~ archived since 2018 ~

Educational YouTube Video: How No-Fault Divorce Empowers the State

Funny_Wolverine_9

December 20, 2021

10 upvotes

/r/Divorce_Men

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Educational YouTube Video: How No-Fault Divorce Empowers the State
Author	Funny_Wolverine_9
Upvotes	10
Comments	25
Date	December 20, 2021 11:06 PM UTC (4 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/Divorce_Men
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/Divorce_Men/comments/rkzqjk/educational_youtube_video_how_nofault_divorce/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/Divorce_Men/educational-youtube-video-how-no-fault-divorce.1091455 https://theredarchive.com/post/1091455

Comments

[–]Mindless-Self 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funny_Wolverine_9[S] 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mindless-Self 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

His key arguments are logical fallacies based on opinion.

1) "Radical innovation in legal system, state intrusion and violation of the Constitution"

Their evidence is insanely weak, giving opinions as fact.

He says no public vote has taken place on this. Yes, that's how our representative government works. We vote for people to represent us. He is advocating for violating the constitution.

He says that divorces shouldn't be granted at 4:30. He states that divorces of preference shouldn't be allowed to trump a contract. So, he again makes an argument against the power of the individual and for the state's power. So you would have less power

What he's referring to is real. He's literally making the argument that women are property and that they should not have the right to divorce. As noted here in England:

Until the 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act, it was essentially impossible to obtain a divorce, no matter how bad the marriage or how cruel one’s husband. A couple could only be divorced by the passage of a private act through Parliament–remedy available only to the very wealthy. According to Feminism, Marriage and the Law in Victorian England, 1850-1895, about ten private acts for divorce were passed in Parliament each year.

Or in this passage:

When Helen flees her husband in 1827, she is breaking the law and depriving her husband of his property–herself and their son.

An example in the US:

In 1861, a woman filed for divorce after her husband beat her unconscious with a piece of wood over the fight they had. She wanted their pet dog to sleep in their bed, and he didn’t. The judge claimed that one or two violent incidents were not enough to get a divorce, and forced them to stay married.

Or:

This trend was picked up in select states in the US, and they became known as divorce “mills” or “colonies”. These were almost like tourist attractions, and people in the towns started businesses based around people traveling there just to get a divorce. Other states began to see the potential for making money.

He wants a return to when men owned their wives and their children.

At 5:30 he makes a direct False Dilemma/False Dichotomy fallacy. There are many options other than justice and injustice. States without no fault showcase that there is no justice in that path either.

He flat out lies about common-law income/debt. These vary state by state, but common-law divorce, but as seen above there is clear caselaw on the fact that women received payment from men post divorce as long as they could be found. Nearly every factual thing he says is a lie.

2) "Rationalizes increased government power"

This is literally the same argument as the above.

His arguments on battery and child custody are simply "we don't need this", but ignores to share that both have existed for 100 years of learning. We could go back to the 1800's of owning women, but how barbaric?

When he says there is no public discussion he's again saying that the elected representatives of the constitution are not enough. He wants to violate the constitution because of his religion.

He continues to say it is one big corrupt system, arguing from the pulpit if a church hiding as a college that collects free money, without taxes, and is known to have raped thousands of children. Irony.

3) "It is the reason for sexual revolution" (aka recognizing gay people)

He never mentions this point out of the intro. He forgot? Goes to show what a trash speaker he is.

Instead he fills it with a bunch of "Stalinist, communist gulag" comparisons, showing how little he knows about that. If you disagreed in either you'd be killed. Here you have very clear, public laws, which you can have legal recourse against, should you choose.

This entire video is hot garbage made to weaponize dumb people into giving money for their cause. I am less informed having watched this.

[–]Funny_Wolverine_9[S] 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate the points you've made, which I agree with. Of course, none of us will agree with 100% of any particular point of view. There are usually bits and pieces that we can do without on any subject.

Having said that, I think his key points are worthy of consideration:

False allegations used to deprive one parent from access with their child.
Fatherless homes tend to result in high incarceration rates for teen males and high teen pregnancy for girls.
Child support is unconstitutional and draconian measures are taken when not paid or unable to pay (i.e. drivers license taken away or incarceration).
Studies show that only 1/3rd of child support is actually used for the child.
Family court is often hidden from public view, giving unelected judges immunity to make judgements without the presence of a Jury, thus violating the defendant's constitutional freedoms.

