Opinion: Erika Kirk can fulfill Charlie’s dream by working for divorce reform

.

A whole lot of Kentucky women changed their minds about divorce when the law told them they can no longer suck down their husband's income just by divorcing their children's father.

25% fewer divorces in that state.

"Some women remain in dangerous marriages out of fear of leaving their children alone with an abusive partner, and in extreme cases, 50% custody orders have been granted despite documented reports of mistreatment."
 
"Some women remain in dangerous marriages out of fear of leaving their children alone with an abusive partner, and in extreme cases, 50% custody orders have been granted despite documented reports of mistreatment."
.

Abuse is still illegal. Ain't much he can do if he's in prison.

Nice try.

.
 
Thoughts USMB? Opinion calls for Erika Kirk to champion ending no fault divorce and other divorce reforms to reform the American Family.



Opinion: Erika Kirk can fulfill Charlie’s dream by working for divorce reform

Opinion: Erika Kirk can fulfill Charlie’s dream by working for divorce reform

During a public address after her husband’s death, Erika Kirk said, “If he ever ran for office, his top priority would be to revive the American family.” That’s because Charlie Kirk knew marriage was vital for the well-being of our country and revitalization of the American Dream.

Today, marriage has little protection under our laws — a fact of which Charlie was acutely aware.

“We have two amazing kids so far. We’re happier than we’ve ever been … No-fault divorce and radical feminism are abominations,” Charlie posted on X less than two months before he was assassinated. “We should not attack God’s design because modern laws and cultural rot have tarnished them. We should work to restore the sanctity of marriage.”

Nothing has done more to harm marriage and family than our nationwide system of no-fault divorce. In 48 states, these laws are unilateral, sanctioning one spouse to divorce the other, merely by alleging the marriage is irretrievably broken or irreconcilable. Defendant spouses are barred from contesting lawsuits for divorce. As such, these laws violate the fundamental due-process safeguards of the 14th Amendment.

It wasn’t always this way. But during the five decades these laws have been in effect, millions of families have been forcibly split. Marriage rates have plummeted to historically low levels. Families have suffered on every measure of well-being.

Despite the strong link between no-fault divorce and our nation’s ills — including the connection between divorce and school shootings, fatherless homes and criminality in boys — conservatives have chosen to focus primarily on same-sex marriage, which accounts for only 1 percent of marriages. Meanwhile, heterosexual marriages and the traditional family have begun to disintegrate.

Only a few conservatives, like Vice-President JD Vance and former HUD Secretary Ben Carson, who spoke at Charlie Kirk’s memorial, even criticize no-fault divorce. For most conservative leaders, divorce reform is a personal and political bridge too far.

Some are clearly guided by self-interest. Divorce is big business for family courts and family lawyers.

Two decades ago, my husband and the father of my children had an affair and left. At the time, New York had not adopted no-fault divorce. But I had made a sacred promise, so I contested my husband’s lawsuit and prevailed. But he moved to New Jersey, which had adopted no-fault, and we were eventually divorced. New York enacted no-fault divorce one year later.

I began writing about my experiences in liberal outlets. Chris Gersten, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, saw my articles and reached out. This could be an opportunity for liberals and conservatives to join forces in educating the public about marriage and advocating for modest reforms to help troubled parents in low-conflict marriages? Leaders we met with behind closed doors in Washington thought so, although I wonder how many would say so in public.


Calls for family tax benefits are all well and good, but no amount of tax breaks, conservative rhetoric, or exhortations to “get married” will on their own move hearts and minds of young people disillusioned by the mess of marriage their parents and grandparents have made. They are scared of commitment. I have seen it in their eyes during a recent talk to young Catholics. Half are children of divorce. They recognize hypocrisy when they see it.

As a Catholic, Erika Kirk intimately understands the importance of marriage. Pope Francis reiterated many times that marriage and family were in crisis. Early on, Pope Leo XIV said that the world needs marriage “to defeat … the forces that break down relationships and societies.”

Catholics were once the guardians of marriage. Until New York enacted no-fault divorce, the New York Catholic dioceses stood strong against this heinous law. But today, Catholic marriage and annulment statistics track the secular culture. Over 426,000 U.S. Catholic weddings occurred in 1969; today, weddings total less than 100,000 per year. In 1968, hardly 350 annulments were granted nationwide; by 1989, the tally had risen to 70,000. The scandal of easy annulments continues and is well-documented. Still, you won’t find divorce or annulment reform on the Church’s policy agenda.

