Some conservatives want to make it a lot harder to dissolve a marriage.

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, however, 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. Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers, for example, introduced a bill in January to ban his state’s version of no-fault divorce. The Texas Republican Party added a call to end the practice to its 2022 platform (the plank is preserved in the 2024 version). Federal lawmakers like Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and House Speaker Mike Johnson, as well as former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, have spoken out in favor of tightening divorce laws.

  • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
    71·
    7 days ago

    This is what you really NEED to know about abolishing no fault divorce:

    And that will cause huge problems, especially for anyone experiencing abuse. “Any barrier to divorce is a really big challenge for survivors,” said Marium Durrani, vice president of policy at the National Domestic Violence Hotline. “What it really ends up doing is prolonging their forced entanglement with an abusive partner.”

    • asteriskeverything@lemmy.world
      571·
      7 days 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 ‘pro-life’ 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?

        • AProfessional@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          6 days 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
            1·
            6 days ago

            “Pro human capital” is a good term, thank you for introducing me to it. I’d say numerous, dumb, poor workers who are desperate to serve for scraps because of austerity.

      • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
        50·
        7 days ago

        If they abolish no fault divorce it WILL cost lives

        “Probably, but those are lives of women, not people.”

        -Conservatives who support this shit

    • StaySquared@lemmy.world
      26·
      7 days ago

      Interestingly, I’d assume that between home surveillance systems and cell phones, proving domestic violence shouldn’t be too tough nowadays.