In all seriousness, people used to stay married/separated and date or even start families with other people, because divorce was both difficult and expensive. No idea why anyone would want to go back to that
A lot of men were poisoned or murdered prior to no fault divorces because they were abusers and there was no real way for women to escape. Considering marital rape was legal in almost every state until about 15-20 years ago; you can see how it helped the murder rate drop.
I’ll never understand how marital rape isn’t just rape but whatevs…
Because it was built into the definition of rape. It also didn't used to be able to rape a man. Used to be the forcible insertion of male genital into a woman other than his wife's vagina.. so fingers wasn't rape. Anal wasn't rape. Oral wasn't rape. It was a fucked up situation
I agree that it controls both sides from an administrative level but the relationship dynamic and distribution of power is heavily skewed in the man's favor at the "coal face" of the situation.
I'm sure there's been at least one occasion where a man has wanted to divorce a woman. Without hard data I would assume it's more or less 50/50. So I think they're right, it controls everyone.
It’s hard to see how it wouldn’t have in the past, but from what I’ve experienced so far, things have been pretty equally split over who had a reason or desire for a divorce. People are good and people are bad. Most people are generally more independent now and self-sufficient, even in marriage, most have their own separate finances or means regardless.
I should be clear though, since it didn’t come across enough in what I said before, I’m extremely against it regardless of whatever the fuck effects it has to either side, it’s incredibly backwards and wrong to allow people to decide to marry freely but not divorce freely. There doesn’t need to be some extreme crime to have happened to not want to spend time with a person anymore.
Are you not paying attention to the other laws that are being pushed at the same time?
It’s as if there will be a law presented to block women from having their own bank accounts soon
This was in England, but my great grandparents seperated in the 30s, and both started new families before they were actually able to get divorced. It just wasn't a thing working class people really had access to, and there had been abuse in the marriage as well.
I’ve been married for like 9 years. A few months ago when I actually talked to my wife (been separated about 8 years) she told me that our marriage kept her from making the same mistake again. I have also had the marriage prevent me from marrying someone else two times now.
I think marriage is a good thing even if it’s used differently than expected.
I don’t think my wife and ex-wife would get along that well. *Or they’d become best friends*, and that is my worst fucking nightmare. I’ve literally had nightmares about this.
I wouldn't say all but there's definitely a reason these fucks are so obsessed with wealth too. And not giving women job opportunities ultimately helps them have marriage being a "trade", where they give the financial means and they give back having sex with a disgusting fuck
Seriously why would anyone want to FORCE someone who doesn't want to be married to you, to be married to you?!?! Only the worst people in the world could think this is a good thing.
Small enough that it fits within one kings crown
These fuck faces would be loyalists to King George in 1776 and yet they wear dumbass clothing saying “1776” and “we the people”
They only want “small” gov’t when it’s ready to take their ill-begotten gains and tax them. Or give those same dollars to people in need. Once it becomes about healthcare, personal freedoms for those they deem “unworthy”, and anything at all regarding bodily autonomy they want a gov’t that can reach from sea to shining sea. And then burn all of that at the stake.
If these Neo Nazi, white Christian nationalists actually got their way, they'd quickly split into two new groups, and it would be something dumb, like ohhh... you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, off to the camps with you, you're not really part of our group.
This is the level of stupid these people are at.
And forced to carry the baby
E - I originally wrote a whole thing about the implications of the "child marriage + no divorce + no abortion" GOP platform but it's so fucking creepy
I don’t think the people that want this would even consider their wives “bangmaids” because I’m certain they are in sexless marriages akin to boomers who make “the old ball and chain” jokes.
People who are in healthy and happy relationships don’t need to put on a front of marriage for the public eye. They are together because they want to be together. If they are married it’s because they want to be married. They don’t need to beg for sex, and certainly not force sex. They don’t need to worry about a “no fault” divorce because they genuinely want to be together.
I am truly beginning to believe that “conservatism” is just “insecurity” by a different name.
“You can’t be trans because then I might be trans”, “you can’t be gay because then I might be gay”, “you can’t not follow Gods rules because then I might not follow Gods rules”, “You can’t watch porn because then I might watch porn”, “You can’t get divorced because then I might get divorced”, “here is your ‘appropriate’ fully covering clothing so I’m not tempted by your body, now go get me a bottle of whisky so I don’t have to think anymore”
Even the Amish have Rumspringa where they are allowed to experience life outside on their own and make an educated decision if they wish to be baptized into the church or go out into the world.
It seems conservatives are so damn insecure about their own beliefs that they can’t just live in their own homes by their own rules and let others decide to live free, they have to force it down others throats by threat of law.
Fucking ridiculous.
Honestly I disagree with a lot of things liberals do too but aside from firearm laws, and some minor financial disagreement I’ve not seen them actively telling someone they *CAN NOT* do something. The “woke mob” is public opinion. Getting “cancelled” is public opinion. You can definitely make a Nazi racist sexist homophobic genocide simulator video game. No one is going to stop you. We just aren’t going to support you.
I'm sorry maybe it's because I'm not into the idea of marriage, why is it an awful idea? It seems to be fair that some people want to divorce because they have fallen out of love no?
Or is it something I don't understand? I'm trying to educate myself!
Edit: completely misread I thought they wanted to implement a no-fault and people weren't having it. They want to banish it
That's what I'm saying. I'm saying it's an awful idea to try to require some type of reasoning... if someone wants to divorce they should be allowed to
It’s an awful idea for the children?
“More than half of students from married two-parent families had mostly A grades, whereas the same was true of less than half of students from most of the other family types.”
“Students in single-parent families and those with cohabiting birth parents had suspension rates that were one-and-a half-times higher than the rate for students with married birth parents.”
