- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
Before the 1960s, it was really hard to get divorced in America.
Typically, the only way to do it was to convince a judge that your spouse had committed some form of wrongdoing, like adultery, abandonment, or “cruelty” (that is, abuse). This could be difficult: “Even if you could prove you had been hit, that didn’t necessarily mean it rose to the level of cruelty that justified a divorce,” said Marcia Zug, a family law professor at the University of South Carolina.
Then came a revolution: In 1969, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan of California (who was himself divorced) signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce law, allowing people to end their marriages without proving they’d been wronged. The move was a recognition that “people were going to get out of marriages,” Zug said, and gave them a way to do that without resorting to subterfuge. Similar laws soon swept the country, and rates of domestic violence and spousal murder began to drop as people — especially women — gained more freedom to leave dangerous situations.
Today, however, a counter-revolution is brewing: Conservative commentators and lawmakers are calling for an end to no-fault divorce, arguing that it has harmed men and even destroyed the fabric of society. Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers, for example, introduced a bill in January to ban his state’s version of no-fault divorce. The Texas Republican Party added a call to end the practice to its 2022 platform (the plank is preserved in the 2024 version). Federal lawmakers like Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and House Speaker Mike Johnson, as well as former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, have spoken out in favor of tightening divorce laws.
You must log in or # to comment.
I hope them publicly advocating for this backfires spectacularly.
“First they game for gay marriage, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t gay. Then they came for the abortions, and I didn’t speak up because I didn’t need an abortion. Then they came for divorce, and…fuck, that might be a real a pain in the ass. Maybe I won’t vote for these asshats.”
— some people, hopefully…
“First the came for abortions, and we made a lot of noise but got ignored. Then they came for Divorce and… fuck, maybe we should do more than just make noise.”
Torches! Torches and Pitchforks! Get your Pitchforks at the Pitchfork Emporium!
For every two Pitchforks sold you get a free torch! And not those silly tikki-torches either!
Boy I wish our government wasn’t so good at bringing their nightmare fuel fever dreams to fruition, while constantly failing to do anything to better anyone in the way almost every voter agrees with.
I don’t even understand why people get married when all the data shows that marriages fail
No point in living either, everyone dies eventually so what’s the point right?
That’s essentially your take.
What does marriage do?
I have a gf of 10 years, we are happy now, why would we get married?
I’m honestly curious the reasoning
You doubled down on a fallacy of hasty generalization. No one would react positively to that.
What do you mean? Divorce is at a 50 year low, and the average couple getting married today has more like a 75 percent chance of staying married. Your odds are especially good if it’s your first marriage.
The famous 50% figure doesn’t take into account that getting a divorce is correlated with getting another one, and the emerging generations are much more selective in who they marry.
I encourage you to listen to this when you have a free hour https://youtu.be/o5z8-9Op2nM?si=D-JVKYYmhqUXjtLA
That is really not true.
One of my favorite videos ever uploaded to YouTube, should be mandatory viewing in high school https://youtu.be/o5z8-9Op2nM?si=D-JVKYYmhqUXjtLA
The solution seems simple. Don’t marry and don’t have kids. Eventually America dies off and the rest of the world closes the book on the experiment that failed.
The solution seems simple: drive these ass backwards politicians out of office and don’t allow them to have any power over your lives because they are not interested in your health or well-being.
The solution seems simple. Don’t marry and don’t have kids.
Am I allowed to be amused that a bunch of guys looking at the state of family courts deciding the same thing were mocked as a bunch of evil misogynistic incels, and have been for years? Apparently “don’t participate in the system you are worried is going to fuck you over” is not an acceptable choice.
They’ll just pivot to forced/arranged marriage then.
No. The batshit crazys are having lots and lots of kids. They want sane people to leave, to die off.
At this point, I’m happy to end my bloodline. People are insufferable enough already, i don’t want my kids growing up with the product of even more ridiculous nutjobs
You could think about emigrating. We’d love to brain drain the US… more.
