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.

    • Carmakazi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      If the only families pumping out kids are Christian crackpots, that’s a win for them. They want to out-breed you.

        • morphballganon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          usually

          Please cite your source for that. The religious nutters who are adults now were once kids of religious families themselves.

          • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            Christianity in the U.S. is quickly shrinking and may no longer be the majority religion within just a few decades, research finds

            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christianity-us-shrinking-pew-research/

            Losing their religion: why US churches are on the decline

            https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/22/us-churches-closing-religion-covid-christianity

            In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

            https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

            Pick a study we are in a decline for a reason. The craziest ones are the most motivated but they are the few.

            • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              The xtian activists definitely are aware of this overall trend (even if many of them will outright lie about it and many of the flock probably still think they are some kind of supermajority even if they have been losing adherents at about 1% every year for year after year) and it’s exactly why they are agitating to fundamentally change this country to a xtian one.

              They want to be able to COMPEL people to join/stay in their little book club. The only difference between xtian radicals and Islamists is where the retconning leaves off is different. Both of them worship the same god of “the” bible - Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah and both of them have the same dim view of unbelievers and women and outsiders, etc…

              • Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 months ago

                Man - I know most folks feel the best thing to do is get rid of religion all together - but at this stage I’d settle for and support a new, loud, and active Christian sect denouncing xtian radicals and the churches that support them as Satanic corruptions.

                Believe Old Testament and its edicts mean a damn practical thing in today’s world? Satan.

                Insisting on not rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s? Satan.

                Treating your fellow humans as lesser for anything whatsoever? Satan.

                Corrupting Bible verses to justify creating suffering and not rendering aid to anyone who needs it? 100% Satan.

                Forcing means to reduce anyone’s capacity to exercise free will, the one key thing their creator deity granted all humans? Sounds like Satan to me.

                And so on. I realize this is deeply naive. But part of the reason I like The Louvin Brother’s song Satan is Real is whenever I hear the guy’s testimony on Satan, I think about about people in the offending churches:

                I grew selfish, and un-neighbourly
                My friends turned against me
                And finally, my home was broken apart

                The Louvin Brothers themselves would likely vehemently disagree, but - does this sound like anyone you know?

                /end of vaguely spiritualist rant.

                • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Personally I think it says everything that the Abrahamic version of the Theft of Fire leads to the idea that we should hate and denounce the thief rather than see him as responsible for us being raised above essentially being animals. The serpent in the Garden of Eden is analogous to Prometheus, Mātariśvan, Amirani, Pkharmat, Grandmother Spider, etc.

                  I also find it interesting that the Theft of Fire is a nearly universal myth (as close as anything gets) - a divine or semi-divine being (often but not always a trickster-type) taking a symbol (often a fire, in the Torah a fruit) representing knowledge against the will of those in power and giving it to man, thus leading to the ability of man to be free to create civilization.

                  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Yeah, while I get the general idea of “beware of the hubris brought about by technology”, but the message from the bible way oversteers into general ignorance and so on. There is a real anti-Promethean streak within this country anyway, and I attribute a lot of that to xtians.

                • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  I’d be all for trying to up our game in the instruction of critical thinking and spotting logical fallacies. I think if religion were to be removed, it might just be supplanted by something just as stupid (for example: the antivax/“stop the steal”/antimask/qanon/pizzagate memeplex) instead of being supplanted by reason.

              • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                6 months ago

                Both of them worship the same god of “the” bible - Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah and both of them have the same dim view of unbelievers and women and outsiders, etc…

                I agree, all religion is backwards. There’s always a group they don’t like. It just changes depending on your “God’s” region of authority.

              • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                Yahweh/Jehovah

                I still love that both of these are renderings of the same four letter word, יהוה, or yodh-he-vav-he. Because written Hebrew has a 22 letter alphabet but doesn’t have vowels (but does include a silent letter for when you stick two distinctly separate vowel sounds together - think the two Os in cooperate).

              • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Small group grabbed a huge piece. They didn’t do that quietly. People stopped caring, became more self centered, and we lost sight of communities. We allowed this shit and we need to start voting like it.

        • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          Yeah we had a big quiverfull church not far from where I used to live. They were in a cycle of being in the news every few years for how they promote their flock to get on government assistance to afford more kids. People making six figure incomes were getting a variety of benefits because they had over a dozen kids, in two cases two dozen kids. This would piss people, garner calls for legal changes to stop this abuse, bring up how they are exactly the type of people who want to scare people with “welfare queen” stories, etc.

          For a couple generations, the pumping out children mandate made it grow. However, around the third generation they started seeing a steep decline in parishionership. Basically the founding members’ kids weren’t nearly as willing to stay in this cult, and by their grand children’s generation, their birthrate wasn’t enough to replace their flock. By the time their great grand kids’ generation came around (current time) they were quickly dwindling in numbers. Now every time their welfare stuff hits the news they now have interviews with people who cut their families off, and left the cult, being interviewed about how insane they are.

          From what I have been able to find, this seems to be the general timeline of these “super family” sects. They burn themselves out, and as time time progresses, the burnout comes more, and more, quickly. So the long term prospects of the baby factory faiths isn’t good.

        • freebee@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          but no financial state benefits at all for said kids, probably, if it depends on those same conservatives that are anti-divorce.

      • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        They’re saying that about every religion. I guess the Muslims are also having a bunch of kids. Idk, I think a war fought with pussy is a war in which everyone loses.

        • dactylotheca@suppo.fi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          47
          ·
          6 months ago

          “Well that’s easy to fix! We just have to prevent them from leaving without a male guardian’s permission.”

          – Conservatives, probably

          • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I guessing a spike in fathers/husbands being hammered to death in their sleep. Let me do jury duty for those cases. We’ll be home by lunch.

            • dactylotheca@suppo.fi
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              26
              ·
              6 months ago

              “Jury trial for a feeeeeemale killing a man? Don’t be ridiculous, that’s immediate capital punishment”

              While I’m being facetious, there’s probably a reason why Project 2025 is specifically pushing for more and faster capital punishment

              • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                …and admitting that you know it exists is grounds for you not being allowed on a jury.

                But yeah, judges judge the law, juries judge the facts. so the judge can corral how the trial proceeds and explain to the jury what criteria they are supposed to be following and what evidence they are supposed to consider but the jury can decide what it wants and their decision cannot be challenged - which means if they decide that someone is guilty/not guilty for reasons wholly unrelated to what the law actually says then that’s what it is.

                It’s why I was surprised that Trump was found guilty on all counts in the NY trial - I was expecting a mistrial due to hung jury before the trial even started because I was expecting at least one hardcore supporter/opponent of Trump who was going to vote based on that regardless of the evidence making it impossible to have a unanimous agreement.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  I was expecting a mistrial due to hung jury before the trial even started because I was expecting at least one hardcore supporter/opponent of Trump who was going to vote based on that regardless of the evidence

                  Anyone that hardcore is easy to filter out. They would check the Facebook of any potential jurors before starting.

        • Zachariah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          6 months ago

          I’m sure they’re counting on it being rather difficult to flee from most places in the U.S.

      • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        And with child marriage looking to make a comeback, you can bet your ass that arranged marriage will also return.

        Turns out the full Biblical definition of marriage is again, women and girls have no say in who they marry. Just wait. First they legalize child marriage, then they legalize arranged marriage. Got a debt to pay off? Just offer the guy you owe money to your daughter. Want to move up the social ladder at work? Have your daughter marry into a higher class. Don’t worry about what she wants. Marriage isn’t about “love”, whatever that is. It’s a tool for moving up in the world. /s

        But it’s almost like they want European-style feudalism back. The CEOs and billionaires become the new nobility, and we all become serfs, and we are basically already there. But, I have a plan. I’ll join my liege lord’s army and hopefully I’ll serve honorably enough that he shall award me a fief and small parcel of land. Then y’all can move in and become my serfs!

    • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      6 months ago

      I was married, later divorced, and am now in a position where I’ve been in a committed relationship for more than 10 years, but we aren’t married.

      The benefits are clear and pushed onto us: I can’t share health care with my partner if we aren’t married. The system is rigged to make people in relationships eventually get married.

      • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 months ago

        This is why my husband and I got married after 10 years together. Originally neither of us cared because we were essentially already married. But doing it officially then I could be on his insurance, and if anything happens where one of us gets incapacitated the other can make healthcare decisions. Sucks that’s how it works though.

      • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        I was in the same boat as you. However, I met my wife while working overseas. We dated and lived together for two years.

        The only reason we got married was for immigration reasons. If she could have came to the US easier then we would still be “dating.”

        Once she got to the US, she asked why we divorce so much. I explained for 99% of people we get married for 3 reasons; pregnant, religion, or financial. Once one of those are resolved we split.

        It is due to the system pushing you into young marriage. To produce kids young and never own anything but work non stop.

        Remember work 50 years for the possibility to enjoy 10, maybe.

      • kofe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        There’s like 1200 legal benefits to marriage iirc. Things like being able to visit in the hospital outside of visiting hours, possessions going to your spouse after death if there’s no will, stuff like that.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        What state do you live in if you don’t mind me asking. Many states have rules that would allow you to add them to their insurance if you live together for a length of time. A year for AZ is what popped up when I went to search because I’m here on a work trip.

      • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        The concept of the European style family is a tool of conservative control. When you create specific boundaries on what is considered kinship you create subjects of economic categories. If you get a bunch of kickbacks for playing by the rules then there are also people who are purposefully excluded from playing to create additional economic goads. Like if you are disowned from your family you can lose generational wealth and support which is designed to keep young people in line by way of fear . Welfare and social securities weakens the economic ties of the family politic control to make you reliant on the support of the people you are related to by blood and to keep people who might be your chosen family at a distance unable to help.

        So called “family values” aren’t lovely dovey nice things. They are to make being an individual with different needs a failure state.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          Courts ruling children have legal responsibilities? What’s next, courts requiring children to give birth?

    • Zozano@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 months ago

      Isn’t this the same argument as “if women can’t have abortions, they will stop having sex”?

      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 it’s a government contract based in religion - it’s gross and I don’t want either of those things being involved in my relationships.

      • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 months ago

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

        The only real reason to get married now is financial and health benefits. That’s it.

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

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

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

        Marriage rates have already been dropping and divorce is an available option. Removing that out isn’t going to increase people’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 “now you’re locked in as long as I don’t get caught cheating”), it’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 can’t get out.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Better fix: make life difficult for the assholes pushing for these policies instead of shrugging your shoulders and saying “guess it’s their fault when everything goes to Hell.”