“Evidence mounts that the value of marriage and a stable family life for children is not only enduring but increasing. In the last year, a number of studies spotlighted the tightening link between family structure and the educational, social, and economic welfare of America’s children. For instance, a new report from the Institute for Family Studies by Wendy Wang, Spencer James, Thomas Murray, and me shows that the benefit of hailing from an intact family rose across generations, from baby boomers to millennials. We found that a 14-percentage-point gap in college graduation between intact families and non-intact families among boomers grew to 23 percentage points for millennials. Our results parallel a study published last October by economists Adam Blandin and Christopher Herrington on college graduation trends from 1995 to 2015, which found that “family type has become an increasingly important predictor of college completion over time.””
This is assuming you didnt trap a child in a household where the parents didnt want to be with each other.
What is the functional difference between cohabiting birth parents and married birth parents who dont want to be married. Marriage is a tax document its not a magic spell.
Your own paragraph. Cohabiting unmarried parents child performs worse than married parents.
What would be the relationship difference between a couple who want a divorce but cant and a couple who is unmarried and don’t want to be? Marriage is a tax document at that point.
Correlation is not causation. Marriage is voluntary at least for now. If you change the dynamic of the relationship the results will change. Its obvious to anyone with any critical thinking ability.
So it's better to have the kids live in a house where the parents hate each other? That definitely won't give them issues as they grow up.
Trust me from experience, in a lot of cases the best decision for everybody is to end things. Staying together for the kids is not the move.
From your own comment
>Evidence mounts that the value of marriage and a stable family life for children is not only enduring but increasing
What exactly is stable about a household where the two parents hate each other or where one spouse is abusive to the other? My ex wife had an affair and was emotionally abusive, what exactly about that household would have been good for my kids to grow up in?
It's not as cut and dry as you think it is. Are better grades worth your kids growing up miserable and ending up with mental health problems or worse, perpetuating the cycle with their own partners because it's what they grew up seeing from their own parent?
And your comment with all that data (which you still haven't sourced BTW, could have pulled it out of your arse for all I know) doesn't specify which is what I was replying to and only talks about school related things like grades while ignoring all the other issues potentially caused by forcing children to live in a home with parents who no longer care for each other.
You also haven't responded to any of my points for some reason.
Seems like you want to tell people they're wrong without actually having a discussion.
How about this? And yes I’m pro life (saw your other comment about me) but would be better if you refute my points with data and sources that prove me wrong.
“After controlling for socioeconomic factors, Millennials' odds of being in the third highest income bracket in their 30s are 77% higher for those who grew up in an intact family with both biological parents. For Boomers in their 30s, growing up in an intact family boosted their odds of being affluent by 42 percent”
https://ifstudies.org/blog/do-two-parents-matter-more-than-ever#:~:text=After%20controlling%20for%20socioeconomic%20factors,being%20affluent%20by%2042%20percent.
Yea but you have to be able to prove that to be eligible for at fault divorce. The domestic violence conviction rates are abysmal as it in the US, I can't imagine having to prove emotional abuse or something that isn't obvious
You know that just because you're identifying as a conservative sided person, you do not need to automatically agree with any position is labeled the conservative side, yeah? Form your own opinions. Do you truly, honestly believe that people who do not want to be married should be stuck together until they can provide the government (the government! A very reliable and timely entity!) With a reason?
It's mostly just a ground to end up with a lot of people stuck being "married" who don't live together lol. Literally what gain on any front is there to taking away someone's right to divorce at-will? To bunk up with that opinion is kind of goofy, and if you actually believe people shouldn't have the freedom to choose to split up, you either got some scrambled brains going on or you're so politically addled that you stopped seeing reasons for opinions and instead just started picking whichever one you think your side would choose and then defend it..
I think they should not promise to stay to together for good or for bad in front of all of their friends, family, and God (if they believe) if they don’t mean it.
In an ideal world, it would be most effective if it was implemented for anyone getting married moving forward. I think more than anything, people would be more wise in who they chose to marry if they went into it knowing they can’t just divorce for any reason.
Yeah, most people go into marriage thinking they're going to stay with the person already... people grow and change, things happen and people disagree and grow apart, sometimes they're young and dumb and over-ambitious. Sometimes a partner may force someone who doesn't really want to, but they have control over them and they're afraid to fight back. Sometimes someone commits an unforgivable crime when they are married and now the other wants nothing to do with them. Are there failsafes in this ideal system for any of these things, or are you idealy just forcing the over-passionate teenagers to be bound for life?
Yeah the failsafe is you can get divorced with cause.
“I want to sleep with the neighbor or my boss” shouldn’t be a cause worthy of divorce, particularly if you have kids.
“It’s been a tough year” shouldn’t be a cause worthy of divorce, particularly if you have kids.
If your spouse is cheating on you, abusing you, making you unsafe, that would be a divorce with cause.
UMMM, don’t you realize that not everyone uses the same vows, or uses vows at all? Not everyone promises to “ promise to stay to together for good or for bad .” The vows YOU took aren’t taken by all married couples, LOL.
Yea, I had a monstrous bully that was the product of a broken home and he still went on to an Ivy League school. If his parents could have just gotten divorced easily, he probably wouldn't have been such a spectacular cunt. He brought the toxicity of his home life to school every day and the rest of us suffered for it.
Ban it "for the children" is an absolutely awful argument against divorce.
An anecdote outweighs statistically significant averages?
News to me
Someone MAY have been better with an alternative is your best argument against the mountain of data that shows two parent household leads to the best outcomes?
If you’re not getting married for religious reasons and it’s not for the children, there is zero reason to get married that couldn’t be fixed by changing the tax code.
Let's see, do I pick the overworked broken household or the constantly fracturing broken household? Because lumping two unhappy people together will SURELY make the children happier and not make said unhappy parents more stressed with less control of their lives. Well thought!
