You may have me on this. Here and now I confess my apathy for learning about it over the years.<quoted text>
I have lived through these transitions. I use to save articles that recorded the arguments and the transition of views as these events occurred. You clearly are ignorant of what occurred during those events.
Society, the vast majority of which affiliated with churches and their opposition to divorce, didn't know then what it knows now about the effects of divorce on children. But neither did society have much of a handle on the effects of a dysfunctional marriage on a child. Every case is unique.<quoted text>1. Society, not just churches, were adamantly opposed to divorce. The argument was that children would be better off not being in an unhappy marriage. In other words, the impact on children was denied, the same way it is asserted that children are not a consideration of marriage.
Just an additional note; The idea that a woman can work full time outside the home and still be a mother is the very same mind-set.
Oh yeah; it spiked. It was almost as high immediately following WWII, but it has remained fairly constant since it spiked. It sucks.<quoted text>2. Do you know the divorce rate from the 60's compared to now?
The traditional alternatives to "no-fault", for the most part, had their roots in religious beliefs, and therefore were not of interest to the state.<quoted text>3. Irreconcilable differences WERE always considered.'No fault' was the new view.
Excluding children as a factor in marriage is not an experiment on children. Plenty of people have gotten married with no goal of procreation. But when children do become a reality of any particular marriage, the welfare of the children can suffer in many ways; both from dysfunction and from dissolution.<quoted text>4. Kind of late for the children now, don't you think? So you want to experiment on children again by excluding them as a factor in marriage???
This is sort of where the rubber meets the road in our discussion (the civility of which has taken a refreshing turn for the better, I notice). The "Church" failed in many ways to hold much sway over government. That is as it should be. That's not to say that the views of religious organizations are completely discounted when we, as a society evolve our laws, but no law can exist in this country and lots of others that denies rights to citizens based on a religious tradition.<quoted text>5. The Church has a responsibility to hold society to a better standard and protect the weak. It failed.