Overturning no-fault divorce would not be easy. And fulfilling Charlie’s dream might mean Erika Kirk loses the friendship of many powerful secular and Catholic leaders praising her husband’s legacy. She is likewise a child of divorce. But she has fared far better on economic and educational terms than so many of her peers from broken homes.
Nobody can force two people to remain married. In fact, it may be dangerous to do so. If a married couple reaches a point that they're at each other's throat then it's probably best that they separate and move on with their lives.

It would be better that two people avoid getting married at all unless and until they fully understand the responsibility and self-sacrifice that comes with marriage. But as long as God, prayer, and the Bible have been banned by the public square and a secular government -- most people won't understand the spiritual significance of marriage. And they won't likely understand that marriage takes effort and real work.

But the last thing anyone needs is for Erika Kirk (the sequenced gold-digger) preaching about morality and her version of Zionist "christianity."

1767465194787.webp

1767465238243.webp

1767465264760.webp

1767465291837.webp
 
"Some women remain in dangerous marriages out of fear of leaving their children alone with an abusive partner, and in extreme cases, 50% custody orders have been granted despite documented reports of mistreatment."
But many more are able to get out of such.

Depends a lot upon the laws, judges, and social services. Many jurisdictions/states have child protective services(CPS) which can be contacted and investigate if child abuse appears to be occurring, or alleged. Also also input from CPS might be part of the divorce proceedings.

Here in Washington state, when I went through divorce with my second wife @40 years ago, CPS "interviewed" both of us and our two sons when she made false claims of my abusing them.

No system designed by humans is ever perfect, but some work better than others. 'No-fault' divorce combined with realistic and equal rights and protections for both partners regarding child custody is better than most prior systems.
 
Thoughts USMB? Opinion calls for Erika Kirk to champion ending no fault divorce and other divorce reforms to reform the American Family.



Opinion: Erika Kirk can fulfill Charlie’s dream by working for divorce reform

Opinion: Erika Kirk can fulfill Charlie’s dream by working for divorce reform

During a public address after her husband’s death, Erika Kirk said, “If he ever ran for office, his top priority would be to revive the American family.” That’s because Charlie Kirk knew marriage was vital for the well-being of our country and revitalization of the American Dream.

Today, marriage has little protection under our laws — a fact of which Charlie was acutely aware.

“We have two amazing kids so far. We’re happier than we’ve ever been … No-fault divorce and radical feminism are abominations,” Charlie posted on X less than two months before he was assassinated. “We should not attack God’s design because modern laws and cultural rot have tarnished them. We should work to restore the sanctity of marriage.”

Nothing has done more to harm marriage and family than our nationwide system of no-fault divorce. In 48 states, these laws are unilateral, sanctioning one spouse to divorce the other, merely by alleging the marriage is irretrievably broken or irreconcilable. Defendant spouses are barred from contesting lawsuits for divorce. As such, these laws violate the fundamental due-process safeguards of the 14th Amendment.

It wasn’t always this way. But during the five decades these laws have been in effect, millions of families have been forcibly split. Marriage rates have plummeted to historically low levels. Families have suffered on every measure of well-being.

Despite the strong link between no-fault divorce and our nation’s ills — including the connection between divorce and school shootings, fatherless homes and criminality in boys — conservatives have chosen to focus primarily on same-sex marriage, which accounts for only 1 percent of marriages. Meanwhile, heterosexual marriages and the traditional family have begun to disintegrate.

Only a few conservatives, like Vice-President JD Vance and former HUD Secretary Ben Carson, who spoke at Charlie Kirk’s memorial, even criticize no-fault divorce. For most conservative leaders, divorce reform is a personal and political bridge too far.

Some are clearly guided by self-interest. Divorce is big business for family courts and family lawyers.

Two decades ago, my husband and the father of my children had an affair and left. At the time, New York had not adopted no-fault divorce. But I had made a sacred promise, so I contested my husband’s lawsuit and prevailed. But he moved to New Jersey, which had adopted no-fault, and we were eventually divorced. New York enacted no-fault divorce one year later.

