this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
571 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19223 readers
3202 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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 “cruelty” (that is, abuse). This could be difficult: “Even if you could prove you had been hit, that didn’t necessarily mean it rose to the level of cruelty that justified a divorce,” said 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) signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce law, allowing people to end their marriages without proving they’d been wronged. The move was a recognition that “people were going to get out of marriages,” Zug said, and gave them a way to do that without resorting to subterfuge. Similar laws soon swept the country, and rates of domestic violence and spousal murder began to drop as people — especially women — gained more freedom to leave dangerous situations. 

Today, however, a counter-revolution is brewing: Conservative commentators and lawmakers 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, introduced a bill in January to ban his state’s version of no-fault divorce. The Texas Republican Party added a call to end the practice to its 2022 platform (the plank is preserved in the 2024 version). Federal lawmakers like Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and House Speaker Mike Johnson, as well as former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, have spoken out in favor of tightening divorce laws.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] skvlp@lemm.ee 10 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Those from the USA that grab the attention are not sane, but I assume there are sane people there. What are their take and outlook on this? What’s their outlook on the future, and are there developments in their outlook on the USA?

[–] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I suppose I could call myself sane and I'm from the US. My outlook is pretty grim honestly. We have far-right "christians" trying to turn the US into a theocracy and install a dictator. It's real Hand Maid's Tail shit and it's scary as fuck.

I don't think we have crossed the point of no return yet but we are damn fucking close. I also don't know that there is going to be a way out of this without violence.

One thing I CAN say for sure, if Trump wins in November we have crossed that line and the US is going to be fucked for a long time.

[–] sloppy_diffuser@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Also semi-sane US citizen. Same feelings. Would not be surprised if there is a major civil incident within the next 20 years.

Lower class is fucked without anything to lose.

Middle class is getting milked dry to keep infinite growth alive.

Wealthy R class keeps making these rules for thee not for me proposals in order to seize control.

Wealthy D class, other than a handful of progressives, are just as corrupt with better marketing. Complacency over Israel's actions put some light on it at least.

These dinosaurs who are running these crimes against humanity won't retire from office.

R has been stupidly effective at wrapping up hate in "christian love." I can't even understand how people buy into this crap. Wealth and power is all they want. These social issues to keep people infighting is so blatant and obvious.

[–] skvlp@lemm.ee 4 points 6 months ago

I can absolutely see growing unrest if this continues. It was a bit close for comfort during the peak of BLM, but I can absolutely understand why it happened.

Good summary, I got about the same impression. Looking in from the outside it seems so obvious that there is a lot of corruption, consolidation of power, consolidation of wealth, but I guess it’s difficult to do anything about.

[–] skvlp@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

It’s scary as F to look at that madman getting closer to getting that kind of power again.I shiver to think what he’ll accomplish when he’s prepared.

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

We have far-right "christians" trying to turn the US into a theocracy and install a dictator. Have you seen the documentary God Forbid (hulu), shiny happy people (prime), or the much older netfflix doc, the family? I only ask because you're basically making the same conclusions I got from watching them.

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

As a woman in the United States I feel like I'm constantly fighting against the political future (if not the practical reality of) the handmaid's tale.

Show or book, whatever medium floats your boat it is powerful and real and speaks so much of similar lived experiences... it should be consumed, digested, and change you after. That is my favorite type of media.

But also it is a sort of coping mechanism cuz I 100% can see the show or book happening. And while this seems off topic yeah it all starts with religion dictating law based on their morals which gee... I sure see the church. But never Christ.

So familiar.

[–] skvlp@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago

I can understand that you feel that way, is there any of your rights that seems safe? And from what I can gather there’s not a majority behind those changes - it’s a religious minority that one side needs in order to get a majority that is allowed to dictate this direction?

I haven’t seen The Handmaids Tale, but I’ve heard it’s good, and I’ve put it on my watchlist.

[–] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Oops realized I didn't answer your question and I noticed lemmy doesn't have great track record of showing edits.

So yeah I was curious cuz as an American I still don't get it. Ca Gov Regan passed no fault divorce and we are arguing about it fucking 50 years later because maybe someone haves to give away too much money/property? I fucking hate it.

[–] Nikki@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

crazy how if you outlaw getting a divorce then marital status remains the same (until someone ends up mysteriously dead in a river)

i cant believe we have to deal with this i am so tired

[–] skvlp@lemm.ee 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Then marriage becomes a jail. How can she escape if he is an asshole? Unfaithful? Violent? But that’s maybe the point?

[–] Nikki@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

definitely is the point

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This will reverse all the good done by those laws. Domestic violence, spousal abuse and murder, and suicide will all raise significantly. This is a terrible call that nobody who truly supports freedom could get behind. It makes me want to procure large amounts of glass bottles and cloth for no particular purpose at all.

[–] skvlp@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

“Freedom for me, not for thee”?