Back to the 1950’s…

Been there,
Not returning.

The implied reality of the article is that people seeking to eliminate no-fault divorce are operating in good faith - a lack of "agreement" about what "marriage is for."

But really, it's summed up in a quote, and its implication:

A commentator, expressing "outrage and disbelief that his wife could divorce him without his consent."

And the implication, that a woman should lack the de facto or de jure power to be free from a man without the man's consent.

Can't divorce, but can open carry?

The micro-peen #GOP #morons aren't thinking this through to the logical #American conclusion, are they?

Two things I'm proud I've never tried: smoking and marriage.

(Yes, I proposed to one girl three times and after the third rejection I realized I was kidding myself. After learning what our dad had to deal with cemeted my stance.)

This was enough to make me unfollow you as a news org.

Not a true word about domestic violence.

Just the assumption of unhappy partners, stuck in a loveless marriage.

Physical abuse in a marriage is rarely prosecuted today - why on earth would that improve if it meant a legal divorce?

Fundamentally, this piece assume that abuse would stay as ground for a divorce. These people are notorious for lying about intent - see rape and health exemptions for abortion.

This is a talking piece to normalize the idea that getting rid of no-fault divorce is a legitimate position. It is not. There is no "both sides" position to take.

Your are ok with women trapped in abusive marriages or you are not. End of story. The history of marriage does not excuse abuse today.