A more thorough explanation:

Comparable rectitude was a legal principle used in divorce cases to evaluate the comparative fault of each spouse. It was introduced to ameliorate the harshness of recrimination, a doctrine where a spouse accused of misconduct could accuse the other spouse of similar misconduct as a defense. If both spouses were at fault, the court would not allow a divorce.

Under comparable rectitude, the court would analyze and compare the extent of each spouse's misconduct. If one spouse was less at fault for the dissolution of the marriage, then the court could grant a divorce. However, the introduction of no-fault divorces in all states has made the use of comparable rectitude obsolete.

For example, Nevada's former comparable rectitude statute stated that in any divorce case where both spouses were guilty of misconduct, the court could grant a divorce to the party least at fault. However, the revised statute now allows the court to grant a divorce to either party if grounds for divorce exist.

In simpler terms, comparable rectitude was a way for courts to determine who was more at fault for a divorce. If one spouse was less at fault, they could still get a divorce. But now, most states allow for no-fault divorces, so this principle is no longer used.