Monday, June 20, 2011

Don't get married in Massachusetts unless you make less than your future wife.

Forget the The First Wives Club, now it's the second wives (and higher earning women) who are upset. From the The Boston Herald (via Instapundit):
Scanlon notes that current law, originally enacted to protect less-skilled women from being left destitute by husbands who walk out, reflects antiquated notions of a woman’s ability to earn a living in the 21st century.

Today, welfare laws reflect current expectations of self-sufficiency, allowing able-bodied persons to receive public support only temporarily. Yet, under Massachusetts divorce law, first spouses can collect alimony for life (even after the payer has retired) regardless of the duration of the marriage.

Thus, a man who earns more than his former spouse of less than five years may be forced to pay lifetime alimony, even if the ex is an educated 30-something fully capable of supporting herself.

It looks like the law may be changed but only because women might suffer from it as they may have to pay (gasp!) hundreds of dollars a week to an ex-husband like one woman in the story. A man mentioned in the story had to pay his ex $39,000 per year but somehow the only problem with that was that the second wife had to chip in when the law said her income had to be counted when the man was laid off. Yes, it's unfair that the second wife has to pay, but notice that when it was just the man, no one cared--maybe not even the man himself.

Now that these alimony laws are starting to affect women--both second wives and first wives who make more than their husbands, most likely the law will change. When men alone are being harmed, no such luck. If you want to protect yourself and see the law change, only marry a woman in MA who makes more than you. If divorced, sue for alimony. You just might get hundreds of dollars a week.



Blogger I R A Darth Aggie said...

So, is there a web site with Hot Russ...errr...Massachussetts brides? I have my ticket in hand, I'll be looking for CEO types and above.

2:28 PM, June 20, 2011  
Blogger Zorro said...

The future IS female.

I'm leaving.

2:30 PM, June 20, 2011  
Blogger kodell said...

My understanding is that what matters is not what state you get married in, but rather the state of residency of the spouse who files for divorce.

So just because you didn't get married in MA, have never lived there and will never live there, doesn't mean you can't be divorced there.

2:45 PM, June 20, 2011  
Blogger knightblaster said...

My understanding is that there are still substantial forces in MA against changing the law to restrict alimony more along the lines of other states, so this isn't a done deal. it's true that some women are getting hit with this today, but that's still a small number compared to the reverse as women still tend to marry men who earn more than they do. The "impact on the second wife" angle is very much what is driving this -- if MA were to change that, and make only the ex-H liable, I doubt you'd see any major impetus to change this law, and perhaps what they will change is simply eliminating the second spouse from having any liability to the first spouse for alimony, as is the case in almost every other state.

2:55 PM, June 20, 2011  
Blogger Tristram said...

The future IS female. At the rate that Asian countries are aborting female embryos, probably not.

3:11 PM, June 20, 2011  
Blogger Athol Kay said...

MA is one of the few states with lifetime alimony as well.

Speaking as someone pro-marriage, you should NEVER marry in MA.

7:26 PM, June 20, 2011  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Now that these alimony laws are starting to affect women--both second wives and first wives who make more than their husbands, most likely the law will change."

the righteous indignation of these women.

"men's rights (or lack thereof)"


8:16 PM, June 20, 2011  
Blogger Publius said...

Off topic but on label:

Comments on this?

11:35 AM, June 23, 2011  
Blogger peternolan9 said...

LOL!! Women getting a taste of alimony... Oh..I am so sad for them.

7:45 PM, June 23, 2011  

Post a Comment

<< Home