The Impact of No-Fault Divorce

Marriage has long been considered a binding, serious contract of love, happiness, and commitment between two individuals who promise to cherish and forgive one another.  Couples committed to work out conflicts and adapt to changes in circumstances and personality.  Divorce was seen as a very significant event that often brought pain and unhappiness to many.  Yet attitudes about marriage have dramatically changed.  Many now consider marriage as an institution easily entered into and requiring little commitment and adaptation.  These changing attitudes about marriage also brought about changes in divorce.  Divorce morphed into a common quick-fix band-aid that was sought after any significant trial forced the spouses to rely on their lack of commitment.  These dramatically different divorce laws—called the No-Fault Revolution—have negatively affected so many facets of society.

No-Fault Revolution

History shows that the law regarding grounds for divorce revolved around fault-based policies.  The law required fault such as infidelity, abuse, or drunkenness to be present in one or both spouses in order to grant a divorce.  These laws were created to signify the seriousness of divorce the magnitude of commitment marriage expected from each spouse.  Marriage was not to be entered into lightly and was intended to be a lasting union bringing happiness to each spouse and their children.  (more…)

Logical Fallacies Used By Courts to Justify Same-Sex Marriage Validate a Slippery Slope


Scholars have dismissed the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to marriage of three or more, saying it is merely the logical fallacy of the “slippery slope.”  They have also offered various arguments against polygamy to show that same-sex marriage is not a slippery slope.  However, none of the arguments against polygamy are very compelling, especially after Lawrence v. Texas, and the polyamory movement renders most of them moot.  Further, state courts that have established same-sex marriage rights have refuted arguments that the central purpose of marriage is related to procreation and child-rearing, as proponents of traditional marriage have argued.  In doing so, these courts have committed logical fallacies that not only justify same-sex marriage, but that also justify marriage of three or more.  Thus, the marriage-of-three argument is a non-fallacious slippery slope because it predicts a likely outcome of an initial action.


Most legally-cognizable arguments defending traditional marriage suggest a link between marriage and both procreation and childrearing.  According to the defendants in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the federal case challenging the constitutionality of Proposition 8,  “[t]he central purpose of marriage… had always been to promote naturally procreative sexual relationships and to channel them into stable, enduring unions for the sake of producing and raising the next generation.”[1] Advocates of same-sex marriage often deny this alleged central purpose of marriage and point to other benefits and purposes of marriage to justify their argument that the law may not exclude two men or two women from marrying.  (more…)

Same-Sex Marriage is not Miscegenation: Why Loving does not Figure in the Marriage Debate

I. Introduction

Loving v. Virginia[1] was a landmark decision in American family law.  In it, the U.S. Supreme Court struck anti-miscegenation statutes adopted by Virginia as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and simultaneously invalidated all such statutes then in force in at least fourteen states across the country.[2] Within four years of the decision, a homosexual couple from Minnesota cited Loving in support of their assertion that Minnesota’s refusal to allow the couple to marry similarly violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.[3] The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the case for lack of “a substantial federal question,”[4] thereby rejecting petitioners’ argument that the preservation of marriage as a legal relationship between one woman and one man is analogous to the invidious racial discrimination demonstrated in the Virginian statutes at issue in Loving.

Still, almost forty years later, proponents of same-sex marriage continue to assert that the Loving precedent applies equally to both situations.[5] This attempt to analogize the fight to legalize same-sex marriage to the judicial precedent invalidating prohibitions against interracial marriage addressed in Loving fails on multiple fronts; this Note will examine three points in detail.  (more…)

by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D

First published at July 14, 2008.

I propose a toast. Let me tell you why, and to whom. Here in San Diego, gay rights activists are organizing a boycott against the Manchester Grand Hyatt Hotel, an elegant downtown hotel with magnificent views of the San Diego Bay, Coronado Island, and the Pacific Ocean beyond. Why? Because its owner, Douglas Manchester, has the audacity to support the radical notion that marriage is between a man and a woman. On a local talk radio show, gay activists describe him and anyone else with these views as hateful.

Douglas Manchester is the Chairman of the Manchester Financial Group, (more…)

by Jennifer Roback Morse, Ph.D

Legalizing same-sex “marriage” is not a stand-alone policy, independent of all the other activities of the state. Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes. (more…)