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.

  • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    Ā·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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 ā€˜pro-lifeā€™ 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?

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      Ā·
      3 months ago

      If they abolish no fault divorce it WILL cost lives

      ā€œProbably, but those are lives of women, not people.ā€

      -Conservatives who support this shit

      • AProfessional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        Ā·
        3 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          3 months ago

          ā€œPro human capitalā€ is a good term, thank you for introducing me to it. Iā€™d say numerous, dumb, poor workers who are desperate to serve for scraps because of austerity.