\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

Sim Glitch: New York last state to allow No Fault divorce in 2010

First was California in 1969, signed into law by Ronald Reag...
cracking beta garrison wrinkle
  02/27/24
real conservahero that guy
Stimulating Giraffe Chapel
  02/27/24
Apparently he did it because HE needed to get divorced lmao
cracking beta garrison wrinkle
  02/27/24
As I recall, the reason it took so long was because feminist...
Deranged Sanctuary
  02/27/24
LOLOLOLOL What could they possibly have been advocating f...
cracking beta garrison wrinkle
  02/27/24
they probably assumed it meant less alimony
bright deep box office
  02/27/24
Right so they wanted NY divorce law to specifically blame th...
cracking beta garrison wrinkle
  02/27/24
...
bright deep box office
  02/27/24
I think matrimonial attorneys had lobbied against it too. Th...
racy yellow fortuitous meteor son of senegal
  02/27/24


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: February 27th, 2024 1:47 AM
Author: cracking beta garrison wrinkle

First was California in 1969, signed into law by Ronald Reagan

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5496447&forum_id=2#47442506)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 27th, 2024 10:13 AM
Author: Stimulating Giraffe Chapel

real conservahero that guy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5496447&forum_id=2#47443146)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 27th, 2024 10:14 AM
Author: cracking beta garrison wrinkle

Apparently he did it because HE needed to get divorced lmao

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5496447&forum_id=2#47443150)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 27th, 2024 2:07 AM
Author: Deranged Sanctuary

As I recall, the reason it took so long was because feminist groups kept attacking every no fault divorce proposal in the legislature, saying that they were not "pro-woman" enough. I forget the details on what they wanted changed, but I do remember that opposition to no fault divorce in NY came almost entirely from the left.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5496447&forum_id=2#47442517)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 27th, 2024 10:11 AM
Author: cracking beta garrison wrinkle

LOLOLOLOL

What could they possibly have been advocating for? What is more left wing than no fault divorce??!!

I need to know. Did they want MAN FAULT divorce?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5496447&forum_id=2#47443138)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 27th, 2024 10:12 AM
Author: bright deep box office

they probably assumed it meant less alimony

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5496447&forum_id=2#47443141)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 27th, 2024 10:14 AM
Author: cracking beta garrison wrinkle

Right so they wanted NY divorce law to specifically blame the man every time. Man-Fault Divorce. No fault implies it's not the man's fault. In fact it's a mysogenistic law. Because it doesn't blame men enough for things.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5496447&forum_id=2#47443147)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 27th, 2024 10:15 AM
Author: bright deep box office



(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5496447&forum_id=2#47443151)



Reply Favorite

Date: February 27th, 2024 10:15 AM
Author: racy yellow fortuitous meteor son of senegal

I think matrimonial attorneys had lobbied against it too. The low-level ones that dealt with divorces with no real assets involved could charge more because the process was a little more elaborate (1 year of separation under an agreement before you could file). With no-fault divorces you started seeing billboards advertising $300 divorces.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5496447&forum_id=2#47443152)