20 November, 2008

Quickie Divorces

Posted by Socrates in California, dispossession & destruction, divorce, divorce laws, jewed culture, jewed law, nation-building/nation-wrecking, no-fault divorce, Socrates at 6:07 pm | Permanent Link

Seen: a “period piece” movie which was set in England circa 1870, in which a woman wasn’t allowed to get a divorce from her no-good husband because he wasn’t cruel enough to her. In other words, it was hard to get a divorce back then.

Today, all American states have what are known as “no-fault” divorce laws. It’s easy for a couple to separate under no-fault laws. They just sign a few papers and – presto! – they’re divorced. It’s an easy way out. No need to try and repair the relationship. Wonder what Harry M. Fain (1918-2007), the Jewish lawyer who played a vital role in creating no-fault laws in California, had in mind when the governor’s commission on which he sat recommended liberalizing the marriage laws? Nation-wrecking, perhaps? [1][2]. Because, like many bad ideas, no-fault soon spread from California to the other states. California “opened the floodgates” for no-fault laws [3]. Due to no-fault, divorce rates – and the number of broken homes – skyrocketed. (Trivia: No-fault was first created in the Soviet Union, a Jewish-built entity) [4].

[1] on page 17 is an obituary which mentions Fain’s role on the Governor’s Commission on the Family (a .pdf file): [Here]

[2] California’s Governor’s Commission on the Family was created in 1966

[3] Strangely, when Oklahoma and Maryland passed no-fault divorce laws, other states didn’t follow suit. Only when California created its no-fault law in 1970 did other states copy the move

[4] some of the Jews who helped build the Soviet Union included: Paul Axelrod, Gregory Gershuni, Alexander Helphand, Leon Trotsky, Jacob Schiff, Lev Kamenev, Jacob Fuerstenberg, Abram Givatovzo, V. I. Lenin (he was part-Jewish) and of course the radical rascal Karl Marx (i.e., his ideas)

  • 5 Responses to “Quickie Divorces”

    1. contumacyman Says:

      I rarely see anyone pointing out that the passage of these so-called “no fault” divorce laws violated the “ex post facto” restriction of the US constitution, since, the sole acts that place a person (male, usually) in jeopardy were to commit the act of marriage, and/or, commit the act of procreation (for the so-called “child support rulings to be authorized). Since millions of males had committed these acts, and since they were not in jeopardy (without a show cause) at the time they committed these acts, then, the failure of this legislation to “grandfather” all those who had already committed these acts violated the ex post facto restriction (ex post facto means you can’t pass laws that place persons in greater jeopardy, for something they have already done, than they were by the laws that existed at the time they did it).

      These laws probably violated other provisions of the constitution, but, it didn’t matter, the voting public (women and their lackeys, lead by JEWS) were hell bent on having their way with family-type american men and the downward spiral got even steeper after that.

      I often wonder why pro-white groups don’t emphasize this more – how many millions of abused men would be likely to jump on board a political movement that called for the end to these so-called “family laws”. The white race flourished for millennia without them.

    2. sgruber Says:

      I don’t know about this one, Socrates. If it weren’t for easy divorce, I’d still be chained to my ex, or paying her alimony. Easy divorce was a godsend. Good riddance to that cheating bitch. (No children were involved.) Not every relationship conflict is reconcilable by sweet reason or otherwise.

      I’d rethink your position. Marriage is for people better than Kwans. Or, as that nigger said recently, “Marriage be for White people!”

    3. JewTracer Says:

      You have a point sgruber. But the problem is higher divorce rate = lower marriage rate = lower birth rate.

    4. JewTracer Says:

      “I often wonder why pro-white groups don’t emphasize this more”

      Afraid of offending the women and feminitz.

    5. Zarathustra Says:

      I think easy divorces aren’t necessarily a bad thing. Why be chained to some bitch who’s let herself get fat and unattractive, or some jerk who never takes his wife out for dinner anymore and just watches ball games with his dumb friends all weekend? A wedding ring shouldn’t be a shackle. Trade in the old P.O.S. for a new model, I say. Then have lots of healthy, attractive White children with the desirable new spouse.

      Having said that, I don’t think marriage should be turned into a joke, either. There ought to be a law that states no one can get married again after the third try. No more Elizabeth Taylor, Mickey Rooney or Ike Turner situations, please. That nigger Turner was “married” 14 times, the last time to his White slut back-up singer.