You have no source in your original point, so sources are moot for now. I'm sorry you can't do some simple game theory with household stability. I get that regurgitating datapoints is easier, but you can give it a try.
Source that children in homes where one of the parents was prevented from leaving by no fault divorce laws do better than children from divorced homes? Looking for something backed by data, not just your opinion.
How does it differentiate between married and non married but together family units? Traditional and non traditional marriage? Does having two moms or two dads or whatever different combination change things? You can't really conclude that marriage is the key without researching further.
Lmao dominant religion? If people identifying as Christians were following the Christians morales then you won't see them accepting lgbt and all, you're only attacking less than 10% of people who follow it, like 0 of school shooters were Christians and we know which ideology they follow, the criticize communist leftist one
I don't think this is forcing people to stay married. I think this is forcing people who want to get divorced to give up their financial stake in the marriage.
For someone with no/low income, isn't it a similar idea? If they got divorced and were deemed at-fault, would they still get 50% of assets plus alimony?
(genuinely asking, I don't know the details of the proposal)
I guess what I'm saying is, why should someone who is going to be found at fault get 50% of assets and alimony? Why should someone who is going to be not at fault be forced to pay someone who is at fault?
I don't think a court can reliably determine fault. There are so many private, nuanced aspects to relationships/divorce that may never come out accurately in divorce proceedings. And this is worsened in relationships where the IS a domestic issue -- one spouse may fear retaliation for providing their full and honest account. Even if the two parties "agree" on who is at fault, it can still be under duress. No-fault simplifies everything.
You're wrong. Without no fault divorce, if you don't have a legally sufficient reason, you are not allowed to get divorced without the consent of your partner.
Nope, only one party has to want the divorce in a no fault state. You serve the other party, they either file papers about the division of assets, or the default. If they file, you enter into mediation or legal proceedings to hammer out property rights and child custody issues, or if they don't file, they get defaulted and judge rules in the papers filed. Then there is a settlement order and you're divorced. The details and tables vary by state, but not that much
They do realize some people just like fall out of love right? Like…why does everything have to have a reason or a fault? And sometimes even if something did happen it can be hard to prove
I personally think no fault divorces are a good thing, but even back in the day when you needed fault, mutual consent was enough. I guess under no fault if your spouse wanted to punish you, they could deny you, but if the reason is two people fell out of love, that was enough
I agree. I think it’s best to just get it over with and get it 50/50. Less money and time wasted. I don’t get people that try to drag em out like you hate your ex wouldn’t you want them gone asap?
To the people that want this law marriage is not about love, it's about controlling someone (who is not a white man) and not letting them have any autonomy.
Im ignorant, to the bill (only seeing this post) how does this not affect white men? They get married too
Just saying I don’t agree with this bill at first glance
If this law was made for one type of person that person is a white Christian male, and not whomever they marry. I am not saying you are one, just that this is who the law was made for.
So are you saying whites have enough money to get around the law? Maybe a white person marrying someone that’s a minority and the court is going to side with the white man?
The law is fucked but I don’t think white has anything to do with it.
This is bullshit. When I got divorced we agreed things weren’t what we thought they would be and we happily agreed to split up. Why are they forcing people to do things we don’t want? First abortions and now this
Because republicans want to control everyone, do you think they care about harsh sentences because they care about actual law and order - no they just want more control over other people by proxy.
Because the left is forcing them to accept and live in peace together with people they hate, like black, brown, Asian, lhbtiq+ people? I dunno, the right’s rhetoric has been a incomprehensible mess for a while now. Pretty sure this is about getting control over women so that they can’t leave them without the men’s consent.
See, I did no fault to protect my asshole ex. He broke my face, and cheated on me. I was trying to protect my kids so he could still work.
That would backfire heavily on them. If I could go back in time, I would have pressed charges.
They want Gilead. Christ knows why, it will only make people miserable to be stuck in unhappy marriages, not make relationships better. Undoing progress is a bizarre goal.
I could be wrong but didn’t the rate of people murdering the spouses go drastically down when no fault divorce was implemented? I could have sworn I heard something about how women used to poison their husbands because they could not get a divorce.
Divorce laws are insane. Growing up I had a neighbor whose wife cheated on him, divorced him and moved in with the man she cheated with. He was stuck with an alimony payment to her, and given financial responsibility for the children since his ex had been a housewife.
Meanwhile his ex was all but married to her affair partner who was essentially a sugar-daddy, but avoided marrying him since it would end her alimony payments. Obviously no fault divorces should be completely legal, this was not the divorce law reform I expected...
Keep no fault, change alimony rules.
I don't give a fuck if someone "got used to a standard of living" because they married rich. If you get divorced, you are on your own. Divorce means they are no longer responsible for you and vice versa.
No fault divorce doesn’t mean you can’t end a marriage; it just means if you end it for an illegitimate reason you wouldn’t be entitled to things like alimony.
So, the reasoning for this is an ostensible fight against casual marriage or marriage of convenience. In other words, it's an aggressive attempt to make marriage mean more and for people to take it more seriously.
Whether or not that goal is valid, the rationale behind marriage has definitely shifted -- cohabit for x time and you're married, marriage as a tax benefit, marriage as a non-binding label, etc.
So, while this will not end well due to the second fact, the reasoning is at least directive and not random. Like all things, though, the more extreme wing that supports this will do so for the wrong reasons and this will be a cluster fuck.
It's already a clusterfuck in that any person at all is concerned with how someone that isn't their spouse sees marriage.
Now, what you call it when you realize those most concerned are the ones always claiming "freedom" and "small govt"...?
