this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
6 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19170 readers
4573 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 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 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The crazy Christian families usually produce non christian kids.

[–] morphballganon@lemmy.world 1 points 4 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.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 months ago (2 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.

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Longevity of supreme court rulings aren't shrinking.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 4 months ago

Small group grabbed a huge piece. They didn't do that quietly. People stopped caring, became more self centered, and we lost sight of communities. We allowed this shit and we need to start voting like it.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

The xtian activists definitely are aware of this overall trend (even if many of them will outright lie about it and many of the flock probably still think they are some kind of supermajority even if they have been losing adherents at about 1% every year for year after year) and it's exactly why they are agitating to fundamentally change this country to a xtian one.

They want to be able to COMPEL people to join/stay in their little book club. The only difference between xtian radicals and Islamists is where the retconning leaves off is different. Both of them worship the same god of "the" bible - Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah and both of them have the same dim view of unbelievers and women and outsiders, etc...

[–] Paragone@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

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??

_ /\ _

[–] Snowclone@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] kava@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Jomega@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

He also ignored the AIDS epidemic on purpose, leaving thousands to die simply because he didn't like gay people.

[–] kava@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not a good thing but thousands of gays vs millions of illegals

[–] Jomega@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

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.

[–] kamenoko@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

"It harms men."

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

[–] Chessmasterrex@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Likely they will counteract by making even more things illegal, e.g. premartial sex.

[–] WindyRebel@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ah, but then there’s common-law marriages that they will institute.

[–] PseudoSpock@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Then don’t ever get rid of your own place, so you can prove you’ve only been dating, not living together.

[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

Oh yeah man, just have two homes in this economy. Great idea.

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They can't prohibit it for other faiths though. Jews, Muslims, and so on can still divorce... right?

[–] CPMSP@midwest.social 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Marriage in the eyes of a state is a legal contract. I don't think faith is a barrier or consideration in this context.

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

Just like their abortion.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -1 points 4 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.

[–] BoringHusband@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 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.

[–] MNByChoice@midwest.social 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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 0 points 4 months ago

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

[–] qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website 0 points 4 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...

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 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."

[–] Enkrod@feddit.de 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 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!

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] Kacarott@feddit.de 0 points 4 months ago

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

[–] Aux@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Murica - the land of free or something.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Free to be killed, enslaved and then raped

[–] Aux@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

With speed things progress over there, Saudi Arabia will soon become a better place for women.

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (2 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.”

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 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?

[–] skvlp@lemm.ee 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Republicans only seem to be pro life until the child is born.

[–] AProfessional@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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 -1 points 4 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 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Interestingly, I'd assume that between home surveillance systems and cell phones, proving domestic violence shouldn't be too tough nowadays.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] StaySquared@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That would be utterly shameful of the justice system.

[–] AnxiousOtter@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] StaySquared@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago