Divorce has only been legal in Ireland since 1997. Now that a decade has gone by since it became an option, that nation is beginning to come to grips with it and a funny thing is happening. Life is still going on, and as counterintuitive as this seems to be, the marriage rate has actually risen by more than seven percent.

But more than that, there seems to be a new, progressive attitude about marriage and relationships that is taking root in Ireland. Adults under age 35, especially, are at the forefront of the changes. A recent survey found that 57 percent said it's acceptable for a couple to live together without being married. When the couple in question have children, 49 percent said they were okay with it when the couples had kids — a smaller number, but still pretty impressive considering the short lifespan of divorce in Ireland.

Of course, there is still a debate over whether changing the law has led to a breakdown of family values. But a column I read the other day astutely pointed out that people aren't anti-family, they're simply pro-choice. They want for there to be options, and for a "family" to not be so tightly defined. And they want for those who are so supportive of marriage and family to soften their stance and support "the quality of family life, regardless of what shape or form it comes in."

The column is a good read. You should check it out.

Click here for more.

A couple of marriage mediators in Holland are getting ready to hold that country's first divorce fair.

We've seen these events in other countries as well. Mediation, not surprisingly, is the big thrust of this event. The organizers say that many of Holland's 60,000 annual divorces could be avoided through mediation.

There's also a survey circulating on behalf of the event that found that 90 percent of women say a good relationship is the most important thing in their lives. Meanwhile, 88 percent said their lives are too stressful, and very few women said money (12 percent) or career (8 percent) are priorities when it comes to determining happiness.

Bearing all those things in mind appears to set the stage for marriage mediators to have a successful business in Holland. It's not the material things that seem to matter to women there, it's having a good relationship. And if that's your goal, as opposed to wealth or career advancement, it seems like there's a good chance that mediation would be helpful in restoring damaged relationships.

Click here for more.

With Valentine's Day coming up, every form of media is full of images of people getting engaged or married and the jewelry stores are obviously doing big business. But for the large segment of the population that is divorced, it's an entirely different thought process when it comes to wedding and engagement rings. The San Francisco Chronicle ran an interesting story on Friday about the question of what should happen to your rings once your marriage is over.

The accepted protocol on engagement rings seems to be that you get to keep it. Legally, it's not considered part of the marital assets because it was a gift given to you before you were married. And aside from that, a guy would have to really be a greedy bastard to ask to have it back. I can see a guy doing that, though, if the ring was a family heirloom. I think I'd have a hard time holding on to the engagement ring if it had belonged to my ex's grandmother, or something like that.

The wedding rings are a whole different story. Some people attach a lot of emotional meaning to them and choose not to part with them. Some people have them melted down and made into other pieces of jewelry. Some women sell both the wedding and engagement rings to pay for lawyers. One man quoted in the story said his wife sold her rings so she could get a boob job.

I think it's all a matter of personal preference. And it's probably a function of how amicable the breakup is, too. If it was angry and bitter, you might be more inclined to get rid of the rings, along with everything else in your house that had anything to do with the guy. One woman said she wanted both of the wedding rings to be kept together after her divorce, just because it seemed to her like the right thing to do. Her ex didn't see it that way, so it didn't happen.

So let's hear from all of you. What happened to your rings?

The leader of an Ohio pro-marriage group is pushing the Catholic church to put the screws to Catholics who stray from their marriages.

She cites an example of a Virginia man who cheated on his wife and then left her and their seven children, moving in with "the other woman" who got pregnant with his child. Among the provisions of the couple's divorce, the mother is not to tell the children who is "to blame" for the divorce. Both parents are to jointly make decisions about the children's moral instruction. The parents have a joint custody arrangement, which this activist finds objectionable, because the father is now living with "the other woman."

There are a few other points she makes, generally saying that the provisions of the divorce agreement are contradictory with Canon Law. I think the point this activist is trying to make is that when people choose to live their lives as part of the church, they can't just adhere to the parts they find convenient. She's basically saying that since this guy called himself a Catholic and entered his marriage that way, he should be required to live up to everything involved in the faith.

The problem, of course, is that it's not very practical. To be sure, it absolutely sucks that this guy ran out on his family. If I were his ex-wife I'm not sure I'd ever want my children to see him again. But that's easier said than done, as we all know. It's an interesting religious and legal debate, but at the end of the day, there are real people — real children — involved here. Even if the mother violates all the provisions of their divorce — even if she tells the kids, "your dad is an asshole who ran off with a 21-year old and knocked her up" — it's still not going to keep those kids from wanting to be with their daddy.

I read a very thought-provoking piece the other day by a columnist from a newspaper in Northern Ireland. She's divorced and has since remarried. And while she's glad her country's divorce laws have been relaxed over the years, she clearly doesn't relish having gone down that road. And she warns anyone considering or going through a divorce not to take it lightly.

That's a point worth making. On one hand, several of us here at FWW, including me, have been harshly critical of nations and cultures where divorce is made difficult, or governed by archane laws, or where the process is tilted in the man's favor. We think it should be your right if it's what you feel is right for you. But for every person who decides to divorce after careful thought and hard work to save the marriage, there are others who seemingly do it on a whim.

The writer seems content with the way her life has ended up, but it sounds like she has regrets about the road she's traveled to get there. And for a lot of us, that may the best we can hope for after a divorce.

Click here for more.

If you thought marriage was bad here, you should see what's going on in apparently not-so-merry-old England.

