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.

  • Paragone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is … ludicrous:

    I’ve read that in the Jewish culture/religion that Yehoshua “Jesus” benJoseph, the woke socialist convict, grew up in, there was legal-divorce,

    & there was a kind of rule, too:

    “you aren’t allowed to marry someone, if you aren’t mature-enough to divorce them honestly/fairly/sanely” in that culture…

    I’m not remembering the exact phrasing of it, obviously, but that was the essence of it.

    IF you were too immature to divorce responsibly, THEN you were too immature to marry, in the 1st place.

    For … to use a phrase from the Christian bible, just updating it to modern terminology … “those who call themselves Christian … but are not” to be warring against wokeness … in the name of the wokest guy in the entire New Testament, … & to be warring against socialism … in the name of the guy who literally is famous for feeding thousands of hungry people who wanted learning/understanding & food, for no money/commercial-exchange, & who also gave free healthcare to any who’d spiritually-earned it … you can see that their bible’s phrase “those who call themselves _ _ _ _ _ _ _ … but are not” is applicable to those who fake ANY religion’s membership, of any culture, anywhere!

    How completely shameless can people be??

    _ /\ _

  • djsoren19@yiffit.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    When Ronald fucking Reagan is too liberal for your party, I think it’s time for self-examination.

    • kava@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Republicans today are not the same as Republicans back then. Reagan did more for illegal immigrants than any president since. I’d vote for him in a heartbeat if it was him versus the two bad jokes currently campaigning.

      • Jomega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        He also ignored the AIDS epidemic on purpose, leaving thousands to die simply because he didn’t like gay people.

          • Jomega@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Ten thousand premeditated murders via deliberate inaction is not balanced out by a million visas granted. The severity of the crime gives it more weight. A life extinguished does not equal a life improved somewhat.

  • kamenoko@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    “It harms men.”

    So does rat poison. You walk back no fault divorce get ready for a return of mysterious deaths of shitty men.

  • Snowclone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    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.

  • Chessmasterrex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    Good way to keep those marriage rates low. Can’t get divorced if one doesn’t bother getting married in the first place.

  • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This should require anyone working on these laws that is divorced to be retroactively married to their ex-spouse automatically.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        I know more than one woman who fled one of these convenant marriage states. One still can’t get the divorce officialized because her toxic abusive husband keeps insisting on an endless parade of marriage counseling, via answers to the divorce court.

        I don’t know if forcing her back into the marriage because that same abusive husband started working for a legislative lobbying outfit would be productive.

  • BoringHusband@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

      • frunch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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

        • Enkrod@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          You could think about emigrating. We’d love to brain drain the US… more.

  • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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…

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      “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.”

      • Enkrod@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        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!

  • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.”

    • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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?

        • AProfessional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.

          • Skvlp@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            “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.

    • StaySquared@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Interestingly, I’d assume that between home surveillance systems and cell phones, proving domestic violence shouldn’t be too tough nowadays.

    • Kacarott@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Advise sons too. If marriage is going to be weaponised then it should be denormalised.

      • Aux@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        With speed things progress over there, Saudi Arabia will soon become a better place for women.

    • CPMSP@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Marriage in the eyes of a state is a legal contract. I don’t think faith is a barrier or consideration in this context.

      • مهما طال الليل@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        So they are forcing their own interpretation of Christianity on everyone? I guess that the US doesn’t have separate courts for other religions… So no one’s allowed divorce even if allowed in their religion? this can’t be legal.

        To think that the caliphate at least allowed Jews and Christians to have their own religious courts.