The Christian right is coming for divorce next

Vox ^ | June 13, 2024 | Anna North

[fwdude]

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, … 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.

[fwdude]

The left, still crowing about what marriage should and shouldn’t be.

[Clutch Martin]

Marriage and divorce is too much of a money maker, I don’t see that getting messed with. Unless they need to fill up floor space in America gulag archipelago.

[FLT-bird]

What they used to do in England is arrange for the husband to get “caught” at a motel with a hooker and a photographer conveniently on hand. Then the divorce would be granted on grounds of adultery.

[AbolishCSEU]

Good! One of the few mistakes Reagan made with devastating results to the family. I say this as a divorced female who experienced DV.

People need to choose spouses better right from the start. Should be the way my grandmother warned: “marry in haste, repent at leisure.”

[WeaslesRippedMyFlesh]

eliminate the %50 of everything law <- start here if you want to reform anything

[escapefromboston]

Getting rid of “no fault divorce” laws wouldn’t eliminate “divorce”

[Rockingham]

That was also done often in the US.

[Rockingham]

Prenup, prenup, prenup.

[momincombatboots]

My heady memories of the Ron are apparently wishful thinking.
He gave us anchor babies and big pharma liability pass.
These two policies alone are just unamerican. But they are his.
The damage done to real people since they were enacted is terribly sad.

[Petrosius]

Oh the horror, making people live up to the most sacred promise that they can make. In reality, what “no-fault divorce” has done is outlaw marriage. No longer can a couple mutually agree to join themselves in a lifelong union. Today marriage vows are less enforceable than a car loan. Does anyone really think that this is good? If you do not want to enter into a lifelong commitment, fine; then do not get married. And do not trick your spouse into thinking that you are agreeing to a lifelong commitment.

[Tired of Taxes]

"No fault" divorce does not mean a spouse didn't commit adultery, abandonment, or cruelty.

It's merely a way for divorcing couples to avoid a long, drawn-out, expensive process of divorce.

Just as this lawyer says:

"Proving fault requires a trial, something many divorcing couples today avoid, said Kristen Marinaccio, a New Jersey-based family law attorney. A divorce trial is time-consuming and costly, putting the partner with less money at an immediate disadvantage."

She ought to know. Blue state NJ did not allow "no fault" divorce until 2007.

[Rockingham]

Once again — prenup, prenup, prenup. The reason that a car loan endures is that it is a contract. A prenup is also a contract, and when properly negotiated and written up, a contract is enforceable.

[metmom]

Getting rid of “no fault divorce” laws wouldn’t eliminate “divorce”

You're right.

However, that certainly won't stop the left from stretching the truth and vilifying the right over it with shrieking and cries of *They're trying to impose a theocracy*.

One of the things the right needs to do that we've been really weak on, is challenge their narrative, which is usually based on lies.

When they misrepresent us, we NEED to, and MUST speak up and challenge it instead of legitimizing their claims by arguing against them as if they are valid.

[Alberta's Child]

I would have thought the more prudent approach for Christians is to end state-sanctioned “marriage” entirely.

From a legal and cultural standpoint, putting “marriage” under the umbrella of contract law would do far more to protect it than meddling with a fundamentally flawed institution.

[Republican Wildcat]

Marriage becoming unimportant had to come first before “same sex marriage” could be pushed to completely finish it off.

[DoodleBob]

The author can’t do basic research. Divorce became a problem long before the 60s.

The progressive era and the advent of socialism brought on by the Depression got that started. Marriage became disposable…it is reversible, it can be undone. It’s caustic to women, and quoth Marx and Engels, “(t)he bourgeois sees his wife as a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.”

Don’t worry son or daughter….you don’t need to do much discernment because you can always lawyer up like mom and dad did. Oh, and friends and family will happily applaud like a circus seal if you dump your spouse. There are Facebook groups and all kinds of social outlets geared toward starting life anew. Indeed, half of your friends and family are also in a state of mortal sin-it’s not like they’ll tell you to save your soul and work out the problem.

Then we have “research” showing that the kids turn out ok because they don’t see Mom and Dad fighting, that single parenthood can be good for the kids self-esteem, and other nonsense.

Marriage isn’t considered an irreversible bond in our culture anymore. The Commandments are no longer binding. Going to hell for sex outside of marriage is a figment of the imagination. God will forgive you; actually God is a woman…

Sure…and the shots are safe and effective. Marx and Engels are smiling in hell.

I get that some spouses are tough, and there is mental illness and substance abuse. Guess what? That all existed prior to 1934. Divorce was shameful. It was a one-way ticket to hell. People worked out their problems. The same mindset that says “I’m against divorce except for cases of ____” is the same demonic mindset that says “I’m against abortion except in cases of _____.”

Divorce is THE most destructive element to the family and society….more than the gays, more than Ukraine, more than Soros. It is clear, yet few rail against divorce anymore.

Changing the law is a band aid solution. We need to get people into a pre-1934 marriage mindset. From there, children can grow up in a home that isn’t lead by hypocrites, where religion is seen as VITAL as opposed to a buffet where they can pick and choose morality.

[bk1000]

Divorce is truly a pain in the butt. To avoid that pain, go find some woman you hate and buy her a house.

[Jonty30]

And what is wrong with trying to repair the culture of marriage, so men and women can live with each other and get along?

[impimp]

i disagree…marriages are too delayed as it is…people should marry quickly and have babies quickly

[impimp]

changing the law to making divorce harder is NOT a band aid solution…it is essential and must be done