> > refusal _ever_ to have sexual intercourse is
> > probably grounds for divorce in every state.
>
>I thought this "grounds for divorce" stuff was old-fashioned? I think
>you only have you say: this is broken.
you always have some sort of grounds. irreconcilable differences, whatever. no fault means that nothing has to be proven, that it can be unilaterial, and that fault doesn't have bearing on how assets are divvied up. Also, IIRC, and this is from my own divorce, there's a difference between states with roots in French v. English v. Spanish legal traditions. I can't recall the exact issues, but no fault divorce reforms vary and it doesn't necessarily mean that there's no fault. I can't recall why exactly, but my lawyer told me to file on grounds of abandonment--not irreconcilable difference--even though it had no bearing on how the property was split up.
kelley