Henry VIII famously established his Act of Supremacy (1534) as the genesis of the English Reformation. This was spurned on by the Pope's declination of Henry's request for annulment, and so divorce was made the contentious object. While Henry VIII did not change the law to allow divorce (which according to Christian law, is forbidden), but he authorised his own annulment through the Church of England. It is only later on with John Milton (1643-5) where a defense of the act of divorce is put forward, during the English Civil War; an extremely radical era of politics. Despite his appeals, divorce was only made legal in 1857, over 2 centuries later - with further reforms added in the 1960s - eventually leading to gay marriage in the 2010s. The USSR in 1917 immediately liberated married people by allowing for no-fault divorces. Despite this, people maintained marriages at a sustainable rate, even if they could leave at any time.
Here, I will continue in the spirit of Milton, that divorce is a necessary aspect of maintaining the very purpose of a married constitution. If it be the case that marriage makes one obliged to another of whom they have no affinity, it is burdensome for each to be bound to its contract - and we may call a compulsory contract "slavery" therefrom. Divorce does not destroy marriage; it is the thing which makes marriage true. For the same reason, divorce ought not be so infused with lawyers' self-interest, but should only concern personal contract, to be agreed to beforehand - the so-called "prenuptial agreement". All marriage will then be self-concerned between two parties, and not any third party. From this, everything is fair, but I will continue, it is normative of a further imperative or duty, which is the compulsion of marriage itself. It is my opinion that if you have been in a relationship for at least a year, then you should get married, since if divorce is free, consequences of marriage are also free. I expect that in a truly free contract thus, it will be common for people to have around 2-3 marriages and divorces in their life, rather than either zero or one, as it currently concerns our Christian conception. So, liberating marriage means the increase of marriage at the same capacity; the same way that gay marriage legalisation necessarily expands the institution. So, I think marriage should be a fun thing rather than a stessful thing. It should be desacralised, and made a matter of interpersonal interest.
>>818705I think it depends, marriage derives its meaning from the societies context, since it is a social construct. Perhaps some people want no divorce marriage and some don't, I think society should help both accordingly and not have one size fits all. I can see the wisdom of no divorce marriage, because life and indeed people aren't all sunshine and rainbows all the time. Just like how you've probably made a pact to yourself to improve at something but ended up failing, sometimes people need help or coercion to keep up, but the problem is that peoples principles can change, so absolutely no divorce marriage cannot exist except as an ideal, so if they go into a contract like that then change their mind they should be penalized or make the process difficult.
>>818705> It is my opinion that if you have been in a relationship for at least a year, then you should get married, since if divorce is free, consequences of marriage are also free. I have lived with someone for 15 years and had a child with them. We never got married. Common law marriage was abolished so we were never auto-married by the state either. We could go down to the courthouse any time and finally do it, but we don't really give a shit. The affinity is evident by the fact that we lived together for over 10 years without major disagreements or fights and then decided to plan a child's birth.