https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/stephen-crowder-divorce-1234727777/
Steven Crowder is part of a growing right-wing chorus calling for an end to modern divorce laws
No, it’s a bad thing because without no-fault divorce laws someone could very easily be trapped in an abusive relationship with no recourse.
Doesn’t no-fault mean that either party can get a divorce for any reason?
Am I misunderstanding what “no-fault” means here?
Read the article. Republicans are against no fault divorce, so they want the man to have to approve in order for his wife to divorce him. It's a way to enslave women.
I mean then why did she marry him? Maybe people should date longer instead of rushing into marriage.
No human institution, agreement, or connection will ever be free of both bad actors and blameless mistakes, so there must be a way to end such things in order to preserve life, dignity, and happiness.
Our institutions are created to serve us as people, not to bind us for the sake of being binding.
Or just don't get married to people with red flags. They are usually very obvious and willfully ignored. We need to stop allowing people to hand wave consequences.
You're flatout uneducated. Read some history on what led to modern divorce laws to begin with
Like this really doesn't need a discussion. There have been decades of discussion. This is about people not learning a damn thing about that discussion.
What the fuck? It's clear you're an incel, but my gosh you don't get to imprison other people because they finally realize you're a piece of trash.
There are many people that are extremely adept at pretending to be one person to get someone to fall in love and marry them, and as soon as they are married, they become the real them. Manipulative, controlling, usually abusive, and you would never know until it was too late.
Yeah for your God's sake and ours keep staying a virgin brother thanx for listening
Maybe?
From the Wikipedia:
Fault-based grounds usually include mental cruelty, but true mental cruelty has a psychological component that can make it very difficult for the abused spouse to articulate that abuse. More to the point, the abused spouse may be terrified to describe the relationship on paper and testify about it in a court. And of course, a controlling partner will always choose the path of most resistance to whatever it is that the other spouse wants.[14]
It's not that you're misunderstanding what no-fault means. So, let me ask another question: What advantage might there be for someone in an abusive marriage, to have access to a no-fault divorce?
They can prove abuse, as mentioned in the article. It shouldn't be hard if they are being abused.
It shouldn't be hard. But it almost always is. Having to prove it means having to confront your abuser and record the incident. That can go wrong in so many ways.
I...
Wow.
Just curious, but... why do you think no-fault divorce got signed into law in the first place? And do you really think abuse is always "obvious"?
Like, yeah, sometimes it's black eyes and broken bones, but a lot of abuse is much more subtle and hard to prove. Even setting that aside (and let me be clear: we absolutely should not set it aside), shouldn't people be able to get out of a marriage before it racks up hospital bills?
I'm married. If, at any point, my wife felt unsafe around me, I would expect her to leave. At that point, I would have violated the sanctity of our marriage, and she shouldn't have to fucking prove it to anyone, me included.