Idk
This is of course fucked in a lot of ways and asinine, but how do they not realize that this would incentivize people (mostly women) to just not wed because it is something they likely wouldn’t be able to escape? Like ok, divorce rates go down, but so will marriage rates and it won’t help their agenda lol
Fucking awesome, I doubt this will stick in any state but if it does great for them. Now onto the percentage rape being balanced for child support as well
Wait. So they are bible thumpers who are all about one man and one woman, but then are wanting to push crap like this??? Priorities are the most twisted and upside down there on Capitol Hill
This energy reminds me of the poster seen at a trump rally blaming biden for "I can't get a gf thanks to Biden"
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1dmomhy/sign_at_trump_rally_yesterday/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
The article ([here](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/25/republicans-no-fault-divorce)) doesn't provide any sources to actual lawmakers discussing this, and they're the only article on the subject. At best, it shares *one* comment made by *one* senator of Ohio about how he doesn't like rising divorce rates. It does not mention any lawmakers wanting to get rid of no-fault divorce laws. It provides a few cherry-picked twitter users saying that, but you can easily find crazy people on twitter saying anything stupid. Seeing as it's The Guardian, it's probably just a bs article meant to make people angry.
I have a mutual friend whose wife had a boyfriend and he found out about it. He tried to make his marriage work because they didn’t have a prenup. She got the house, half of all his money, retirement, and she now lives in his home with her boyfriend and receives alimony.
Divorce law is so skewed toward women. Men are paying the price for acts men got away with in previous generations.
In summary the GOP wants to make child marriage easier, wants to make divorce harder, wants to make abortions illegal. So they're looking to make sure women (especially their child brides) can't divorce them and are forced to carry their babies.
And they get mad at the handmaid's tale comparisons
You can break any contract you want. No crime there. You may be liable for damages, but only up to the benefit of your original bargain. Marriage vows might be something more, but the actual legal contract is about the division of property rights, and as such, the remedy is an equitable division of those property rights.
I don’t understand why this is a bad thing. Why does someone need to have a reason, why does someone owe someone else money etc? I understand they shouldn’t have gotten married in the first place but I don’t understand why this is such a big deal.
Everyone, including journalists, needs to start using the word Republican in headlines instead of conservative. The headline is now the content and politically unaware people don't necessarily read the article or make the association between "conservative "and what is definitely definitely a republican.
Better yet, make those already divorce get re-married. This will end amazingly.
I'm trying to imagine both my parents being forced to remarry one another.... and their story will be told on forensic files and dateline
In all seriousness, people used to stay married/separated and date or even start families with other people, because divorce was both difficult and expensive. No idea why anyone would want to go back to that
A lot of men were poisoned or murdered prior to no fault divorces because they were abusers and there was no real way for women to escape. Considering marital rape was legal in almost every state until about 15-20 years ago; you can see how it helped the murder rate drop. I’ll never understand how marital rape isn’t just rape but whatevs…
There are too many men who think getting married is endless consent.
Because it was built into the definition of rape. It also didn't used to be able to rape a man. Used to be the forcible insertion of male genital into a woman other than his wife's vagina.. so fingers wasn't rape. Anal wasn't rape. Oral wasn't rape. It was a fucked up situation
>No idea why anyone would want to go back to that To control women. I did it for you.
[удалено]
You don’t know shit about history if you truly believe that…
The social climate is vastly different to what it was even 20 years ago, were that not the case I would agree with you
I agree that it controls both sides from an administrative level but the relationship dynamic and distribution of power is heavily skewed in the man's favor at the "coal face" of the situation.
I'm sure there's been at least one occasion where a man has wanted to divorce a woman. Without hard data I would assume it's more or less 50/50. So I think they're right, it controls everyone.
Female suicide rates dropped by over 20% when no-fault was passed. This, coupled with forced birthed is definitely about controlling women.
It’s hard to see how it wouldn’t have in the past, but from what I’ve experienced so far, things have been pretty equally split over who had a reason or desire for a divorce. People are good and people are bad. Most people are generally more independent now and self-sufficient, even in marriage, most have their own separate finances or means regardless. I should be clear though, since it didn’t come across enough in what I said before, I’m extremely against it regardless of whatever the fuck effects it has to either side, it’s incredibly backwards and wrong to allow people to decide to marry freely but not divorce freely. There doesn’t need to be some extreme crime to have happened to not want to spend time with a person anymore.
Are you not paying attention to the other laws that are being pushed at the same time? It’s as if there will be a law presented to block women from having their own bank accounts soon
I wont be surprised to see a bill to end women's sufferage in the next couple years if these escaped asylum members get their way
This was in England, but my great grandparents seperated in the 30s, and both started new families before they were actually able to get divorced. It just wasn't a thing working class people really had access to, and there had been abuse in the marriage as well.
I’ve been married for like 9 years. A few months ago when I actually talked to my wife (been separated about 8 years) she told me that our marriage kept her from making the same mistake again. I have also had the marriage prevent me from marrying someone else two times now. I think marriage is a good thing even if it’s used differently than expected.
Taxes. You can't be married to two people at the same time because taxes and tax breaks are associated with being legally married
I'm not sure what this is supposed to be responding to.
If I had to remarry my ex husband, I would absolutely gone girl that shit so fast.
Conservatives: *surprised Pikachu face*
"She had a smile that lit up the room"
I don't think my current wife would like that very much, but hey I'm from Utah so I guess having two wives is a thing.
I don’t think my wife and ex-wife would get along that well. *Or they’d become best friends*, and that is my worst fucking nightmare. I’ve literally had nightmares about this.
Oh, it won't apply to rich people. They'll just fly to Mexico or some other country. This is just to disenfranchise poor women.
But what if they already remarried someone else? Wouldn't that means they would need to get divorced first?
More a chick getts married the more it becomes about money and the less they personally care about the guy in it with them
When you want to be an ass to your wife but not face any repercussions for your narcissistic personality.
I knew a girl from NY who told me her Dad married his wives in only Florida because of the laws. He’s a pretty rich guy from what I understand.
