ohioag67 said:

---

The Republican Party, both state and national, seems to still have the uncanny ability to pick the wrong hill to die on.

---

I don't think many see this as a "hill to die on" I think they see a problem that needs reform. There needs to be a consequence for breaking a contract without cause and currently in many situations one party is rewarded if not incentivized to break the contract against the will of the other party.

P.H. Dexippus said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

I will say it is pretty stupid to have a legal contract that isn't binding to either party. What is the point?

I know the society benefits from the stability and productivity of marriage and should incentivize it but if it isn't going to make it binding in any way to enter, why be involved at all?

I guess there's still the issue of ownership shares of partnership wealth and of child custody. Maybe it should be harder to get into a legal marriage, and incentivized if you qualify, versus something any two idiots can do on a whim.

---

Pretty much every contract in the world can be broken. A court might make someone pay up, just like a family court might do during a divorce, but you can almost always end a contract

---

Family courts don't make the at fault side "pay up". At worst, you're looking at a 40/60 split of marital asset under egregious facts. Hardly the consequences of breaching a business contract.

As a former divorce attorney, I think we'd be better off as a society if we got rid of no-fault divorce.

---

Sure, and a more realistic cause for the GOP would be to reform what happens at divorce rather than turning them into perpetual contracts


I agree with the above post to let us know when an actual bill goes anywhere. It's debatable that party platforms even matter. Anytime I read one for any party, 66% of them are no brainers, 25% make you want to poke your eyeballs out. It's only the remaining 10% that is interesting. This skews towards the 25% that's a waste of time.

Fun fact, it wasn't until 2010 that New York state enacted no fault divorce. Not only did fault have to be alleged but said fault could impact property division, alimony and child support.

Quote:

---

In 2010, New York was the last state in the United States to enact a true "no-fault" divorce statute. Now, a spouse seeking a divorce in New York State may allege under oath, in a Verified Complaint, that the relationship of the spouses has broken down irretrievably for a period of at least six months.
In other states, this ground is known as "irreconcilable differences." While the exact differences may vary depending on the case, in essence, this means that the spouses have not been able to get along for a six-month period.

There is no defense to this ground for no-fault divorce by the other spouse. In New York State, when one spouse seeks to be divorced on the no-fault ground, the divorce will be granted, but only after all economic issues, including spousal support, child support, equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities, counsel fees, and expenses, and custodial issuers are resolved.

The availability of no-fault divorce in New York State did not eliminate the other grounds for divorce. They include adultery, abandonment, and cruel and inhuman treatment. While these may still be alleged, they must be proved. The expense and upheaval associated with doing so have now made these grounds for divorce rare.

In addition, the availability of a true no-fault divorce in New York State has made the divorce process faster and less expensive. By eliminating the need to allege and prove your spouse's bad behavior, New York State has improved the chances that divorcing couples will remain civil to one another and able to co-parent for the sake of the children.

---

LINK

Having done some family law cases early in my career, maintain no fault. Easier on everyone.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

$240 Worth of Pudding said:

---

Forcing people that hate each other to stay together for the sake of "the family" seems like brilliant idea.

---

It's for the sake of the contract. You want to sue me for divorce, take half my money, and take majority custody of my kids? You better be able to point to a good reason why I'm at fault.

What other contract in the world can you just break, come out the winner, all because you don't like the other party anymore?

---

This (bolded) is the point. It is one thing to say, "you want out of the marriage, fine." But you don't get to dictate the terms -- i.e. 50/50 split and automatic joint custody, child support, etc.

One of my best friend's brother divorced. His ex turned their kids against him because although she wouldn't let them see him, she kept telling them that he didn't want to see them (a lie). Now that they're of age, they want nothing to do with him. Meanwhile, he's on the hook for alimony for the rest of her life! He's paid hundreds of thousands in child support for what? It was her idea to divorce and she took complete advantage of the system to ruin his life and enhance hers. A divorce horror story and likely not the only one out there.

People say the government shouldn't be apart of this or shouldn't be mandating people stay together. But what they SURE shouldn't be a part of is enforcing crap laws like what happened to my friend's brother. People need to make better choices about who they marry and have kids with in the first place and not depend on the government to bail them out if they don't do that.

Irish 2.0 said:

---

No. The government should not be in the business of marriage. The GOP is wrong here

---

Then they should be completely out of it. No court cases, no community property, etc.

It's a line item in the Texas GOP platform which represents the hardcore, animated base of the party. This isn't a litmus test or anything, and when this is introduced as a bill with actual support it should be an item for discussion.

But the platform from both parties have all sorts of silliness in them that are in there to placate some rabble rouser in the hard base of the party that have zero chance of seeing the light of day. This is one of those things.

No. We're losing the country. Stop being distracted by silly stuff.

This is dumb

Yes. 100% this needs to happen. To paraphrase Matt Walsh, can you think of a contract that can be broken for any reason or no reason at all, and without the other party's consent? The agreement you have with your cell phone carrier is more binding than a "marriage" in the U.S.

barbacoa taco said:

---

So if a spouse wants out, they would either have to get the other spouse to agree or prove in court that the other spouse is at fault.