They are just going to make contraception behind locked doors/ only available to married partners, if at all available.
Good way to keep those marriage rates low. Can’t get divorced if one doesn’t bother getting married in the first place.
Ah, but then there’s common-law marriages that they will institute.
It’ll be a common law marriage when it comes to sharing debt and calculating income for denying SNAP, single when it comes to hospital visitation rights and bereavement.
They already calculate household income for any individual assistance.
Then don’t ever get rid of your own place, so you can prove you’ve only been dating, not living together.
Oh yeah man, just have two homes in this economy. Great idea.
Likely they will counteract by making even more things illegal, e.g. premartial sex.
Maybe instead of getting rid of divorce, just make divorce fair for both parties?
That’s what no-fault divorce is. All assets are split 50/50 with no emphasis or prejudice given to who caused the divorce with infidelity, violence, etc.
Not only is it fair, its way, way easier than establishing blame and then some kind of punitive split of assets that will be fought over and appealed even more than the current system of “equal, equal.”
The fair has already been solved. It’s what we have now.
So, if you are married for a day (after, lets say a drunken wedding in Vegas), the person you are married to gets 50% of your assets and you get 50% of theirs? I think a fairer way is either keep all assets separate or have some sort of automatic pre-nup for all marriages.
No, generally that marriage would be annulled. Its far too short for any mingling of assets, so none would be split.
Generally any individual assets prior to a marriage stay individual. If you own a house outright and marry, your spouse doesnt immediatly get half of it. If you buy a house after you marry, then yes the house is split as its an asset that both parties put value into. It’s like an automatic pre-nup for marriages that already exists.
Despite the ridiculous scenario you imagined above, judges and lawyers aren’t actually idiots. You dont have to make up hypotheticals to figure out how asset sharing in marriage or divorce works. The law is pretty clear, and there are millions of examples of both you can easily research instead of deciding there is something to be outraged about.
That guy is just repeating what he heard on the radio or from some drunk guy at a bar. He’s not putting any thoughts into it.
Besides what you mentioned, there are pre-nups, post-nups, trusts, and other complicated ways that rich families use to protect their assets from gold-diggers. Marriage is a legal contract and it can be modified with other legal contracts.
In a lot of cases, “trust fund kids” don’t even own their house or car. It’s all held in a trust so no one, not even them, can have it. If they divorce there’s nothing to split but some cash and whatever furniture or toys they own.
In practice, I believe the pre or post-nup gives some consideration (money) to the spouse who isn’t rich so they won’t sue. But it’s not 50/50 because the trust fund kid legally doesn’t own much.
Yeah, Im not even sure if he knows what hes arguing about.
All of these “problems” these conservatives are whinging about are already understood and settled with our current system. The default works well for the vast majority, and when it doesnt, you can change it. Easy.
The law can’t protect dumbasses from themselves, unfortunately.
No. When you make a lot of money because you can focus on work because your partner os handling all the work at home, the partner should not be financially destroyed after divorce. Your “idea” would lead to completely dependent partners who can never get divorces of their spouses
Mr “gifted hands” should stick his gifted fingers up his ass.
This is what you really NEED to know about abolishing no fault divorce:
And that will cause huge problems, especially for anyone experiencing abuse. “Any barrier to divorce is a really big challenge for survivors,” said Marium Durrani, vice president of policy at the National Domestic Violence Hotline. “What it really ends up doing is prolonging their forced entanglement with an abusive partner.”
If they abolish no fault divorce it WILL cost lives
That is the bottom fucking line. There is no argument against divorce that exists that can prevent that. Wait no there is, oh golly they will make exceptions for abuse. That sure fucking sounds familiar. Hmm like maybe it was the concession ‘pro-life’ would make for abortion.
And look how that turned out.
