No-fault divorce the next thing on the chopping block?

Source

THE right-wing podcaster, is getting adivorce. “No, this was not my choice,” Crowder told his online audience last week. “My then-wife decided that she didn’t want to be married anymore — and in the state ofTexas, that is completely permitted.”

Could be that I am biased here but I get the feeling that he doesn't like it.

Crowder’s home state could be the first to eliminate it, if the Texas GOP gets its way. Last year, the Republican Party of Texas added language to itsplatformcalling for an end to no-fault divorce: “We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws, to support covenant marriage, and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six months after the date of filing for divorce.”

Anyhow what's your thoughts on no-fault divorce? Do you think it should be kept or done away with?

Personally I think it should be kept. If you're not happy, why be forced to stay?

I've never held the sanctity of marriage in high regard. People should be able to live their lives.

I love seeing everyone turn on Stephen Crowder. This Toxic anti-intellectualism he has been promoting, is destroying discourse and debate, with a growing but vocal group of imbeciles who reject reality itself. When people are rejecting studies, without actually pointing to errors in the methodology, we have a problem.

As for No Fault Divorce, keep them. People should not be bound to abusive partners, and abuse can be hard to prove at times. People should be free to live their lives as they see fit, rather than being bound to someone they hate.

You seem to be holding the belief that women are to be considered as people, equal to men. We can't have that. :P

i know /s

but a lot of the right is not believing that anymore. they really do think woman should have less rights

I've been divorced twice. I think it's dumb when marriage lasts 4 days, or 2 months in you decide you don't like that person. Be serious if you get married, people.

People shouldn’t be getting married in the first place. The tax benefits aren’t even worth it.

@Maroxad: correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't an abusive partner make it so it is no longer "no-fault". I'm pretty sure you could still get a divorce in that case.

I don't see the big deal one way or the other. I just think it would delay the divorce process for some rushed marriages, and unless you are planning to get married again right away, I don't see the problem with waiting.

You still need to prove it in the court of law. Which means lawyer fees and a whole slew of other barriers.

@girlusocrazy: from what I saw living together before marriage tends to increase divorce rates. I saw mixed results in regards to long engagements and divorce rates.

@Maroxad: @girlusocrazy: Shouldn't abusers be called out? I know it would be a pain to go to court and legal fees, but wouldn't that be better than abusers facing no consequences? I hope this isn't really a common reason for no-fault divorces.

Courts should NOT need a reason for couple's wanting a divorce. That's ridiculous and backward thinking......oh right, the far right extremist maga party is involved.

Why don't we go back to just dragging whatever womens we want back to our cave by their hair?

@girlusocrazy: I agree it should be both. I wouldn't want a judge to say "You didn't provide enough evidence of abuse, good luck with your marriage".

Regardless, even if married people don't have to stay together. Anybody in an abusive relationship should leave. A marriage certificate is not stopping that from happening. Other than stopping the person from marrying someone else, would this really change anything?

"How am I supposed to make my child bride stay married to me if she's just allowed to leave whenever?"- Modern Republicans.

Marriage use to mean commitment. Not sure what it means anymore. Abuse is one thing, but leaving just because you find someone you think is better should be shamed on. Especially if children are involved. Almost everyone I know that's married has gone through rough patches and made it through them stronger than before. It's way too easy to give up or move on to the next person that might make you happy temporarily. Been married and divorced twice and probably never going through that again. I commend people who stick it out though. Obviously not referring to abuse cases.

So just to clarify:

A no-fault divorce is when someone can divorce another with no cause, and doesn't require the other party to consent?

How is this up for debate? People should be able to leave marriages if they want to, there should have to be a cause.

Seems pretty reasonable.

We also have lawyers to handle the technical aspects (who gets what, who gets custody, etc). As far as getting out of the actual relationship and leaving, that should be anyone's choice at any point free of providing cause.

Would genuinely like to hear some counter arguments, though.

No dude, they're birthing chambers. Property. Get it right, beta male.

As a member of our great Supreme Court recently said, pregnancy "is the natural state" of a woman.

Fun tidbit here because I don't think it's explicitly in the OP but Steven Crowder is pushing this because he emotionally and verbally abused his pregnant wife and she left with a no-fault divorce. So basically he's a manbaby crying because he didn't get his way.

Also another fun bit, but it's been studied and shown that areas with no-fault divorce have less suicide among women and significantly fewer cases of domestic violence. So if you're wondering what Republicans would hope for by undoing this, you needn't wonder any further.

dammmm

I'm not sure why you care about what a podcaster hits on, but I think it's an interesting concept to address no-fault divorces when it comes to family units. If two adults want to get married and divorced, by all means go for it, but I do think the matter holds much more weight when children get involved. The Nebraska note in the Rolling Stone (people still read that?) article seems reasonable.

