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 ā€œcrueltyā€ (that is, abuse). This could be difficult: ā€œEven if you could prove you had been hit, that didnā€™t necessarily mean it rose to the level of cruelty that justified a divorce,ā€ saidĀ 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) signedĀ the nationā€™s first no-fault divorce law, allowing people to end their marriages without proving theyā€™d been wronged. The move was a recognition that ā€œpeople were going to get out of marriages,ā€ Zug said, and gave them a way to do that withoutĀ resorting to subterfuge. Similar laws soon swept the country, and rates ofĀ domestic violence and spousal murderĀ began to drop as people ā€” especially women ā€” gained more freedom to leave dangerous situations.

Today, however, a counter-revolution is brewing:Ā Conservative commentatorsĀ andĀ lawmakersĀ 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,Ā introduced a billĀ in January to ban his stateā€™s version of no-fault divorce. The Texas Republican Party added a call to end the practice to itsĀ 2022 platformĀ (the plank is preserved inĀ the 2024 version). Federal lawmakers like Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) andĀ House Speaker Mike Johnson, as well as former Housing and Urban Development SecretaryĀ Ben Carson, have spoken out in favor of tightening divorce laws.

  • Paragone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    Ā·
    2 months ago

    This is ā€¦ ludicrous:

    Iā€™ve read that in the Jewish culture/religion that Yehoshua ā€œJesusā€ benJoseph, the woke socialist convict, grew up in, there was legal-divorce,

    & there was a kind of rule, too:

    ā€œyou arenā€™t allowed to marry someone, if you arenā€™t mature-enough to divorce them honestly/fairly/sanelyā€ in that cultureā€¦

    Iā€™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 ā€¦ to use a phrase from the Christian bible, just updating it to modern terminology ā€¦ ā€œthose who call themselves Christian ā€¦ but are notā€ to be warring against wokeness ā€¦ in the name of the wokest guy in the entire New Testament, ā€¦ & to be warring against socialism ā€¦ 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 whoā€™d spiritually-earned it ā€¦ you can see that their bibleā€™s phrase ā€œthose who call themselves _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ā€¦ but are notā€ is applicable to those who fake ANY religionā€™s membership, of any culture, anywhere!

    How completely shameless can people be??

    _ /\ _