https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/ben-carson-making-no-fault-divorce-harder-rcna152069
Carson, who is often mentioned as a potential Trump VP, writes in his new book that the U.S. should end no-fault divorce laws.
Absofuckinglutely NOT. If I’d have had to prove domestic abuse in the South to get divorced I’d be a fucking corpse by now. My ex is a very bad person.
FTA - “The reason this matters is that no-fault divorce legally allows marriages to end much more quickly than in previous decades. When there are relatively few legal or financial consequences connected with divorce, it’s natural for people to gravitate toward that option when their marriage hits a rough patch,” he adds. “What those people often don’t consider, however, is the harm — both present and future — inflicted on their children once a divorce is finalized.”
This dude is a moron. Newsflash mr carson, having kids trapped in a nightmare where their parents are at war with one another is way more harmful. And what the fuck is he talking about "with few financial consequences"? As someone who just finally paid off credit cards from my divorce years ago, where I never even got to touch the card, he can kiss my ass.
I'd be curious as to what kind of "legal consequences" he thinks there should be as a result of divorce? WTAF, why would there be ANY?
And, as you say, from everything I've heard, divorce can be financially crippling for so many.
Very good point. Being stuck in a marriage that's unwanted or abusive can be a prison all it's own. Does he want to add to that? Nothing like someone with a holier than thou attitude believing that his ideas of reality need to be forced onto everyone.
Just my subjective take, but you can add a "for women" after everything people like this say to better get the real meaning:
Carson, who is often mentioned as a potential Trump VP, writes in his new book that the U.S. should end no-fault divorce laws.
... for women
I made the same mistake earlier. It doesn’t help that “Herman Cain” continued to post after he was dead.
The only way hard divorce "makes sense" is if women aren't allowed to be independent from their husbands, otherwise she can just leave without getting a divorce.
The whole "divorce is too easy" line is one edge of the attack on women's rights.
Might be an unpopular opinion, but divorce law needs some big changes. I spent over 50k fighting an ex in court as she tried to take my house and savings that predated our marriage. I don't have a problem with the no-fault part, that's fine you want out you should be able to leave, but property rights stuff and the cost of a divorce both need big changes.
This is a tough one because every divorce is different, and I don't want to turn this into a huge rant, but I'm still in this process and a woman I married only 4 years ago may take my house leaving my daughter and I without a home. She's also coming after my retirement accounts, some of which predated the marriage, and she's refusing to negotiate which has already forced me to take this to a judge for a decision. Financially, this has ruined my savings. I've maxed out credit cards fighting for my rights as a parent. Basic stuff here, I'm just talking about my right to have the kiddo 50% of the time shit like that.
I didn't do anything torid in this case she just wanted to leave, which again is fine, but she's essentially bankrupting me on the way out in a ploy to take my life savings and home. There is nothing I can do about this, it is how the process works in Colorado. Be careful before saying "I do", you're signing away a lot of your rights and property when you do that. Especially if there is a big difference in networth / socioeconomic status, consider a prenup. If he/she says no to the prenup, bail.
Prenups. Prenups should be standard for all marriages. Protects pre-marriage assets, determines how assets are split, and leaves little room for long, drawn-out divorce processes.
You can make those rational decisions when you're happy and rational, rather than when you're emotional.
My favorite cynical take is save yourself some time and effort, find someone you hate and buy them a house.
Be careful before saying I do kiddos, because jerks on internet forums will take that out of context.
Ever since he was divorced of his luggage that one time, he's devoted his whole life to never letting that happen again.
I wonder how many cons watched Handmaid's Tale and consider it a society to aspire to.
It's too generous to invert that relationship. More like Handmaid's Tale is a brief sketch of their aspirations.
Shitty people and finding the absolute least-relevant issue possible to bitch about. Name a more iconic duo...
This is such a great suggestion, because it has tremendous benefits and absolutely no downsides. /S
LOL, we'll see how much of a winning strategy this is. Naturally, the repub party doesn't GAF about what the majority thinks; they'll happily ram through new rules over the wishes of most of America. But as things are right now (meaning, we still have elections) they have to try to sell this to Americans.
Ever since I can remember, I've heard crotchety old men whine about no-fault divorce. Many of these were from the so-called "Greatest Generation". I thought most of this would be something I'd never hear much about as that generation slowly faded away. But it seems like a lot of terrible con agendas, it never really dies, it just lies in wait for people to try to start mainstreaming it again. See: their fight against teaching the very fundamentals of biology (evolution), their fight against the very secularism this country was founded on, etc...
How long until these people start whining about women being able to have their own bank accounts, credit cards? What about driving?
Fuck that, we should be making it easier and stop favoring one gender over the other in both divorce and child custody. Property/assets should be split based on who actually paid for those assets. If one person pays all or a majority of the mortgage on a property, why do they then have to split that property 50% with somebody who contributed nothing? Marriage is a dying institution that should be put out of its misery.
If one person pays all or a majority of the mortgage on a property, why do they then have to split that property 50% with somebody who contributed nothing?
Because marriage is a partnership and generally the people who “contributed nothing” are the ones who gave up or significantly delayed or harmed their careers to take up the home front in the marriage.
I know a woman whose wealthy husband told her to sell her small business because she didn’t need to work. A few years later when he divorced her for a younger woman and the prenup says she gets very little, she’s out on her ass with years of no work experience and no more small business.
