Divorce was considered to be against the public interest, and civil courts refused to grant a divorce except if one party to the marriage had betrayed the “innocent spouse.” Thus, a spouse suing for divorce in most states had to show a “fault” such as abandonment, cruelty, incurable mental illness, or adultery. If an “innocent” husband and wife wished to separate, or if both were guilty, “neither would be allowed to escape the bonds of marriage.”
Divorce was barred if evidence revealed any hint of complicity between spouses to manufacture grounds for divorce, such as if the suing party engaged in procurement or connivance (contributing to the fault, such as by arranging for adultery), condonation (forgiving the fault either explicitly or by continuing to cohabit after knowing of it), or recrimination (the suing spouse also being guilty).
“After the colonies gained independence, states joining the union liberalized their divorce laws, as did the associated territories, with many permitting local courts to grant divorce. A few retained authority to grant divorce at the state level. In Virginia, for example, petitioners had to apply to the Virginia General Assembly for a divorce, and during the first thirty years of statehood, no female petitioner was granted a divorce.[1]”
So it really looks like Virginia was the exception and not the rule. It wasn’t illegal at all and there was a legal framework for how it worked which, again, suggests that the initial claim that it was illegal was incorrect
‘Here’s an example of how extremely legally restricted divorce was.’
‘Nuh uh, here’s the same example.’
Fuck off.
There’s a legal framework for when you’re allowed to kill someone. Under narrow circumstances - the state will tolerate it. Otherwise, they sure don’t. The only reason nobody went to jail for an unregistered divorce is that there is no such thing.
And even then, surely some people went to jail for enabling divorce, when a cottage industry popped up to fabricate excuses. Because excuses were required. Otherwise: divorce was not legal. The state would not recognize it. Without a very specific reason, you could not legally get divorced.
It’s an example of how extreme the rule could be, tone-policing troll. It is unequivocal proof you couldn’t just go get a divorce, because the state would almost certainly say, fuck off. Because - in general - by default - it wasn’t fucking legal. It was so restricted that zero women in an entire state were granted one, for thirty years, and you think other states granting more than zero means it was easy sailing.
What the fuck else do you think divorce being illegal would look like? What else could those words mean?
If divorce required a tax stamp, would it suddenly click for you?
i never said it was easy sailing I said it wasn’t illegal and it wasn’t.
You keep trying to move the goalposts sp your claim could have merit and it does not. You could divorce. I know this because several if my ancestors did in the 1800s.
“Prior to the latter decades of the 20th century, divorce was considered to be against the public interest, and civil courts refused to grant a divorce except if one party to the marriage had betrayed the “innocent spouse.” Thus, a spouse suing for divorce in most states had to show a “fault” such as abandonment, cruelty, incurable mental illness, or adultery. If an “innocent” husband and wife wished to separate, or if both were guilty, “neither would be allowed to escape the bonds of marriage.” Divorce was barred if evidence revealed any hint of complicity between spouses to manufacture grounds for divorce, such as if the suing party engaged in procurement or connivance (contributing to the fault, such as by arranging for adultery), condonation (forgiving the fault either explicitly or by continuing to cohabit after knowing of it), or recrimination(the suing spouse also being guilty).”
Yes that’s called the legal framework for how it worked. I have three ancestors who received divorces in the USA in the 1800s (two had kids together, and one never had kids with the divorced spouse). The two that had kids and divorced were over her infidelity and the third was beaten by her drunk husband.
I have no idea why you think it was illegal after the source tells you how it worked.
The only thing you have convinced me of is that you do not understand what moving the goalposts are.
Again 3 relatives have divorced. No one faced legal penalties for doing so and it was approved by the state which means it is not illegal.
The third definition is the relevant one here
Legal -
legal
1 of 2
adjective
le·gal ˈlē-gəl
Synonyms of legal
1
: of or relating to law
She has many legal problems.
2
a
: deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE
a legal government
b
: having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR
a corporation is a legal but not a real person
c
: established by law
especially : STATUTORY
the legal test of mental capacity
—K. C. Masteller
3
:conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
If not for those specific circumstances… could they have ever been legally divorced?
No.
As I’ve explained five times: there are no penalties for things that can’t happen. When the state refused to let people divorce - which they did, at their discretion, by default, for centuries - people just stayed married. It wasn’t a crime, it was not legal.
Divorce wasn’t legal the way marrying a horse isn’t legal. You can have the ceremony. It doesn’t count. Per your chosen definition: it has no formal status derived from law. Moving goalposts is what you’re about to do to pretend I haven’t given you everything you fucking asked for.
You declared “you had a legal right to divorce from the founding of this country.” Rights are the thing where you have to get beaten to exercise them, yeah? Nowadays you have a right to divorce. In the past times, it took some heinous shit to “escape the bonds of marriage.” You had to beg the church, or the state, and they could just say no. They almost always said no.
No fault divorce was a huge game changer for the US and other countries - prior to this there had to be a party at fault, and this had to be provable fault. So while it was not technically illegal, it still had a great deal of punitive legalese tied up into it that made it very very hard to do.
The US didn’t get no-fault divorce until after the moon landing.
Prior to that:
Ok but that’s different than it being illegal. You had a legal right to divorce from the founding of this country.
As if it’s something you can go out and do and be punished for. No: it simply was not allowed. The state said no.
