╌>

Conservative US lawmakers are pushing for an end to no-fault divorce | US news | The Guardian

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  kavika  •  3 weeks ago  •  158 comments

By:   the Guardian

Conservative US lawmakers are pushing for an end to no-fault divorce | US news | The Guardian
Republicans in Louisiana, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Texas have discussed eliminating or restricting such cases

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."


Red Box Rules

OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT WARNING.


 

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Kavika     3 weeks ago

For a party that professes small government they want their fingers in every part of our lives.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @1    2 weeks ago

'CONservative commentators Matt Walsh, Steven Crowder and republiCON 'lawmaker' 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 US 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 of 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 run.'

WTF?  So a woman should stay in an abusive marriage because it's not fair to 'men' (their abusers)???????????

This just takes me back to the CONservatives wanting to ban abortion and morning after pills, and contraception -- because they have a problem with recreational sex/casual sex.

Sounds like a lot of projection to me, as usual from the cons.  How soon until we find these cons with dead hookers/skeletons in their closets?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    2 weeks ago

Vance comes from a background of drug abuse and physical abuse.  He seems to have normalized it.  Beat the hell out of each other all you want, but staying married while you do is somehow admirable.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

I haven't looked up his history as of yet but was about to - I was just looking up someone else that someone else looks up to here on NT - someone named Troy Nehls - first thing that popped up was 'under ethics investigation' -  why am I not surprised?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

It is always good to do research.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

When he was in law enforcement, 'he was fired for reasons including destruction of evidence' 1998

'In October 2008 he was awarded the Combat Infantry badge for his service in Afghanistan in March 2008.  In March 2023 the military rescinded the award of the badge to Nehls because he was not eligible to receive it - he was neither an infantryman nor a special forces operator, but was instead a civil affairs officer.'

Why am I not surprised?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
he was not eligible to receive it - he was neither an infantryman nor a special forces operator, but was instead a civil affairs officer.'

LOL!

Although stolen valor is no laughing matter

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

Agreed.  I didn't look any further after 'under ethics investigation' and 'stolen valor' but so typical of the right to look up to these scumbags and denigrate those who actually served as infantry or special forces and gave a lot including their lives.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

I meant to say - I meant to look up civil affairs officer to see what those duties entailed which I doubt included anything like those which/who he took credit for.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.7    2 weeks ago

It's an important job...civil affairs officer, but it's not a combat position. They could be deployed to a forward area, IDK. They deal with the media

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.7    2 weeks ago

He probably mopped the latrines and got a lot of KP duty

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.8    2 weeks ago

Thanks for the info.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.5    2 weeks ago
'In October 2008 he was awarded the Combat Infantry badge for his service in Afghanistan in March 2008.  In March 2023 the military rescinded the award of the badge to Nehls because he was not eligible to receive it

Doesn't look like it was "stolen valor".  Looks like a mistake made by his unit.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.12  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.8    2 weeks ago

so basically, he hid behind some metal filing cabinets in the rear and played battled hardened warrior online...

for some reason that sounds somewhat familiar ...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.11    2 weeks ago

It's stolen valor - he wears the medal.  Why didn't he correct the mistake then?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

I want to know how he got it in the first place. They are supposed to do a thorough records review before awarding a medal like that

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.15  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

maybe a 2 drawer filing cabinet almost fell over on him at headquarters...

if he hadn't moved his foot, he'd have a purple heart too...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    2 weeks ago

It seems like some alleged conservatives don't want folks having sex for pleasure and should only be for procreation

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.17  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.16    2 weeks ago

... dominionism in a nutshell.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1.15    2 weeks ago

kind of makes me think of Frank Burns in Mash and when he got a purple heart for shell fragments, when they were egg shells

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @1.1.14    2 weeks ago

My thoughts also

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

Does he have orders awarding him the badge?  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.20    2 weeks ago

Why don't you do your own research/homework for a change instead of demanding answers from people?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.1.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.21    2 weeks ago

So you don't know.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.22    2 weeks ago

Doesn't matter.  Stolen valor.  He wears the badge/medal still yet did not earn it.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.1.24  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.23    2 weeks ago
Doesn't matter.

From a legal standpoint it does matter. 

Stolen valor. 

only in the minds of the uninformed who won't do the research.

He wears the badge/medal still yet did not earn it.

If it was awarded in accordance with the regulations, then he earned it.  (The EIB isn't a DEI award).  

It could have been rescinded for a number of reasons. (i.e. wrong MOS, administrative action, etc.)

