Yeah this isn’t quite as bad as the bait-y title makes it seem. People can already divorce their abusive spouses under the bog standard ‘irreconcilable differences’. The main change from the bill would be that abuse would move from being a no fault (which means the person doesn’t have to prove the fault in their partner) into at fault divorce. The main difference is that in the latter no states require that the spouses live separately before their divorce. And with the 2 year separation amendment that’s cited as making it not pass this bill wouldn’t have really changed anything other than which bin the divorce was filed in.
1 Like
You’re not naive. You have a point.
Your positive attitude is a little sunshine in my dreary day.
3 Likes
Actually all states are no-fault divorce regimes now. New York was the last to adopt it in 2010. Irreconcilable difference now remains as the grounds when one cannot find others. Grounds are typically used in divorces where there is contested property division or custody situations. A way to justify one spouse getting more than just an even split or joint custody.
1 Like
But unsurprisingly:
“Spouses are biological siblings” is not listed
3 Likes
The “habitual” qualifier would seem to mean that a single incident wouldn’t count, even if a woman was beaten within an inch of her life.
5 Likes
I stand corrected. IAAL. IANADL. Last time I thought about the particulars of this was when I took the bar exam, nearly 20 years ago.
Didn’t know that reference and not sure I am super-stoked I do now. I was clearly blinded by my own enjoyment of this particular anecdote to have given it much if any scrutiny (also it came from my mother, a former government employee, which made my laxity even more certain).
It also opens my eyes to a new previously unconsidered question: namely, how big IS the influence of screenwriting within government? THAT could do something to explain the more fantastical elements observed there…
As an individual still primarily dependent on the anachronistic, come oxymoronic, standard measure system, all of this is very much to my chagrin.
2 Likes
“Either party may have a divorce if they are related to each other within the degrees of kindred between whom marriage is prohibited by law”
6 Likes
Ahh but the loophole is that in Mississippi, marrying your sibling is not prohibited by law and even actively encouraged.
…Just kidding. What is the point of discussing marriage laws in the deep south if you can’t throw in an inbreeding joke? 
Hey! I resemble that remark.
(My family tree merges. It was after 6 or 7 generations (in TN), and no one realized it at the time, but there it is. I’m a Jeff Foxworthy joke.)
4 Likes
Are you your own grandpa?
6 Likes
I had a strange family merger situation happen with cousins of mine.
They were not related by blood. One was on my mother’s side of the family, the other on my father’s side. They both worked in the same place and dated for a short time. They did not realize they were related until they shared contacts on Facebook. D’ohhh
1 Like
No, but I’m getting a headache trying to recall figuring out how a grandma or uncle was also a cousin, etc.
4 Likes
Well, of course they won’t. They wouldn’t want anyone to think they’d entered the 20th century, much less the 21st.
Surprisingly large. Look at how regularly legislators are describing the ned to respond to something that exists only in cinematic scenarios, or how much Americans’ perception of reality actually comes from television and movies…
4 Likes
Any Mississippi residents who would like to contact their state Senator, please visit http://mississippi.wtf/ and look up their telephone number.
4 Likes
I recall California had a law that it was illegal to beat your wife with a belt more the 2 inches wide without her permission. Can you imagine the thought process that went into that? “Beatings? Yeah, that’s ok. But let’s not get carried away. The belt must be reasonable sized. Oh, what if she likes it? Ok, that’s a good exception!”
Note: No way am I googling if the law actually existed. Some search terms return results you just don’t want to know about.
Marrying your relatives isn’t against the law in most states or countries. The notable exception is Kentucky where they won’t issue a marriage license if you are related.
1 Like
I think strugglewriter’s point was that if either party wants a divorce, it should be granted.
In principle, I agree. But I do understand the State’s interest in keeping married couples married, and that a perhaps decision to seek a divorce might best be checked that it is not rash, and won’t have deleterious consequences for others. For instance, if a person gets in a huff over something minor, and decides to run down to the court house and file for a divorce, there may be children who could be seriously affected. Absentee fathers are a significant cause of women and children in poverty.
If you read a little further down it actually incentivizes people to marry who are just the very next degree away from the degree that is legal.
1 Like