Before roe v wade was overturned they were all about protecting the abused somewhat with caveats. Kinda like they are talking about divorce here innit?
it WILL cost lives
If they abolish no fault divorce it WILL cost lives
“Probably, but those are lives of women, not people.”
-Conservatives who support this shit
Stop you’re making me cry. It’s so “funny cuz it’s sad” it went past the point of being funny.
you’re not wrong.
I never said it was funny.
Republicans only seem to be pro life until the child is born.
Democrats need to stop using these terms. Republicans are pro human-capital. They want numerous, dumb, poor workers to control and they want to own women.
“Pro human capital” is a good term, thank you for introducing me to it. I’d say numerous, dumb, poor workers who are desperate to serve for scraps because of austerity.
Interestingly, I’d assume that between home surveillance systems and cell phones, proving domestic violence shouldn’t be too tough nowadays.
Just like how “there will be exceptions for unviable pregnancies” no amount of direct video evidence of abuse will be enough to justify for the courts to justify a divorce. If they had people’s well being and best interests in mind this wouldn’t even be proposed.
That would be utterly shameful of the justice system.
Much like the current situation with abortions in certain states.
Are you new here?
I am.
…yes?
I don’t think this is a safe assumption. The victim may not have free access to hardware. The police/etc may not believe them. They may be afraid of being murdered if they try to record something. Just off the top of my head.
You can read “why does he do that?” by Lundy Bancroft for fascinating and depressing information about abuse. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/224552.Why_Does_He_Do_That_Inside_the_Minds_of_Angry_and_Controlling_Men
The police/etc may not believe them.
There’s something about 44% of cops…
Sounds like a good time to get into the contract killing industry.
I’ll be advising all of my daughters to never marry if that is the case.
Advise sons too. If marriage is going to be weaponised then it should be denormalised.
Advising my nephew will have to suffice, I feel bad enough bringing those I already have to this place. I will make sure to just advise young people in general.
The cons have been butthurt about the 60s for as long as I can remember.
It’s the sirens song of lead
They want to Make America Great Again: When men were men and women were chattel.
TW: Suicide/Death/Domestic Violence
Wolfers and Stevenson traced suicide rates before and after divorce reform and found a statistically significant reduction of nearly 6 percent in the female suicide rate following a state’s change to unilateral divorce. There was no discernible change in male suicides. Looking longer term, they found close to a 20 percent decline in female suicides 20 years after the change to no-fault divorce.
The percentage of husbands abused by their wives increased in the 11 states with unchanged laws also, yet remained the same in no-fault divorce states. For women, the change was greatest: Women victims of spousal violence declined by 1.7 percent from 12.8 percent in the reform states in the same period that spousal violence against women increased 2.5 percentage points in the non-reform states.
Ronald Reagan of California
King Ronald Reagan of California.
signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce law, allowing people to end their marriages without proving they’d been wronged. The move was a recognition that “people were going to get out of marriages,” Zug said, and gave them a way to do that without resorting to subterfuge.
Do you hear it? The sound of communism, my friend.
Well, I don’t have any stance on what you mention, but banning 3d printers is ridiculous and damages society.
So why bring it up? It has nothing to do with the comment and nothing to do with the topic of the original post.
Original post is about divorce, and guns stuff was brought up here not by me.
“It harms men.”
So does rat poison. You walk back no fault divorce get ready for a return of mysterious deaths of shitty men.
The absolute correct energy for this bullshit.
I’m a dude and I’m honestly all for cleansing the gene pool of those types.
I’m all for them getting their just desserts, but not at the cost of women suffering
This is how I felt about Roe being overturned several years ago. It would unleash hell on Republicans and make them incredibly unpopular, but it would not be worth the cost of women suffering.
And unfortunately, I was right. It has proved utterly disastrous to Republicans, but a lot of women have suffered. People have had to go through pain and experiences that no one should ever have to – except perhaps the conservative SCOTUS justices, Trump, and Republican senators.
One of the few times Reagan did something good
