The Washington Times: "States no longer wedded to idea of alimony for life" (Link fixed, thanks!).
posted by Helen at 1:47 PM
Friday, July 29, 2011
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Is Michelle Obama trying to kill me?
- Ed Driscoll at PJ Lifestyle: "The no kids-allowed...
- Will women ask to see men's biceps before having sex?
- Men and women do similar amounts of household chores.
- My post over at the PJ Lifestyle blog: "A Bridal ...
- John Hawkins at RWN: The Slow, Painful Coming Dea...
- "Manorexia" is on the rise:NHS figures have shown ...
- "The only ones who seem to get upset are the ones ...
- John Kendrick at the Washington Examiner: "How to...
- New PJ Lifestyle blog
17 Comments:
Link broken, Missing a colon after http. This one should work:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/28/states-no-longer-wedded-to-idea-of-alimony-for-lif/
That's good to hear, at least. No one should ever receive alimony for life. That's like saying that just because you got married you are now paralyzed and bedridden.
Click here for the link.
as women`s income rises in comparison to men`s....
Here is my deal, if employers are forced to hire women despite the known flaws, and there are many laws and policies (such as Title IX) which force equality or even super equality, I am thinking that if the government forces equality it has no legitimate right to also support inequality on the same issues.
The only exception would be for uneducated (college degree) women who have been housewives the whole marriage and have multiple children. I did like that Utah limits that to the length of the marriage, but I would be happy to see it ended outright. Unless or until super-equality is also eliminated.
I have to wonder how many women would reconsider divorce and go back to negotiating or living with reality?
I recently read something about a high court judge in Mass that said alimony went obsolete during Lyndon Johnson's admin (the beginning of welfare). The whole point of alimony was to prevent an unskilled woman from suffering poverty due to departure of her husband. Well, today we have food stamps and welfare. Why alimony at all?
Related, a zombie divorce in Connecticut: a man and wife amicably divorced, with her taking the house and him taking the vacation home on the beach. 24 years (TWENTY-FOUR!!) go by, and now a judge tells the man he must pay his first wife $400 a week for life because she screwed up her finances and lost her house. His 2nd wife was outraged. Small wonder.
Marriage is a financial death trap for men.
Here in Texas we don't have alimony, unless the wife leaves the workforce to raise children or do household work. At that point she is completely dependent on her husband. In the event of divorce, he has to pay alimony for two or three years while she gets training or education to re-enter the workforce. Then she's on her own.
GawainsGhost,
Now that seems fair. You know, with welfare, there is no real need for alimony or child support, either. But back to the real world, what would be good is, if women wanted the children, allow men to sign off on parental visits and allow them to not pay child support.
It would at least allow men an option and an incentive for women to play fair. Nothing is perfect, but... Meh, just... thinking.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I believe that the biological father should pay child support and help raise the child. It is his, after all.
That's my problem with the marriage contract, presumptive paternity. There is no way I'm going to agree to a fully binding legal contract whereby there is even the remote possibility that I have to pay for another man's child.
I'm a man. I know what I'm doing. I fully understand that any time I indulge in a sexual relationship a child could be the result. I fully accept my responsibilities to support and raise that child. Unless it's born from some other guy's wife. Then I'm off the hook. See the problem here?
I don't engage in adultery. If she's married, hands off. Does that same rule of law apply to women? No.
The marriage contract is a license to abandon, betray and bankrupt. The law does not apply to women, only to men.
So, she can suck his cock, spit his sperm into a bag, later use it to impregnate herself, and he has to pay child support. Or if married, she can run around behind his back, get pregnant and stick her husband with the child support. Of which he cannot legally get out of.
She can leave him, take the house, half of his money, require child support for some bastard that isn't even his. Hell of a system, isn't it?
In this culture, with the attitudes of these girls, under this legal system, with the terms and conditions of this contract, only a lovesick fool would get married today. And he will pay for it.
Fuck her, dump her. Move on to the next bar slut. She'll only cost you a tequila shot and a lie to the face.
Beats the hell out of paying for another man's child.
Harsh as it may seem, I am impelled to agree with Gawain'sGhost. The current contract is a scam.
GawainsGhost: I am going to take the unique and unexpected position against you. I now vehemently oppose child support, and not for the reason you might expect.
Cham is such a contrarian.
Regale us, girl, with your position.
A couple of things have happened in the last 2 years that have opened my eyes a bit to this problem of child support. I live in Baltimore City. We average 230 homicides per year. I've taken an interest in why the homicide rate is so high and have concluded there are several factors involved that are contributing. The largest factor IMHO is the lack of a biological father in the homes of both children born out of wedlock and children from divorced homes. There are other factors as well, mainly our judicial system that incarcerates many young males in their teen years, primarily due to nonviolent drug offenses. 3 other factors that play a role are an education system that encourages young males to drop out and be disengaged, almost no job opportunities for unskilled labor and racism.
The fine state of Maryland has provided the global community access to Maryland's judiciary history case search. This database is like honey. Whenever somebody is a victim of a crime or a violent criminal is caught, many people run, not walk, the to case search to find out all about them. It's been months, if not years where I have noticed either a victim or a criminal who does NOT have a support order in place. They all have them.
Young people have raging hormones, they make babies. Baby mommas can go to the state and easily get a support order for the daddy once paternity is established. All the mommies do it. Unfortunately, the daddies are high school drop-outs, have criminal histories so they can't find a job, even if they could find a job there are no jobs and the state is chasing them around because they haven't paid any child support. The young men are screwed and their baby mommies hate the daddies for not giving them their cash like they are ordered. Therefore, this business of the child support is ripping fathers out of their child's lives. The only way fathers can ever hope to earn an income is either selling small bags of heroin to an ever decreasing number of heroin addicts or small amounts of pain pills to an ever increasing number of pain pill addicts.
Drug dealing is a very dangerous business. The young men often end up dead or maimed by gunshot woulds or stabbings.
IMHO, I don't believe young men will abandon their children if they didn't have to pay child support. At this point, I'm big on free 24/7/365 birth control available to everybody no questions asked. Since it is easier for women than men these days to find gainful employment I would say that if one does get pregnant maybe the mother should be one her own.
Frankly, I am just so sick of the carnage I'm willing to try something new.
Wow. My hat is off to you, Cham.
cham, that`s pretty much what my wife and i see on the street in hamilton ontario while middle class liberals tut-tut and pass more laws to "fix" the problem people merrily continue to do what`s in their own personal best interest.
young street girls have babies and young fathers mostly get marginalised...and while this is a broad generalisation, it`s a good 80% true because the only jobs available to young men with little education are minimum wage, forcing them into crime to attempt to meet their obligations.
Post a Comment
<< Home