StevieN:

This is the part that, uh, confuses me a bit. I mean, a divorce is LIFE CHANGING. So why should the standard of living remain the same for the spouse not making the money? It's sort of like, um, STILL being married--but without all that nasty, interpersonal bother!

[However, I DO understand and support the notion of equal division of assets after a long marriage, during which the assets were created]

AH! Gotcha! Here's what's going on: you're thinking about it from the modern perspective of "no-fault" divorce, in which one party to the marriage can unilaterally decide the marriage is over for any or no reason. (I'm not saying that's good or bad; I'm just saying that can happen.) Before it became possible in 1969 in California, and prevalent in the other states by the mid-1970s, the spouse who wanted a divorce had to prove "fault" to end the marriage. (We still have fault-based grounds available here: adultery, desertion, physical cruelty and mental cruelty that produces a physical effect.) Remember that old song, "Making Whoopie?"

She sits alone, 'most every night
He doesn't 'phone her, he doesn't write
He says he's "busy"
But she says "is he?"
He's Makin' Whoopee!
He doesn't make much money,
Only five-thousand per
Some judge, who thinks he's funny,
Says "You pay six to her"
He says: "Now judge, suppose I fail."
The judge says: "Bud, right into jail!
You'd better keep her; I think it's cheaper
Than Makin' Whoopee!!"

Even after no-fault was instituted, all the precedent and the training of the way the courts think about divorce was still based on fault divorce. The state still has a duty to protect marriage. Fault divorce is about who's guilty or innocent, who's a cheater, who's literally "the innocent spouse." No-fault's supposed to let people pick up their cards and move on but marriage isn't really like that. It's complicated; as you say, "life changing." People want to believe that, having linked their lives together for a long time, it'll be simple to unlink them. That's just not so.

The other interesting thing is that, back when these laws were written, there was tremendous social stigma (and enforcement of laws) against "shacking up" or "living in sin," as my Grandma used to put it. One of the reasons given for making divorce easier was that it would free people to make new marriages that, it was presumed, would be more successful since people sacrificed for them and they were based on love. Also, alimony ended when the receiving spouse remarried. Now so many elderly people are living with their long-term romantic partners, we have had to make provision in separation agreements to end spousal support if people get another spouse-like person to support them!

Just FYI: adultery's still a CRIME in Virginia. Word to the wise.