this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
572 points (98.0% liked)

politics

18672 readers
2760 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 128 points 2 months ago (15 children)

Easy fix, people will stop getting married. Give the younger generation another reason to not have kids.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 2 months ago (7 children)

If the only families pumping out kids are Christian crackpots, that's a win for them. They want to out-breed you.

[–] [email protected] 50 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The crazy Christian families usually produce non christian kids.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (1 children)

usually

Please cite your source for that. The religious nutters who are adults now were once kids of religious families themselves.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (10 children)

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

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/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.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 months ago (10 children)

Quiverfull folks are a whole bundle of crazy.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 2 months ago (3 children)

With no birth control or abortions, conception will become legally-binding marriage.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Women tend to flee areas like that. Ask China how it worked out with the one child policy.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 2 months ago (2 children)

"Well that's easy to fix! We just have to prevent them from leaving without a male guardian's permission."

– Conservatives, probably

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I guessing a spike in fathers/husbands being hammered to death in their sleep. Let me do jury duty for those cases. We'll be home by lunch.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"Jury trial for a feeeeeemale killing a man? Don't be ridiculous, that's immediate capital punishment"

While I'm being facetious, there's probably a reason why Project 2025 is specifically pushing for more and faster capital punishment

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Fuck everything attached to that wish list.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Jury nullification. Prosecutors and judges hate it, but it's not illegal!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

And with child marriage looking to make a comeback, you can bet your ass that arranged marriage will also return.

Turns out the full Biblical definition of marriage is again, women and girls have no say in who they marry. Just wait. First they legalize child marriage, then they legalize arranged marriage. Got a debt to pay off? Just offer the guy you owe money to your daughter. Want to move up the social ladder at work? Have your daughter marry into a higher class. Don't worry about what she wants. Marriage isn't about "love", whatever that is. It's a tool for moving up in the world. /s

But it's almost like they want European-style feudalism back. The CEOs and billionaires become the new nobility, and we all become serfs, and we are basically already there. But, I have a plan. I'll join my liege lord's army and hopefully I'll serve honorably enough that he shall award me a fief and small parcel of land. Then y'all can move in and become my serfs!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (6 children)

I was married, later divorced, and am now in a position where I've been in a committed relationship for more than 10 years, but we aren't married.

The benefits are clear and pushed onto us: I can't share health care with my partner if we aren't married. The system is rigged to make people in relationships eventually get married.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Next up: arranged marriages!

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] kamenoko 119 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"It harms men."

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

[–] [email protected] 65 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The absolute correct energy for this bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 88 points 2 months ago (6 children)

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

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 71 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.”

[–] [email protected] 56 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (5 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 50 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If they abolish no fault divorce it WILL cost lives

"Probably, but those are lives of women, not people."

-Conservatives who support this shit

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 57 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Those women did nothing wrong, don't punish them like that.

This is exactly why they are working on these laws: so they can treat their wives like property and the women have no recourse.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Croquette 35 points 2 months ago (3 children)

No, because they had a valid reason to get divorced, unlike everyone else.

Just like their abortion.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

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.
[–] [email protected] 38 points 2 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 2 months ago (2 children)

No. The batshit crazys are having lots and lots of kids. They want sane people to leave, to die off.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Murica - the land of free or something.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 months ago (6 children)

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

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'll be advising all of my daughters to never marry if that is the case.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rambling_lunatic 30 points 2 months ago

One of the few times Reagan did something good

[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago (3 children)

The cons have been butthurt about the 60s for as long as I can remember.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago

They want to Make America Great Again: When men were men and women were chattel.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 27 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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...

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

"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."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 2 months ago (2 children)

They conservatives do love any and all kinds of oppression and slavery!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 months ago

Sounds like a good time to get into the contract killing industry.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 months ago

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.

No-fault Divorce Laws May Have Improved Women's Well-being

load more comments
view more: next ›