For many years, “no-fault” divorce has been a misnomer in New Jersey. Although we have had no-fault divorce on the books for many years, it has proved to be more of an obstacle than an aid to divorcing couples.

To use the grounds, divorcing spouses are required to live “separate and apart, in different habitations” for 18 months. The only statutory alternative has been to use one of several “fault grounds,” based on marital misconduct. These causes of action, which include adultery, desertion, or physical or emotional abuse, require one of the spouses to allege some kind of negative misconduct by the other.

While that may have its place in certain instances, in many cases it simply breeds animosity and ill will when none is required.

The solution, long available in many other states but not in New Jersey, is an “irreconcilable differences” statute. To utilize the statute, a husband and wife both agree that they have irreconcilable differences, they meet the designated and usually short waiting period, and they agree that there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. It’s as simple as that. A very basic divorce complaint, followed by a quick court hearing — and even more important, something that should only cost a few hundred dollars.

Instead, many divorcing New Jersey couples with no real marital issues and without disputes regarding children, houses, or money, who simply want to terminate a failed marriage, must either wait a year and a half, lie, or allege some sort of misconduct.

For economic and emotional reasons, people don’t want to wait.

Instead, many pretend to meet the “no-fault” requirements, resorting to a white lie just to get a quick and inexpensive divorce.

The lack of an irreconcilable differences statute also perverts the state’s “extreme cruelty” statute, leading couples to make innocuous allegations sound like virtual spousal abuse.

Why should people have to create these legal fictions? Why should they have to risk stirring up the ire of their spouse and causing bitterness, embarrassment, and bad feelings when none of these things is necessary? Why should they even have to waste time and money to think up and draft what amounts to an innocuous complaint in most cases?

In theory, it has always been public policy not to promote or facilitate divorce. But the state also needs to recognize that there is nothing to be gained by forcing people who don’t want to remain together to do so. Other states show it is possible to strike a balance between pragmatism and the preservation of the institution of marriage.

Besides, statistics don’t support the argument that making it harder to get a divorce will preserve marriages. New Jersey’s divorce rate of 14.3 per 1,000 is only slightly lower than the national average of 17.7 per 1,000.

Finally, legislative relief may be in sight. New Jersey may be getting what has long been needed: a real irreconcilable differences statute, one requiring only a six-month waiting period. Such a bill passed the Legislature in the late 1990s but was vetoed by Gov. Christie Whitman, who bowed to conservative opposition.

Now the bill is back and has been unanimously approved by the state Senate Judiciary Committee. A similar bill has passed in the Assembly Judiciary Committee. These bills now face consideration by the full Assembly and Senate as early as next week.

They would provide a refreshing change to New Jersey’s divorce laws. Even traditionalists must agree that permitting consenting adults who have reached their own resolution of marital issues should be able to divorce with dignity and without delay and expense.

A public policy that diminishes rancor and dishonesty sounds like a family value to me.