this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2024
365 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19097 readers
4146 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

It's just exhausting to see them saying this dumb as fuck bullshit and they stay in office term after term. The 14th Amendment is about crimes, not no-fault divorces.

Repubs love ignoring amendments unless they are able to make create sort of fiction that an amendment supports their claims. We have this dumb shit going on while at the same time they're trying to jam religious trash in the schools.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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”.

What witnesses do you need other than the one person saying "I no longer love them and have no desire to put any more effort into making it work."

Conservatives really have no empathy don't they? "This is what I want so it doesn't matter what you want."
I think I know why they divorced you...

Are they going to start demanding witnesses before you can break up with someone you're dating too?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

DATING!!!!???? You filthy hoarslaut, you should be burned at the stake. The females are to go straight from the ownership of their parents to their husband's bed at age 14, lest they become ugly 18 year old spinsters no honest Trump fearing man would want. The males are to work in the mines 20 hours a day and learn to hate women so they'll prefer to marry a little girl at age 40.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ah Republicans when faced with the fact that they're shitty husbands and get divorced at higher rates than in the past, instead of looking inwards and trying to figure out why less people want to fuck and stay married to their shitty views, simply want to outlaw women and men to extricate themselves out of their shitty conservative marriage and force them to remain unhappy.

Spot on Republican family values.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago

funny how republican men just recently were whining that they can't find a date because of their political beliefs.

while pushing for shit like this. and they can't even see the dots, let alone connect them

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The GOP is the party of increased infant mortality and high rates of spousal abuse, homicide, and suicide.

At least they are ideological consistent.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 months ago

Republicans are some weakass snowflakes .

[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 months ago

Of course they are. They hate it when their wives realize they married a total piece of shit and ditch them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

GOOD!

-Republicans apparently judging by the Primary Results.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I for one hope this simply leads to the end of marriage. That whole concept is built rather one sided. Time for relationship contracts... renewable, but always finite. With separation details worked out in advance. Let's get religion out of it entirely.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Some Republicans have said that they want to make it illegal to cohabitate without being married.

These shit birds are not going to rest until women have no autonomy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Good luck to them on that... cause that is how you get a revolution. Lol

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

If ignoring election results isn't going to do it then this definitely won't.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

They are chipping away with our any revolts so you know I doubt they think we will do anything .

https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained

They literally don't give a shit what we think unless we are donating massive amounts of money. We don't live in a democracy anymore

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Why does it need to be a formal contract? People can engage in relationships without the law being involved. I tend to think we should disentangle marriage and law, have some paperwork one can fill out for the legal affairs like hospital visitation and such that can be changed without the same degree of court proceeding, and have the religious or cultural ritual as just a ritual people can but are not obligated to hold if they feel like with no legal meaning to it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

I think you just redefined a marriage. The function of marriage legally is all those "legal affairs".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Well it doesn't have to be a formal contract... but I was thinking there would be like a website with a selection you could pick from, print out, sign and done. And the main reason was to make getting out of a bad relationship clear easy, and most likely no courts involved since everything was already spelled out. Open sourced contracts would in theory be well vetted to be fair.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

...“It’s very difficult to get evidence to show abuse of children."

Ain't that the truth.

load more comments
view more: next ›