows this: murders of passion are the
peaks in a curve of harm that people do to each other. For each one, there is
an order of magnitude more couples harming themselves.

I'm very glad my (unmarried) parents could separate themselves when time came
and remain friends throughout my childhood, instead of developing the bitter
contempt that is so common among divorced parents.

 _Which is why it used to be so rare: because folks realised how terrible
divorce really is._

And people stopped realizing because? Unless you have a good reason beyond
"people were just more sensible in the good old days", I find your argument
unpersuasive.

What was more terrible were the conditions for divorced women, who struggled
to earn any kind of decent income. State laws granting sole control of marital
property to the husband were only struck down by the SCOTUS in _1981_.

~~~
wtbob
> I'm very glad my (unmarried) parents could separate themselves when time
> came and remain friends throughout my childhood, instead of developing the
> bitter contempt that is so common among divorced parents.

If people can be friends, why can they not remain together?

> And people stopped realizing because?

Because folks got more selfish, preferring to satisfy themselves than to work
hard for others.

~~~
icebraining
_If people can be friends, why can they not remain together?_

I honestly don't know how to respond to this. Do you really not see the
difference between being friends and living as a family?

 _Because folks got more selfish, preferring to satisfy themselves than to
work hard for others._

Sorry, I left my rose-colored glasses in the other room.

------
MikeNomad
What a tragic, horrifying, and fascinating read. I find it interesting that
while the bar (sorry) for suitable grounds for divorce seemed to be set at
adultry, it appears her lawer did nothing to expanded upon her charge that her
husband requested she engage in acts that could be considered adulterous.

~~~
phonon
That was in other states, like New York. In SD, it was just cruelty. That's
one of the reasons she went there.

"But the case was in Judge Aiken’s hands alone. If he found that she had
proven the baron’s cruelty, Maggie would be granted a divorce. If he found
that she had not, the baron and the baroness would remain married."

