- cross-posted to:
- politics
- cross-posted to:
- politics
The turning point for Destonee was a car ride.
She describes a scene of emotional abuse: Pregnant with her third child, her husband yelled at her while her older two kids listened in the car. “He would call me awful things in front of them,” she says. “And soon my son would call me those names too.”
She made up her mind to leave him, but when she went to a lawyer to file for divorce, she was told to come back when she was no longer pregnant.
Destonee requested she be identified by only her first name. She says she still lives with abusive threats from her ex-husband. She couldn’t end her marriage because Missouri law requires women seeking divorce to disclose whether they’re pregnant — and state judges won’t finalize divorces during a pregnancy. Established in the 1970s, the rule was intended to make sure men were financially accountable for the children they fathered.
Nothing needs to be spelled out. They are two separate issues. I never claimed one was better or worse than the other. I was just pointing out that there are other ass-backwards marriage related issues as well. We don’t have to focus on just one fucked up issue at a time to get things done in society.
Reading comprehension really has gone downhill online, people jumping to conclusions all over the place just because they want to be angry at something or assume everyone else is.
You sure implied it by suggesting they should be of equal priority:
I would suggest that most people in this world would consider stopping murder to be the higher priority than stopping fraud. I’m not sure why you don’t, but…
So prioritized things have a higher or lower precedence or importance. But if they have equal precedence, then there is no priority. Greater than and less than are not equal.
You might want to re-read my responses because your reading comprehension of them is lacking. I never said one issue was more important than the other. In fact, I never said they were equal importance either. I just made a comment pointing out there are also other marital law issues.
You are assuming I said or meant some sort of priority between issues, but I never said one was more important. I said they all needed to be fixed and we don’t have to do one thing at a time. That explicitly doesn’t put any sort of priority on anything.
Repeatedly insulting me does not make what you said any less an implication that fraud and murder are equally bad.
Furthermore, a compromise law such as the one you stated would take a long time to craft, whereas repealing this law would be fast.
So maybe just repeal the law and then work on your ideas?
How about you stop trying to make a point over other peoples opinions. With your spam posting and constant retorts it’s become very tiresome. Give it a rest
Please give an example of my spam posting. What product or company am I posting on behalf of?
You make posts and comment on too many things. This website isn’t about you and your opinion doesn’t deserve an outsized influence just because you have the time. I blocked you on my last account and it was a great improvement
When did I even suggest my opinion deserves an outsized influence? You’re free to post as much as I am and you’re free to disagree with me about anything I say.
And if you don’t want to see me, block me again. That said “on my last account” makes it sound like you were banned from lemmy.world…
Are you really mad that someone likes to spend time on a website that revolves around engagement/discussion on posted topics and then they…have the audacity to…engage on it?!?! Bruh.
And you claiming I implied something doesn’t mean I actually did. I never made the claim you seem so stuck on saying I did.
Ah yes, so fast it’s been done already right? Because trying to change it versus repealing it is clearly why it’s still on the books. It’s not at all because legislators want it to stay, or just don’t care.
Missouri does appear to have a way for citizens to petition statutory changes directly, so people could actually put together a repeal themselves if they wanted to, they just… haven’t I guess?
It hasn’t been done so because it’s Missouri and it’s run by conservatives that have no problem with domestic violence.
https://www.komu.com/news/state/missouri-ranks-in-top-three-states-for-domestic-violence-reports/article_9e0b46be-dafa-11ed-8884-872900270326.html
That was clearly a rhetorical question.
Okay, so you agree that it hasn’t been done already due to Missouri being run by conservatives who have no problem with domestic violence?
Then why would you trust them to write a law that protects women?