If you’re a guy, you’re more than likely going to have a woman file for divorce against you. The woman files for divorce 75-80 percent of the time in America. She can have any reason she wants, and she can take half of what you have and your children. You might even be paying her alimony as she lives with another man in the future.

Divorce has become a mating strategy for women, where they can exercise hypergamy if they do not like the guy they’re with for whatever reason, leaving one for someone else she thinks is better and looting the previous guy as she moves on.

In some cases, the man is certainly a scumbag. Crowder looks selfish and disgusting in the videos I have seen.

My wife and I both do not believe in divorce. We have religious convictions. We also have a supportive, loving relationship. It is our belief that no marriage is to the point of not being salvaged, so if we ever have major conflicts (we haven’t in our five years and counting of marriage), we can not harden our hearts against one another and leave. It’s just not in our nature.

I was wondering who would get that.

Before I read this article, I had no idea about the violence and suicide part. Not that I needed to know it to support no-fault divorce.

So you think it is better for kids to grow up in a household where the grown-ups recent each others?

Sounds like your problem is mostly with how laws are interpreted or written when it comes to who gets what after a divorce, not the divorce itself. Ideally it should be 50/50 split when it comes to who files for divorce. Maybe there needs to be more support for men and mental health problems for men.

These things do not exist in a vacuum, and each can be decided on an adhoc basis for the benefits of the children, whatever that may be. Children benefit when having both parents in the household.

At any cost?

Huh?

Have you ever dealt with children that have parents that hate each other and the toxic environment in the home? Ideally both parents continue to support and nurture their children even when they are no longer married. It's when a parent leaves the family that children have problems. Not when the parents aren't living together.

I get the impression that you are against no-fault divorce. Are you?

No, I said there's merit to the idea behind looking at the concept when children are involved. I called it reasonable. Part of being able to analyze things is understanding there's merit to ideas even you disagree with.

Nothing says Freedom quite like forcing people to be in a relationship together.

Crowder always came across as a douche. His Biden Creep video was pretty funny.

Why do you think it is reasonable to not have no-fault divorce when kids are involved? Do you think there should be mandatory marriage counseling, perhaps help with mental issues for the parents when kids are involved? Or just need a fault based divorce if children are involved?

I don't get that philosophy. If a marriage isn't working then we shouldn't happily want to force the individuals to remain married. Barbaric actually.

Probably due to the mountain of information out there related to the mental health of children in along with the effects of divorce on families (mental/physical health/economics/behavior problems, etc).

I think the cases can be decided on an ad-hoc basis depending on the circumstances of each and every unique family.

The flip side of the argument is merely, why does the state have an obligation to be involved in the counseling of two adults? Who foots the bill for the counseling, or should taxpayers be responsible for a poor marriage? Granted to be fair, California already spends billions for its social welfare programs.

Take your time and pick someone that is committed as well as you are.

Pick em' right fellas 🔥🔥🔥

No person should be forced to stay in a marriage they don't want to be a part of. Besides, probably will lead to people killing their partners in their sleep.

It becomes a point of which is worse for the children, a hostile environment or a divisive environment. Each situation is unique and warrants interpretation since there's no Occam's razor perfect solution. Depending on the hostility however, that would negate the "no at fault" part.

I get where you're coming from. These things need to be dealt with individually. I just personally think the option to get out without needing to jump through a lot of hoops or get consent from the partner is important.

I think in negative scenarios, it's a sort of damned if you do, damned if you don't outcome.

If you have a married couple with kids and they don't get along, you have a few options:

1. Remain together and fight. I think this could teach the kids something bad, especially depending on the degree of conflict (if one spouse is verbally and physically abusive especially).

2. Divorce. While this would reduce conflict, obviously studies have been done to show what divorce does to children.

3. Remain together and seek therapy. I'm not sure what the success rate is on "couple's therapy" but I would like to think most married people at least try it out before heading straight for a divorce.

There's a lot more that can be done. Upwards of 1/5 of married couples sleep in separate beds and essentially live their own lives while remaining married, more as partners of practicality and for the sake of kids, than anything. I guess that's a compromise too.

Kids pick up on the tension/hostility and most would rather their parents divorce than remain in the house that way. If both parents remain civil and stay in the children's lives, it is a more positive outcome. If they fight and try to pit the children against the other parent then that is where the problem comes in. It does no one, children included, to live in a toxic environment.

Will not your proposal for divorce, if children are involved, itself become very expensive and perhaps a roadblock to getting a divorce? Essentially using economic costs to force people to stay together.

The process being expensive? How so? Cost of lawyer fees or the application paperwork (which can be done without an attorney). It's likely only expensive when mediation is required when separation isn't amicable. A judge can make that determination though in family court. I know in California fees are waived based on income levels.

Divorce itself, division of assets, is already expensive. In fact, getting divorced with kids is even *more* expensive when calculating child support and/or spousal support.

So odd to me that you think government should have a say in people's personal lives.

I have a lot of say in people's lives.