• PenguinJuice@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    1 year ago

    I mean, I don’t think that this is a bad thing. People can date and break up as much as they want. Getting married should be seen as something very serious that isn’t easily broken.

    I know not everyone has the same experiences, but I’ve seen people treating marriage as throw away and it deeply impacts their children.

    • Lizardon
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • dartos@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Doesn’t no-fault mean that either party can get a divorce for any reason?

        Am I misunderstanding what “no-fault” means here?

        • Misanthrope
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          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]

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce

        • CorrosiveCapital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

      • PenguinJuice@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        They can prove abuse, as mentioned in the article. It shouldn’t be hard if they are being abused.

        • s20
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • Remmock@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      Researchers who tracked the emergence of no-fault divorce laws state by state over that period found that reform led to dramatic drops in the rates of female suicide and domestic violence, as well as decreases in spousal homicide of women. The decreases, one researcher explained, were “not just because abused women (and men) could more easily divorce their abusers, but also because potential abusers knew that they were more likely to be left.”

      We’ll just ignore this, then?

      • s20
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, yeah. They have to ignore that part, or else they’re obviously the assholes here.

    • pgetsos@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      It is very easy to end up in a relationship that makes you miserable and your partner treats you badly. But this won’t be always the case in the beginning of your relationship. It may come 5 or 25 years later. Then what?

    • Andy@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is one of many situations in which I would say: before we start trying to reduce something by restricting it, have we tried all (or any) options for reducing it by giving people better options.

      Also, to be frank, I don’t understand why it’s my business your yours if third parties get in and out of marriages flippantly. I don’t expect others to get married in my faith tradition, why should it matter to me if they get married by an Elvis impersonator every Saturday night?

      If it’s about kids, the solutions should be about helping kids with divorced parents. Because keeping those particular parents from getting divorced is doing those poor kids no favors.

    • imPastaSyndrome@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      You say that like unmarried people can’t have kids and people who don’t have kids can’t get married. Yknow, exactly like crowder the situation at hand?

    • kbity@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      You say that now, but next they’ll be coming for premarital cohabitation and eventually we’ll be back to fathers literally selling their daughters as brides as chattels through the mechanism of arranged marriages they can’t terminate.

      • PenguinJuice@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        It may surprise you that people are allowed to have different opinions and come to conclusions based on their own experiences. Insults don’t really affect or sway anyone’s opinions, nor do they silence those you deem ineligible of thought.