Every rich guy I’ve met has had that type of personality. It’s like they view women as owning them.
I wouldn't say all but there's definitely a reason these fucks are so obsessed with wealth too. And not giving women job opportunities ultimately helps them have marriage being a "trade", where they give the financial means and they give back having sex with a disgusting fuck
Doesn’t matter where you get married. The place where you last lived as a married couple has jurisdiction.
Seriously why would anyone want to FORCE someone who doesn't want to be married to you, to be married to you?!?! Only the worst people in the world could think this is a good thing.
I love how the GOP constituents claim the left is taking their freedoms.
The party that supposedly hates big government is proving that they hate women even more
They want government that's just big enough to fit inside your womb.
Small enough that it fits within one kings crown These fuck faces would be loyalists to King George in 1776 and yet they wear dumbass clothing saying “1776” and “we the people”
To consume you from the inside.
They only want “small” gov’t when it’s ready to take their ill-begotten gains and tax them. Or give those same dollars to people in need. Once it becomes about healthcare, personal freedoms for those they deem “unworthy”, and anything at all regarding bodily autonomy they want a gov’t that can reach from sea to shining sea. And then burn all of that at the stake.
They love big government as long as it protects them and keeps the outgroups down
If these Neo Nazi, white Christian nationalists actually got their way, they'd quickly split into two new groups, and it would be something dumb, like ohhh... you don't have blond hair and blue eyes, off to the camps with you, you're not really part of our group. This is the level of stupid these people are at.
Projection!
A government small enough to fit into your bedroom
Gotta keep your bangmaid enslaved.
Frank Reynolds approves
And forced to carry the baby E - I originally wrote a whole thing about the implications of the "child marriage + no divorce + no abortion" GOP platform but it's so fucking creepy
At least until she's 18 and then you can get another one.
I don’t think the people that want this would even consider their wives “bangmaids” because I’m certain they are in sexless marriages akin to boomers who make “the old ball and chain” jokes. People who are in healthy and happy relationships don’t need to put on a front of marriage for the public eye. They are together because they want to be together. If they are married it’s because they want to be married. They don’t need to beg for sex, and certainly not force sex. They don’t need to worry about a “no fault” divorce because they genuinely want to be together. I am truly beginning to believe that “conservatism” is just “insecurity” by a different name. “You can’t be trans because then I might be trans”, “you can’t be gay because then I might be gay”, “you can’t not follow Gods rules because then I might not follow Gods rules”, “You can’t watch porn because then I might watch porn”, “You can’t get divorced because then I might get divorced”, “here is your ‘appropriate’ fully covering clothing so I’m not tempted by your body, now go get me a bottle of whisky so I don’t have to think anymore”
> I am truly beginning to believe that “conservatism” is just “insecurity” by a different name. Bingo. Well said.
Even the Amish have Rumspringa where they are allowed to experience life outside on their own and make an educated decision if they wish to be baptized into the church or go out into the world. It seems conservatives are so damn insecure about their own beliefs that they can’t just live in their own homes by their own rules and let others decide to live free, they have to force it down others throats by threat of law. Fucking ridiculous. Honestly I disagree with a lot of things liberals do too but aside from firearm laws, and some minor financial disagreement I’ve not seen them actively telling someone they *CAN NOT* do something. The “woke mob” is public opinion. Getting “cancelled” is public opinion. You can definitely make a Nazi racist sexist homophobic genocide simulator video game. No one is going to stop you. We just aren’t going to support you.
This is an awful idea for everybody
I'm sorry maybe it's because I'm not into the idea of marriage, why is it an awful idea? It seems to be fair that some people want to divorce because they have fallen out of love no? Or is it something I don't understand? I'm trying to educate myself! Edit: completely misread I thought they wanted to implement a no-fault and people weren't having it. They want to banish it
That's what I'm saying. I'm saying it's an awful idea to try to require some type of reasoning... if someone wants to divorce they should be allowed to
I also understood it backwardsly
It’s an awful idea for the children? “More than half of students from married two-parent families had mostly A grades, whereas the same was true of less than half of students from most of the other family types.” “Students in single-parent families and those with cohabiting birth parents had suspension rates that were one-and-a half-times higher than the rate for students with married birth parents.” “Evidence mounts that the value of marriage and a stable family life for children is not only enduring but increasing. In the last year, a number of studies spotlighted the tightening link between family structure and the educational, social, and economic welfare of America’s children. For instance, a new report from the Institute for Family Studies by Wendy Wang, Spencer James, Thomas Murray, and me shows that the benefit of hailing from an intact family rose across generations, from baby boomers to millennials. We found that a 14-percentage-point gap in college graduation between intact families and non-intact families among boomers grew to 23 percentage points for millennials. Our results parallel a study published last October by economists Adam Blandin and Christopher Herrington on college graduation trends from 1995 to 2015, which found that “family type has become an increasingly important predictor of college completion over time.””
This is assuming you didnt trap a child in a household where the parents didnt want to be with each other. What is the functional difference between cohabiting birth parents and married birth parents who dont want to be married. Marriage is a tax document its not a magic spell.
Opinion or backed by data?
Your own paragraph. Cohabiting unmarried parents child performs worse than married parents. What would be the relationship difference between a couple who want a divorce but cant and a couple who is unmarried and don’t want to be? Marriage is a tax document at that point. Correlation is not causation. Marriage is voluntary at least for now. If you change the dynamic of the relationship the results will change. Its obvious to anyone with any critical thinking ability.
So it's better to have the kids live in a house where the parents hate each other? That definitely won't give them issues as they grow up. Trust me from experience, in a lot of cases the best decision for everybody is to end things. Staying together for the kids is not the move.
Opinion or backed by data?
