State Judge declares divorce now a Federal issue

[The ShrikeParticipant 147]

A Tennessee judge has refused to issue a divorce to a couple stating that since the Supreme Court has taken from the states the ability to define marriage, that the states now no longer have jurisdiction over either marriage or divorce.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/judge-wont-issue-divorce-cites-gay-ruling/?cat_orig=us

The implications of this could be quite massive.

If states have no jurisdiction over marriage and divorce, are all marriages approved by a state no longer valid and the contract null and void unless registered with the Federal Government?

What will happen to the poor divorce lawyers and the rest of the divorce industry if this argument begins to be used as pushback and the entire divorce industry comes to a standstill while it is determined if family law must be handled at the Federal Courthouse?

This could be fun to watch. For any of you having to deal with family law s~~~

[chirParticipant]

I think that was the judges intention. He stirred the pot and gave the bird to the federal government. Oh this is gonna be fun…

It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, it is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning; it is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.

[Anonymous 25]

Yes, it was intentional He dropped the ball and said ‘not my problem’.

I think this is a smart move by the judge. They are being flooded by more and more cases of divorce and custody battles.

The courts are looking to close the floodgates. About time this happened.

The state may be forced to set up some alternative dispute resolution system.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. The lawyers will look for another target. They may go after historic cases of injustice against men and target prominent feminists for misconduct and fraud in historic cases. The domestic violence fraud system may be about to come crashing down. There’s going to be a lot of scared feminists.

[Anonymous 5]

I have mixed feelings on this. On one hand I think it is hilarious and a big f~~~ you to feminist c~~~s, but on the other hand it sucks for men who desperately want to leave their c~~~ wives.

[Jon the Ex-SquidParticipant 298]

Yeah unfortunately the Supreme Court has the ability to interpret their own rulings based on the intent, rather than the outcome. The SCOTUS obviously did not intend to nullify current divorces and since marriages are registered via state and local municipalities, it’ll get tossed back.

They’re framing it against the gay marriage ruling but, viewed another way, one could argue that when the SCOTUS allowed interracial marriages, all previous marriages were nullified.

This will go nowhere but its fun to watch. Sorta like a fat chick trying to get off the sofa.

[TaoTheMgtowWandererParticipant 263]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, it was intentional He dropped the ball and said ‘not my problem’.

I think this is a smart move by the judge. They are being flooded by more and more cases of divorce and custody battles.

The courts are looking to close the floodgates. About time this happened.

The state may be forced to set up some alternative dispute resolution system.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. The lawyers will look for another target. They may go after historic cases of injustice against men and target prominent feminists for misconduct and fraud in historic cases. The domestic violence fraud system may be about to come crashing down. There’s going to be a lot of scared feminists.

this is fan f~~~ing-tastic!! I do feel horrid for the men trying to get away from these bitch wives they got involved with, but finally, FINALLY, we might have a chance to pull out a huge victory from this!! im going to go cook up some popcorn, this is getting exiting!

My peace of mind is worth more then your vagina...cunt.

[Anonymous 11]

The federales in total control of marriage OMG!!!!

The federal government manages to destroy everything it touches so why the hell not give them total control over marriage. They can burn that mother f~~~er to the ground as far as I’m concerned. I’m pulling for you feds too for I know if anyone can finally destroy marriage, you can. I suggest adding in about 27 more tax return forms and several hundred pages of instructions then pile on another 13,000 pages in the Federal Register just for good measure.

That’ll keep anyone from ever marrying again.

[Anonymous 29]

What interests me most is the time taken to reach any firm decisions in law.

[The ShrikeParticipant 147]

Anonymous wrote:

What interests me most is the time taken to reach any firm decisions in law.

Yeah, however this works out it will take a while to get a resolution. In the meantime it will be fun to watch the train wreck in the divorce industry. If this argument catches on in other states it could take months for even an expedited process to work its way through the system. Time to load up on some popcorn!

[ScandinavianParticipant 590]

You US guys may correct me on this, but from what I heard federal prisons are nicer than state dito? Is this not a win?

[Aroused By Her AnguishParticipant 343]

I think the judge’s ruling will fail. As one person pointed out in the article, the Supreme Court’s ruling had absolutely nothing to do with divorces. It’s only focus was on marriage.

BUT…

If it’s true that there will be more cases of judges denying divorces across the land, that that will be very beneficial for us. Many women in America get married for the sole purpose of getting divorced. If women know that in the future they will possibly be forced to stay married against their will, then fewer women will be desiring marriage. I mean, how could they benefit without the possibility of divorce? Women would then start boycotting marriage just like we do.

[Anonymous 11]

Scandinavian wrote:

You US guys may correct me on this, but from what I heard federal prisons are nicer than state dito? Is this not a win?

