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.

  • Zozano@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    Ā·
    8 days ago

    Isnā€™t this the same argument as ā€œif women canā€™t have abortions, they will stop having sexā€?

    Nobody gets married under the assumption they will get divorced. Marriage is supposed to be a gesture of a life long commitment.

    On top of that, there are financial benefits to getting married.

    I highly doubt this would stop anyone from getting married.

    People should stop getting married because itā€™s a government contract based in religion - itā€™s gross and I donā€™t want either of those things being involved in my relationships.

    • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      Ā·
      6 days ago

      Marriage rates have already been dropping and divorce is an available option. Removing that out isnā€™t going to increase peopleā€™s confidence about going into marriage.

      And as the nightmare stories come out about the guys (and probably some girls, too) who change overnight once the marriage license is official (or annulment period ends or whatever becomes the ā€œnow youā€™re locked in as long as I donā€™t get caught cheatingā€), itā€™ll only go down further.

      There will also be a reaction to the women who decide to just stop being loyal once they are done with a marriage but canā€™t get out.

    • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      Ā·
      7 days ago

      I fully agree marriage should be simple with little to no government or religion involvement. Thatā€™s why we see less people getting married or if they do itā€™s later in life.

      The only real reason to get married now is financial and health benefits. Thatā€™s it.

      Making it harder to divorce will lead to the ones waiting to rethink if itā€™s even worth it.

      https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/12/united-states-marriage-and-divorce-rates-declined-last-10-years.html