If no-fault divorce is banned, I think it’ll just lead to “committing adultery but still being married” becoming even more commonplace. Sure, adultery would surely be listed as one of the acceptable reasons to divorce, but if the hurdle requires proof or a lot more paperwork and red tape, more people would just grudgingly put up with it and try to make their spouse’s life hell as punishment.
I remember them laying the groundwork for this a little while back. I actually checked to see if this was an older post.
Like this article I found from 2023:
There was also an article on Vox just yesterday regarding state efforts to overturn no-fault divorce.
It kind of depends on what aspects of marriage we’re talking about. Because the second we get into any legal ones, even old money will have an issue carving out personal exceptions.
I mean, once you abort, that’s the literal end of that matter. Without divorce, you’re still married. Trying to get a court to ignore legal obligations is another thing entirely.
One “liberal” court decision was Loving v. VA. I cannot imagine any reason Clarence Thomas didn’t mention that one in his list of decisions to revisit.
Or white. 
Depends on the judge.
I don’t have any idea of how many there are, but there are men who think that divorces are women’s work.
Back in 2016 a poll indicated that if only men voted, Trump would handily win.
As might be expected, this led to a movement among Republicans to repeal the 19th amendment. I was saddened, but not shocked, to learn that many conservative women agreed.
So don’t be surprised if, after getting rid of no-fault divorce, there’s a movement to start denying women the right to vote. That pretty much takes care of #5 on OldOlds list.
Long ago I went to a church that believed that if women divorced and their ex husbands were still alive, they couldn’t remarry.
I thought laws were to get better, not go backwards.
What did they believe about a man who gets divorced and has a living ex-wife?
Not sure. Probably the same.
The real problem isn’t the number of deplorable people in this country. The real problem is the ongoing Republican program to disenfranchise voters and rig the outcome of elections.
In Florida, for example, DeSantis won the 2018 gubernatorial election by a margin of 33,000 votes. But over ten percent of adult Floridians (1,600,000) have been disenfranchised. Over half of them were disenfranchised by a law Republicans enacted in 2019 during DeSantis’ first year in office. The result was that DeSantis won his 2022 re-election by a margin of 1,300,000.
There’s currently a proposal in Texas that would make it a law that the person who gets the majority of votes statewide doesn’t win the election unless they also win in a majority of counties. The intent here is to allow a few hundred votes cast in low-population rural counties to veto millions of votes cast in cities.
Republicans aren’t winning elections. They’re stealing elections.
Who would win? I can’t imagine saying the one who wins a majority of the counties wins the election. Some time ago the Supreme Court said state legislatures had to districts of the same size. You could not have a house with representation like the US Senate.
A significant number of churches/denominations teach, similar to what SuntanLotion mentioned, that if you divorce, you cannot remarry until your spouse is dead - or, unless the divorce happened for reason of infidelity.
What that meant in practice was that a husband could be a wife beater or a wife could be a profligate spender/alcoholic/verbal abuser, but as long as he/she remained faithful (no adultery,) the spouse couldn’t divorce and remarry.
This is why they will fight tooth and nail to oppose any kind of voting rights legislation, because it will kill their party.
That’s because they keep trying to push legislation like this divorce restriction garbage which most people detest.
Catholics have annulment. Don’t know what other Christian religions allow except most protestant religions don’t have a big problem with divorce on a religious basis I think.
This was adopted by the Texas Republican Party as part of their platform and would require amending the state constitution (and is grossly unconstitutional under our federal constitution). So not something to dismiss entirely, but also not something that has any realistic chance of coming to pass anytime in the foreseeable future.
Republicans (currently) have a fairly strong hold on Texas, so what’s in the Republican Party Platform has a very realistic chance of coming to pass, as an ordinary law, at least. And if that ordinary law is contrary to the constitutions of Texas and/or the US, how much trust do you have that the current courts will overturn it?
I believe that before no-fault divorce infidelity was a legal reason for divorce in all jurisdictions. AIUI this led (at least in some locales) to a kind of cottage industry.
The couple who wanted to divorce would engage the services of a detective agency that specialized in this sort of thing. One of the couple would rent a room in a certain hotel. There they would be joined by an actor. Both would take off enough clothing to be believably in the process of having sex. The detective would burst into the room and take incriminating photos that would be used as proof of infidelity.
Pretty sure everyone (including the judge) must have known this was all a sham, but the divorce would go through.
But of course this cost money, leaving it unavailable to lower-income couples.
If you didn’t want to go the “pretend infidelity” route, for many years you could get a divorce in Reno, where the grounds for divorce were such to include just about every couple. However, a Reno divorce meant that one of the couple had to reside in Reno for six weeks to be eligible, putting it financially out of reach of many people.