570

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 41 points 6 months ago

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

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 27 points 6 months ago

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

[-] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 47 points 6 months ago

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

– Conservatives, probably

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 6 months ago

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.

[-] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 26 points 6 months ago

"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

[-] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 6 months ago

Fuck everything attached to that wish list.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

It's more than just a wish list.

[-] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 6 points 6 months ago

Yeah, that's the Republican TODO list for what will happen when / if Trump wins

[-] pivot_root@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

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

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 6 months ago

...and admitting that you know it exists is grounds for you not being allowed on a jury.

But yeah, judges judge the law, juries judge the facts. so the judge can corral how the trial proceeds and explain to the jury what criteria they are supposed to be following and what evidence they are supposed to consider but the jury can decide what it wants and their decision cannot be challenged - which means if they decide that someone is guilty/not guilty for reasons wholly unrelated to what the law actually says then that's what it is.

It's why I was surprised that Trump was found guilty on all counts in the NY trial - I was expecting a mistrial due to hung jury before the trial even started because I was expecting at least one hardcore supporter/opponent of Trump who was going to vote based on that regardless of the evidence making it impossible to have a unanimous agreement.

[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 months ago

I was expecting a mistrial due to hung jury before the trial even started because I was expecting at least one hardcore supporter/opponent of Trump who was going to vote based on that regardless of the evidence

Anyone that hardcore is easy to filter out. They would check the Facebook of any potential jurors before starting.

[-] Cosmonaut_Collin@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Looks like it's time for Utah to share it's Mormonism.

[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

I’m sure they’re counting on it being rather difficult to flee from most places in the U.S.

[-] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 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!

[-] squidman@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

We're bringing back the shotgun weddings, boys!

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

politics

19248 readers
2179 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS