Divorce- no fault vs. whose fault?

[Rary]

So lets see.. you advocate to make divorce nearly impossible, force people to stay marriage because they have kids and parental licensing.. You know which ideology this looks like.. right?

to continue my reply, I believe that divorce should be as simpler and as easier as possible. Its disgusting and controlling wanting to make divorce harder.

How easy do believe it should be?

[Equai]

So lets see.. you advocate to make divorce nearly impossible, force people to stay marriage because they have kids and parental licensing.. You know which ideology this looks like.. right?

It's authoritarian, yes, I know

No, it sounds purist, exclusive... with a lot of rooms for nazi-like exclusion and expulsion. A lot of room for eugenics too but also its a heaven for abusers to trap their victims. That's how it sounds - like a nazi law.

How easy do believe it should be?

As easy as it possibly can be - on request and no ability for authority body to deny it.

[Juansonia]

So lets see.. you advocate to make divorce nearly impossible, force people to stay marriage because they have kids and parental licensing.. You know which ideology this looks like.. right?

to continue my reply, I believe that divorce should be as simpler and as easier as possible. Its disgusting and controlling wanting to make divorce harder.

Why do that when the more ethical approach would be to abolish civil marriage entirely? Why should the county clerk care about two people loving each other?

[Eternal Algerstonia]

if someone divorces me or gets mad at me in any way, its never my fault

[Equai]

to continue my reply, I believe that divorce should be as simpler and as easier as possible. Its disgusting and controlling wanting to make divorce harder.

Why do that when the more ethical approach would be to abolish civil marriage entirely? Why should the county clerk care about two people loving each other?

Abolishing civil marriage means that only possibility would be religious marriage... So you see what problem that will create? That means that agnostics, atheists and people who do not wish to have religious wedding be excluded.. In that case its just easier to abolish marriage altogether but that wouldn't been practice as marriage and union of people who love each other is as old as we and before the advances of agriculture marriage was far easier and less focused on control and strongly enforced monogamy.

There is a lot to say about the marriage of today and before the rise of civilizations which would require whole another thread and expertise that I do not have but in the system of capitalism the marriage is not about love but securing the wealth and private (not personal but private. there is a big difference) and civil marriage do has part in that play but so does religious - equally but abolishing it, leaving only religious one as the option or not proposing the alternative is damaging to marginalized groups who rely on civil weddings because religious institution are denying their service to them

[Galloism]

Why do that when the more ethical approach would be to abolish civil marriage entirely? Why should the county clerk care about two people loving each other?

Abolishing civil marriage means that only possibility would be religious marriage... So you see what problem that will have? That means that agnostics, atheists and people who do not wish to have religious wedding be excluded.. In that case its just easier to abolish marriage altogether but that wouldn't been practice as marriage and union of people who love each other is as old as we and before the advances of agriculture marriage was far easier and less focused on control and strongly enforced monogamy.

Also, abolishing marriage would lead to financial complications greater than most of you can imagine.

[Juansonia]

Why do that when the more ethical approach would be to abolish civil marriage entirely? Why should the county clerk care about two people loving each other?

Abolishing civil marriage means that only possibility would be religious marriage

I never meant "the state should only recognise religious marriages", I meant "the state shouldn't recognise any marriages". Whether a religious group holds a ceremony for you is their decision, and there isn't much reason for the state to give a shit.

[Galloism]

Abolishing civil marriage means that only possibility would be religious marriage

I never meant "the state should only recognise religious marriages", I meant "the state shouldn't recognise any marriages". Whether a religious group holds a ceremony for you is their decision, and there isn't much reason for the state to give a shit.

Ah, the attorney and accountant reinvestment act option. That will make life far more interesting.

[Ifreann]

No one's. This isn't a rational position based on a cost/benefit analysis, or a political position designed to attract public support

They're politicians. They wouldn't support this if it wasn't advantageous to their re-election in their particular district, unless there were specific lobbyists to whom they were even more beholden than they were to their constituents. If that's the case, who? And what would have given these lobbyists this much disproportionate power over their representatives, and/or willingness to wield it?

I never mentioned politicians. Or voters. I'm just telling you how conservative religious social views work. That's all. I don't know why you think that my statements about this one sort of belief should explain everything about American politics, but they won't and aren't intended to.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

I never mentioned politicians. Or voters. I'm just telling you how conservative religious social views work.

You attributed these views not specifically to people with conservative religious and social views, but to opponents of abortion and contraception. The former is opposed by millions of voters, any of whom could reasonably have interpreted you as referring to them, and who I would presume are more likely to see it as murder than to see themselves or their wives as "domestic servants." The latter is opposed by the Catholic church, whose supporters at most don't disagree strongly enough with them to abandon the faith. (By comparison, the stem cell issue alone made me see the Catholic church as a cesspool of BS that should be abandoned en masse.)

People with "conservative religious social views" are not numerous enough or powerful enough to drive this sort of thing all by themselves. As such, no one could reasonably have been expected to presume that you were referring specifically to them. Next time, if you wish to refer to such a narrow subset of people, why not specify as much?

That's all. I don't know why you think that my statements about this one sort of belief should explain everything about American politics, but they won't and aren't intended to.

About American politics as a whole? Of course not.

About American politics in the context of access to abortion and contraception? Well, if you're referring to opponents of access to them, your statement should be interpreted, absent qualifiers, as referring to them all.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

Ignoring who the article is about for second.

If it is true that she is just leaving him because she got "bored" or just didn't want to be married anymore then I cannot understand/support that. Marriage is a promise between two people that they genuinely believe each other to be the perfect person for them, if you think you're going to get bored then don't get married. But this is my personal justification, read into what I say in the later paragraphs if you're looking to understand my more neutral viewpoint.

If it's true that he was neglectful/abusive then that means he is at fault and that can be her justification. I don't think the initiator should have to prove the fault of their spouse through thorough investigation (unless they intend to demand compensation in some way that would strain or otherwise hurt the other person), but they should put up a reason more than just "I was bored". Primarily, this can apply in the case of those millionaires/billionaires that just divorce to upgrade their spouse to someone younger and better looking, they shouldn't be able to just say "I just don't want to be married to them anymore" and then, within weeks, find themselves new lovers while they leave their ex in the dust.

It's not about making women the "property of men" but instead about making sure that if a man initiates a divorce against his wife because he only saw her as a trophy; she should have some form of protection or get some kind of compensation because he doesn't have a valid reason. Additionally, because then the millionaire/billionaire who knows his intentions will be more hesitant to marry her and it'll be enough of a red flag for her to get out of the dangerous situation. To add to this, I do not believe attorneys should be involved in these settlements (that I described) because the billionaire will just get a good lawyer and let their spouse be unable to provide sufficient legal defence.

A lot of women who married young are left out to dry because of their husbands getting bored and wanting a "younger model".

Men aren't the only victims, and they might not even be the majority victims.

I'm not sure they even care. I mentioned the Elizabeth Bruenig tweet in which she non-ironically recommends having a baby because a husband could just leave you at any time, and it keeps getting ignored. :/

[Kerwa]

Proverbs 31:10

[Ifreann]

I never mentioned politicians. Or voters. I'm just telling you how conservative religious social views work.

You attributed these views not specifically to people with conservative religious and social views, but to opponents of abortion and contraception. The former is opposed by millions of voters, any of whom could reasonably have interpreted you as referring to them, and who I would presume are more likely to see it as murder than to see themselves or their wives as "domestic servants." The latter is opposed by the Catholic church, whose supporters at most don't disagree strongly enough with them to abandon the faith. (By comparison, the stem cell issue alone made me see the Catholic church as a cesspool of BS that should be abandoned en masse.)

People with "conservative religious social views" are not numerous enough or powerful enough to drive this sort of thing all by themselves. As such, no one could reasonably have been expected to presume that you were referring specifically to them. Next time, if you wish to refer to such a narrow subset of people, why not specify as much?

That's all. I don't know why you think that my statements about this one sort of belief should explain everything about American politics, but they won't and aren't intended to.

About American politics as a whole? Of course not.

About American politics in the context of access to abortion and contraception? Well, if you're referring to opponents of access to them, your statement should be interpreted, absent qualifiers, as referring to them all.

If one were actually following the exchange, I was clearly referring to people like Steven Crowder. Right wing shitbags who talk a big game about how important marriage is but who are revealed to be cheaters or abusers. You're only confused because you weren't following it, and instead of reading back you seem to have made an assumption and committed to it 100%.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Forcing people to stay married/Making Divorce illegal, would be the dumbest idea ever, so like if a woman’s husband was severely abusing them, they’re just supposed to stay married to him? And it can happen vice versa too, if a man’s wife is abusing him (shocker, woman can abuse people too) is he supposed to stay with her?

No-fault divorce treats spouses who leave for no reason other than losing interest no differently than spouses who leave over abuse. I'm not sure how differently they should be treated, but "no difference at all" doesn't sit right with me.

We live in a world where the fear of being abandoned by one's spouse is so pervasive that people non-ironically recommend having kids so they won't leave you. This is a crisis. We need people who feel that attached to their spouses to have something, however small, they can do about being abandoned by them such that people don't get married in the first place until they know they can commit to it.

Sorry but that a silly saying (not you). When people really want to exit a marriage, having kids won’t hold them in the relationship. They will find a way to leave.

Let ppl divorce as it stands.

[Revanchist Serbia]

Better marriage counseling should be something encouraged, but honestly, forcing people to stay married is not a practical solution. Nor is trying to do away with the form of divorce least likely to impoverish men and women alike.

[Adamede]

As a child of a failed marriage, being raised in disfunctional family isn't ideal.

It's kind of a case by case thing what's best for the kids. When a couple in my extended family divorced, two of their kids seemed just as happy not to have their dad around, but the 3rd kid missed his dad.

And forcing families to stay togetehr solves nothuing yet again. Its a dmaned if you damnd if you don't eorld, my life is enough evidence of that.

[Adamede]

My parents divorced when I was pretty young and tbh it fucked me up in ways that I’m still dealing with today. Honestly I doubt I will ever be able to have normal romantic relationships because of the trauma from it.

Why did your parents divorce upset you so badly? Did you have to go to court and choose between them?

It just was one of two tings that lead to my childhood and frankly my entire life being increadibly unstable. And no I've never had much choice over anything in my life.

[Katganistan]

If someone vows to be with someone forever, and goes back on their word for no reason, shouldn't there be at least some consequences for going back on their word? Financial penalties are a nice middle ground between "over-reacting" and "no consequences at all."

And what about people who can't afford the fine? Should they just never be allowed to divorce?

Or should their only choice be to murder their partner to get out of a bad relationship?

[Katganistan]

Proverbs 31:10

What non-Christian needs to give a shit about what the Bible says? And just because a good woman is more precious than diamonds in their view does not mean she should be trapped in a relationship she does not want.

[Heavenly Assault]

I get it and I'm not trying to oversimplify the issue, but my position is that it's utterly malignant that society gets to dictate how and if people can separate and who gets what and how much if they do. It's petty tyranny and a cheapening of human relationships.

I mean, this happens when you try to unwind a corporation as well. If there’s a dispute, someone has to decide on the division of assets.

I do disagree with eliminating no fault divorce if that means requiring people to stay in relationships that have failed. I am open to other structures and new ideas though.

I advocate for no legalism involved except for taxation and any applicable social benefits. How about society doesn't stick its nose into such personal affairs?

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I advocate for no legalism involved except for taxation and any applicable social benefits. How about society doesn't stick its nose into such personal affairs?

By definition, a dispute involves people who don't agree with each other. Of course social arbitration is necessary to decide who is right in what.

[Heavenly Assault]

I advocate for no legalism involved except for taxation and any applicable social benefits. How about society doesn't stick its nose into such personal affairs?

By definition, a dispute involves people who don't agree with each other. Of course social arbitration is necessary to decide who is right in what.

It's really not and it's really not anyone's business except for the parties involved. Stop trying to play God, smdh.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

It's really not and it's really not anyone's business except for the parties involved. Stop trying to play God, smdh.

Should grocery stores let one side continue to pay for purchases with a joint account debit card? What should the bank do with that joint account anyways? Can public school accept the signature of one side as qualifying as 'parental approval' for a field trip? Alternatively, what happens if neither side wants to raise the kids? If the side with their name on the land deed tries to evict their partner after a falling-out, should the police assist in that?

You seem to be under the impression that it is possible for society to be uninvolved in the disputes of divorce. It very much is not. When you're a grocery store clerk and you put your customer's debit card into the card reader, the bank will either process the payment or it will not process the payment; there is no neutral "I am not involved" option there.

[Kernen]

It's really not and it's really not anyone's business except for the parties involved. Stop trying to play God, smdh.

Should grocery stores let one side continue to pay for purchases with a joint account debit card? What should the bank do with that joint account anyways? Can public school accept the signature of one side as qualifying as 'parental approval' for a field trip? Alternatively, what happens if neither side wants to raise the kids? If the side with their name on the land deed tries to evict their partner after a falling-out, should the police assist in that?

You seem to be under the impression that it is possible for society to be uninvolved in the disputes of divorce. It very much is not. When you're a grocery store clerk and you put your customer's debit card into the card reader, the bank will either process the payment or it will not process the payment; there is no neutral "I am not involved" option there.

Joint accounts are unaffected by divorce. They're managed under contract agreements and handled ancillary to divorce efforts but not by divorce efforts.

[GuessTheAltAccount]

If one were actually following the exchange, I was clearly referring to people like Steven Crowder. Right wing shitbags who talk a big game about how important marriage is but who are revealed to be cheaters or abusers.

Steven Crowder is just catering to consumer demand amongst his audience. (You know, like how the average opponent of legal prostitution blames prostitution on the customer and not on the one who meets demand, so too does the same principle apply to podcast hosting.) So are you suggesting his audience sees women as domestic servants, or no? If not, what are you suggesting is the incentive for the likes of Crowder to "talk a big game about how important marriage is," and what is the broader significance of this incentive in the context of abortion and contraception?

No-fault divorce treats spouses who leave for no reason other than losing interest no differently than spouses who leave over abuse. I'm not sure how differently they should be treated, but "no difference at all" doesn't sit right with me.

We live in a world where the fear of being abandoned by one's spouse is so pervasive that people non-ironically recommend having kids so they won't leave you. This is a crisis. We need people who feel that attached to their spouses to have something, however small, they can do about being abandoned by them such that people don't get married in the first place until they know they can commit to it.

Sorry but that a silly saying (not you). When people really want to exit a marriage, having kids won’t hold them in the relationship. They will find a way to leave.

Let ppl divorce as it stands.

I wasn't referring to baby-trapping (though that in itself is an issue that warrants deterring ASAP), but to Elizabeth Bruenig's insistence that a baby is "something more concrete to hold onto; something that calls you mommy". As in, suggesting having a baby not because they're cute, or because one thinks one would be an especially good parent, but because they can't leave you like a husband could.

I honestly wonder if fewer babies would be born to mothers who have them for the wrong reasons if some financial penalty or initiating a no-fault divorce made more careful to make sure they're ready to get married.

And what about people who can't afford the fine? Should they just never be allowed to divorce?

Or should their only choice be to murder their partner to get out of a bad relationship?

Enough with the twisting of people's words already. I've already said we should make it affordable but inconvenient. And that this is meant more for partners who just got bored of the other partner through no fault of the other partner's own than for cases where fault is actually present.

By comparison, the rest of the public seems perfectly content to sentence boys to dire poverty if his girlfriend keeps the baby, even if she said she wouldn't, even if he's not done school, and even though just about everyone else took the exact same risk. Imagine how much more affordable this would be if we pooled the resources of everyone who took the exact same risk and had the state pick up the tab until he was back on his feet.