>Most people think it's the right thing, too You only make the appeal to popularity when the public holds the same opinion as you. > Of course it's a cause fo

>Most people think it's the right thing, too You only make the appeal to popularity when the public holds the same opinion as you. > Of course it's a cause for divorce though If your partner can divorce you for infidelity, that is a penalty that they can selectively enforce. When the state makes it a justification for divorce, the implicit message is that infidelity is bad for marriages. Why, then, would the state want to reduce the penalties for infidelity by making the husband of a cheating wife financially liable regardless of paternity? >the justice system is all about the interests of the children If the state cares about the welfare of a child the state can give welfare payments to the mother. Just because the system is unfair to some parties doesn't mean it's done in the best interest of one party. I don't buy it that the state is motivated here by the welfare of children. Marriage, and more generally being raised by two parents, is quite beneficial to children. If the state acted in accordance with this, you would expect the state to discourage (increase the costs) of divorce rather than encourage it (make it easier or reduce the costs). Here we are seeing the opposite.