Some conservatives want to make it a lot harder to dissolve a marriage.

Before the 1960s, it was really hard to get divorced in America.

Typically, the only way to do it was to convince a judge that your spouse had committed some form of wrongdoing, like adultery, abandonment, or ā€œcrueltyā€ (that is, abuse). This could be difficult: ā€œEven if you could prove you had been hit, that didnā€™t necessarily mean it rose to the level of cruelty that justified a divorce,ā€ saidĀ Marcia Zug, a family law professor at the University of South Carolina.

Then came a revolution: In 1969, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan of California (who was himself divorced) signedĀ the nationā€™s first no-fault divorce law, allowing people to end their marriages without proving theyā€™d been wronged. The move was a recognition that ā€œpeople were going to get out of marriages,ā€ Zug said, and gave them a way to do that withoutĀ resorting to subterfuge. Similar laws soon swept the country, and rates ofĀ domestic violence and spousal murderĀ began to drop as people ā€” especially women ā€” gained more freedom to leave dangerous situations.

Today, however, a counter-revolution is brewing:Ā Conservative commentatorsĀ andĀ lawmakersĀ are calling for an end to no-fault divorce, arguing that it has harmed men and even destroyed the fabric of society. Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers, for example,Ā introduced a billĀ in January to ban his stateā€™s version of no-fault divorce. The Texas Republican Party added a call to end the practice to itsĀ 2022 platformĀ (the plank is preserved inĀ the 2024 version). Federal lawmakers like Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) andĀ House Speaker Mike Johnson, as well as former Housing and Urban Development SecretaryĀ Ben Carson, have spoken out in favor of tightening divorce laws.

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
    16Ā·
    5 months ago

    I was married, later divorced, and am now in a position where Iā€™ve been in a committed relationship for more than 10 years, but we arenā€™t married.

    The benefits are clear and pushed onto us: I canā€™t share health care with my partner if we arenā€™t married. The system is rigged to make people in relationships eventually get married.

    • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
      6Ā·
      5 months ago

      This is why my husband and I got married after 10 years together. Originally neither of us cared because we were essentially already married. But doing it officially then I could be on his insurance, and if anything happens where one of us gets incapacitated the other can make healthcare decisions. Sucks thatā€™s how it works though.

    • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
      5Ā·
      5 months ago

      I was in the same boat as you. However, I met my wife while working overseas. We dated and lived together for two years.

      The only reason we got married was for immigration reasons. If she could have came to the US easier then we would still be ā€œdating.ā€

      Once she got to the US, she asked why we divorce so much. I explained for 99% of people we get married for 3 reasons; pregnant, religion, or financial. Once one of those are resolved we split.

      It is due to the system pushing you into young marriage. To produce kids young and never own anything but work non stop.

      Remember work 50 years for the possibility to enjoy 10, maybe.

    • kofe@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4Ā·
      5 months ago

      Thereā€™s like 1200 legal benefits to marriage iirc. Things like being able to visit in the hospital outside of visiting hours, possessions going to your spouse after death if thereā€™s no will, stuff like that.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
      2Ā·
      5 months ago

      What state do you live in if you donā€™t mind me asking. Many states have rules that would allow you to add them to their insurance if you live together for a length of time. A year for AZ is what popped up when I went to search because Iā€™m here on a work trip.

    • Drivebyhaiku@lemmy.world
      1Ā·
      5 months ago

      The concept of the European style family is a tool of conservative control. When you create specific boundaries on what is considered kinship you create subjects of economic categories. If you get a bunch of kickbacks for playing by the rules then there are also people who are purposefully excluded from playing to create additional economic goads. Like if you are disowned from your family you can lose generational wealth and support which is designed to keep young people in line by way of fear . Welfare and social securities weakens the economic ties of the family politic control to make you reliant on the support of the people you are related to by blood and to keep people who might be your chosen family at a distance unable to help.

      So called ā€œfamily valuesā€ arenā€™t lovely dovey nice things. They are to make being an individual with different needs a failure state.