STEVEN CROWDER, ABUSE & NO-FAULT DIVORCE

Conservative media host and commentator Steven Crowder can be seen on a Ring Camera video berating his wife Hilary, who was at the time nearly eight months pregnant, and demanding that she handle medicine for his dogs that she was concerned was toxic to pregnant women. In the video, he snaps at her to put on her gloves to give his dogs medicine, walk the dogs, and otherwise "perform wifely duties," as she is clearly emotionally distressed.

Towards the end of the exchange, Hilary Crowder says to her husband, "Your abuse is sick," he snaps at her, saying, "Watch it. Fucking watch it."   (LINK)

Apparently several months ago, Steven Crowder published a 1-minute video rant against no-fault divorce laws (LINK).  Perhaps he knew that his wife was terrified by his behavior and wanted to send a message, repeating the old trope that divorcing wives are only after their husband's money, and parroting the standard talking points that abusers and their allies use.

Is "no-fault divorce" problematic? Should individuals seeking divorce have to prove that their spouse's wrongdoing?

At first glance, this may seem like a reasonable requirement, especially for those who hold marriage in high esteem, such as Christians. However, it is important to consider cases where one spouse repeatedly commits adultery, is violent, emotionally abusive, or has a family-crushing addiction. In these situations, requiring the innocent spouse to prove the marriage is beyond repair can be unfair and even dangerous.

Before 1969, divorce laws in the United States required a spouse to provide evidence of wrongdoing in order to obtain a divorce. This meant that those who were being abused or mistreated had to go through a lengthy and expensive trial in front of a judge, and they still might not be granted the right to divorce. Each state had different rules, and some required jury trials to determine whether a spouse could divorce or not. In some cases, the only option for the abused spouse was suicide or fleeing to save their life and sanity.

Furthermore, in states that only allowed divorce for adultery, a cottage industry arose to fabricate evidence, such as photographs, to show a spouse in a compromising position with another person. Wealthy individuals could move to states with more lenient laws to establish residency and obtain a divorce, but this was not an option for most people.

Overall, while the idea of requiring couples to prove their marriage is beyond repair before obtaining a divorce may seem reasonable, it can be unfair and dangerous in cases of abuse or mistreatment. No-fault divorce laws provide a more equitable and accessible option for a victim seeking to end their marriage. This is why, in 1969, then-Governor of California, Ronald Reagan passed the first state-wide no-fault divorce laws of their kind.  

TRUTH? No-fault divorce literally saves lives.

A study was done several years later, and published in the Harvard Journal of Economics.   https://lifesavingdivorce.com/divorcesaveslives

What about the Divorce Rate?

Although the divorce-per-married-woman rate leaped up for the next 14 years, it slowly started a path of decline. Today, the divorce-per-married-woman rate is lower than it was in 1970. (See how this is calculated, below.)  Shocking but true: We don't have a divorce crisis in the U.S. (The divorce rate is lower than it was 50 years ago. The high was in the late 1970s and early 1980s. And no, it's not because the marriage rate has dropped. See below.)