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.24    2 weeks ago

He didn't earn it.  What part of that don't you get?  It was rescinded because he didn't serve in the infantry or Special Forces, which is why they rescinded it.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.25    2 weeks ago

He wasn't in a combat position so he wasn't eligible for it.  You argue for the sake of argument when the facts are clear.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.1.27  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.25    2 weeks ago
He didn't earn it.

[deleted. prove] [] it. Lets start with something easy. What was his MOS?

It was rescinded because he didn't serve in the infantry or Special Forces, which is why they rescinded it.

Then it was officially awarded then rescinded. Far short of the "stolen valor" nonsense [deleted][]

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.28  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.26    2 weeks ago

I'll only listen to service members that actually know what they were fighting for to weigh in on this topic...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.29  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1.28    2 weeks ago

Same here.  I don't know why I waste my time with know nothings.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.30  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1.28    2 weeks ago

I'll just start ignoring know nothings again.  Better for the BP.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.31  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.30    2 weeks ago

trump supporters associated with the military, past and present, deserve the purple helmet medal for devotion...

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
2  Igknorantzruls    3 weeks ago

they can have my finger, its the one in the middle Repubs!

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
2.2  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Igknorantzruls @2    2 weeks ago

The rest of this thread was removed for no value.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
3  Gsquared    3 weeks ago

The entire Republican agenda is marching us steadily into the past.  How many centuries back do they want to take us?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1  JBB  replied to  Gsquared @3    3 weeks ago

Two centuries, but with finned Cadillacs and segregated bathrooms!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Gsquared  replied to  JBB @3.1    3 weeks ago
Two centuries

It seems like they want to go back a lot farther than that.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.2  JBB  replied to  Gsquared @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

Yes, intellectually all the way back to The Dark Ages!

But, with air-conditioning, online porn and gambling...

 
 
 
fineline
Freshman Silent
3.2  fineline  replied to  Gsquared @3    3 weeks ago

Make America Great Again ? When the hell was that ?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.3  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @3    3 weeks ago

I pick 1870 and request a large roll-off dumpster placed on main st...

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4  cjcold    3 weeks ago

So, make people who are already suffering suffer even more?

It does seem to be the republican way.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
5  sandy-2021492    3 weeks ago

What is gained by forcing people who don't want to be together to stay together?

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5    3 weeks ago

it's more about leaving the trade-in for a newer model destitute...

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.2  evilone  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5    3 weeks ago
What is gained by forcing people who don't want to be together to stay together?

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). 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  evilone @5.2    3 weeks ago

Yes and it would put a serious crimp in generation instant gratification.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @5.2.1    3 weeks ago

Sounds like you're all for it.  You act as though eo is for this.  

What is 'generation instant gratification'?

Some hive minded drone nonsense?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
5.2.4  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @5.2.3    2 weeks ago
Sounds like you're all for it.

My position on this topic has been made crystal clear here via responses to this article and once again you missed the mark.    Completely.

You act as though eo is for this.

Bravo Sierra.

What is 'generation instant gratification'?

This one

Some hive minded drone nonsense?

Nah, it’s the type of independent thought many of my friends on the left here are completely incapable of.

Completely …..

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
5.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5    2 weeks ago

Jesus loves misery.  Have you ever seen him smile?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5.3    2 weeks ago

No and it's a damn shame. He'd be a lot prettier if he smiled

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6  CB    3 weeks ago

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:

STRENGHTENING MARRIAGE

There are no magic cures for the growing divorce divide in America. But a few modest policy measures could offer some much-needed help.

First, the states should reform their divorce laws. A return to fault-based divorce is almost certainly out of the question as a political matter, but some plausible common-sense reforms could nonetheless inject a measure of sanity into our nation's divorce laws. States should combine a one-year waiting period for married parents seeking a divorce with programs that educate those parents about the likely social and emotional consequences of their actions for their children. State divorce laws should also allow courts to factor in spousal conduct when making decisions about alimony, child support, custody, and property division. In particular, spouses who are being divorced against their will, and who have not engaged in egregious misbehavior such as abuse, adultery, or abandonment, should be given preferential treatment by family courts. Such consideration would add a measure of justice to the current divorce process; it would also discourage some divorces, as spouses who would otherwise seek an easy exit might avoid a divorce that would harm them financially or limit their access to their children.

Second, Congress should extend the federal Healthy Marriage Initiative. In 2006, as part of President George W. Bush's marriage initiative, Congress passed legislation allocating $100 million a year for five years to more than 100 programs designed to strengthen marriage and ­family ­relationships in America — especially among low-income couples. As Kathryn Edin of Harvard has noted, many of these programs are equipping poor and working-class couples with the relational skills that their better-educated peers rely upon to sustain their marriages. In the next year or two, many of these programs will be evaluated; the most successful programs serving poor and working-class communities should receive additional funding, and should be used as models for new programs to serve these communities. New ideas — like additional social-marketing campaigns on behalf of marriage, on the model of those undertaken to discourage smoking — should also be explored through the initiative.

Third, the federal government should expand the child tax credit. Raising children is expensive, and has become increasingly so, given rising college and health-care costs. Yet the real value of federal tax deductions for children has fallen considerably since the 1960s. To remedy this state of affairs, Ramesh Ponnuru and Robert Stein have proposed expanding the current child tax credit from $1,000 to $5,000 and making it fully refundable against both income and payroll taxes. A reform along those lines would provide a significant measure of financial relief to working-class and middle-class families, and would likely strengthen their increasingly fragile marriages.

Of course, none of these reforms of law and policy alone is likely to exercise a transformative influence on the quality and stability of marriage in America. Such fixes must be accompanied by changes in the wider culture. Parents, churches, schools, public officials, and the entertainment industry will have to do a better job of stressing the merits of a more institutional model of marriage. This will be particularly important for poor and working-class young adults, who are drifting away from marriage the fastest.

This is a tall order, to say the least. But if our society is genuinely interested in protecting and improving the welfare of children — especially children in our nation's most vulnerable communities — we must strengthen marriage and reduce the incidence of divorce in America. The unthinkable alternative is a nation divided more and more by class and marital ­status, and children doubly disadvantaged by poverty and single parenthood. Surely no one believes that such a state of affairs is in the national interest.

The Evolution of Divorce | National Affairs

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.)

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
7  Buzz of the Orient    3 weeks ago

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.

800

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.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
8  Split Personality    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
8.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Split Personality @8    3 weeks ago
Religion is a big business. Divorces have consequence. Weddings, annulments and funerals are a huge revenue stream.

I don’t make any money regardless.  You do you.

 
 
 
Robert in Ohio
Professor Guide
9  Robert in Ohio    3 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
10  Trout Giggles    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10.1  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @10    2 weeks ago
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...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11  Sparty On    3 weeks ago

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 ….

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.1  Gsquared  replied to  Sparty On @11    2 weeks ago
How many divorces could have been good marriages with some more work?

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. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @11.1    2 weeks ago

Exactly.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Gsquared @11.1    2 weeks ago
Who has the right to decide that anyone should stay in a marriage they don't want to be in?  The government?  You?

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

Forcing anyone to stay in a marriage is NOT a middle ground.

Where did you come up with that?    Who is “forcing” who to stay married?

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.1.3  Gsquared  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.2    2 weeks ago
Typical overreaction we have become accustom (sic) to here on NTers.

Your comment is very much that.  

My position was clearly made above.

Not in the least.  Your comment was rambling and failed to make any actual point.

Your attempt to obfuscate that is very weak sauce

Nice try.  You apparently cannot withstand the scrutiny of a few questions regarding your comment.  

Forcing anyone to stay in a marriage is NOT a middle ground.
Where did you come up with that?    Who is “forcing” who to stay married?

It's implicit in your comment.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @11.1.3    2 weeks ago

He's just backpedaling now.

lol

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Gsquared @11.1.3    2 weeks ago
Your comment is very much that.  

Not in the least

My position was clearly made above.
Not in the least.  Your comment was rambling and failed to make any actual point.

Nope

Your attempt to obfuscate that is very weak sauce
Nice try.  You apparently cannot withstand the scrutiny of a few questions regarding your comment.

Denial is no a good look for you

Forcing anyone to stay in a marriage is NOT a middle ground.
Where did you come up with that?    Who is “forcing” who to stay married?
It's implicit in your comment. 

Wrong again on all fronts.    Amazing!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.1.6  Gsquared  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.5    2 weeks ago

Your attempt at a rebuttal is like a leaking bladder.  It doesn't hold water.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Gsquared @11.1.6    2 weeks ago

Keep digging …..

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.1.8  Gsquared  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.7    2 weeks ago

Why?  You're already buried so deep you can't possibly claw your way to the surface.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
11.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Gsquared @11.1.8    2 weeks ago

Ah yes the PeeWee Herman “ I know you are but what am I” gambit.