I agree his points are controversial, but as someone who has been in-and-out of family court for 2.5 years dealing with false allegations, losing access to my kids for over a year without any proof, I have been shocked to see the atrocities committed in family court.

Not only have I seen it, but I see dozens of men in my local community going through the same thing. They're not all angels, but heck, they don't deserve what's happened to them.

[–]hubbyouttahere 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Physical-Pie748 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]25_years 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

women ... should not have the right to divorce

I think you're hijacking his point and twisting it around. What I heard is that divorce is a lawsuit (we don't normally call it a lawsuit, but it is). And a no-fault divorce GUARNATEES that the Plaintiff will win her lawsuit against the Defendant. No where else in our legal system do we guarantee or predict the results of a lawsuit like this. And very often (as evidenced by this subreddit), the losing litigant -- who was guaranteed to lose -- now has the government running his life and his children's lives and imposing involuntary debt upon him by force of law.

Yes, I know, you feel the need to beat up a church. Somehow, religious people trigger you. I get it. But your sensitivities do not really counteract his point about government intrusion into the private lives of litigants who were forced to lose a lawsuit. Something does seem very unconstitutional about that.

[–]Mindless-Self 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I gave you time stamps and exact quotes. You’re literally debating a video, genius. 🤣

He says the state should not allow divorce if wanted by one party. There is no gray area in that statement.

Men are not guaranteed to lose, they’re guaranteed to get half. This is much better than it was 100 years ago when women had the children by default. You would have had alimony in the 1800s and today. There are also fault states where these factor in and can have an impact on outcomes.

It is not government overreach, as there are the 50 state’s independent decisions to get here and have been this way for 150+ years.

You can keep beating your chest about the constitution (a document you’re clearly confused about), but the constitution encouraged representative voting of states for their beliefs. To say no fault is wrong and should be abolished is anti-constitutional.

No one is triggered, except you.

[–]thefudmaster 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mindless-Self 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Thank you for sharing your insight.

The Tender Year Doctrine is very interesting. It looks to have been abolished in favor of no-fault:

Most states have eliminated this presumption, and some courts have held that the tender years doctrine violates the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution because it discriminates on the basis of sex.

It seems the pendulum swung hard on this one over the past 200 years in the US and Britain. Here's one good overview from the Washington Law Review:

For the past two hundred years, judicial resolution of initial custody decisions has been largely inconsistent. Early nineteenth century courts considered children as their father's "chattel" and granted him custody in the event of divorce. Gradually, courts shifted to a maternal presumption, assuming that the mother is the more nurturing parent and that children of tender years need their mother's care. Additionally, when divorce laws mandated that one party be "at fault" for the marital breakup, courts routinely awarded custody to the innocent party. "No-fault" divorce statutes and the abolition of the maternal preference doctrine' left courts without presumptive custody rules favoring either parent.

[–]thefudmaster 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]25_years 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mindless-Self 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

At 4:30 he says:

"The objective fact that the plaintiff is thereby breaking a legal contract is ignored and replaced by the subjective power to turn a personal preference into a legal fact".

This is his initial argument highlighting that divorces for personal preference are unlawful. He is stating very directly that a woman's preference should not be able to override the contract she signed. Simple.

And Ruth Institute, the people holding this event, agree because that aligns with their strict interpretation of Catholic belief. He even references their talks on this earlier in the conference.

Literally the very first thing you complained about is that he's Catholic.

You do know the text is above you right? It is not even close to the first thing, nor is it a complaint.

I'm sorry some priest touched you when you were little. I'm sure you're cute; you should have held out for a bishop. Maybe therapy would help you.

Is it Christian to wish child rape on others? No, no it isn't.

I'm sorry your wife fucked you so hard in the ass. Keep ignoring reality and pretending to be persecuted, and life will do the same.

[–]25_years 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mindless-Self -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]25_years 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mindless-Self -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]toooldforthisnonsens 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]derelictherds 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]toooldforthisnonsens 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thefudmaster 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]toooldforthisnonsens 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]thefudmaster 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SwamiSweatSocks 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FUMoney -2 points-1 points0 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link