From the New York Times: "For decades, New York State’s divorce system has been built on a foundation of winks and falsehoods. If you wanted to split quickly, you and your spouse had to give one of the limited number of allowable reasons — including adultery, cruelty, imprisonment or abandonment — so there was a tendency to pick one out of a hat." So there is no divorce except for a few causes even if both members of a couple agree, right? The title of the article certainly says so.
From deep in the article, near the very bottom: "New York law has long allowed people who agree to a divorce to get one if they both sign a separation agreement and live apart for a year. A new provision could do away with the need for the agreement." That's what the change is. There is no need to lie if both parties agree — and no need to consider the interests of the children either — under current law. The difference is just one spouse could end a marriage unilaterally, and quickly. And that is not what is being presented — even by the New York Times.
I hope the documents people sign when applying for civil marriage will inform them of their new rights. "I acknowledge that either party to this arrangement can decide they want out at any time for any reason or no reason with a minimum of complication, regardless of the presence or effect on children, so this marriage should not be thought of as a big deal."
But then, why have family law to begin with, if we are going down this road? There are laws against domestic violence and child abuse — and apparently no other obligations.
If people choose to live in the same place, and then choose not to live in the same place, that's their business one might say. Perhaps marriages should be replaced with pre-nups, privately arranged, which specify the distribution of money and goods when people who have lived together for a while cease to do so.
One could make a case that under proposed New York State law there is no reason to get married at all, other than a tax break. And perhaps they should eliminate the tax break, because the social benefit of family care in need — rather than reliance on community care — is no longer implied.