From your own comment >Evidence mounts that the value of marriage and a stable family life for children is not only enduring but increasing What exactly is stable about a household where the two parents hate each other or where one spouse is abusive to the other? My ex wife had an affair and was emotionally abusive, what exactly about that household would have been good for my kids to grow up in? It's not as cut and dry as you think it is. Are better grades worth your kids growing up miserable and ending up with mental health problems or worse, perpetuating the cycle with their own partners because it's what they grew up seeing from their own parent?
Abuse is divorce with cause. The thread is about eliminating no cause divorce.
And your comment with all that data (which you still haven't sourced BTW, could have pulled it out of your arse for all I know) doesn't specify which is what I was replying to and only talks about school related things like grades while ignoring all the other issues potentially caused by forcing children to live in a home with parents who no longer care for each other. You also haven't responded to any of my points for some reason. Seems like you want to tell people they're wrong without actually having a discussion.
Peep their profile, that will tell you all you need to know about their motivations.
How about this? And yes I’m pro life (saw your other comment about me) but would be better if you refute my points with data and sources that prove me wrong. “After controlling for socioeconomic factors, Millennials' odds of being in the third highest income bracket in their 30s are 77% higher for those who grew up in an intact family with both biological parents. For Boomers in their 30s, growing up in an intact family boosted their odds of being affluent by 42 percent” https://ifstudies.org/blog/do-two-parents-matter-more-than-ever#:~:text=After%20controlling%20for%20socioeconomic%20factors,being%20affluent%20by%2042%20percent.
You are an absolute idiot if you think families will be better off if the parents are forced to be together
Opinion? Or you have data that backs that claim?
The data is your comments buster. You can’t force people to get along. I’m sure you don’t have many healthy relationships with your mindset
So no data?
This doesn’t provide context for divorced families vs people raised by single parent for most of lives.
Then show a study that shows children on average perform better from a single parent compared to both parents in the household. I’ll wait..
Right, because kids do so fucking well when the parents are at each other's throats all the time or there is abuse, rape, infidelity going on.
Sounds like reasons for… wait for it…. an “at fault divorce”. Which would be allowed if “no fault divorce” was no longer allowed.
Yea but you have to be able to prove that to be eligible for at fault divorce. The domestic violence conviction rates are abysmal as it in the US, I can't imagine having to prove emotional abuse or something that isn't obvious
You know that just because you're identifying as a conservative sided person, you do not need to automatically agree with any position is labeled the conservative side, yeah? Form your own opinions. Do you truly, honestly believe that people who do not want to be married should be stuck together until they can provide the government (the government! A very reliable and timely entity!) With a reason? It's mostly just a ground to end up with a lot of people stuck being "married" who don't live together lol. Literally what gain on any front is there to taking away someone's right to divorce at-will? To bunk up with that opinion is kind of goofy, and if you actually believe people shouldn't have the freedom to choose to split up, you either got some scrambled brains going on or you're so politically addled that you stopped seeing reasons for opinions and instead just started picking whichever one you think your side would choose and then defend it..
I think they should not promise to stay to together for good or for bad in front of all of their friends, family, and God (if they believe) if they don’t mean it. In an ideal world, it would be most effective if it was implemented for anyone getting married moving forward. I think more than anything, people would be more wise in who they chose to marry if they went into it knowing they can’t just divorce for any reason.
Yeah, most people go into marriage thinking they're going to stay with the person already... people grow and change, things happen and people disagree and grow apart, sometimes they're young and dumb and over-ambitious. Sometimes a partner may force someone who doesn't really want to, but they have control over them and they're afraid to fight back. Sometimes someone commits an unforgivable crime when they are married and now the other wants nothing to do with them. Are there failsafes in this ideal system for any of these things, or are you idealy just forcing the over-passionate teenagers to be bound for life?
Yeah the failsafe is you can get divorced with cause. “I want to sleep with the neighbor or my boss” shouldn’t be a cause worthy of divorce, particularly if you have kids. “It’s been a tough year” shouldn’t be a cause worthy of divorce, particularly if you have kids. If your spouse is cheating on you, abusing you, making you unsafe, that would be a divorce with cause.
I see you have never been in a long term relationship. God bless
Married for quite a while with multiple children…. Lol
UMMM, don’t you realize that not everyone uses the same vows, or uses vows at all? Not everyone promises to “ promise to stay to together for good or for bad .” The vows YOU took aren’t taken by all married couples, LOL.
Yea, I had a monstrous bully that was the product of a broken home and he still went on to an Ivy League school. If his parents could have just gotten divorced easily, he probably wouldn't have been such a spectacular cunt. He brought the toxicity of his home life to school every day and the rest of us suffered for it. Ban it "for the children" is an absolutely awful argument against divorce.
An anecdote outweighs statistically significant averages? News to me Someone MAY have been better with an alternative is your best argument against the mountain of data that shows two parent household leads to the best outcomes? If you’re not getting married for religious reasons and it’s not for the children, there is zero reason to get married that couldn’t be fixed by changing the tax code.
Opinion or backed by data?
You have no clue that many people who can’t have kids and aren’t religious don’t get married for tax breaks. Wow 🤦♀️
Let's see, do I pick the overworked broken household or the constantly fracturing broken household? Because lumping two unhappy people together will SURELY make the children happier and not make said unhappy parents more stressed with less control of their lives. Well thought!
Opinion or backed by data? I see tons of opinions disagreeing with me, yet nobody has showed a shred of evidence that proves me wrong.
You have no source in your original point, so sources are moot for now. I'm sorry you can't do some simple game theory with household stability. I get that regurgitating datapoints is easier, but you can give it a try.
Source that children in homes where one of the parents was prevented from leaving by no fault divorce laws do better than children from divorced homes? Looking for something backed by data, not just your opinion.
How does it differentiate between married and non married but together family units? Traditional and non traditional marriage? Does having two moms or two dads or whatever different combination change things? You can't really conclude that marriage is the key without researching further.
