this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2024
571 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19240 readers
2618 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Before the 1960s, it was really hard to get divorced in America.

Typically, the only way to do it was to convince a judge that your spouse had committed some form of wrongdoing, like adultery, abandonment, or “cruelty” (that is, abuse). This could be difficult: “Even if you could prove you had been hit, that didn’t necessarily mean it rose to the level of cruelty that justified a divorce,” said Marcia Zug, a family law professor at the University of South Carolina.

Then came a revolution: In 1969, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan of California (who was himself divorced) signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce law, allowing people to end their marriages without proving they’d been wronged. The move was a recognition that “people were going to get out of marriages,” Zug said, and gave them a way to do that without resorting to subterfuge. Similar laws soon swept the country, and rates of domestic violence and spousal murder began to drop as people — especially women — gained more freedom to leave dangerous situations. 

Today, however, a counter-revolution is brewing: Conservative commentators and lawmakers are calling for an end to no-fault divorce, arguing that it has harmed men and even destroyed the fabric of society. Oklahoma state Sen. Dusty Deevers, for example, introduced a bill in January to ban his state’s version of no-fault divorce. The Texas Republican Party added a call to end the practice to its 2022 platform (the plank is preserved in the 2024 version). Federal lawmakers like Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) and House Speaker Mike Johnson, as well as former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson, have spoken out in favor of tightening divorce laws.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 128 points 6 months ago (9 children)

Easy fix, people will stop getting married. Give the younger generation another reason to not have kids.

[–] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 49 points 6 months ago (6 children)

If the only families pumping out kids are Christian crackpots, that's a win for them. They want to out-breed you.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 50 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The crazy Christian families usually produce non christian kids.

[–] morphballganon@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

usually

Please cite your source for that. The religious nutters who are adults now were once kids of religious families themselves.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Christianity in the U.S. is quickly shrinking and may no longer be the majority religion within just a few decades, research finds

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christianity-us-shrinking-pew-research/

Losing their religion: why US churches are on the decline

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/jan/22/us-churches-closing-religion-covid-christianity

In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

Pick a study we are in a decline for a reason. The craziest ones are the most motivated but they are the few.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (4 children)

The xtian activists definitely are aware of this overall trend (even if many of them will outright lie about it and many of the flock probably still think they are some kind of supermajority even if they have been losing adherents at about 1% every year for year after year) and it's exactly why they are agitating to fundamentally change this country to a xtian one.

They want to be able to COMPEL people to join/stay in their little book club. The only difference between xtian radicals and Islamists is where the retconning leaves off is different. Both of them worship the same god of "the" bible - Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah and both of them have the same dim view of unbelievers and women and outsiders, etc...

[–] Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Man - I know most folks feel the best thing to do is get rid of religion all together - but at this stage I'd settle for and support a new, loud, and active Christian sect denouncing xtian radicals and the churches that support them as Satanic corruptions.

Believe Old Testament and its edicts mean a damn practical thing in today's world? Satan.

Insisting on not rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's? Satan.

Treating your fellow humans as lesser for anything whatsoever? Satan.

Corrupting Bible verses to justify creating suffering and not rendering aid to anyone who needs it? 100% Satan.

Forcing means to reduce anyone's capacity to exercise free will, the one key thing their creator deity granted all humans? Sounds like Satan to me.

And so on. I realize this is deeply naive. But part of the reason I like The Louvin Brother's song Satan is Real is whenever I hear the guy's testimony on Satan, I think about about people in the offending churches:

I grew selfish, and un-neighbourly
My friends turned against me
And finally, my home was broken apart

The Louvin Brothers themselves would likely vehemently disagree, but - does this sound like anyone you know?

/end of vaguely spiritualist rant.

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Personally I think it says everything that the Abrahamic version of the Theft of Fire leads to the idea that we should hate and denounce the thief rather than see him as responsible for us being raised above essentially being animals. The serpent in the Garden of Eden is analogous to Prometheus, Mātariśvan, Amirani, Pkharmat, Grandmother Spider, etc.

I also find it interesting that the Theft of Fire is a nearly universal myth (as close as anything gets) - a divine or semi-divine being (often but not always a trickster-type) taking a symbol (often a fire, in the Torah a fruit) representing knowledge against the will of those in power and giving it to man, thus leading to the ability of man to be free to create civilization.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

I'd be all for trying to up our game in the instruction of critical thinking and spotting logical fallacies. I think if religion were to be removed, it might just be supplanted by something just as stupid (for example: the antivax/"stop the steal"/antimask/qanon/pizzagate memeplex) instead of being supplanted by reason.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 6 months ago

Both of them worship the same god of "the" bible - Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah and both of them have the same dim view of unbelievers and women and outsiders, etc...

I agree, all religion is backwards. There's always a group they don't like. It just changes depending on your "God's" region of authority.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AbidanYre@lemmy.world 22 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Quiverfull folks are a whole bundle of crazy.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Slight non sequitur, but slightly connected (welcome to my brain). Anyone can safely ignore this long, rambling comment.

There's a series of books called The Laundry Files by Charles Stross. It starts off as kind of an HP Lovecraft meets spy novel meets a sys admin workplace humor thing. Somewhere in there, I think it's the 4th book, there's one called The Apocalypse Codex that deals with a quiverful group of Christian true believers that are accidentally worshipping an otherworldly horror and using parasites to "save" folks. It even features a forced birth center. I've known quiverfull, prosperity gospel, literalist folks my entire life, but every time I hear about quiverfull people I still think about that novel. I can highly recommend the series if anything I wrote above sounds remotely interesting, especially if you can get the audiobooks. Here's one of my favorite passages from that book:

"They’re believers, Mr. Howard. Pentecostalist dispensationalists—they are saved, but they are surrounded by the unsaved, and they think their master is returning imminently, and anyone who isn’t saved by the time of his arrival is doomed. So they intend to save everyone whether or not they want to be saved, one brain parasite at a time."

Other than the extra-dimensional horror, I think the book pretty accurately describes the mindset of those people. The series metaphor for modern society is so good that he had to delay and rewrite the last book because the original plan, prior to the pandemic, was to have the final resolution be a highly contagious disease.

[–] rambling_lunatic@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The many-angled ones live at the bottom of the Mandelbrot Set.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

I'll have to check it out. Every time I see some of the radical xtianist/magabrained set in action, I think about the way that America is portrayed in The Rapture of the Nerds.

[–] Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah we had a big quiverfull church not far from where I used to live. They were in a cycle of being in the news every few years for how they promote their flock to get on government assistance to afford more kids. People making six figure incomes were getting a variety of benefits because they had over a dozen kids, in two cases two dozen kids. This would piss people, garner calls for legal changes to stop this abuse, bring up how they are exactly the type of people who want to scare people with "welfare queen" stories, etc.

For a couple generations, the pumping out children mandate made it grow. However, around the third generation they started seeing a steep decline in parishionership. Basically the founding members' kids weren't nearly as willing to stay in this cult, and by their grand children's generation, their birthrate wasn't enough to replace their flock. By the time their great grand kids' generation came around (current time) they were quickly dwindling in numbers. Now every time their welfare stuff hits the news they now have interviews with people who cut their families off, and left the cult, being interviewed about how insane they are.

From what I have been able to find, this seems to be the general timeline of these "super family" sects. They burn themselves out, and as time time progresses, the burnout comes more, and more, quickly. So the long term prospects of the baby factory faiths isn't good.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (3 children)

I sure am feeling like a rambling old man today.

By the time the oldest kids become parents they're already tired of being parents because mom and dad can't possibly keep up with a dozen kids and sure aren't paying nannies and babysitters.

By the time a couple generations go by, there's no more help. They still get government assistance if they don't get out but grandma and great-grandma still have school aged kids and aren't helping (let's face it, pappy ain't doing it).

So who the fuck is taking care of these hundred and change kids? It's only good for a surge unless you have multiple wives (again, you know the guys aren't doing it), which is not happening at a rate that makes a difference, although that happens a little bit. So by that third generation you've got a fuck-ton of kids who definitely think it's bullshit.

I grew up in a semi-related cult and saw that happen in real time. The one I grew up in wasn't the "super family" welfare abuse type but did preach to have as many as you could handle while still being able to afford them. I personally know the people you're talking about and they're super literalists, young earth creationists, and dispensationalists who hand wave millennialism with "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day". Some of them believe that the war in heaven started the day the Jewish people went back to Israel and that the horsemen of the apocalypse are already here. Some referred to covid as either Plague or Death until they decided it was fake. They're sure that every event is the harbinger of the rapture.

Hearing these people talk is fucking wild. I know they're a minority, but if you go into some of the more insular rural communities you'll meet them and they are fucking serious. They don't understand why you and all of their kids can't just see what's happening.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] I_Fart_Glitter@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

(You can have kids without getting married)

[–] freebee@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago

but no financial state benefits at all for said kids, probably, if it depends on those same conservatives that are anti-divorce.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 41 points 6 months ago (3 children)

With no birth control or abortions, conception will become legally-binding marriage.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 27 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Women tend to flee areas like that. Ask China how it worked out with the one child policy.

[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 47 points 6 months ago (2 children)

"Well that's easy to fix! We just have to prevent them from leaving without a male guardian's permission."

– Conservatives, probably

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 16 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I guessing a spike in fathers/husbands being hammered to death in their sleep. Let me do jury duty for those cases. We'll be home by lunch.

[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 26 points 6 months ago (1 children)

"Jury trial for a feeeeeemale killing a man? Don't be ridiculous, that's immediate capital punishment"

While I'm being facetious, there's probably a reason why Project 2025 is specifically pushing for more and faster capital punishment

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Fuck everything attached to that wish list.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's more than just a wish list.

[–] dactylotheca@suppo.fi 6 points 6 months ago

Yeah, that's the Republican TODO list for what will happen when / if Trump wins

[–] pivot_root@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Jury nullification. Prosecutors and judges hate it, but it's not illegal!

[–] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

...and admitting that you know it exists is grounds for you not being allowed on a jury.

But yeah, judges judge the law, juries judge the facts. so the judge can corral how the trial proceeds and explain to the jury what criteria they are supposed to be following and what evidence they are supposed to consider but the jury can decide what it wants and their decision cannot be challenged - which means if they decide that someone is guilty/not guilty for reasons wholly unrelated to what the law actually says then that's what it is.

It's why I was surprised that Trump was found guilty on all counts in the NY trial - I was expecting a mistrial due to hung jury before the trial even started because I was expecting at least one hardcore supporter/opponent of Trump who was going to vote based on that regardless of the evidence making it impossible to have a unanimous agreement.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 months ago

I was expecting a mistrial due to hung jury before the trial even started because I was expecting at least one hardcore supporter/opponent of Trump who was going to vote based on that regardless of the evidence

Anyone that hardcore is easy to filter out. They would check the Facebook of any potential jurors before starting.

[–] Cosmonaut_Collin@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

Looks like it's time for Utah to share it's Mormonism.

[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

I’m sure they’re counting on it being rather difficult to flee from most places in the U.S.

[–] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 15 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

And with child marriage looking to make a comeback, you can bet your ass that arranged marriage will also return.

Turns out the full Biblical definition of marriage is again, women and girls have no say in who they marry. Just wait. First they legalize child marriage, then they legalize arranged marriage. Got a debt to pay off? Just offer the guy you owe money to your daughter. Want to move up the social ladder at work? Have your daughter marry into a higher class. Don't worry about what she wants. Marriage isn't about "love", whatever that is. It's a tool for moving up in the world. /s

But it's almost like they want European-style feudalism back. The CEOs and billionaires become the new nobility, and we all become serfs, and we are basically already there. But, I have a plan. I'll join my liege lord's army and hopefully I'll serve honorably enough that he shall award me a fief and small parcel of land. Then y'all can move in and become my serfs!

[–] squidman@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

We're bringing back the shotgun weddings, boys!

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 16 points 6 months ago (6 children)

I was married, later divorced, and am now in a position where I've been in a committed relationship for more than 10 years, but we aren't married.

The benefits are clear and pushed onto us: I can't share health care with my partner if we aren't married. The system is rigged to make people in relationships eventually get married.

[–] JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee 6 points 6 months ago

This is why my husband and I got married after 10 years together. Originally neither of us cared because we were essentially already married. But doing it officially then I could be on his insurance, and if anything happens where one of us gets incapacitated the other can make healthcare decisions. Sucks that's how it works though.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 6 months ago

I was in the same boat as you. However, I met my wife while working overseas. We dated and lived together for two years.

The only reason we got married was for immigration reasons. If she could have came to the US easier then we would still be "dating."

Once she got to the US, she asked why we divorce so much. I explained for 99% of people we get married for 3 reasons; pregnant, religion, or financial. Once one of those are resolved we split.

It is due to the system pushing you into young marriage. To produce kids young and never own anything but work non stop.

Remember work 50 years for the possibility to enjoy 10, maybe.

[–] kofe@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

There's like 1200 legal benefits to marriage iirc. Things like being able to visit in the hospital outside of visiting hours, possessions going to your spouse after death if there's no will, stuff like that.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Nomecks@lemmy.ca 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Isn't this the same argument as "if women can't have abortions, they will stop having sex"?

Nobody gets married under the assumption they will get divorced. Marriage is supposed to be a gesture of a life long commitment.

On top of that, there are financial benefits to getting married.

I highly doubt this would stop anyone from getting married.

People should stop getting married because it's a government contract based in religion - it's gross and I don't want either of those things being involved in my relationships.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 6 months ago

I fully agree marriage should be simple with little to no government or religion involvement. That's why we see less people getting married or if they do it's later in life.

The only real reason to get married now is financial and health benefits. That's it.

Making it harder to divorce will lead to the ones waiting to rethink if it's even worth it.

https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/12/united-states-marriage-and-divorce-rates-declined-last-10-years.html

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rustydomino@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Easy fix: marriage will become mandatory. Checkmate, libtards!

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 6 months ago

Incels will be eradicated. How will the world go on?

[–] Kalkaline@leminal.space 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Then it will be premarital sex.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 4 points 6 months ago

Better fix: make life difficult for the assholes pushing for these policies instead of shrugging your shoulders and saying "guess it's their fault when everything goes to Hell."

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Common law marriage!

Then people won't even get into relationships.

load more comments (2 replies)