Government DID intervene in 1969 to essentially make marriage a "non-binding" contract for the purpose of weakening the institution of marriage. (Get it?)
Before that there were fewer problems.
This allowed one party to essentially say "I divorce you" 3 times and materially harm/ruin the life of the other party financially and otherwise.
When in history was it ever so common for a man to face financial ruin because of the divorce?
Enter "no-fault divorce."
no-Fault is fine IF it's:
"Leave a marriage if you want, but don't expect to leave with anything from that marriage besides your personal belongings and your own income/savings." Anything else is government assisted robbery.
u/historyisyourfriend3
So you're saying the law that made divorce convenient should remain law…?
Yes, we should. The government shouldn't have a say in my day to day life.
If you want to be a sarcastic git, learn to read.
I said that we should keep the no fault divorce laws because the government shouldn't be involved in the day to day life of it's citizens.
Government DID intervene in 1969 to essentially make marriage a "non-binding" contract for the purpose of weakening the institution of marriage. (Get it?)
Before that there were fewer problems.
This allowed one party to essentially say "I divorce you" 3 times and materially harm/ruin the life of the other party financially and otherwise.
When in history was it ever so common for a man to face financial ruin because of the divorce? Enter "no-fault divorce."
no-Fault is fine IF it's: "Leave a marriage if you want, but don't expect to leave with anything from that marriage besides your personal belongings and your own income/savings." Anything else is government assisted robbery.