• Naja Kaouthia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    6 months ago

    Absofuckinglutely NOT. If I’d have had to prove domestic abuse in the South to get divorced I’d be a fucking corpse by now. My ex is a very bad person.

  • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    6 months ago

    FTA - “The reason this matters is that no-fault divorce legally allows marriages to end much more quickly than in previous decades. When there are relatively few legal or financial consequences connected with divorce, it’s natural for people to gravitate toward that option when their marriage hits a rough patch,” he adds. “What those people often don’t consider, however, is the harm — both present and future — inflicted on their children once a divorce is finalized.”

    This dude is a moron. Newsflash mr carson, having kids trapped in a nightmare where their parents are at war with one another is way more harmful. And what the fuck is he talking about “with few financial consequences”? As someone who just finally paid off credit cards from my divorce years ago, where I never even got to touch the card, he can kiss my ass.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        Surely he wouldn’t have such legislation apply to couples without children.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      I’d be curious as to what kind of “legal consequences” he thinks there should be as a result of divorce? WTAF, why would there be ANY?

      And, as you say, from everything I’ve heard, divorce can be financially crippling for so many.

      • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        Very good point. Being stuck in a marriage that’s unwanted or abusive can be a prison all it’s own. Does he want to add to that? Nothing like someone with a holier than thou attitude believing that his ideas of reality need to be forced onto everyone.

  • Norgur@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    6 months ago

    Just my subjective take, but you can add a “for women” after everything people like this say to better get the real meaning:

    Carson, who is often mentioned as a potential Trump VP, writes in his new book that the U.S. should end no-fault divorce laws.

    … for women

  • dudinax@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    6 months ago

    The only way hard divorce “makes sense” is if women aren’t allowed to be independent from their husbands, otherwise she can just leave without getting a divorce.

    The whole “divorce is too easy” line is one edge of the attack on women’s rights.

  • ButtermilkBiscuit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Might be an unpopular opinion, but divorce law needs some big changes. I spent over 50k fighting an ex in court as she tried to take my house and savings that predated our marriage. I don’t have a problem with the no-fault part, that’s fine you want out you should be able to leave, but property rights stuff and the cost of a divorce both need big changes.

    This is a tough one because every divorce is different, and I don’t want to turn this into a huge rant, but I’m still in this process and a woman I married only 4 years ago may take my house leaving my daughter and I without a home. She’s also coming after my retirement accounts, some of which predated the marriage, and she’s refusing to negotiate which has already forced me to take this to a judge for a decision. Financially, this has ruined my savings. I’ve maxed out credit cards fighting for my rights as a parent. Basic stuff here, I’m just talking about my right to have the kiddo 50% of the time shit like that.

    I didn’t do anything torid in this case she just wanted to leave, which again is fine, but she’s essentially bankrupting me on the way out in a ploy to take my life savings and home. There is nothing I can do about this, it is how the process works in Colorado. Be careful before saying “I do”, you’re signing away a lot of your rights and property when you do that. Especially if there is a big difference in networth / socioeconomic status, consider a prenup. If he/she says no to the prenup, bail.

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      Prenups. Prenups should be standard for all marriages. Protects pre-marriage assets, determines how assets are split, and leaves little room for long, drawn-out divorce processes.

      You can make those rational decisions when you’re happy and rational, rather than when you’re emotional.

    • qfe0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      My favorite cynical take is save yourself some time and effort, find someone you hate and buy them a house.

    • Volkditty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Be careful before saying I do kiddos, because jerks on internet forums will take that out of context.

  • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    6 months ago

    Ever since he was divorced of his luggage that one time, he’s devoted his whole life to never letting that happen again.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    6 months ago

    Fuck that, we should be making it easier and stop favoring one gender over the other in both divorce and child custody. Property/assets should be split based on who actually paid for those assets. If one person pays all or a majority of the mortgage on a property, why do they then have to split that property 50% with somebody who contributed nothing? Marriage is a dying institution that should be put out of its misery.

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 months ago

      If one person pays all or a majority of the mortgage on a property, why do they then have to split that property 50% with somebody who contributed nothing?

      Because marriage is a partnership and generally the people who “contributed nothing” are the ones who gave up or significantly delayed or harmed their careers to take up the home front in the marriage.

      I know a woman whose wealthy husband told her to sell her small business because she didn’t need to work. A few years later when he divorced her for a younger woman and the prenup says she gets very little, she’s out on her ass with years of no work experience and no more small business.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s too generous to invert that relationship. More like Handmaid’s Tale is a brief sketch of their aspirations.