I began writing about my experiences in liberal outlets. Chris Gersten, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, saw my articles and reached out. This could be an opportunity for liberals and conservatives to join forces in educating the public about marriage and advocating for modest reforms to help troubled parents in low-conflict marriages? Leaders we met with behind closed doors in Washington thought so, although I wonder how many would say so in public.


Calls for family tax benefits are all well and good, but no amount of tax breaks, conservative rhetoric, or exhortations to “get married” will on their own move hearts and minds of young people disillusioned by the mess of marriage their parents and grandparents have made. They are scared of commitment. I have seen it in their eyes during a recent talk to young Catholics. Half are children of divorce. They recognize hypocrisy when they see it.

As a Catholic, Erika Kirk intimately understands the importance of marriage. Pope Francis reiterated many times that marriage and family were in crisis. Early on, Pope Leo XIV said that the world needs marriage “to defeat … the forces that break down relationships and societies.”

Catholics were once the guardians of marriage. Until New York enacted no-fault divorce, the New York Catholic dioceses stood strong against this heinous law. But today, Catholic marriage and annulment statistics track the secular culture. Over 426,000 U.S. Catholic weddings occurred in 1969; today, weddings total less than 100,000 per year. In 1968, hardly 350 annulments were granted nationwide; by 1989, the tally had risen to 70,000. The scandal of easy annulments continues and is well-documented. Still, you won’t find divorce or annulment reform on the Church’s policy agenda.

Overturning no-fault divorce would not be easy. And fulfilling Charlie’s dream might mean Erika Kirk loses the friendship of many powerful secular and Catholic leaders praising her husband’s legacy. She is likewise a child of divorce. But she has fared far better on economic and educational terms than so many of her peers from broken homes.
Thanks for the copy-paste of most of the linked article.

It does make some salient points, and nationwide in most states, significant reform in divorce laws and proceedings are strongly needed.

One area I've encountered, in my own case @40 years ago and in the case of two of ours sons currently, is the use of Restraining Order/Protective Order. Seems all a women needs to do is make claims of violence or threat of violence from her husband and she can get such issued, no evidence/proof required and no contesting/appeal at the time by the husband. RO/PO can only be recended by court appearance before a judge which can be weeks to months before getting a hearing/trial date. Meanwhile the husband/father often can not see the children or only if a neutral, protective, third party is present. Also it is often forbidden to enter family home to retrieve personal possessions and clothing.

Basically this is a case where one is guilty until proven innocent.
 
I was about to endorse your post until that "fist in the face" comment. That is physical abuse and crime in most parts of this country.

NO ONE Deserves physical assault/abuse unless they are making an imminent threat of harm or death to another person, or have actually engaged in such.

BTW, what if you had a husband who put you on the couch and moved his girlfriend into the bedroom?
This is an issue that swings both ways.
If I opposed a divorce I would certainly deserve it.
 
A "fist into the face" ?!

If you oppose a/your divorce that is what the courts are for. The place where you present your case/opposition.
I will compromise. If the party opposing the divorce wins in court and the judge orders the parties to stay married, fist to the face. Every day until the divorce.
 
Erika Kirk wanting to trap women in abusive marriages seems on brand. Probably the reason she is so happy that Charlie was clapped is because it went against her beliefs to file for divorce so there was really only one way out.
You having anything to say about anything important doesn't exist.
 
Was that a pun?
Not intended to be.
Either spouse could "demand" the other sleep someplace else, but not in the marital bed; combine with bringing their lover into the home.
Might be a bit problematic making it so.
 
I will compromise. If the party opposing the divorce wins in court and the judge orders the parties to stay married, fist to the face. Every day until the divorce.
You are still advocating physical assault which is illegal in most of the Western World. You'll likely be criminally charged and placed in jail.

If the relationship is that hostile by time in court, more likely the judge will order physical separation. It's rare that a divorce will not be granted. What usually is the court's task is to determine the terms of the divorce. Division of property and assets, custody of the children, assignment of obligation for joint debts, etc.
 
You are still advocating physical assault which is illegal in most of the Western World. You'll likely be criminally charged and placed in jail.

If the relationship is that hostile by time in court, more likely the judge will order physical separation. It's rare that a divorce will not be granted. What usually is the court's task is to determine the terms of the divorce. Division of property and assets, custody of the children, assignment of obligation for joint debts, etc.
Yes. It is called no fault divorce.
 
Know why a divorce is so expensive?








Because it's worth it
 
15th post

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom