- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
- cross-posted to:
- politics@beehaw.org
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 register to comment.
Easy fix, people will stop getting married. Give the younger generation another reason to not have kids.
If the only families pumping out kids are Christian crackpots, that’s a win for them. They want to out-breed you.
The crazy Christian families usually produce non christian kids.
usually
Please cite your source for that. The religious nutters who are adults now were once kids of religious families themselves.
Christianity in the U.S. is quickly shrinking and may no longer be the majority religion within just a few decades, research finds
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christianity-us-shrinking-pew-research/
Losing their religion: why US churches are on the decline
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/22/us-churches-closing-religion-covid-christianity
In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace
Pick a study we are in a decline for a reason. The craziest ones are the most motivated but they are the few.
Longevity of supreme court rulings aren’t shrinking.
Small group grabbed a huge piece. They didn’t do that quietly. People stopped caring, became more self centered, and we lost sight of communities. We allowed this shit and we need to start voting like it.
The xtian activists definitely are aware of this overall trend (even if many of them will outright lie about it and many of the flock probably still think they are some kind of supermajority even if they have been losing adherents at about 1% every year for year after year) and it’s exactly why they are agitating to fundamentally change this country to a xtian one.
They want to be able to COMPEL people to join/stay in their little book club. The only difference between xtian radicals and Islamists is where the retconning leaves off is different. Both of them worship the same god of “the” bible - Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah and both of them have the same dim view of unbelievers and women and outsiders, etc…
When Ronald fucking Reagan is too liberal for your party, I think it’s time for self-examination.
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.
He also ignored the AIDS epidemic on purpose, leaving thousands to die simply because he didn’t like gay people.
Not a good thing but thousands of gays vs millions of illegals
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.
Good way to keep those marriage rates low. Can’t get divorced if one doesn’t bother getting married in the first place.
Likely they will counteract by making even more things illegal, e.g. premartial sex.
Ah, but then there’s common-law marriages that they will institute.
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.
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.
“It harms men.”
So does rat poison. You walk back no fault divorce get ready for a return of mysterious deaths of shitty men.
Murica - the land of free or something.
Free to be killed, enslaved and then raped
With speed things progress over there, Saudi Arabia will soon become a better place for women.
They can’t prohibit it for other faiths though. Jews, Muslims, and so on can still divorce… right?
Marriage in the eyes of a state is a legal contract. I don’t think faith is a barrier or consideration in this context.
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.
This should require anyone working on these laws that is divorced to be retroactively married to their ex-spouse automatically.
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.”
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.
Are you new here?
I am.