Not good. Recipe for disaster. You can't force people to love each other, so don't try to force people to stay in marriages they want out of.

---

How did people ever survive in marriages before the 1970s? People's attitudes about parent's obligations to their children and to each other have deteriorated so thoroughly in such a short period of time since the legalization of no fault divorce. Children have a right to their mother and father.

NO
Men with assets don't either.

These are those poor, religious conservative types with a few bucks, but not complicated interests.

No fault divorce seems to violate equal protection given that women initiate 80% of divorces...the process is set up structurally in favor of women.

Absolutely.

End no-fault divorce.

hoopla said:

---

The Texas GOP states in its platform that it wants to end no-fault divorce.
"214. No-Fault Divorce: We urge the Legislature to rescind unilateral no-fault divorce laws, to support
covenant marriage, and to pass legislation extending the period of time in which a divorce may occur to six
months after the date of filing for divorce."
https://texasgop.org/platform/

Nebraska wants to limit it.
"We believe no-fault divorce should be limited to situations in which the couple has no children of the marriage."
https://ne.gop/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/NEGOP-Platform-2021.pdf

Louisiana GOP is considering calling for the elimination of no-fault divorce in its platform.
https://www.wwno.org/news/2023-01-12/louisiana-republican-party-considers-backing-elimination-of-no-fault-divorce

The national party considered it in 2016.

Here's the full text of the no-fault divorce amendment. (Also note "intact biological family" pic.twitter.com/LCElFQdDkK

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) July 11, 2016

---

100% yes, no fault divorce is satanic.

Ending no fault divorce in California was probably the worst thing Reagan ever did. It was yet another victory in the left's constant battle to erode away the family, so they could have an easier time taking over.

Working mothers, no fault divorce, abortion, sexual revolution, the lgbtq agenda, all aimed at creating the society you see today.

Fight back dammit

TexAgs91 said:

---

No. We're losing the country. Stop being distracted by silly stuff.

---

Way to not be able to put two and two together. "Stop being distracted by the broken levee, we've got to worry about the flooding"

Dies Irae said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

No. We're losing the country. Stop being distracted by silly stuff.

---

Way to not be able to put two and two together. "Stop being distracted by the broken levee, we've got to worry about the flooding"

---

No fault divorces aren't why we're being overrun by Marxists.

Is there anything the GOP doesn't think they should control? So much freedom.

No fault divorce screws over men. Getting rid of it gave women a reason to escape marriage whenever it became difficult.

Expecting people to take marriage more seriously is good for the kids and the country.

However, expecting people to voluntarily accept responsibility for their actions and to fight to vote in favor of it is unrealistic.

Until society truly hits the ****ter, people aren't going to connect the dots that all good things in society start with stable family structures. We ain't there yet.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

No fault divorce screws over men. Getting rid of it gave women a reason to escape marriage whenever it became difficult.

Expecting people to take marriage more seriously is good for the kids and the country.

However, expecting people to voluntarily accept responsibility for their actions and to fight to vote in favor of it is unrealistic.

Until society truly hits the ****ter, people aren't going to connect the dots that all good things in society start with stable family structures. We ain't there yet.

---

Be a better husband. The idea that women especially should just be second class citizens stuck with a terrible husband is the kind of thinking that costs you elections.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

No fault divorce screws over men. Getting rid of it gave women a reason to escape marriage whenever it became difficult.

Expecting people to take marriage more seriously is good for the kids and the country.

However, expecting people to voluntarily accept responsibility for their actions and to fight to vote in favor of it is unrealistic.

Until society truly hits the ****ter, people aren't going to connect the dots that all good things in society start with stable family structures. We ain't there yet.

---

Be a better husband. The idea that women especially should just be second class citizens stuck with a terrible husband is the kind of thinking that costs you elections.

---

What does "no fault" mean to you?

TXAGFAN said:

---

Is there anything the GOP doesn't think they should control? So much freedom.

---

It's the same five or so posters. They're here. They're on the Christian Nationalist threads. They tend to spout these same kind of thoughts on the R&P board. Which is where they need to stay.

If you really cared as much as you say you do about marriage being a contract between a man, a women, and God you wouldn't give one rip what government did about it. Because it wouldn't matter.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

No fault divorce screws over men. Getting rid of it gave women a reason to escape marriage whenever it became difficult.

Expecting people to take marriage more seriously is good for the kids and the country.

However, expecting people to voluntarily accept responsibility for their actions and to fight to vote in favor of it is unrealistic.

Until society truly hits the ****ter, people aren't going to connect the dots that all good things in society start with stable family structures. We ain't there yet.

---

Be a better husband. The idea that women especially should just be second class citizens stuck with a terrible husband is the kind of thinking that costs you elections.

---

Ummm if the husband is a bad husband that would put him at fault.

And this does not target women or force them to stay married to bad husbands. How would it?

This is the Texas definition of no fault divorce This formally states that neither party is to blame or guilty of any misconduct that caused the marriage to end.

So if a woman or man wants a divorce and is justified in asking for one because their spouse is abusive or because of infidelity that is the definition of an at fault divorce not a no fault divorce.

You seriously need to look up definitions before you start spewing your bs about targeting women and misogyny and how conservatives want to oppress people.

TexAgs91 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

No. We're losing the country. Stop being distracted by silly stuff.

---

Way to not be able to put two and two together. "Stop being distracted by the broken levee, we've got to worry about the flooding"

---

No fault divorces aren't why we're being overrun by Marxists.

---

You should look at how nuclear families vote, how children from nuclear families vote, how single mother households vote; and how children raised in single mother households vote.

The erosion of the family is the single biggest reason we are in the situation we are now. We have more social liberties than any other time in modern America, yet we're drowning in decay.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Is there anything the GOP doesn't think they should control? So much freedom.

---

It's the same few posters spouting this craziness. They also tend to be found on the Christian Nationalist threads.

Usually they keep this stuff confined to the R&P board but occasionally someone leaves the gate open.

Edit: I should add they also tend to have hot opinions like women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Is there anything the GOP doesn't think they should control? So much freedom.

---

It's the same few posters spouting this craziness. They also tend to be found on the Christian Nationalist threads.

Usually they keep this stuff confined to the R&P board but occasionally someone leaves the gate open.

Edit: I should add they also tend to have hot opinions like women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

---

Ending women's suffrage would practically assure the US of a conservative dynasty but yes, let's keep doing whatever we can to help the left, out of the name of principles.

How is it unreasonable to expect people to have a good reason for nullifying a lifetime contract?

Just curious.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

How is it unreasonable to expect people to have a good reason for nullifying a lifetime contract?

Just curious.

---

I don't give a crap what their reason is. Quit caring what other adults do.

People spinning this like it's an assault on women's rights.

Women file for 80% of divorces in the first place. Why do they give a ****? What's the angle here. Somebody sexplain.

There are other ways to promote and incentivize the nuclear family. Which is the glue that largely has held western civilization together imo. Where the nuclear family is not prevalent you have violence chaos disorder and degeneracy.

Dies Irae said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

TexAgs91 said:

---

No. We're losing the country. Stop being distracted by silly stuff.

---

Way to not be able to put two and two together. "Stop being distracted by the broken levee, we've got to worry about the flooding"

---

No fault divorces aren't why we're being overrun by Marxists.

---

You should look at how nuclear families vote, how children from nuclear families vote, how single mother households vote; and how children raised in single mother households vote.

The erosion of the family is the single biggest reason we are in the situation we are now. We have more social liberties than any other time in modern America, yet we're drowning in decay.

---

The country voted for Trump. He received the most votes of any Republican presidential candidate ever. If we had secure elections this country would be in much better shape.

Dies Irae said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Is there anything the GOP doesn't think they should control? So much freedom.

---

It's the same few posters spouting this craziness. They also tend to be found on the Christian Nationalist threads.

Usually they keep this stuff confined to the R&P board but occasionally someone leaves the gate open.

Edit: I should add they also tend to have hot opinions like women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

---

Ending women's suffrage would practically assure the US of a conservative dynasty but yes, let's keep doing whatever we can to help the left, out of the name of principles.

---

Keep saying the quiet part out loud.

TXAGFAN said:

---

Dies Irae said:

---

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

TXAGFAN said:

---

Is there anything the GOP doesn't think they should control? So much freedom.

---

It's the same few posters spouting this craziness. They also tend to be found on the Christian Nationalist threads.

Usually they keep this stuff confined to the R&P board but occasionally someone leaves the gate open.

Edit: I should add they also tend to have hot opinions like women shouldn't be allowed to vote.

---

Ending women's suffrage would practically assure the US of a conservative dynasty but yes, let's keep doing whatever we can to help the left, out of the name of principles.

---

Keep saying the quiet part out loud.

---

Sorry pal, your kind have ruined the country, and I'm for doing practically anything that stops your takeover of our once great nation.

Ol_Ag_02 said:

---

Ags4DaWin said:

---

How is it unreasonable to expect people to have a good reason for nullifying a lifetime contract?

Just curious.

---

I don't give a crap what their reason is. Quit caring what other adults do.

---

If other adults are crapping into my pool am I allowed to care?

For those that think the govt should stay out of marriage, would you also support removing the tax incentives for married couples such as those who are married and filing jointly? Seems like the government is involved in marriage as a legal institution.

There is no government intervention in two people that want to say and live as if they are married, that's the role that for Christians God and Religion play. You're married in the eyes of God whether or not the government recognizes your marriage.

If people want to get "legally" married it feels like the government is already all up in their business concerning marriage. Seems odd to them complain the government would want to put rules and regulations on it.

If you want the government to stay out of your marriage, don't involve the government in your marriage.