- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
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.
The ethos of these people is largely about enforcing the dominion of men over women.* This divorce stance is about disempowering women. Abortion is about disempowering women. The move they are about to make against contraception, about removing agency from women. Age of consent, ditto. Given the opportunity, they would absolutely remove women’s right to vote, own property, maintain credit, and on and on. This is the culture that’s dominating the Republican Party and they face very little meaningful opposition right now.
- To be fair, they are also guided by a profound desire to enforce the racial dominion of what they perceive as white.
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.
I understand and ultimately it’s impossible to quantify and compare these things. I’m not trying to defend his AIDs policies. I just grew up as an illegal and I understand what it’s like living in fear.
You see a police officer and you immediately get a flight or fight response. You need to find roundabout ways to get jobs, finance a car, or rent apartments. You never know if ICE will just show up to your house one day. Or if you pick up a family member from the airport and they ask for your papers (my old boss got deported that way. His girlfriend’s niece came to stay a week. He went to pick her up. CBP was waiting with her to get documents from whoever came to pick her up)
You have to pay taxes but you don’t get to apply for things everyone else does. You wanna go to community College? Tough shit, you don’t qualify for instate tuition so you’re paying 3x the normal price. Even if you’ve lived there for 15 years and did your entire elementary / high school in the state. You’re American in all ways except one- documents
Etc etc
There are over 10 million, I think around 13 million people living just like that.
And Trump is awful. But Biden pretended like he would do something, he promised immigration reform. Promised to halt construction of the wall. Instead he expands construction and the next day does a photoshoot at the border with CBP. Month or two ago he actually used the term “illegals”
Which in my opinion isn’t a big deal but for a lot of people showed how far right he has shifted
That’s why I brought up Reagan. He gave millions of illegals amnesty and essentially removed a constant anxiety and lifted up a people that were all hiding in the shadows.
No president has done anything like that. Obama is probably second place because of DACA. I would vote for him again in a heartbeat.
So yeah I understand Reagan did the AIDs thing not trying to diminish it although we are essentially picking between people who have all done awful things. Biden went and publicly bent the knee to Israel at the start of their invasion. Trump I don’t think I even need to elaborate on
That sounds familiar…
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.
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.
…yes?
Much like the current situation with abortions in certain states.
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…
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?
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.
it WILL cost lives
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.
Those from the USA that grab the attention are not sane, but I assume there are sane people there. What are their take and outlook on this? What’s their outlook on the future, and are there developments in their outlook on the USA?
This will reverse all the good done by those laws. Domestic violence, spousal abuse and murder, and suicide will all raise significantly. This is a terrible call that nobody who truly supports freedom could get behind. It makes me want to procure large amounts of glass bottles and cloth for no particular purpose at all.
“Freedom for me, not for thee”?
As a woman in the United States I feel like I’m constantly fighting against the political future (if not the practical reality of) the handmaid’s tale.
Show or book, whatever medium floats your boat it is powerful and real and speaks so much of similar lived experiences… it should be consumed, digested, and change you after. That is my favorite type of media.
But also it is a sort of coping mechanism cuz I 100% can see the show or book happening. And while this seems off topic yeah it all starts with religion dictating law based on their morals which gee… I sure see the church. But never Christ.
So familiar.
Oops realized I didn’t answer your question and I noticed lemmy doesn’t have great track record of showing edits.
So yeah I was curious cuz as an American I still don’t get it. Ca Gov Regan passed no fault divorce and we are arguing about it fucking 50 years later because maybe someone haves to give away too much money/property? I fucking hate it.
crazy how if you outlaw getting a divorce then marital status remains the same (until someone ends up mysteriously dead in a river)
i cant believe we have to deal with this i am so tired
Then marriage becomes a jail. How can she escape if he is an asshole? Unfaithful? Violent? But that’s maybe the point?
definitely is the point
I can understand that you feel that way, is there any of your rights that seems safe? And from what I can gather there’s not a majority behind those changes - it’s a religious minority that one side needs in order to get a majority that is allowed to dictate this direction?
I haven’t seen The Handmaids Tale, but I’ve heard it’s good, and I’ve put it on my watchlist.
I suppose I could call myself sane and I’m from the US. My outlook is pretty grim honestly. We have far-right “christians” trying to turn the US into a theocracy and install a dictator. It’s real Hand Maid’s Tail shit and it’s scary as fuck.
I don’t think we have crossed the point of no return yet but we are damn fucking close. I also don’t know that there is going to be a way out of this without violence.
One thing I CAN say for sure, if Trump wins in November we have crossed that line and the US is going to be fucked for a long time.
We have far-right “christians” trying to turn the US into a theocracy and install a dictator. Have you seen the documentary God Forbid (hulu), shiny happy people (prime), or the much older netfflix doc, the family? I only ask because you’re basically making the same conclusions I got from watching them.
Also semi-sane US citizen. Same feelings. Would not be surprised if there is a major civil incident within the next 20 years.
Lower class is fucked without anything to lose.
Middle class is getting milked dry to keep infinite growth alive.
Wealthy R class keeps making these rules for thee not for me proposals in order to seize control.
Wealthy D class, other than a handful of progressives, are just as corrupt with better marketing. Complacency over Israel’s actions put some light on it at least.
These dinosaurs who are running these crimes against humanity won’t retire from office.
R has been stupidly effective at wrapping up hate in “christian love.” I can’t even understand how people buy into this crap. Wealth and power is all they want. These social issues to keep people infighting is so blatant and obvious.
I can absolutely see growing unrest if this continues. It was a bit close for comfort during the peak of BLM, but I can absolutely understand why it happened.
Good summary, I got about the same impression. Looking in from the outside it seems so obvious that there is a lot of corruption, consolidation of power, consolidation of wealth, but I guess it’s difficult to do anything about.
It’s scary as F to look at that madman getting closer to getting that kind of power again.I shiver to think what he’ll accomplish when he’s prepared.
We’re going to have to make sure the boyfriends and girl friends of our kids are all sluts. We will require bdsm, ropes, leather. rubber, nudism, open marriage, 12" penises, DDD boob jobs, LGBTQA of some kind, etc. if they possess at least 3 of these then we’re good to go. Any of them bring up God’s of any kind they get the F out.
The gayer the better
Sounds very gay
DDD boob jobs
My brain: Man I can’t wait for Dinners Drive-ins and Dives boob jobs. I wonder how they will get the frosted tips just right.
They’ll hire Guy Fierie’s Hairdresser
Wouldn’t those be frosted nips since it’s a boob job?
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.
Sounds like a good time to get into the contract killing industry.
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.
If this ever happens, I will raise a volunteer army of foxy sex addicts to ensure adultery is committed. It’ll be like this Onion article but as a free, gender-neutral service. https://www.theonion.com/government-to-defend-marriage-from-dashing-reginald-st-1819568543
You think you don’t like no fault divorce? Then I’ll make it my fault.
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!
One of the few times Reagan did something good
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. 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
Issue in that case I rather see as why is it allowed to enter into legally binding agreements when you aren’t sober. Why there isn’t a (forced) period to review the papers.
Marriage is a legally binding agreement. Let’s treat it as such.
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.
Seriously, U.S., get your shit together. This crap spills out all over the world thanks to cultural imperialism (Hollywood etc.), no beuno.
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.
