this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024

364 points (98.7% liked)

politics

18038 readers

2874 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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.
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.
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!
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
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.
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

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

364

Conservative US lawmakers are pushing for an end to no-fault divorce (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 days ago by Rapidcreek to c/politics

75 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Beverly Willett, a writer and attorney, argues that unilateral no-fault divorce is also unconstitutional because it violates a person’s 14th amendment right to due process.

The defendant “has absolutely no recourse to say, ‘Wait a minute. I don’t want to be divorced, and I don’t think that there are grounds for divorce. I would like to be heard. I would like to call witnesses,’” said Willett, who experienced a divorce she didn’t want because she thought her marriage could be saved. “I believed in my vows” and “didn’t want to give up”.

What witnesses do you need other than the one person saying "I no longer love them and have no desire to put any more effort into making it work."

Conservatives really have no empathy don't they? "This is what I want so it doesn't matter what you want."
I think I know why they divorced you...

Are they going to start demanding witnesses before you can break up with someone you're dating too?

[–] halowpeano 6 points 1 day ago

DATING!!!!???? You filthy hoarslaut, you should be burned at the stake. The females are to go straight from the ownership of their parents to their husband's bed at age 14, lest they become ugly 18 year old spinsters no honest Trump fearing man would want. The males are to work in the mines 20 hours a day and learn to hate women so they'll prefer to marry a little girl at age 40.

[–] inclementimmigrant 24 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ah Republicans when faced with the fact that they're shitty husbands and get divorced at higher rates than in the past, instead of looking inwards and trying to figure out why less people want to fuck and stay married to their shitty views, simply want to outlaw women and men to extricate themselves out of their shitty conservative marriage and force them to remain unhappy.

Spot on Republican family values.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

funny how republican men just recently were whining that they can't find a date because of their political beliefs.

while pushing for shit like this. and they can't even see the dots, let alone connect them

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The GOP is the party of increased infant mortality and high rates of spousal abuse, homicide, and suicide.

At least they are ideological consistent.

[–] jordanlund 184 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Let's be honest here... they don't have a problem with no fault divorce in principal... they have a problem with women being able to file for divorce on their own.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Let's dig a little deeper.

The only reason to make divorce harder is if they also take away a woman's rights to be independent from her husband, otherwise she could just leave without getting a divorce.

[–] AnUnusualRelic 19 points 2 days ago

Do you realise women are even allowed to have a bank account nowadays? Madness!

[–] NotMyOldRedditName 24 points 2 days ago

I think this needs further clarification

They have a problem with their wives being able to divorce them on their own.

[–] elbarto777 24 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Principle*

[–] samus12345 25 points 2 days ago

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] FenrirIII 16 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Divorce is a decision that should be left up to the man. /s

[–] jordanlund 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"You can't get divorced until I say so!" Yeesh.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

My dishwasher can't decide to just leave my property on its own, why should my other dishwasher?

[–] Hominine 79 points 2 days ago (1 children)

My ex-wife and I filed the requisite paperwork and a month or so later met downtown at the courthouse to finalize our petition for a no-fault divorce. We had filled out some of the paperwork incorrectly, scooted over to the law library around the corner and returned less than an hour later to wrap things up, paying a fee so incidental I couldn't be bothered to remember the amount.

No-fault is a near necessity for folks that want to take the high road out of a shitty situation. Going on to think of the massive cost savings, we're left not only with religion to blame for the curtailing of our rights under law, but also perhaps the legal profession that spawned many of these legislators. Fuck them all.

[–] Pfeffy 32 points 2 days ago (4 children)

They don't give a crap about religion. That's always been just something to motivate gullible idiots. Look at the stupidest and cringiest billionaire constantly whining about racial superiority and needing to breed people etc. they want you to work and they want 60% of whatever you create or labor for and they want you to have children that you pay for college for. They want you to rent your own slave quarters in buildings that they own. When I read history and compare it to ourselves, I can't help but think we're livestock that has been trained to be docile. At any other point in history, somebody would have murdered the worst offenders gleefully. They either managed to program us well or convince us to never do anything because we're so comfortable at the cost of destroying the environment.

[–] billiam0202 11 points 2 days ago

Panem et circenses, baby!

As long as people are kept fed and entertained, they will tolerate a lot of bullshit.

[–] Etterra 6 points 2 days ago

They've rigged the system, no real surprise.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Allonzee 89 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

If you force the peasants to stayed paired off and breed, especially in desperate, abusive conditions, they will produce the best kind of exploitation livestock for our glorious capitalist owners: the desperate kind that tolerates any abuse.

[–] Sanctus 30 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

Human stock. That's what we are.

[–] Stupidmanager 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Actually, slaves. We are held back by those in power, ignored, taught to hate those different than ourselves, paid just enough to survive and abused. We know this and we’re too scared to do anything about it because any fight we give needs us all, or we risk those in power taking away those few things or placing us in prison.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 days ago (1 children)

We have all just accepted the term “Human Resources” as something that I guess we aren’t going to revolt against

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] EmpathicVagrant 14 points 2 days ago

That’s why they find our empathy for livestock to be a joke not worth enforcing.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] Etterra 31 points 2 days ago

Of course they are. They hate it when their wives realize they married a total piece of shit and ditch them.

[–] barsquid 4 points 1 day ago

It's just exhausting to see them saying this dumb as fuck bullshit and they stay in office term after term. The 14th Amendment is about crimes, not no-fault divorces.

Repubs love ignoring amendments unless they are able to make create sort of fiction that an amendment supports their claims. We have this dumb shit going on while at the same time they're trying to jam religious trash in the schools.

[–] no_one_cares 11 points 2 days ago

Republicans are some weakass snowflakes .

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart 44 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (6 children)

As big fan of the original constitution, I personally don't believe in any laws or technology from after March 4, 1789.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] uberdroog 33 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Marriage is just made up. People can partner off with no need for state intervention.

[–] Boddhisatva 73 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Yes, but if the married couple across the street are getting tax and other advantages simply for being married that you and your unmarried partner are not getting, then that is an injustice. Either no one should get such advantages or any pair of people regardless of gender or race should be able to get them. Either get rid of state marriage or let anyone get married.

[–] Semi_Hemi_Demigod 20 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Easy: Just form a corporation.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 2 days ago (1 children)

"We got married" becomes "We incorporated a Delaware LLC that manages our assets through a Swiss Trust"

[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 days ago

Capitalists when an average Joe does it: wait, not like that

[–] Sanctus 14 points 2 days ago (2 children)

They seem to have more rights than real people.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

No joke, once you start structuring your life as a business, especially as formal corporations, the amount of financial, legal, and professional advantages, opportunities, and protection that appear are incredible. For example, did you know that …

… as an S corp, you can “pass through” the profit and loss of your business, such that your personal gross income excludes business expenses?
… the employer match on a 401k account is considered a business expense?
… the actual annual cap on employer contributions to various retirement vehicles are in fact much, much higher than employers are typically willing to offer you as a benefit?
… the terms of commercial factoring, mortgages and loans are often far more agreeable than consumer equivalents?
… many of the places where you shop offer discounts to business accounts (and not just for volume, simply because you’re a business)?
… it’s considered normal/SOP to request edits to many types of agreements individuals are expected to simply accept without question, including leases offered by landlords?

This is just a sample. Most endeavors and many functional aspects of personal life are by design simpler, safer, more scalable, and more profitable if planned and executed as a business rather than an individual in the late great United States of America.

[–] Sanctus 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I hate living like that though. I just want to be a human not a corporate entity.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

I agree. I don’t think people should be expected to do all this to be treated like they matter in a society. I do it because I don’t want to go back to living in my car, but the process offers me daily reminders of how our system is thoroughly rigged in favor of commercial interests and against the human who wishes to live as a human.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] themeatbridge 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There are a shit ton of laws built around the idea of marriage. Your spouse has rights to make medical decisions, inhabit and inherit property, share custody of children and property, sign certain documents, and stuff you probably never think about. Marriage equality is not an exercise in vanity, it really makes a difference when the government recognizes your special relationship and commitment. It also makes divorce so important, because the ability to sever that relationship is the only way to untangle all of those rights and responsibilities to each other.

It would be better to have a different concept of contractual family, one that permits for more granularity and possibilities. But that ain't what we got. Requiring demonstrations of fault to grant a divorce is just another way for shitty people to abuse other people. Prior to no-fault divorce, it wasn't uncommon for judges to say things like "that's not really spousal abuse" or "that's not really rape" and then deny the divorce.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago

Yup, this was one of the central debates with gay marriage vs. civil unions, so many LGBT+ couples were absolutely screwed pre-Obergefell by one of the partners getting sick or dying, and the surviving partner either having no say in medical decisions or getting screwed out of inheritance because the sick/dead partner's family was anti-gay and froze the surviving partner out of everything.

[–] Snowclone 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Don't worry, they'll reduce women back to property, so being unmarried, unowned property will be VERY dangerous for the property.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (6 children)

If they succeed with this, it will still fail.

Fewer people will get married. Domestic violence will rise. "Till death do you part" gets a much more malicious meaning.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Modern_medicine_isnt 14 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I for one hope this simply leads to the end of marriage. That whole concept is built rather one sided. Time for relationship contracts... renewable, but always finite. With separation details worked out in advance. Let's get religion out of it entirely.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Some Republicans have said that they want to make it illegal to cohabitate without being married.

These shit birds are not going to rest until women have no autonomy.

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] homesweethomeMrL 12 points 2 days ago

Hey republiQan women - a new vista! A new opportunity to damage the quality of life for all your countrywomen - for the forseeable future - possibly permanently! Just vote like you always do! (Ha ha! I know we don't have to tell you that. You're very reliable!)

Oh! uhhh . . mmmigrant caravan! Umm . . . don't say gay! . . . uhh . . and so on. You know the words.

load more comments