• mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    6 hours ago

    The US didn’t get no-fault divorce until after the moon landing.

    Prior to that:

    Divorce was considered to be against the public interest, and civil courts refused to grant a divorce except if one party to the marriage had betrayed the “innocent spouse.” Thus, a spouse suing for divorce in most states had to show a “fault” such as abandonment, cruelty, incurable mental illness, or adultery. If an “innocent” husband and wife wished to separate, or if both were guilty, “neither would be allowed to escape the bonds of marriage.”

    Divorce was barred if evidence revealed any hint of complicity between spouses to manufacture grounds for divorce, such as if the suing party engaged in procurement or connivance (contributing to the fault, such as by arranging for adultery), condonation (forgiving the fault either explicitly or by continuing to cohabit after knowing of it), or recrimination (the suing spouse also being guilty).

      • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        As if it’s something you can go out and do and be punished for. No: it simply was not allowed. The state said no.

        This is stupid hair-splitting. You did not have a right to shit - you had to beg. Virginia did not grant any woman a divorce for an entire generation.

        • QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          “After the colonies gained independence, states joining the union liberalized their divorce laws, as did the associated territories, with many permitting local courts to grant divorce. A few retained authority to grant divorce at the state level. In Virginia, for example, petitioners had to apply to the Virginia General Assembly for a divorce, and during the first thirty years of statehood, no female petitioner was granted a divorce.[1]”

          So it really looks like Virginia was the exception and not the rule. It wasn’t illegal at all and there was a legal framework for how it worked which, again, suggests that the initial claim that it was illegal was incorrect

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_the_United_States

          • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            18 minutes ago

            ‘Here’s an example of how extremely legally restricted divorce was.’

            ‘Nuh uh, here’s the same example.’

            Fuck off.

            There’s a legal framework for when you’re allowed to kill someone. Under narrow circumstances - the state will tolerate it. Otherwise, they sure don’t. The only reason nobody went to jail for an unregistered divorce is that there is no such thing.

            And even then, surely some people went to jail for enabling divorce, when a cottage industry popped up to fabricate excuses. Because excuses were required. Otherwise: divorce was not legal. The state would not recognize it. Without a very specific reason, you could not legally get divorced.

          • binchoo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Did you even read your source?

            “Prior to the latter decades of the 20th century, divorce was considered to be against the public interest, and civil courts refused to grant a divorce except if one party to the marriage had betrayed the “innocent spouse.” Thus, a spouse suing for divorce in most states had to show a “fault” such as abandonment, cruelty, incurable mental illness, or adultery. If an “innocent” husband and wife wished to separate, or if both were guilty, “neither would be allowed to escape the bonds of marriage.” Divorce was barred if evidence revealed any hint of complicity between spouses to manufacture grounds for divorce, such as if the suing party engaged in procurement or connivance (contributing to the fault, such as by arranging for adultery), condonation (forgiving the fault either explicitly or by continuing to cohabit after knowing of it), or recrimination(the suing spouse also being guilty).”