I hope them publicly advocating for this backfires spectacularly.
“First they game for gay marriage, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t gay. Then they came for the abortions, and I didn’t speak up because I didn’t need an abortion. Then they came for divorce, and…fuck, that might be a real a pain in the ass. Maybe I won’t vote for these asshats.”
“First the came for abortions, and we made a lot of noise but got ignored. Then they came for Divorce and… fuck, maybe we should do more than just make noise.”
That’s what no-fault divorce is. All assets are split 50/50 with no emphasis or prejudice given to who caused the divorce with infidelity, violence, etc.
Not only is it fair, its way, way easier than establishing blame and then some kind of punitive split of assets that will be fought over and appealed even more than the current system of “equal, equal.”
The fair has already been solved. It’s what we have now.
So, if you are married for a day (after, lets say a drunken wedding in Vegas), the person you are married to gets 50% of your assets and you get 50% of theirs? I think a fairer way is either keep all assets separate or have some sort of automatic pre-nup for all marriages.
Issue in that case I rather see as why is it allowed to enter into legally binding agreements when you aren’t sober. Why there isn’t a (forced) period to review the papers.
Marriage is a legally binding agreement. Let’s treat it as such.
No, generally that marriage would be annulled. Its far too short for any mingling of assets, so none would be split.
Generally any individual assets prior to a marriage stay individual. If you own a house outright and marry, your spouse doesnt immediatly get half of it. If you buy a house after you marry, then yes the house is split as its an asset that both parties put value into. It’s like an automatic pre-nup for marriages that already exists.
Despite the ridiculous scenario you imagined above, judges and lawyers aren’t actually idiots. You dont have to make up hypotheticals to figure out how asset sharing in marriage or divorce works. The law is pretty clear, and there are millions of examples of both you can easily research instead of deciding there is something to be outraged about.
That guy is just repeating what he heard on the radio or from some drunk guy at a bar. He’s not putting any thoughts into it.
Besides what you mentioned, there are pre-nups, post-nups, trusts, and other complicated ways that rich families use to protect their assets from gold-diggers. Marriage is a legal contract and it can be modified with other legal contracts.
In a lot of cases, “trust fund kids” don’t even own their house or car. It’s all held in a trust so no one, not even them, can have it. If they divorce there’s nothing to split but some cash and whatever furniture or toys they own.
In practice, I believe the pre or post-nup gives some consideration (money) to the spouse who isn’t rich so they won’t sue. But it’s not 50/50 because the trust fund kid legally doesn’t own much.
Yeah, Im not even sure if he knows what hes arguing about.
All of these “problems” these conservatives are whinging about are already understood and settled with our current system. The default works well for the vast majority, and when it doesnt, you can change it. Easy.
No. When you make a lot of money because you can focus on work because your partner os handling all the work at home, the partner should not be financially destroyed after divorce. Your “idea” would lead to completely dependent partners who can never get divorces of their spouses
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.”
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?
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.
“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.
I don’t think this is a safe assumption. The victim may not have free access to hardware. The police/etc may not believe them. They may be afraid of being murdered if they try to record something. Just off the top of my head.
Just like how “there will be exceptions for unviable pregnancies” no amount of direct video evidence of abuse will be enough to justify for the courts to justify a divorce. If they had people’s well being and best interests in mind this wouldn’t even be proposed.
The solution seems simple. Don’t marry and don’t have kids. Eventually America dies off and the rest of the world closes the book on the experiment that failed.
At this point, I’m happy to end my bloodline. People are insufferable enough already, i don’t want my kids growing up with the product of even more ridiculous nutjobs
The solution seems simple: drive these ass backwards politicians out of office and don’t allow them to have any power over your lives because they are not interested in your health or well-being.
The solution seems simple. Don’t marry and don’t have kids.
Am I allowed to be amused that a bunch of guys looking at the state of family courts deciding the same thing were mocked as a bunch of evil misogynistic incels, and have been for years? Apparently “don’t participate in the system you are worried is going to fuck you over” is not an acceptable choice.
We’re going to have to make sure the boyfriends and girl friends of our kids are all sluts. We will require bdsm, ropes, leather. rubber, nudism, open marriage, 12" penises, DDD boob jobs, LGBTQA of some kind, etc. if they possess at least 3 of these then we’re good to go. Any of them bring up God’s of any kind they get the F out.
I know more than one woman who fled one of these convenant marriage states. One still can’t get the divorce officialized because her toxic abusive husband keeps insisting on an endless parade of marriage counseling, via answers to the divorce court.
I don’t know if forcing her back into the marriage because that same abusive husband started working for a legislative lobbying outfit would be productive.
A lot of them are raised to be that way though. One of the big pushes in a lot of Christian circles, for example, is the push to raise kids believing in complementarianism instead of egalitarianism–simply put, that god created men and women to have different roles, and that men just so happen to be in the role of leadership. Combine that with extreme purity culture (at times involving courtship instead of dating, for example) and a fervor to push for big families, and you get a bunch of grown ups looking up after 5, 10 years in a marriage going, “wait, I was promised happiness, why am I so miserable?” Divorce is a huge tool to help. We need to give people, especially women and children, a safe exit from high control spaces.
It’ll be a common law marriage when it comes to sharing debt and calculating income for denying SNAP, single when it comes to hospital visitation rights and bereavement.
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.
Do you hear it? The sound of communism, my friend.
What do you mean? Divorce is at a 50 year low, and the average couple getting married today has more like a 75 percent chance of staying married. Your odds are especially good if it’s your first marriage.
The famous 50% figure doesn’t take into account that getting a divorce is correlated with getting another one, and the emerging generations are much more selective in who they marry.
I’ve been married 14 years, and I have no idea. It makes it REALLY hard to break up. No one can grasp that you changed your last name. At all. Every gov offical just BAFFLED. ‘‘I’ve worked in the county clerks office for 30 years and this is the FIRST I’ve heard of people changing their last name for marriage’’. Every. Fucking. Time. If you have kids that aren’t even close to 18, and you break up, You get to be EXACTLY the same as married, but now you don’t have sex or trust eachother. But literally nothing else changes. Also if you get married in your 20s, then by 40 you get to find out in excruciating detail that ‘inner child’, ‘mid-life crisis’, and ‘familiarity breeds contempt’, aren’t just dumb things people say, they are also why you dread being around someone you stupidly legally bound yourself too in the custom of a religion nether of you is still childish enough to buy into.
I mean… it was pretty fun when we were having kids, going on trips, casually abusing Rx drugs, and having a sexual awakening after getting to 25 being painfully sexually repressed through religious abuse, but FUCK if I’m not aware of how little rope is left.
Boy I wish our government wasn’t so good at bringing their nightmare fuel fever dreams to fruition, while constantly failing to do anything to better anyone in the way almost every voter agrees with.
vox.com
Oldest