According to a survey conducted by a group of lawyers, 59 percent of British wives would divorce immediately if they knew they would not have to worry about their post-divorce financial security. Many — 37 percent — said they were staying in their marriages for the sake of their children, 12 percent said they were in loveless marriages, and 35 percent said they believed their marriages would end up that way.

Now, I'm not sure what to make of these numbers, considering the source. Apparently the law firm that conducted this survey did so after the rash of new divorce cases earlier this month. That, of course, is an annual trend, as many couples wait until the holidays are over before actually going forward with their plans to split up. But my healthy skepticism of the legal profession aside, I don't doubt that these numbers are reflective of the poor state of marriages.

The statistics confirm what many of us who have been through divorce know — money matters are a big deal when you're splitting up. And no doubt there are women and men alike who stay put because they're concerned about not being able to make ends meet on their own.

But perhaps the most startling statistic was that 60 percent were not aware of mediation options that can make the process easier to navigate and cost less. On one hand, you can see the law firm trying to sell its services with that number. But again, it's probably accurate. People get intimidated by the costs and the idea of dealing with the legal system, so they don't pursue a divorce, even if it's what they want to do.

The other day, I read a column written by a California psychologist who clearly aims to talk people out of divorce. The piece she wrote is actually a follow up to another one she did last month, titled "Downsides to divorce."

First of all, I don't think anyone needs to be told there are downsides to splitting up. I guess there is a faction of people, locked in bad marriages, who view divorce as some sort of panacea. And in some ways it is. But it comes with a whole new set of problems too, and I don't think it takes much effort for someone to see that.

As I read this most recent column, I was struck by the seemingly stubborn lengths she suggests going to in order to save a marriage. She talks about making lists of what things you think bother your spouse about you — the idea being to understand how your spouse feels and then decide if you can change.

The thing is, when you're in the midst of your marriage falling apart, you don't have the patience or mental fortitude for such things. Honestly, I don't see how the decision to divorce can be turned into some academic exercise. Counseling? Sure. I can handle that. It's active. You go and you talk and you get your feelings out and get an immediate reaction. But I don't think you clear anything up with just you and a pen and paper.

The writer does, however, make a few valid points. She says having an affair to make you feel better will do more harm than good in the long run. I have to agree with that one. And she hints at how difficult post-divorce life can be. But the operative word there is "can." Sometimes it gets bad before it gets better. Sometimes it's just a relief, period.

Bottom line, I'm not sure I'd want to seek help from a counselor who seems so staunchly opposed to divorce. If it were me, I'd want someone to listen and help me make the best decision for me, not the one they think is best.

So it turns out there's a biological reason people get divorced. I'd say "stop the presses!" but considering we're on the Internet, I'm not sure what the appropriate phrase is. "Stop the download!" Doesn't really work, does it?

Anyway, there's a new study from biologists at Britain's University of Bristol that claims, essentially, people's desire to divorce is connected to the process of natural selection. And despite the convoluted, densely worded explanation I read on a British Web site, it actually seems to make a little sense.

Think about it: Natural selection dictates that we instinctively do things and make choices that are in our own best interest. Survival of the fittest, right? Getting married is something we do when we make the decision that it's in our best interest to pair up with someone. And divorce happens when we decide it's in our best interest to not be paired up anymore — or to be paired up with someone different.

So there you have it. It's all perfectly scientific. It would be easy to toss this aside — and frankly that was my first "instinct" — because it discounts so much of the human equation. We're not purely creatures of instinct, whether you believe that's how we started out or not. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that maybe our base instincts remain an important piece of the puzzle.

Click here for more.

Leave it to Dr. Drew to get this whole Britney Spears thing figured out.

Drew Pinsky — the guy who hosted "Loveline" on MTV and who now hosts "Celebrity Rehab" on VH1 — was quoted recently by US Magazine saying that Britney's emotional and addiction problems and her divorce simply were unavoidable. He says that having a parent with an addiction — which Britney does — puts you at a significant risk of developing a similar problem. And the fact that Britney had an unstable home life as a child goes a long way toward explaining what we've seen from her in the last couple of years.

Of course, Dr. Drew may just be angling to get the pop princess booked onto "Celebrity Rehab." Tell me that doesn't scream ratings bonanza. Who needs Hollywood writers when there's Britney and cheaply made low-brow reality programming?

In all seriousness, the guy does give a lot of insightful answers and it's worth reading through the Q & A he did with US Magazine. One of the big points you take away from what he says is that when parents have a messy relationship, there's a really good chance the kids are going to struggle emotionally, both in the short term and in the long term. If you have kids and your marriage is ending, at a certain point you have prioritize their well-being.

Click here for more.

Sometimes you read a story about a family in crisis and it gives you more than a little perspective. Everyone has pain and suffering and frustration during a divorce. But there's a family in England that is living a nightmare.

Angela Cannings was in custody for four years for allegedly murdering two infant sons. She was eventually freed four years ago when a court determined that SIDS was to blame for the deaths. As if that's not bad enough, she also lost another child to SIDS. Upon being released from jail, it seems Cannings and her husband tried to start rebuilding their life. But last year, she left for a "fresh start." The two have shared custody of their only surviving child, but now Cannings is seeking a divorce and full custody of the child.

I barely know where to begin talking about this story. There is no answer. This family has been ripped apart on multiple levels. They have lost three children. Their surviving daughter spent four years without a mother. And now, on top of everything else, they're having to navigate a divorce. I guess in a strange, cruel way the divorce is the least of their concerns after everything that's happened. But I don't mean to be callous about it. This is a family that's been through unspeakable pain. Here's hoping the three of them — mother, father and daughter — can find some help and some peace.

Click here for more.