Conservative US lawmakers are pushing for an end to no-fault divorce | US news | The Guardian
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Republicans in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas have discussed eliminating or restricting such cases
Some prominent conservative lawmakers and commentators are advocating for ending no-fault divorce, laws that exist in all 50 US states and allow a person to end a marriage without having to prove a spouse did something wrong, like commit adultery or domestic violence.
The socially conservative, and often religious, rightwing opponents of such divorce laws are arguing that the practice deprives people - mostly men - of due process and hurt families, and by extension, society. Republican lawmakers in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas have discussed eliminating or increasing restrictions on no-fault marriage laws.
Defenders of the laws, which states started passing a half-century ago, see legislation and arguments to repeal them as the latest effort to restrict women's rights - following the overturning of Roe v Wade and passage of abortion bans around the country - and say that without such protections, the country would return to an earlier era when women were often trapped in abusive marriages.
"No-fault divorce is critical to the ability, particularly the ability of women, to be able to exercise autonomy in their own relationships, in their own lives," said Denise Lieberman, an adjunct professor at the Washington University School of Law in St Louis, who has a specialty in policies concerning gender, sexuality and sexual violence.
Before 1969, when then California Republican governor Ronald Reagan, who had been divorced, approved the country's first no-fault divorce law, women, who are more likely to experience violence from an intimate partner, were often forced to stay in marriages. If they could not prove that their husband had been abusive or persuade him to grant a divorce, they would not be able to take any assets from the marriage or remarry, according to a study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics.
States around America gradually followed suit and passed similar laws allowing unilateral divorce until 2010, when New York became the last state to approve the practice.
Between 1976 and 1985, states that passed the laws saw their domestic violence rates against men and women fall by about 30%; the number of women murdered by an intimate partner declined by 10%; and female suicide rates declined by 8 to 16%.
Without such laws, "it's hard to prove anything in court relating to a family because you don't have any witnesses", said Kimberly Wehle, professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law. "It's very difficult to get evidence to show abuse of children. How do you do it? Do you put your kids on the stand?"
Conservative commentators such as Matt Walsh, Steven Crowder and lawmakers such as the Republican senator JD Vance of Ohio have argued that the laws are unfair to men and hurt society because they lead to more divorces.
The divorce rate in the United States increased significantly from 1960, when it was 9.2 per 1,000 married women, to 22.6 in 1980. But by 2022, the rate had fallen to 14.5.
On the increase in divorces, Vance said in 2021: "One of the great tricks that I think the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace" is the idea that "these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy, and so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that's going to make people happier in the long term".
Beverly Willett, a writer and attorney, argues that unilateral no-fault divorce is also unconstitutional because it violates a person's 14th amendment right to due process.
The defendant "has absolutely no recourse to say, 'Wait a minute. I don't want to be divorced, and I don't think that there are grounds for divorce. I would like to be heard. I would like to call witnesses,'" said Willett, who experienced a divorce she didn't want because she thought her marriage could be saved. "I believed in my vows" and "didn't want to give up".
But Willett's argument relies on the idea that "women are either property or that somehow men's liberty is restrained by not allowing them to stay in a marriage with someone who does not want to be married", said Wehle, who also wrote about it in the Atlantic. "I disagree with the idea that women are somehow property interests of their husbands. That is an arcane relic of law that has no place in modern society."
Willett responded to Wehle's critique by writing that "nobody has suggested a return to antiquated laws of the 18th and 19th century. Considerable reform that protects women and ensures their equality in family court has been enacted since then."
On the argument that no-fault divorce reduces domestic violence, Willett points to data that most domestic violence occurs between unmarried couples and says regardless, with "any contract, any lawsuit, you still have to follow the constitution".
But without such laws, victims of domestic violence would then have to navigate a court system that can be time-consuming, "very adversarial and very costly" because the plaintiff often must then pay for child care and transportation, said Marium Durrani, vice-president of policy for the National Domestic Violence Hotline.
"Any sort of additional barrier that we add to the ease of legal proceeding is, frankly, a nightmare and an enormous burden for survivors," said Durrani. "I'm not trying to be an alarmist, but it can increase death [if] a survivor of domestic violence has to prove that they are being abused in a divorce proceeding."
Still, Lieberman does not think Republicans will succeed in their efforts to make it more difficult for people to get divorced.
"I do believe that that train has left the station. I mean, we have had no-fault divorce now for 50 years," Lieberman said. But "I didn't think the supreme court would overturn Roe v Wade, which we had for 50 years, so I suppose we will see."
OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT WARNING.
Tags
Who is online
125 visitors
For a party that professes small government they want their fingers in every part of our lives.
they can have my finger, its the one in the middle Repubs!
The rest of this thread was removed for no value.
The entire Republican agenda is marching us steadily into the past. How many centuries back do they want to take us?
Two centuries, but with finned Cadillacs and segregated bathrooms!
