The Christian right is coming for divorce next
The Christian right is coming for divorce next
Some conservatives want to make it a lot harder to dissolve a marriage.
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.
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.”
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.
One of the few times Reagan did something good
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...
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.
Sounds like a good time to get into the contract killing industry.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Seriously, U.S., get your shit together. This crap spills out all over the world thanks to cultural imperialism (Hollywood etc.), no beuno.
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??
_ /\ _
Mr "gifted hands" should stick his gifted fingers up his ass.
Getting married in 2024 is kibda dumb anyway?