Emphasis mine. In keeping with the title of this thread, SA's assertions are precisely what you need to keep in mind. It bears repeating. All that the words "no fault divorce" mean is that people no longer have to offer evidence to the court meeting some sort of criteria as set out by law that allows them to get a divorce. There used to a be a time when, to get a divorce, you had to have a darned good excuse (darned good as defined by local laws) collect evidence, and then stand up in court, and assert the truth of that excuse. People had to go through a bunch of contortions and even make up stuff -- such as one of the parties agree to be photographed in an intimate situation with a third party, even though it may be staged -- in order to be able to dissolve their union.
From Wiki (I know, I know, but I'm not asserting stuff that needs peer review)
the dominant American understanding of divorce was as a form of punishment for misconduct by the occasional miscreant who had behaved so criminally that his or her spouse was morally obliged to separate and seek a judicial remedy. All the varied divorce regimes in all the states were premised on the notion that a divorce was awarded to one party because of the fault of another party and because of the wrong done to the innocent party. A divorce case bore similarities to a criminal case, and many of the practices of the case law are understandable only if one recognizes that judges worried about tarring a wife or husband with a quasi-criminal label—as an adulterer or a deserter or someone guilty of "extreme cruelty" (which at first denoted physical abuse).
And
Beginning early in the nineteenth century, judges and legal commentators warned about the evil of a "collusive divorce." Standard legal lore stated that if both parties wanted a divorce, neither would be entitled to one, and yet couples, even in conservative divorce jurisdictions, manipulated the rules to end their marriages. They used lawyers and others to reproduce the circumstances that entitled them to divorce. For example, in New York a man would travel to New Jersey, where he would be photo-graphed by a detective while sitting on a bed in the company of a prostitute. Or, alternatively, men would fund their wives' travel to liberal jurisdictions (Indiana or South Dakota in the nineteenth century, Nevada or the Virgin Islands in the twentieth), where they could be divorced. By the early twentieth century, collusive divorce had become ordinary legal practice across America, a cultural symbol depicted in novels and movies and New Yorker cartoons.
http://www.answers.com/topic/divorce-and-marital-separation"
So, truly, I have no idea why the OP takes such issue with "no fault divorce". All it means is that, should two people figure out that it's just not working between them any longer, they can stop without having to walk across legal hot coals to make it happen.
