Re: Conduct in court
- From: "Rob" <robwilard@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 May 2006 03:29:50 -0700
MCP wrote:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles/
May 29, 2006
Daily Mail, 29 May 2006
Who killed off marriage in Britain? If future historians try to identify who
was guilty of the deadly assault upon the bedrock institution of our
society, the bloody trail will surely lead them straight to the legal
profession.
Through court rulings and initiatives stretching back more than three
decades, judges and lawyers have succeeded in reshaping family life in this
country by progressively hollowing out the institution of marriage.
This destructive process was pushed a big step forward last week by the Law
Lords' seminal ruling on the division of the marital spoils after divorce.
This week, it may lurch still further towards social disaster when the Law
Commission - the Government's influential law reform advisers -- publishes
proposals which are expected to say that cohabiting couples too should be
given rights to each other's wealth if they split up.
The Law Lords' judgment has rightly been termed a 'gold-diggers' charter, as
a result of which men may be unwilling to marry because they stand to lose
so much to unprincipled ex-wives.
At the heart of this judgment lay a new doctrine that ex-spouses should
always be compensated for any loss of earning capacity sustained by getting
married, even if the marriage was short-lived.
Even Melanie Phillips is perpetuating this myth? The core of the new
doctrine was that netting £5m for a few barren years of marriage was
not 'compensation for a loss of earning capacity', it was
'compensation for the loss of an expectation of a way of life'.
<... Mrs Miller was entitled to a substantial settlement because she
married with "reasonable expectation" of a future wealthy lifestyle...>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5010888.stm
The argument that she should share in the money he made during their
marriage is fallacious since, as was pointed out earlier, had her
husband lost £10m during those few years she wouldn't have been
expected to contribute to any of that.
The rest of this article is sensible but fails to make the point that
the breakdown of marriage may be an inevitable consequence of
democracy, as governments that succeed do so best by making themselves
indispensable to the largest segment of the voting public, and the
segment that has the greatest influence on the values and beliefs of
the next generation of voters. State interference in the process of
production (the economy) as a means of achieving its longevity has
demonstrably failed. Are we now witnessing the State's interference
in reproduction (ex the family) as the next logical attempt to secure
its permanence?
.
- References:
- Conduct in court
- From: MCP
- Conduct in court
- Prev by Date: Re: Wow! soc.men is dead!
- Next by Date: DVLA Bans Rude Numer Plates
- Previous by thread: Conduct in court
- Next by thread: Re: Conduct in court
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