True. However, you’re more likely to do your whole sentence in a Federal Prison. The ability to create money out of thin air allows the Feds just to keep building prisons as needed. The States don’t have that ability.

[Tex41Participant 45]

Hmm…..very interesting indeed.

I agree with this:

Aroused By Her Anguish wrote:

If women know that in the future they will possibly be forced to stay married against their will, then fewer women will be desiring marriage. I mean, how could they benefit without the possibility of divorce? Women would then start boycotting marriage just like we do.

(I’ll try to make this sort of vague to get a wider range of responses)

Discussion evoking question: What impact, if at all, would nullification or significant downsizing of current alimony payments in a divorce have in the US, given the Federal Government took control of divorces and decided as such?

Discuss.

[TheBardParticipant 974]

Aroused By Her Anguish wrote:

I think the judge’s ruling will fail. As one person pointed out in the article, the Supreme Court’s ruling had absolutely nothing to do with divorces. It’s only focus was on marriage.
BUT…
If it’s true that there will be more cases of judges denying divorces across the land, that that will be very beneficial for us. Many women in America get married for the sole purpose of getting divorced. If women know that in the future they will possibly be forced to stay married against their will, then fewer women will be desiring marriage. I mean, how could they benefit without the possibility of divorce? Women would then start boycotting marriage just like we do.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the courts start threatening men to marry or make up entitlements like if a married man and a single man both apply for the same job with the same qualifications then the married man would get the job.

[ScandinavianParticipant 590]

Anonymous wrote:

Scandinavian wrote:

You US guys may correct me on this, but from what I heard federal prisons are nicer than state dito? Is this not a win?

True. However, you’re more likely to do your whole sentence in a Federal Prison. The ability to create money out of thin air allows the Feds just to keep building prisons as needed. The States don’t have that ability.

True, but money out of thin air will deflate over time. Unless we crash first.
I was just thinking of the many sentences that follow divorce/allimony where you live. If this is indeed a crime I would personally rather serve it in a safer environment and longer time, no offence but your state prisons seem more like dog pens than a place to put a human, criminal or not. Though all I know of US DOC is what I watched on documentaries, that is why I try to stay humble on how things really are.
I compare it to our system, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TgujwijPwxo

PS: NO! You will NOT get salmon and deer steaks and a free university degree just by divorce or not paying child support here; you would actually have to kill, rob, sell drugs, rape or dodge taxes to end up there… 😉

[Anonymous 3]

TheBard wrote:

Aroused By Her Anguish wrote:

I think the judge’s ruling will fail. As one person pointed out in the article, the Supreme Court’s ruling had absolutely nothing to do with divorces. It’s only focus was on marriage.BUT…If it’s true that there will be more cases of judges denying divorces across the land, that that will be very beneficial for us. Many women in America get married for the sole purpose of getting divorced. If women know that in the future they will possibly be forced to stay married against their will, then fewer women will be desiring marriage. I mean, how could they benefit without the possibility of divorce? Women would then start boycotting marriage just like we do.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the courts start threatening men to marry or make up entitlements like if a married man and a single man both apply for the same job with the same qualifications then the married man would get the job.

I wouldn’t be worried about the last part. How many women do you know that will marry an unemployed man in the first place? How many women do you know that will even stay with a man who becomes unemployed?

[Anonymous 11]

Scandinavian wrote:

but your state prisons seem more like dog pens than a place to put a human, criminal or not

I have a few friends that have done time in the state system. They are pretty rough and generally overcrowded. A dog pen may actually be better.

Guys I know that have done time for failure to pay child support end up in our County level lockups. The bad part is they take away their driving privileges which kind of makes it very difficult to land steady work. I believe they need these men as fodder for the system. The penal system is a huge employer especially in the rural areas where these prisons are typically located.

[Anonymous 42]

Prisons, marriage melee, government takeovers, stock crashes, housing bubbles, scandal after scandal, feminazi, the whole ball of wax! GOOD! Makes my investment in MGHOW that much more attractive!
We hit 10,051 members, minus the tuna, it’s official!
Checkout the new elevator scene! / The guys at MGTOW.com don’t wanna show the adjacent feminist hellevator, they cut the counterweight and it’s speeding to the ground floor a blazing 120 mph! DOUBLE GOOD!!!

[TheBardParticipant 974]

I wouldn’t be worried about the last part. How many women do you know that will marry an unemployed man in the first place? How many women do you know that will even stay with a man who becomes unemployed?
[/quote]

I was looking at it as men would feel the worry of not getting laid by not being employed so they would settle down and marry since the government was probably hoping that men would get married to get sex then risk being un employed and not getting any.

[Author]

Posts