Well played sir, well played …..

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
11.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Gsquared @11.1.8    2 weeks ago

Some just have to have the last word even when they've been proven wrong time and time again.  I have the same problem with another know it all who actually knows nothing.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
11.1.11  Gsquared  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.10    2 weeks ago

When they have nothing original to say, they can always resort to cliches.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
11.1.12  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @11.1.11    2 weeks ago

that sounds a bit too complicated for the bumper sticker intellectuals...

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
12  Igknorantzruls    3 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
13  cjcold    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @13    2 weeks ago

I never found Mr. Right and actually stopped looking a long time ago.  I did my share of dating and was engaged  once  and that didn't work out.  I have good friends, family.  I enjoy my own company.  I have plenty of hobbies to keep me busy.  

Like cj says (Tom Waits) - "I want to go out when I want to and come home when I please'.   I hate cleaning up after other people.  Life is good.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
13.1.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @13.1    2 weeks ago

35 years come November. Only man I ever married

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
13.1.2  cjcold  replied to  Tessylo @13.1    2 weeks ago

We should hook-up. I know a great brewery/restaurant right across the street from a classic 5-story 3-star hotel.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @13.1.2    2 weeks ago

I'm flattered.  I think geography might be a problem.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
13.1.4  cjcold  replied to  Tessylo @13.1.3    2 weeks ago

God told me that he invented airplanes for amazing sex.

Joined the mile-high-club back in 69 on tour.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
13.1.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @13.1.4    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
13.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  cjcold @13.1.4    2 weeks ago

Get a room, you two! lol

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @13.1.4    2 weeks ago

I'm afraid of flying.  I would have to get there by train.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
13.1.8  cjcold  replied to  Tessylo @13.1.7    2 weeks ago

Broke out of reform school as a kid and hopped a train. Ended up in Denver and hitched a ride to Red Rocks for a Mountain/Jethro Tull concert. I miss being young and dumb. Now I'm just dumb. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
13.1.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Trout Giggles @13.1.6    2 weeks ago

Or just airline tickets.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @13.1.8    2 weeks ago

Sounds like you've lived an interesting life.  Where do you live now?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
13.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @13.1.8    2 weeks ago

I love traveling by train - my preference.  Have been to Chicago, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and NY City and plan to do more in the future when finances allow.  

Never had sex on a train though - that would be amazing.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
13.1.12  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tessylo @13.1.11    2 weeks ago

I simply tolerated train travel until I had the experience of the 350 km/hr bullet train, where the seating is like in an airplane and they provide you with a free bottle of water.  It is so smooth and quiet you feel like you're flying - I don't intend to ever fly again, but I will use the bullet train to go a distance. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
13.1.13  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Tessylo @13.1.11    2 weeks ago
Never had sex on a train though - that would be amazing.

Engineer some, and have fun. I have trains, planes, boats, and automobiles covered, as well as snow forts and drifts, under my various trucks, in my various vans, one being a convertible van, on my quads in the deep mud and in the middle of the creek 70 yards wide at the edge of the waterfalls,  tree forts, caves/tunnels/lava tubes, cliffs, fields w c, on diving boards,tubes,intense intents, underwater, fridged wilderness, hot air balloon, various roof tops, elevators (just to escalate the stares)car hood in torrential down pour with heavy lightning and ground shaking thunder, and just this past April during an earthquake. It's been a very boring sheltered life i've done led....

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14  CB    2 weeks ago

Pros of No-Fault Divorce

  • No-fault divorces are quicker, easier, and less  expensive  than at-fault ones. You'll expend less negative energy, and ostensibly, drop less money, too.
  • Less conflict equals decreased emotional harm to dependents.
  • Monetary settlements  are based solely on a spouse's need, ability to pay, and contributions to the family's finances, rather than on the bad things they did to cause the divorce (which may or may not be a good thing, we can't decide).
  • It can empower people languishing in abusive relationships to leave, particularly because there's no legal obligation to publicly testify about the abuse that occurred.

Cons of No-Fault Divorce

  • From a moral and/or religious standpoint, no-fault divorce is criticized as too accessible, and that it devalues marriage vows, aka your promise to love and cherish, until death do you part.
  • Most no-fault divorces are  unilateral , meaning that only one spouse needs to think the marriage is beyond repair, thus trumping the other's potential desire to save the marriage.
  • Spousal support  isn't granted. This can take a toll on women's (and homemakers') finances, in particular, especially if children are involved. Since most mothers are granted custody, the economic support they once counted on during the marriage all but disappears. (Then, dependents' quality of life suffers, too.)