This is stupid hair-splitting. You did not have a right to shit - you had to beg. Virginia did not grant any woman a divorce for an entire generation.
“After the colonies gained independence, states joining the union liberalized their divorce laws, as did the associated territories, with many permitting local courts to grant divorce. A few retained authority to grant divorce at the state level. In Virginia, for example, petitioners had to apply to the Virginia General Assembly for a divorce, and during the first thirty years of statehood, no female petitioner was granted a divorce.[1]”
So it really looks like Virginia was the exception and not the rule. It wasn’t illegal at all and there was a legal framework for how it worked which, again, suggests that the initial claim that it was illegal was incorrect
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States
‘Here’s an example of how extremely legally restricted divorce was.’
‘Nuh uh, here’s the same example.’
Fuck off.
There’s a legal framework for when you’re allowed to kill someone. Under narrow circumstances - the state will tolerate it. Otherwise, they sure don’t. The only reason nobody went to jail for an unregistered divorce is that there is no such thing.
And even then, surely some people went to jail for enabling divorce, when a cottage industry popped up to fabricate excuses. Because excuses were required. Otherwise: divorce was not legal. The state would not recognize it. Without a very specific reason, you could not legally get divorced.
I didnt give you the same example. I gave you the context for why your example was the exception and not the rule.
That was an incorrect statement Im not sure why you are throwing a temper tantrum over the fact.
It’s an example of how extreme the rule could be, tone-policing troll. It is unequivocal proof you couldn’t just go get a divorce, because the state would almost certainly say, fuck off. Because - in general - by default - it wasn’t fucking legal. It was so restricted that zero women in an entire state were granted one, for thirty years, and you think other states granting more than zero means it was easy sailing.
What the fuck else do you think divorce being illegal would look like? What else could those words mean?
If divorce required a tax stamp, would it suddenly click for you?
i never said it was easy sailing I said it wasn’t illegal and it wasn’t.
You keep trying to move the goalposts sp your claim could have merit and it does not. You could divorce. I know this because several if my ancestors did in the 1800s.
‘Where do you think the goalposts would be, if not where I’ve consistently planted them?’
‘Nuh uh.’
Fuck off.
Did you even read your source?
“Prior to the latter decades of the 20th century, divorce was considered to be against the public interest, and civil courts refused to grant a divorce except if one party to the marriage had betrayed the “innocent spouse.” Thus, a spouse suing for divorce in most states had to show a “fault” such as abandonment, cruelty, incurable mental illness, or adultery. If an “innocent” husband and wife wished to separate, or if both were guilty, “neither would be allowed to escape the bonds of marriage.” Divorce was barred if evidence revealed any hint of complicity between spouses to manufacture grounds for divorce, such as if the suing party engaged in procurement or connivance (contributing to the fault, such as by arranging for adultery), condonation (forgiving the fault either explicitly or by continuing to cohabit after knowing of it), or recrimination(the suing spouse also being guilty).”
Yes that’s called the legal framework for how it worked. I have three ancestors who received divorces in the USA in the 1800s (two had kids together, and one never had kids with the divorced spouse). The two that had kids and divorced were over her infidelity and the third was beaten by her drunk husband.
I have no idea why you think it was illegal after the source tells you how it worked.
‘My family met the extreme exceptions where it was tolerated, so being otherwise illegal isn’t real.’
Horse: drink.
The only thing you have convinced me of is that you do not understand what moving the goalposts are.
Again 3 relatives have divorced. No one faced legal penalties for doing so and it was approved by the state which means it is not illegal.
The third definition is the relevant one here
Legal -
legal 1 of 2 adjective le·gal ˈlē-gəl Synonyms of legal 1 : of or relating to law She has many legal problems. 2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law : DE JURE a legal government b : having a formal status derived from law often without a basis in actual fact : TITULAR a corporation is a legal but not a real person c : established by law especially : STATUTORY the legal test of mental capacity —K. C. Masteller 3 :conforming to or permitted by law or established rules
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legal
If not for those specific circumstances… could they have ever been legally divorced?
No.
As I’ve explained five times: there are no penalties for things that can’t happen. When the state refused to let people divorce - which they did, at their discretion, by default, for centuries - people just stayed married. It wasn’t a crime, it was not legal.
Divorce wasn’t legal the way marrying a horse isn’t legal. You can have the ceremony. It doesn’t count. Per your chosen definition: it has no formal status derived from law. Moving goalposts is what you’re about to do to pretend I haven’t given you everything you fucking asked for.
You declared “you had a legal right to divorce from the founding of this country.” Rights are the thing where you have to get beaten to exercise them, yeah? Nowadays you have a right to divorce. In the past times, it took some heinous shit to “escape the bonds of marriage.” You had to beg the church, or the state, and they could just say no. They almost always said no.
And there was nothing you could do.
mate, my parents divorced in the 80’s, the stigma was REAL
There was stigma but that’s not the same as it being illegal. The fact your parents ARE divorced proves it was not illegal
well there’s also the fact this was in Australia.
No fault divorce was a huge game changer for the US and other countries - prior to this there had to be a party at fault, and this had to be provable fault. So while it was not technically illegal, it still had a great deal of punitive legalese tied up into it that made it very very hard to do.
It was legal. There was no criminal penalty for it and it was handled by the legal system. It being uncommon is not the same as it being illegal.
No fault divorce made it easier and more common. It did not legalize it by any definition of that word.