It seems like they want to go back a lot farther than that.
Yes, intellectually all the way back to The Dark Ages!
But, with air-conditioning, online porn and gambling...
Make America Great Again ? When the hell was that ?
I pick 1870 and request a large roll-off dumpster placed on main st...
So, make people who are already suffering suffer even more?
It does seem to be the republican way.
What is gained by forcing people who don't want to be together to stay together?
it's more about leaving the trade-in for a newer model destitute...
Male dominance and the death of liberal feminism. They want some weird amalgamation of Mad Men, Leave It To Beaver and The Handmaid's Tale. Manly men and demure women. Children who were seen, but not heard. Cigar smoke filled board rooms and drinks at the club with their mistresses (who sometimes suddenly go 'visit' their aunt upstate).
Yes and it would put a serious crimp in generation instant gratification.
My position on this topic has been made crystal clear here via responses to this article and once again you missed the mark. Completely.
Bravo Sierra.
This one
Nah, it’s the type of independent thought many of my friends on the left here are completely incapable of.
Completely …..
Jesus loves misery. Have you ever seen him smile?
No and it's a damn shame. He'd be a lot prettier if he smiled
Since I have never been married and yet would like to participate in this discussion, I would like to approach it from a 'bottom-up ' position of a really timely article on the problems which cause no-fault divorces and SOLUTIONS that may benefit keeping marriages togethe r:
Here is an excerpt on keeping together from the link (afterwards) the article seems to me to be a study in how no-fault divorce started (President Reagan), progressed, and could end:
The American Enterprise Institute is a right-leaning site. . . do with that knowledge and understanding as you may. Also, remember the excerpt above does not tell the other side- that is shared in the beginning of the article , nevertheless. (It's something of a balance article overall in my opinion.)
I would have missed the whole new adventure I am living had I not divorced my first wife, once our children were grown and on their own, using a no-fault divorce, based on the fact that over the years we eventually simply grew apart emotionally and physically (separate bedrooms), which freed me to start a new life in a new and magical land, a new calling that was more fulfilling than my previous one, a new wife who for me is absolutely perfect and a comfort that was previously rare for me to experience.
Americans have an alternative notwithstanding the new laws banning no-fault divorce.
Let's see if the numbers for that alternative increase, just as the numbers for infant mortality have greatly increased in states that restrict abortions.
I think there is ample evidence on this thread that most of the conservative members are not in agreement
and don't want to give up such a valuable tool.
Religion is a big business. Divorces have consequence. Weddings, annulments and funerals are a huge revenue stream.
Mainstream Abrahamic religious members will never agree to their get out of jail card being taken away by politicians.
I don’t make any money regardless. You do you.
I have no issue with "no fault divorce" it seems like a good and practical means of ending an unhappy marriage.
I do think that community property laws should be done away with, both parties should leave the marriage with what they came into the marriage with and an equal share of what was added to the "family" wealth through mutual action.
Every marriage license should include the pre-nuptial agreement spelling out financial assets and value of each spouse clearly so that their is no confusion of what belongs to whom when the split occurs.
Well, I've known people who have had more marriages than I have toes, but I think doing away with no-fault divorce will only benefit divorce lawyers.
Nobody should be forced to stay in a marriage that makes them unhappy
that's probably near the bottom of their top 10 list of legislated dogma decrees...
Like so many issues today it’s not black and white and there is middle ground. It’s hard to argue that a divorce isn’t easy to get in the USA. Many think too easy. Anyone who has been married knows marriage isn’t always easy but can be worth the work. How many divorces could have been good marriages with some more work? I suspect many.
Middle ground ….
Who has the right to decide that anyone should stay in a marriage they don't want to be in? The government? You?
Forcing anyone to stay in a marriage is NOT a middle ground.
Typical overreaction we have become accustom to here on NTers. My position was clearly made above. Your attempt to obfuscate that is very weak sauce
Where did you come up with that? Who is “forcing” who to stay married?
Your comment is very much that.
Not in the least. Your comment was rambling and failed to make any actual point.
Nice try. You apparently cannot withstand the scrutiny of a few questions regarding your comment.
It's implicit in your comment.
Not in the least
Nope
Denial is no a good look for you
Wrong again on all fronts. Amazing!
Your attempt at a rebuttal is like a leaking bladder. It doesn't hold water.
Keep digging …..
Why? You're already buried so deep you can't possibly claw your way to the surface.
Ah yes the PeeWee Herman “ I know you are but what am I” gambit.
Well played sir, well played …..
When they have nothing original to say, they can always resort to cliches.
that sounds a bit too complicated for the bumper sticker intellectuals...
Although never officially married, been accused of being divorced from reality, by me, and as i'm also an independent, of thought and reason, i figured this would be a great opportunity to bring my expertise to this conversation, that i've talked about with myself fish reasons for being the single most influential individual in my life at this point, besides two points earlier in life, and thus why felt compe;led to share my sunny disposition i took due to making me not comfortable, till everyone around me is uncomfortable, and ive been found to be rather accomplished at this in person to person social sits, for I stand for a few things, and refuse to compromise on much, but would be willing to give it a try, be 4 i die, yet have only come across ONE woman, that ever had me contemplating joining her in a union, and since she died last year, single I willremain whilst double speaking out both sides of my mouth, for hard to stomach, what i tell it and many, irregardless, what i have to say is a plenty, in fact, far too much for many, as third person speak easy for after drinkng the 5th, gain a sixth sense and seventh heaven ain't for any that 8 benign X tra maritals affairs are for heartless gummy bears bought at 7/11 a dozen times to magnify bakers crimes, baked right in to my vents, releasing anger penCE, cause i'll straight up tell ya, GET BENT
N off, i again went
My parents and both sets of grandparents stayed happy and together "until death did them part." All 4 of my deeply conservative siblings have remained in long term marriages to the first person they gave their virginity to and will likely end the same way.
I, however, (at 70 yoa) have never been in a relationship that lasted longer than 5 years. Have never been married and have never wanted to be. Yes, I am THAT uncle who shows up at family reunions with a different woman every time.
Have always had a phobia of allowing anybody to have any control of any aspect of my life (especially my money) and like Tom Waits said "I want to go out when I want to and come home when I please".
Have watched friends go through messy, expensive divorces throughout my life and swore that would never be me. Allowing the state, lawyers or the church to get in the way of friendly consensual sex never seemed to be a good idea.
There's a fine line between love and hate. Better a quick, easy, painless divorce than a murder or continued physical/mental abuse. Some folk just shouldn't be married.
A perfect opening for an old song gem that fits:
Thin Line Between Love and Hate
I love the way Annie Lennox nailed that song.
I like the line from the song, "She might be holding something inside that will really, really, hurt you one day!" Think: No fault divorce.
[removed][✘]
[✘]
[✘]
Why is this even an issue???
Because far right-wing fascists want to make it an issue.
[✘]
Mirrors aren't useful to see fascism. Better to look at those that promote:
Well, all I can say is that she must have had an interesting life - I'd guess a lot more ups and downs than most people would have. There is an ancient Chinese curse that says: "May you live in interesting times" and I guess she has.
While I do think that some people quit too easily and look for the fast way out, I don't agree with this position. There are way too many negatives around the lack of a no-fault divorce to get rid of it. Way too many women were killed or injured when they could not get out of a bad marriage.
No fault divorce must remain in place.
However, this section of the article has to be the height of stupidity.
Guess Willett doesn't qualify as a woman to Wehle. Yes, sometimes women don't want their marriages to end. Sometimes it is the man that is escaping. The law is a two way street. Sometimes it is the man that walks, or in the case of my father runs away from the marriage. Not that being divorced made either one of them new or better people. They were just able to spread their misery to others freely.
What they don't want to see is that if they make it harder to get out of marriage less people will get married to start with
That's not such a bad thing except for the wedding planner industry
Or we will see a lot more Scott Peterson or Betty Lou Beets like murder cases.
Or more cases like Lorena Bobbitt were the wife just severs the relationship.
She certainly took the matter in her own hands...
Forced birth now forced marriage... I'm seeing a trend develop.
Exactly. Justice Thomas, a conservative's conservative, is relishing his role as court senior based on time at a juncture where so-called, "conservative justices" have come into their own. Justice Thomas, apparently is chopping at the bit to role back the gains made by this countries liberal policy-makers through the processes of the high court. Thus, two years ago at the decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, he signaled for same-sex marriage to come back up to the court for a second 'look.'
Subsequently, Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), will likely be attacked in specific/key states and arrive by 2025 at thehigh court 'season.' Justice Thomas, will argue his usual routine, that states should decide what liberties and freedoms should exist for whom/groups within their 'borders.'
Way I see it, it all falls down to ones state of residence,it's the states that make the laws on divorce.
I just looked and 20 states are no fault only states, 30 are a combination of no fault or fault states, depending on the math that could leave 10 states where one of the parties need to prove fault if that is used.
I can only speak to my own experience, in my state of residence for when I went through the process.
Here it's simple and straight forward as long as it's just the two individuals, dependant kids complicate the matter.
As long as both parties agree, and nothing is contested , no lawyer needs to get involved, the court filing fee is paid , it was $100 when I went through it , the judge has 30 days to look over the paperwork and decide to sign or not. As long as everything is settled and agreed on by the parties they usually sign.
My result was from filing and paying the court fee, was no hearing , and 30 days later all was finalized and done.
I doubt I have to worry about the feds changing how things are here, the state would fight them ,how hard would remain to be seen.
It’s like these people wake up in the morning and ask, “How can I fuck with someone else’s liberty today?”
... self appointed defenders of the constitution. /s
Or - hear me out - try not being such an asshole to your wife, and she won’t want to divorce you.