Which Is Better?

The  no-fault divorce debate  continues to rage today. Some claim it's singlehandedly responsible for the breakdown of the American family, while others laud its  attainability , especially in the face of limited financial resources and awful things, such as spousal abuse and serial adultery.

But revisit the overwhelming statistics in Louisiana, Arkansas, and Arizona, and you'll see evidence pointing to the fact that, when given the choice, a crushing majority of couples opt for no-fault divorces upon taking their vows— well before  any hints of acrimony creep in. (Possibly, they realize that assigning fault could be the spark that ignites a years-long firestorm of emotional and financial upheaval.)

Whether you agree or disagree that no-fault divorce is morally reprehensible, devastatingly one-sided, or just about the best thing since sliced bread, the option is there. Either way, it's a sad day when you realize your marriage isn't working, but a no-fault divorce could very well be your easiest option.

Defining No-Fault Divorce: The Pros and Cons (brides.com)
 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
14.1  cjcold  replied to  CB @14    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.1.1  CB  replied to  cjcold @14.1    2 weeks ago
There's a fine line between love and hate .

A perfect opening for an old song gem that fits: 

Thin Line Between Love and Hate

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
14.1.2  cjcold  replied to  CB @14.1.1    2 weeks ago

I love the way Annie Lennox nailed that song.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
14.1.3  CB  replied to  cjcold @14.1.2    2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
14.1.4  cjcold  replied to  CB @14.1.3    2 weeks ago

[removed][]

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
14.1.5  cjcold  replied to  cjcold @14.1.4    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
14.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @14.1.5    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
15  Thomas    2 weeks ago

Why is this even an issue???

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
15.1  Tessylo  replied to  Thomas @15    2 weeks ago

Batshit crazy aint it?

 
 
 
Thomas
Masters Guide
15.1.1  Thomas  replied to  Tessylo @15.1    2 weeks ago

Ya know, I really don't give a shit what some families and individuals do, just please leave me out when proscribing actions better left to individuals and couples. Government has no compelling interest in the relationship business at all.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
15.1.2  afrayedknot  replied to  Thomas @15.1.1    2 weeks ago

“Government has no compelling interest in the relationship business at all.”

Hear, hear. Listen, listen.

Think, think. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
15.2  cjcold  replied to  Thomas @15    2 weeks ago

Because far right-wing fascists want to make it an issue.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
15.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @15.2    2 weeks ago
Because far right-wing fascists want to make it an issue.

There aren't enough far-right fascists in America to have an effect on legislation.

Do you know any fascists that are NOT far-right, or does the whole thing need to be said every time for effect?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
15.2.2  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @15.2.1    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
15.2.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @15.2.2    2 weeks ago
Look in a mirror. You are the epitome of fascism. 

Mirrors aren't useful to see fascism.  Better to look at those that promote:

  • suppress opposition, on campus or across the nation
  • nation takes precedence over individual interests
  • strong, central government
  • tightly regulated business activity
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
15.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @15.2.3    2 weeks ago

I can't take such ignorant comments exhibited above seriously.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
16  MonsterMash    2 weeks ago

My sister (age 84) loves no fault divorces, she's had 9 of them.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
16.1  seeder  Kavika   replied to  MonsterMash @16    2 weeks ago

That belongs in the Guinness world records. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
16.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  MonsterMash @16    2 weeks ago

Well, as they say, 'Variety is the spice of life'.  If she can get support from all of them she must be a very rich lady.  

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Quiet
16.2.1  MonsterMash  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @16.2    2 weeks ago
If she can get support from all of them she must be a very rich lady.
She never tried to get alimony from any of them. The four guys she had children with kept the kids as she didn't want them to be a determent to the next guy that was stupid enough to marry her. 
Her last marriage ended when she was 74, now she can't find a guy that's interested in an old slut.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
16.3  cjcold  replied to  MonsterMash @16    2 weeks ago

Seems your sister knows how to game the system. Fuck the whore.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
16.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  MonsterMash @16    2 weeks ago

Ok...I have at least 10 toes.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
16.4.1  cjcold  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.4    2 weeks ago

Lost one of mine to a sword strike so only have 9 now.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
16.4.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @16.4.1    2 weeks ago
Lost one of mine to a sword strike so only have 9 now.

That's one way to parry your opponent's strike.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
16.4.3  cjcold  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @16.4.2    2 weeks ago

Studied Arnis under Remy Presas. Shit happens in the dojo.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
16.4.4  Sparty On  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @16.4.2    2 weeks ago

The “wee wee wee all the way home” defense.

Classic!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
16.5  Sparty On  replied to  MonsterMash @16    2 weeks ago

Damn, I think that ties Zsa Zsa Gabor.  

Impressive! 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
17  Buzz of the Orient    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
18  Snuffy    2 weeks ago

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. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
19  Ronin2    2 weeks ago

No fault divorce must remain in place.

However, this section of the article has to be the height of stupidity.

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."

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. 

 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
20  charger 383    2 weeks ago

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

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
20.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  charger 383 @20    2 weeks ago

That's not such a bad thing except for the wedding planner industry

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
20.2  Split Personality  replied to  charger 383 @20    2 weeks ago

Or we will see a lot more Scott Peterson  or Betty Lou Beets like murder cases.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
20.2.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Split Personality @20.2    2 weeks ago

Or more cases like Lorena Bobbitt were the wife just severs the relationship.

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
20.2.2  Split Personality  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @20.2.1    2 weeks ago

She certainly took the matter in her own hands...

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
21  MrFrost    2 weeks ago

Forced birth now forced marriage... I'm seeing a trend develop. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
21.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @21    2 weeks ago

If you know of anyone forced to give birth or marry, please alert the proper authorities.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
21.1.1  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @21.1    2 weeks ago

Just not the authorities in Texas. Because they don't give a shit.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
21.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @21.1.1    2 weeks ago

🤣

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
21.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @21.1.1    2 weeks ago
Because they don't give a shit.

No shit?

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
21.1.4  Gazoo  replied to  cjcold @21.1.1    2 weeks ago

[]

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
21.1.5  afrayedknot  replied to  Texan1211 @21.1    2 weeks ago

“If you know of anyone forced to give birth or marry…”

Denying what some contest and hope to legislate: denying the personal freedom to terminate a pregnancy and denying the personal freedom to seek a divorce. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
21.1.6  devangelical  replied to  Gazoo @21.1.4    2 weeks ago
texas would be a good state for one to hunt down right wing fascists

since I'm in texas till after the convicted felon candidate gets sentenced on 7/11, let's hope so... /s

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
21.1.7  Gazoo  replied to  devangelical @21.1.6    2 weeks ago

Somehow i don’t think the “/s” is sincere.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
21.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @21.1.5    2 weeks ago
Denying what some contest and hope to legislate: denying the personal freedom to terminate a pregnancy and denying the personal freedom to seek a divorce. 

when you just make up words and assign them to me, I have to assume you have no argument and can't provide what is asked for.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
21.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Gazoo @21.1.4    2 weeks ago

This whole far right wing fascist nonsense is out of hand 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
21.1.10  Gazoo  replied to  Texan1211 @21.1.9    2 weeks ago

Agree. So is the creepy obsession with how other people will vote.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
21.1.11  afrayedknot  replied to  Texan1211 @21.1.8    2 weeks ago

You never asked a thing, tex…you ignored the whole tenor of the thread in offering yet another specious post. And none of these words are ‘made up’ but part of a discussion…again you deny your chance to contribute, content in simply being a contrarian.  

Go ahead now and confirm for everyone everything said….

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
21.1.12  cjcold  replied to  cjcold @21.1.1    2 weeks ago

Or the authorities in Utah because we all know about Mormons.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
21.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @21.1.11    2 weeks ago

if you know of someone forced to give birth or get married, alert the authorities!

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
21.1.14  afrayedknot  replied to  Texan1211 @21.1.13    2 weeks ago

It was inane the first time, to repeat it in thinking it validates anything is rather sad.

Thank you for your predictability, tex…it never fails. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
21.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  afrayedknot @21.1.14    2 weeks ago

and idiotic fucking claims about forced births and marriages are even more idiotic.

Thanks for that.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
21.2  CB  replied to  MrFrost @21    2 weeks ago

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.'

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
22  Mark in Wyoming     2 weeks ago

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.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
23  Tacos!    2 weeks ago

It’s like these people wake up in the morning and ask, “How can I fuck with someone else’s liberty today?”

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
23.1  devangelical  replied to  Tacos! @23    2 weeks ago

... self appointed defenders of the constitution. /s

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
24  Tacos!    one week ago
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

Or - hear me out - try not being such an asshole to your wife, and she won’t want to divorce you.

 
 

Who is online












Sparty On


20 visitors