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.

  • BoringHusband@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 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.

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

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

      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.

      • frunch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 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
          ·
          5 months ago

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

    • Brutticus@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      They are just going to make contraception behind locked doors/ only available to married partners, if at all available.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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.

      • randon31415@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          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.

          • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.

            • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              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.

        • Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          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

  • rab@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t even understand why people get married when all the data shows that marriages fail

  • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 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
      ·
      5 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?

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

        If they abolish no fault divorce it WILL cost lives

        “Probably, but those are lives of women, not people.”

        -Conservatives who support this shit

        • AProfessional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 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
            ·
            5 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
      ·
      5 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
      ·
      5 months ago

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

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

  • qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 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
      ·
      5 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
        5 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!

    • CPMSP@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 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
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 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.

  • Skvlp@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    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?

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

      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.

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

        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.

        • Nikki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          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

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

    • 0110010001100010@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

      • sloppy_diffuser@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

        • Skvlp@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

      • Skvlp@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        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.

  • Chessmasterrex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 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.

  • xenomor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 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.