Texas Republicans want to end no-fault divorce. Here's what that means

my wife was the beneficiary of my vow

Or maybe not so much.

First of all, this is Texas. A state where a teenage girl knew she was going to be beaten — not spanked, but beaten — for listening to secular music on the family computer, so she set up a hidden camera and filmed, then posted the beating online, which was participated in by both parents, who seemed to enjoy it. But, because the father was a judge or lawyer or some such, nothing ever really came of it. The video went viral some 10-15 years ago.

This is a US state which has established, through legal precedent, that women and girls are property.

As for what this actually means (I read the article), what it means is that the Republican Party wants to ban no-fault divorce, which is divorce without cause, and they want to ban single-party divorce. They want it so both parties have to agree to it. If the woman wants to leave but the man doesn't want her to, that's his property under proposed Texas law and he can retain ownership.

Of course, marriage is a business contract where assets obtained after the marriage are split. The problem with no-fault marriage, to these people, is that a woman can leave of her own volition, that her husband has to treat her well to keep her, and that she can take what's hers. What they want is a situation where a woman can't leave unless the man releases her, and if she does something to end the marriage, such as adultery (cheating on him), she can lose everything she's earned since the marriage, which further keeps her in the man's control.

And this is what a lot of Texas votes for. Of course, if you look up the big schools in Texas, and then overlay a map of these universities with a voting map, you'll see the blue spots are where the schools are, just like in any red state. People with education almost exclusively vote blue. People without... vote red.

On his podcast in 2023, Crowder lamented that his wife no longer wanted to be married to him, "and in the state of Texas, that is completely permitted."

"It's been the most heartbreaking experience of my life," Crowder said, "But in today's legal system, my beliefs don't matter. In Texas, divorce is permitted when one party wants it, period."

Days after the podcast aired, video footage from a Ring camera was leaked showing Crowder berating his then-pregnant wife during an argument at their home. The footage, recorded in June 2021, showed his wife, who was eight months pregnant at the time, attempting to leave as Crowder confronted her over what he described as a lack of "discipline and respect."

What does this guy want? That she stays against her will?

Conservatives are bad people with poor empathy skills.

So go ahead and die, you asshole. She was your wife, not your property. If you had ever even sort-of understood that then you might not be divorced.

K, but your partner is not your property. Not allowing people to get divorced will just mean they leave in the middle of the night with no warning, or shoot you in the face. Pick your poison, I guess, if you don't believe in amicably splitting from someone whom no longer connects with you.

"For people like Morgan, however, no-fault divorce has stripped him of what he views as a constitutional right to protest the dissolution."

This guy thinks his unalienable rights are for "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and also my wife."

I'm sure he's never actually read the constitution or the bible.

stuff like this is going to lead to a lot of husbands becoming "suddenly ill" after eating dinner. in biblical days, women had ways of getting out of abusive relationships.

Morgan, divorce or not, she doesn't want to be with you.

Before then, spouses seeking a divorce generally had to provide sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to persuade a court to grant one

Grounds included adultery, abandonment, extreme cruelty, intemperance and lengthy imprisonment.

Aside from the obvious that it's wrong to keep someone locked in a marriage they don't want, this seems like an enormous waste of court resources, taking the time to determine facts and make subjective judgments to make the details of people's personal relationships a matter of law. How can someone be so deranged as to think their spouse wanting to leave them is the responsibility of the government to fix?

and later experiencing divorce himself, one he did not want

Too fucking bad? You don’t get to opt out of divorce.

Make whatever vows you want. You dont get to control another person's vow.

Don't get married in Texas, Jesus.

Fucker, you don't OWN her. I hope she gets as far from his abusive ass as possible.

All I got was that Morgan and his dad are huge POS, bad spouses, and probably abusers.

Stripping him of a constitutional right to protest...Dumbass you have the 1st amendment that gives you the right to talk to your spouse and make changes that make you a crappy spouse that no one wants to love.

What a shitty human but then again it was already pointed out he was a conservative in the article.

I made this vow to God, and my wife was the beneficiary of my vow

What a worthless vow, made to something that doesn't even exist.

Okay, marriage is a religious thing, then. The government shouldn't be involved in marriage in the first place. Let's governments do civil unions only and religions do marriages. Completely separate things.

One is about sharing assets and that sort of thing, which can be enforced by the government, and the other is making promises with make believe entities, which is only enforceable in the land of make believe. It seems like everybody should be happy with this arrangement.

Sounds like he wishes for someone to die.

Texas wives about to relearn a use for those guns they like so much.

im guessing who was the problem of the marriage, is the one complaining about said marriage laws.

Just don't get married I guess. Although I'm guessing there's laws that include people cohabitating romantically for long enough.

See, I don't care if someone doesn't want to end their own vows. You can make a vow to do anything. As long as it only involves you, then you do you.

Everyone else, though gets to make their own decisions for themselves. If they don't want to continue in a legal marriage contract, they can leave it. That's a personal choice and they live with the consequences of that choice. Split the wealth, work out kids, and move out.

I wouldn't wish a divorce on anyone. Been there, it sucks. Even if it's the right choice, it sucks. But sometimes the suck of the divorce is less than the suck of staying, so people can choose to leave a relationship. That's what adults do.

Trying to force your ex-partner to stay is because you're a coward. Face your own life and the voices you made.

In other words, another "I treated my wife like shit and then she divorced me, how dare she!?" asshole

My wife's ex is one like that, literally asked me to sign the "transfer of ownership papers hurr durr"

He constantly is full with "I gave you everything!" Which you have to read as: I gave you money, nothing else, no love, no joy, no happiness, only money things like an expensive house, expensive car, money for bigger tits and botox, which she refused, so she got the constant criticisms about how she looked.

If your partner doesn't want to be with you anymore oy for a reason. Maybe the love is gone, that happens, maybe they fell in love with someone else, that happens, or maybe you're a giant narcissistic raging asshole with psychopathic tendencies who loves to use his children as chess pieces to always get what you want.

Either way, if your partner doesn't want to be with you and you force your partner to stay with you... You really think that is a good idea?

Are we really going back to the "yeah my husband slipped and fell on his gun" times? Idiots

Y'all-Qaeda

I don't understand this. This seems to be based on religion. The bible doesn't say god is for your one lifetime, it says forever and ever, or something like that. So they they are saying that marriage is for a lifetime? But God grants eternal life. Supposedly. Perhaps the "lifelong" commitment is in fact an admission that they don't believe in their religion? Because if marriage is limited to one lifetime, it is essentially a contract, not a religious observance.

I have to be careful about trying to analyze the absurdities of religion too carefully, it will literally drive a person insane with its logical inconsistencies.

Republicans are unfuckable losers who deserve to die alone.

Legally forcing women to stay in relationships they want to leave is how you get "accidently" poisoned husbands.

As usual the extreme right doesn't think things through to their logical conclusion.

1. Let's get his ex-wife's side of the story. I'm going to guess with 99% accuracy that Morgan is a huge asshole.

2. I don't think marriage should be "till death". I believe that leads to people being complacent. It also leads to messy divorces.

Marriages, like most other contracts, should have a set duration with the option to renew if mutually agreed. Suddenly people need to care if they want the renewal. Divorce becomes much more predictable. Couples who aren't so sure can sign up for one year and see how it goes. Term duration could help guide life decisions - they say they want kids but won't sign up for the Maximum (20 year) duration? What's that all about?

This isn't just negatives, either. There's a huge upside in the celebration space. Long term marriages become moderately more impressive. Everyone cheers.

1. Now, let's talk polygamy...