• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    281 year ago

    You seen the takes from Authright and AnCaps lately? Trying to get rid of single-party divorces, pro child-marriage, pro ‘enforced monogamy’.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -7
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        @[email protected]’s presentation is scary – no doubt purposefully so – but all it suggests is that some believe that contracts entered into within the purview of family law should be treated as contracts, and not be some handwavvy thing that cannot be understood or predicted upon until a court makes an arbitrary decision. I expect most see family law as something that has become a complete joke.

        You don’t have to enter into contracts. Having someone hold a gun to your back wouldn’t satisfy a court’s determination that you entered into a contract willfully. These are only applicable to people who actually want to be bound by such terms. No different than any other contract situation outside of the purview of family law, such as an agreement made between business partners.

      • @Astroturfed
        link
        8
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They’re trying to go back in time on divorce law. Never dealt with divorce law, but my understanding is almost everywhere it’s considered “no fault” now. But it used to be cheating/having sex outside the marriage would get you royally screwed in the divorce proceedings. That along with single party divorces being attached means both parties have to agree to the divorce. Basically there’s been a lot of movement on trying to make it harder for women to leave…

        • @hydrospanner
          link
          21 year ago

          It’s almost like these horrible people can’t win hearts and minds with their words and actions, so they’re resorting to stacking the deck in their favor to prevent equality.

          Domestic gerrymandering, in other words.