• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    102
    ·
    3 months ago

    You used to have to prove adultery in order to get a divorce in New York state.

    Family story time! My great-grandparents wanted to get divorced and were in New York, so my grandfather lay in a bed next to his mother-in-law under the covers and my grandmother took a photo to present to the courts. My great-grandmother apparently never even took off her coat.

  • andrewta@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Great now make it so if you cheat you lose the ability to get alimony.

    And an open relationship is different then cheating.

    • Tedesche@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Honestly, I think it’s high time we ditch old marriage laws in favor of much more individualized marriage contracts that are settled in civil court if they’re dissolved. Modern marriages are much more complex than traditional ones and our antiquated laws don’t deal with them well. We’d have to update laws/policies about hospital visiting, medical decisions, inheritance, etc, as well, but I think it would be worth it.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I was in favor of individual contracts for most of my life.

        But there’s an issue - with individual contracts there’s a greater degree of uncertainty every time someone goes to court over them.

        It’s the same as with individual contracts in other areas. Say, labor.

        Power balance matters.

        So - ideally yes, but in our real world with our real legal and enforcement systems - we may not be able to. Same as with labor, again.

        • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Well I doubt it would be truely individualized. Probably something more like a menu of terms that everyone else is using would quickly develop. Maybe a few numbers to customize. But mostly boilerplate. And probably requiring arbitration.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      that’s the opposite of the point of these laws. the entire point of this and no fault divorce is that the state shouldn’t dictate relationships. how are you going to adjudicate cheating anyway?

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        How?

        If person a is shown to have been cheating then person a loses any claim to alimony.

        Pretty simple.

        Person A in divorce court “judge I want alimony”

        Person B in divorce court “your honor Person A was cheating here’s the proof”

        Judge “ no alimony will be awarded from Person B to Person A”

        Why should anyone be allowed to get alimony after cheating? That’s just insult to injury.

        Your spouse cheats you walk in on it and now you want a divorce. Added bonus you have to pay money to the cheater for life???

        How does that make sense?

        It should literally be law that the alimony goes away at that point.

    • freeze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      People who are so concerned about that possibility can just require their prospective spouse to sign a prenup with conditions like that on alimony, as a condition of getting married.

    • ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Even Canada doesn’t have that implemented, I wouldn’t count on that any time soon. In Canada, your wife could cut off your finger and cheat on you then file for divorce, then you’d have to give her half of your house (even if it was your childhood home you fully owned long before your marriage) and pay her alimony if you make more than her. Also if you have kids, she’s very likely going to win custody of them.

      It’s a bit fucked up lol

      • andrewta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        In some states in the United States, if you get a divorce, they go back to birth so for example, a child home would be split up. But in most states, they only go back to the date of marriage. I will say : I’ll never get married ever. But if I was dumb enough to do it, I would absolutely never get married in a state that (during a divorce) went back to birth. And I would never live in that state (while married) either. What’s mine before the marriage is mine what is hers before the marriage is hers.

        No one should be able to claim the ability to take something before the marriage ever existed. That’s just my opinion.

        And yeah, I doubt it would ever get implemented.

  • WalnutLum@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    Criminal Court? 👎 Civil Court? 👍

    Quite literally what civil court was made for

  • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    82
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    It kinda should be IMO. If you can’t not be faithful, don’t fucking get married and be a cheating piece of shit.

    • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      yeah great idea. criminalise everything. had your freedom to the state. the american dream

      • DudeImMacGyver@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        41
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        If you’re worried about the American dream I have shit loads of horrible news for you since you haven’t been paying attention for the last 40 fucking years apparently.

        Being able to be a cheating shitbag with no consequences should be the least of your concerns at this point.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Ahhh

              Now it makes sense.

              If someone cheated on you. Go live your best life. Because there’s something else that commonly happens to guys if they don’t, and it seems to be what’s happening here

        • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          3 months ago

          I don’t think anyone is saying that it’s ok and there should be no consequences, just that it’s not a matter for the law. The law isn’t really about what’s moral and immoral. There are plenty of immoral things that are legal and moral things that are illegal. I think it’s wrong to cut in line but I don’t think we should be locking people up for it. I also think in many cases stealing is morally justifiable but I don’t necessarily think we should make stealing legal.

          • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            I think it’s wrong to cut in line but I don’t think we should be locking people up for it.

            IDK, you might be onto something here.

            • njm1314@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              This is why we need to bring back stockades. Perfect punishment for that kind of shit. Just lock someone up in public let people deride them and throw vegetables at them all day and then let them go.