The Next Front in the GOP's War on Women: No-Fault Divorce

"STEVEN CROWDER, THE right-wing podcaster, is getting a divorce. “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 of Texas, that is completely permitted.” "

So she should be stuck with this asshole for the rest of her life? And what kind of bullshit marriage would that look like.

These clowns have no business dictating how people should live their lives.

So she should be stuck with this asshole for the rest of her life?
Their unironic answer is yes. These people are religious fanatics and/or raging control freaks who want the privilege of deciding how everyone else lives.
- It's funny (well "funny"), the right wing podcasts my brother listens to was recently going off about how you need to train women and they can't even think without a Real Man™. And these fuckers are sitting screeching calling LGTBQ folks they're groomers at the same time. It's been sucking off Trump a lot lately but the misogyny makes regular appearances. These aren't obscure channels either.
What do you expect? They don't view women as anything more than brood mares
This is exactly what it would look like - https://www.thereset.news/p/exclusive-video-reveals-steven-crowder
- Omg. I'm not surprised, but it's still disgusting to see. Now this dumb fucking clown is on some mission to use state laws to force women into servitude.
Controlling narcissists lose their shit when their partner files for divorce and dares leave that perfect situation

I though conservatism was about keeping the government out of our lives, not expanding its reach...

Modern conservatism is about using the power of the state to enforce a rigid social and economic hierarchy.
- Conservatism has always been about that
- It’s an advertisement.
  And we all know that advertising is frequently misleading. They're liars. Call them what they are.
That's one of the many lies they tell to try and appear like reasonable people.

Party of Incels

Of course it's Crowder at the forefront of this - the narcissistic manchild who was caught on-camera being such a vile piece of shit to his eight-month-pregnant then-wife that even his biggest simps couldn't pretend that it was defensible.

I'm baffled by America sometimes. The man is CLEARLY in the wrong, like he is being such a piece of shit on camera, but republicans are like: yeah poor guy, his wife left him, we should prevent that!!

People like Stephen Crowder are angry that the laws aren't on their side of being completely abusive assholes and getting away with it. They want things to go back to the way they were in the early 20th century when you could trick a woman into marrying you, then immediately treat them like shit without having to worry about them being able to leave. It's sick.

This is no more than a sad, small man whining about how he wants more control over a woman. It’s truly pathetic.

The first governor to sign no-fault divorce into law was Ronald Reagan.

As my mom would say: what a pud!

Man. Pud is a word I haven't heard in a long time yet it seems like it should be timeless since there will always be people like this in the world.

And conservative keep applauding these wackos.

My question is what will they try to do when all of a sudden women are less willing to get married in the first place?

They'll do what a lot of people who vote right-wing (not all) do now. Act controlling, and try to stop them from talking to other guys.
In my case, had an ex-husband swerve at me when I was driving. Dating another woman who the guy has managed to fully isolate from her original friendgroup including myself. He's dropped statements to her such as mentioning he knows where I live, etc. Had another, who decided to threaten me mafia style
Or, ban abortion (which they have already tried to do), so they're forced to carry their kids. At this point of time, surely any guy voting for MAGA (at the very least) should be considered a huge red flag.
And amongst all that, they'll keep blaming everyone else for anything they can
They're already in support of child marriages.
They will try to push legislation and cultural norms that pressure women indirectly into marriage. They will try to make being a single woman less pleasant of an experience. Shame them culturally, cutting funding for single mothers, making childcare more expensive, making workplaces more hostile for women to work in, etc.
Many of these things are already in the works by conservatives, they will continue pushing them forward.

Steven Crowder aka The Family Guy

Imagine telling on yourself how much someone wouldn't want to spend their life with you like this

On top of the issue of wanting to ensnare a person into living under you, why would he want to be with someone that openly doesn't want to be with him?

He would need Sharia Law in completely to have any benefit, not just bits and pieces.

Land of the freeeeeeee🦅🇱🇷🦅

I mean, I don't think that this is a bad thing. People can date and break up as much as they want. Getting married should be seen as something very serious that isn't easily broken.

I know not everyone has the same experiences, but I've seen people treating marriage as throw away and it deeply impacts their children.

No, it’s a bad thing because without no-fault divorce laws someone could very easily be trapped in an abusive relationship with no recourse.
- Forget abusive marriages, what about loveless marriages?
- Doesn’t no-fault mean that either party can get a divorce for any reason?
  Am I misunderstanding what “no-fault” means here?
- They can prove abuse, as mentioned in the article. It shouldn't be hard if they are being abused.
Think about the alternative. A woman is trapped in a marriage and the only way out is to prove she's being abused or her husband gets his mistress pregnant and it's publicly known.
Is that better for the children?
There's a reason that no fault divorce became a thing.
- Yeah because if they are being abused, especially with children present. It's easy to prove.
Researchers who tracked the emergence of no-fault divorce laws state by state over that period found that reform led to dramatic drops in the rates of female suicide and domestic violence, as well as decreases in spousal homicide of women. The decreases, one researcher explained, were “not just because abused women (and men) could more easily divorce their abusers, but also because potential abusers knew that they were more likely to be left.”
We’ll just ignore this, then?
- Well, yeah. They have to ignore that part, or else they're obviously the assholes here.
It is very easy to end up in a relationship that makes you miserable and your partner treats you badly. But this won't be always the case in the beginning of your relationship. It may come 5 or 25 years later. Then what?
This is one of many situations in which I would say: before we start trying to reduce something by restricting it, have we tried all (or any) options for reducing it by giving people better options.
Also, to be frank, I don't understand why it's my business your yours if third parties get in and out of marriages flippantly. I don't expect others to get married in my faith tradition, why should it matter to me if they get married by an Elvis impersonator every Saturday night?
If it's about kids, the solutions should be about helping kids with divorced parents. Because keeping those particular parents from getting divorced is doing those poor kids no favors.
You say that like unmarried people can't have kids and people who don't have kids can't get married. Yknow, exactly like crowder the situation at hand?
I feel like you are a troll, but I'm going to bite anyway. Your personal feelings, opinions, or desires based on anecdotal evidence (!=) justification for public policy decisions.
If you and your hypothetical spouse wish to stay together even if you no longer love one another due to what you perceive to be a moral (and/or) contractual obligation in order to potentially benefit your hypothetical children, then that is your prerogative.
However:
Not everyone that is married has children, can have children, or wants to have children. In this case you are FORCING two adults to stay legally bound in a relationship that they are no longer consenting to.
There is ample research that forcing an abused person to stay bound to their abuser increases the likelihood of them being murdered by an order of magnitude.
You are making a claim that an abused party should easily be able to prove abuse, and this is neither true or relevant. Emotional, verbal, or psychological abuse can be incredibly difficult to prove as an example.
I'm assuming you would not support legally requiring an employee to stay in a workplace where they were subject to harrasment, manipulation, lopsided power dynamics, or other toxic behavior against their will. So the same standards should apply to breaching the contract of marriage.
Lastly, why the fuck would you think your personal opinion on marriage should have any bearing or impact on the way in which I choose to live my life? This is the same tired argument that was used against gay marriage, and let me put it to you as politely as I can:
There is no fucking chance that I am going to see the hard fought rights of my LGBTQ brothers and sisters taken away without a fight, and there is no fucking chance I am letting the psychotic ambitions of Republican megalomaniacs trample on the hard fought rights of everyday Americans to pursue life, liberty, and their own happiness.
You say that now, but next they'll be coming for premarital cohabitation and eventually we'll be back to fathers literally selling their daughters as brides as chattels through the mechanism of arranged marriages they can't terminate.
You're mistaking a perfect world with the world that we live in.
- It may surprise you that people are allowed to have different opinions and come to conclusions based on their own experiences. Insults don't really affect or sway anyone's opinions, nor do they silence those you deem ineligible of thought.
Hi Steven!
- Bingo
I agree that people don't take marriage as seriously as they should... but if you genuinely value some nebulous term like 'sanctity of marriage' more than protecting women from abusive partners, you need to give your head a wobble.
It always used to make me laugh that the horrid county clerk who refused to sign gay marriage certificates, claiming she was trying to respect the sanctity of marriage, respected that sanctity so much that she'd married 5 times.
- I think it's even dumber than that. If you really value something as a holy divine relationship that serves as the foundation of a loving family home, why would you force people into it who aren't happy in it.
  As society quickly fills with these unhappy households, all of their children learn that for all its divine protection, marriage is a terrible arrangement. That completely undermines the sanctity of marriage. That or it tells everyone that marriage, and God by extension, is a cruel arrangement meant to cause as much suffering as possible.
  These people don't actually believe in what they say. This isn't news if you see how they treat the poor.

Doesn’t this go both ways?

I’d imagine there are a lot of women who would be happy to leave their husbands.

Crowder isn't trying to get an easy divorce from his wife. Hes trying to keep his wife from divorcing him (may already have, I dunno). Its an attempt to lock people into abusive relationships