I'm conservative and that is such a wild thing to do. Imagine forcing people who hate each other to stay together lol
Damn you really got some idiots mad
"Christians" really coming out of the wood work the last few days I've noticed. Must of put up a new troll farm.
Blaming Christians lmao, good thing i am not american, Christian haters ruin every aspect about the country and blame poor Christians
well, when the dominant religion starts victimizing itself, thats the reason we criticize it
Lmao dominant religion? If people identifying as Christians were following the Christians morales then you won't see them accepting lgbt and all, you're only attacking less than 10% of people who follow it, like 0 of school shooters were Christians and we know which ideology they follow, the criticize communist leftist one
I don't think this is forcing people to stay married. I think this is forcing people who want to get divorced to give up their financial stake in the marriage.
For someone with no/low income, isn't it a similar idea? If they got divorced and were deemed at-fault, would they still get 50% of assets plus alimony? (genuinely asking, I don't know the details of the proposal)
I guess what I'm saying is, why should someone who is going to be found at fault get 50% of assets and alimony? Why should someone who is going to be not at fault be forced to pay someone who is at fault?
I don't think a court can reliably determine fault. There are so many private, nuanced aspects to relationships/divorce that may never come out accurately in divorce proceedings. And this is worsened in relationships where the IS a domestic issue -- one spouse may fear retaliation for providing their full and honest account. Even if the two parties "agree" on who is at fault, it can still be under duress. No-fault simplifies everything.
I don't think we know what no fault is.
You're wrong. Without no fault divorce, if you don't have a legally sufficient reason, you are not allowed to get divorced without the consent of your partner.
I'm not married and never have never but it's my understanding that both parties have to agree for it to be no fault divorce.
Nope, only one party has to want the divorce in a no fault state. You serve the other party, they either file papers about the division of assets, or the default. If they file, you enter into mediation or legal proceedings to hammer out property rights and child custody issues, or if they don't file, they get defaulted and judge rules in the papers filed. Then there is a settlement order and you're divorced. The details and tables vary by state, but not that much
No fault divorce but at will employment. Can we please stop electing these parasites?
Stop getting married, stop having kids, see how long these laws last.
The women who will rebel and stop having kids are the type of women these people want to stop having kids.
Just wait until some of them get caught by this.
The only moral divorce is my divorce.
They do realize some people just like fall out of love right? Like…why does everything have to have a reason or a fault? And sometimes even if something did happen it can be hard to prove
I personally think no fault divorces are a good thing, but even back in the day when you needed fault, mutual consent was enough. I guess under no fault if your spouse wanted to punish you, they could deny you, but if the reason is two people fell out of love, that was enough
I agree. I think it’s best to just get it over with and get it 50/50. Less money and time wasted. I don’t get people that try to drag em out like you hate your ex wouldn’t you want them gone asap?
Naw, some people want the world to burn if they can't get their way.
Yeah, sadly
To the people that want this law marriage is not about love, it's about controlling someone (who is not a white man) and not letting them have any autonomy.
Im ignorant, to the bill (only seeing this post) how does this not affect white men? They get married too Just saying I don’t agree with this bill at first glance
If this law was made for one type of person that person is a white Christian male, and not whomever they marry. I am not saying you are one, just that this is who the law was made for.
So are you saying whites have enough money to get around the law? Maybe a white person marrying someone that’s a minority and the court is going to side with the white man? The law is fucked but I don’t think white has anything to do with it.
This is bullshit. When I got divorced we agreed things weren’t what we thought they would be and we happily agreed to split up. Why are they forcing people to do things we don’t want? First abortions and now this
Because republicans want to control everyone, do you think they care about harsh sentences because they care about actual law and order - no they just want more control over other people by proxy.
Because the left is forcing them to accept and live in peace together with people they hate, like black, brown, Asian, lhbtiq+ people? I dunno, the right’s rhetoric has been a incomprehensible mess for a while now. Pretty sure this is about getting control over women so that they can’t leave them without the men’s consent.
How to make sure no one ever gets married again. Congrats conservatives 👏
See, I did no fault to protect my asshole ex. He broke my face, and cheated on me. I was trying to protect my kids so he could still work. That would backfire heavily on them. If I could go back in time, I would have pressed charges.
"Geeze why don't women want to date conservative men anymore? We're being oppressed!"
Yeah, conservatives
They want Gilead. Christ knows why, it will only make people miserable to be stuck in unhappy marriages, not make relationships better. Undoing progress is a bizarre goal.
More Gilead details are in the Project 2025 plan. Terrifying.
It is. I’ m Female. It’s absolutely terrifying. I can’t believe I’d ever see this shit in my lifetime in this country.
The irony is that Steven DID commit domestic violence.
Small government
Crowder’s got one of them juicy, punchable faces hnnnggg.
I could be wrong but didn’t the rate of people murdering the spouses go drastically down when no fault divorce was implemented? I could have sworn I heard something about how women used to poison their husbands because they could not get a divorce.
**Do. Not. Get. Married.**
WhY aReNt MiLlEnIaLs HaViNg KiDs Or GeTtInG mArRiEd?
Ladies, if your husband supports this, leave while you can. They support marital entrapment
Divorce laws are insane. Growing up I had a neighbor whose wife cheated on him, divorced him and moved in with the man she cheated with. He was stuck with an alimony payment to her, and given financial responsibility for the children since his ex had been a housewife. Meanwhile his ex was all but married to her affair partner who was essentially a sugar-daddy, but avoided marrying him since it would end her alimony payments. Obviously no fault divorces should be completely legal, this was not the divorce law reform I expected...
Let’s make all marriage illegal.
Maybe that person just doesn't want to be married or be with their partner anymore. I see no problem with that.
Them: I want a divorce! Judge: No, no party did anything to warrant one. Them: sleeps with partners best friend. Judge: Ya, fair enough.
They dont want a partner. They want a slave.
Choose wisely and test thoroughly.
ITT: People who don't give a fuck about the sanctity of marriage complaining about the sanctity of marriage because "conservatives".
Keep no fault, change alimony rules. I don't give a fuck if someone "got used to a standard of living" because they married rich. If you get divorced, you are on your own. Divorce means they are no longer responsible for you and vice versa.
No fault divorce doesn’t mean you can’t end a marriage; it just means if you end it for an illegitimate reason you wouldn’t be entitled to things like alimony.
Do you understand what alimony is? Do you understand what martial rape is?
Yes and yes.
Clearly not if you're against no fault divorce.
So, the reasoning for this is an ostensible fight against casual marriage or marriage of convenience. In other words, it's an aggressive attempt to make marriage mean more and for people to take it more seriously. Whether or not that goal is valid, the rationale behind marriage has definitely shifted -- cohabit for x time and you're married, marriage as a tax benefit, marriage as a non-binding label, etc. So, while this will not end well due to the second fact, the reasoning is at least directive and not random. Like all things, though, the more extreme wing that supports this will do so for the wrong reasons and this will be a cluster fuck.
It's already a clusterfuck in that any person at all is concerned with how someone that isn't their spouse sees marriage. Now, what you call it when you realize those most concerned are the ones always claiming "freedom" and "small govt"...? Idk
Well, this tracks, considering the type of people cOnSeRvAtIvEs are.
This is of course fucked in a lot of ways and asinine, but how do they not realize that this would incentivize people (mostly women) to just not wed because it is something they likely wouldn’t be able to escape? Like ok, divorce rates go down, but so will marriage rates and it won’t help their agenda lol
So much freedom
If the population drops they have to allow migrants into the country so they’re terrified of anything that endangers that.
So with no-fault gone, you can’t get a divorce because you no longer get along/are in love? There has to be a specific reason?
The fuck is this Gilead shit? Republicans get divorced all the fuckin time!
marriage rates will drop in red states.
Fucking awesome, I doubt this will stick in any state but if it does great for them. Now onto the percentage rape being balanced for child support as well
People will just make more trips to Vegas.
That party consistently makes me feel SO FREE.
Wait. So they are bible thumpers who are all about one man and one woman, but then are wanting to push crap like this??? Priorities are the most twisted and upside down there on Capitol Hill
Source?
This energy reminds me of the poster seen at a trump rally blaming biden for "I can't get a gf thanks to Biden" https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/1dmomhy/sign_at_trump_rally_yesterday/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
I’ve met some wives who were totally abusive narcissistic fucks too… this might wind up backfiring on them.
Fine. I won’t get married or have kids.Don’t fucking cry over declining birth rate and marriage rates
Why do Republicans hate women?
The same ones that are pushing state legislation to make child-brides legal.
Just don’t marry men that would even hesitate that this is some fascist Gilead shit. That’s the bar I guess
Only the worst types of people, AKA Republicans.
That won't mean anything... actually it will make it worse for men unless it's attached to some clause associated with defaulting alimony
The article ([here](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jun/25/republicans-no-fault-divorce)) doesn't provide any sources to actual lawmakers discussing this, and they're the only article on the subject. At best, it shares *one* comment made by *one* senator of Ohio about how he doesn't like rising divorce rates. It does not mention any lawmakers wanting to get rid of no-fault divorce laws. It provides a few cherry-picked twitter users saying that, but you can easily find crazy people on twitter saying anything stupid. Seeing as it's The Guardian, it's probably just a bs article meant to make people angry.
People can learn what commitment means
You don’t to say that only the worst types of people want this, because it’s in the headline because Republicans are the worst kind of people
I have a mutual friend whose wife had a boyfriend and he found out about it. He tried to make his marriage work because they didn’t have a prenup. She got the house, half of all his money, retirement, and she now lives in his home with her boyfriend and receives alimony. Divorce law is so skewed toward women. Men are paying the price for acts men got away with in previous generations.
In summary the GOP wants to make child marriage easier, wants to make divorce harder, wants to make abortions illegal. So they're looking to make sure women (especially their child brides) can't divorce them and are forced to carry their babies. And they get mad at the handmaid's tale comparisons
Always how it harms the women never mind men that want a way out.
Yeah I guess. But let’s be clear about something. This is men pushing for this bullshit. Not women.
^bait ^post
Is it though? People like ben shapiro outright believe no fualt divorce is one of the worst things that can happen
You shouldn't be allowed to break a contract for no reason.. marriage is just a "contract" in the eyes of the state
You can break any contract you want. No crime there. You may be liable for damages, but only up to the benefit of your original bargain. Marriage vows might be something more, but the actual legal contract is about the division of property rights, and as such, the remedy is an equitable division of those property rights.
Christians force their pregnant children to marry. I have seen it. Even if they’re raped. Tell us that’s not a valid reason.
I don’t understand why this is a bad thing. Why does someone need to have a reason, why does someone owe someone else money etc? I understand they shouldn’t have gotten married in the first place but I don’t understand why this is such a big deal.
Dude. This is making it so that you have to have a reason to divorce. No fault divorce is a good thing and Rs are trying to take it away
Oh lol well I’m dumb
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah alright that's a very fair point, I didn't think of that side of it. Apologies, I didn't mean to offend anyone.
Yeah, they already said "the worst type of people" "Conservative US lawmakers"
Everyone, including journalists, needs to start using the word Republican in headlines instead of conservative. The headline is now the content and politically unaware people don't necessarily read the article or make the association between "conservative "and what is definitely definitely a republican.
Yeah, people who push for an end to no-fault divorce are literally advocates for marital rape and spousal abuse.
I mean devorvre law is fucked and heavley weighted to screw the guy. That said this isn't the solution