Back off a good day in court, my outlook on life is fairly chipper. So, with these rosy glasses on, I should be at least open and less judgmental than usual. Shall we test this theory?

Late last night, the New York State Senate approved legislation that would permit no-fault divorce after a marriage has “irretrievably” broken down. This means that one spouse can end a marriage without proof of any wrongdoing by either party. New York is actually the last state left to not have a no-fault divorce law.

I’m not quite sure how I feel about the “no-fault” divorce. To be fair, I feel torn. The lawyer side of me thinks that it’s absolutely fine and dandy and the quicker the divorce, the better. Move on people. The married side of me coupled with my single-parent upbringing makes me think—not so fast.

No surprise, I think the heart-driven, emotional side of me reigns supreme on this issue. First, I think that people cop out of marriages too quickly. Some people change partners like they change channels on the television or people change their underwear. It’s done haphazardly and without much thinking or even remorse for the loss of a relationship. Elizabeth Taylor ring a bell?

So, what would happen if the state actually mandated a “fault” for a divorce? Hypothetically, if one spouse tried his hand at the proverbial farming on greener pastures, shouldn’t the wife be able to point to his adultery and thereby use that to get a bigger settlement? (Elin Woods?) Shouldn’t the honest, caring and loving, no-fault spouse be rewarded for being just that—not at fault? Why should the indiscretions of one spouse be kept under wraps? What exactly is the logic motivating that thinking? 

With a sky-rocketing divorce rate, a “fault” divorce could actually serve to dissuade people from pulling the fatal divorce trigger. It might actually compel people to try to work out the difficulties in their marriage.

To me, marriage is more than just a piece of paper—at the very least, it’s a contract. Aside from my religious beliefs on marriage, the civil side of things still mandates that people honor the “contract” they’ve made to each other. As with any other contract, one needs justifiable grounds to exit out of a contract. More is needed to nullify an agreement other than one party’s simple desire to rescind it. The entire corpus of contract law would be turned upside down if this was the case. The question then remains, why should the marriage contract be treated any different? If the courts actually mandated a showing that there’s been a “breach” to the contract and that adhering to that contract would be impossible or too problematic, only then could the contract be rescinded.

This seems entirely logical to me. Perhaps New York has actually taken a step backward, rather than forward.