Re: Divorce laws 'are destroying marriage'


"Ben" <ArGee45@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1157059553.202256.7120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
pandora wrote:
"Ben" <ArGee45@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1156967408.122114.222420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

pandora wrote:
"Ken Chaddock" <chaddock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:YILIg.17649$395.13243@xxxxxxxxxxx
pandora wrote:
"Ken Chaddock" <chaddock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:aXpIg.13544$Nz6.7270@xxxxxxxxxxx

pandora wrote:


"Batroc Z. Leaper" <hotfrog@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f5a7522587532df989826@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


In article <OERHg.168512$9d4.7848@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
gf010w5035
@blueyonder.co.uk (MCP) says...


No ***!!

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article1221899.ece

The cheap and quick divorce laws in England and Wales are
undermining

the


institution of marriage and need to be reformed to help
prevent

acrimonious


break-ups, a senior Court of Appeal judge has warned.

The call for a change in the law comes from Lord Justice
Wall,
one of

Britain's


foremost family law judges, and follows a string of bitter
and

high-profile


divorce battles. Under the antiquated divorce laws of England
and

Wales,

couples


have to blame each other if they want a quick divorce, which
is
usually

granted


within six months.

The USA has No Fault Divorce. It has resulted in men getting
the
shaft
quietly and peacefully, and has increased the number of
divorces
because
women don't have to think up a reason to dump their husband.


Nor do men. You wanted it, you got it. I love it.

Modern "no-fault" divorce came about because of widespread
disgust
among lawyers, judges, and the general public with the legal
fictions
and perjury that had become commonplace since the mid-20th
century.


All men. Next.

There were certainly female lawyers and judges in the mid 20th
century,

In the 60's, there were very few to no female lawyers and judges.

It can't be "very few to no", because the presence of even very few
would negate the "none" part.

very few lawyers, no judges.

Marg


and the general public was not "all men".

There were very few women involved in politics.

That may be true as elected officials, but women have been active
behind the scenes almost always. I'm currently reading John Adams'
biography, and there is ample evidence in there that his wife Abigail
was very influential on him and his decisions.

Even my mother voted as her
husband dictated. Most women were like that.

I doubt that most were. I suspect that many of them might have told
their husbands one thing and then voted a different way.





The most prominent US advocate of no-fault was law professor
Herma
Hill
Kay (the future dean of Boalt Hall, UC Berkeley's law school)
and
was
strongly supported by feminist organizations like the National
Organization of Women.

Sure, why not?

No-fault divorce was pioneered in the United States by the state
of
California with the passage of the Family Law Act of 1969. The
Act
was
signed by Governor Ronald Reagan on September 4, 1969, and it
took
effect on January 1, 1970. It abolished the old common law
action
for
divorce and replaced it with the proceeding for dissolution of
marriage
on the grounds of "irreconciliable differences."

Good old Ronnie. Heh.

The most common criticism of no-fault divorce is that it has
created
an
economic incentive for mothers to initiate unilateral divorces
when
no
grounds, such as adultery or violence, exist.

Hence, no proof needed.

IOt's not a matter of no proof but of

In other words, some men feel no-fault bit them in
the ass. As I said. Good. It's what YOU wanted, you got it.
Next.

Not "next" at all, it's not what *men* wanted, it's what lawyers
and
judges wanted

AND at the time, THEY were all men as I mentioned above. (Perhaps
you
missed it?)

You're wrong.

It's rather like blaming women for bad political policies when there
are
no
women making the laws.

Once women got the vote, they were just as responsible as men for the
outcome of the elections.

I disagree. Having no women making the laws does constitute an unequal
situation, IMO.

Women vote, women support politicians, lawmakers make laws that are
swayed by special interest groups all the time. Claiming that the
absence of female lawmakers means there's an inequity is just a rather
weak excuse.



and they wanted it because faulted divorce cases were
"hard" to sort out...but isn't that exactly what we were paying
them
to
do ?

It wasn't just HARD, it was stupid and longterm and acrimonious and
ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong Marg, the old fault system didn't work because
it was too easy to get away with perjury.

Perjury was almost a GIVEN in fault systems. I know, I was there.

I have no inherent problem with "no-fault" divorce (hence the
reason
one portion of my suggestion to reform divorce law includes a
"resignative divorce" clause where any partner can leave the
marriage
at
will...it's just that there would no longer be financial benefit,

There is no financial benefit to divorce.

That depends. One poor person marrying a wealthy one and then getting
a significant share of the assets upon divorce would constitute a
financial benefit.

So? Don't marry a poor person. Right? I mean if you're all that
concerned
about your *wealth* then protect it along with your POE. :-)

POE? Regardless, you claimed there was no financial benefit to
divorce, which is inaccurate in many instances.



and
therefore no longer a financial incentive to doing so and there
might
even be a cost associated with doing so) just so long as we
protect,
support and shield the innocent partner

The fact of the matter is that, according to divorce law, there IS
NO
innocent partner. If a marriage fails, BOTH are responsible for its
failing. Just the same, if a marriage succeeds, it is because of
the
efforts of BOTH partners, not just one. At least, that is the
stance
taken
by the courts and by reasonable people.

Perhaps the courts have to operate under that legal fiction, but
reasonable people can and do see where one person has contributed to
the break up more than the other (if that is indeed the
case--sometimes
it's just a matter of disparate personalities who just can't get
along).

In most divorces there are two people who have caused the problems.
Neither
the courts, nor the general public, cares who burned the casserole.

The general public doesn't care who is at fault for the dissolution of
a given marriage, youre right, but that doesn't mean that the general
public simply believes both parties are always equally at fault.
That's simply not true.



and the remaining family
unit...ie: the kids...to the best of our (society's) ability to do
so.

Pshaw! Our society doesn't give a damn about the kids. It hardly
even
plays lip service to their welfare. Our society is all talk and no
show
when it comes to the welfare of kids.

I guess you're at odds with Hy on this one, then, because she portrays
the courts as taking the best interests of the children into account
before anything else.

In the case of divorce, the courts do care about the *best* interest of
the
children under the circumstances. However, our society doesn't really
care
about kids at all. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

Ooooookay.


But overall, you're wrong again. This society
spends significant amounts of money every year on children, and one of
the rationale's used to build and maintain the welfare system was to
ensure that children were taken care of.

They may be trying but they're still only paying lip service to it.
Look at
other countries and you will see I'm right. Does the US have a family
allowance check each month to families with children? I didn't think
so.

The devil is always in the details, isn't it? The absence of a monthly
family allowance check has absolutely no correlation with the level of
concern a society has for its children.


The argument can be over
whether or not society has been effective, but it's inaccurate to
claim
nothing is being done.

I didn't say our society was doing nothing. Do you have a reading
comprehension problem?

I do when the writer's thinking is scattered.

I said, our society plays lip service to the welfare
of children.

Your exact words:

"Pshaw! Our society doesn't give a damn about the kids. It hardly even
plays lip >service to their welfare. Our society is all talk and no show
when it comes to the welfare of kids."

So which is it? Do we hardly even pay lip service, or is it that all
we do is talk (they seem like mutually exclusive concepts)? And
doesn't "all talk and no show" mean nothing is being done? Or were you
speaking in relative terms, which I assumed you were doing and
responded in the same manner.



It is up to the parents of the kids
to do their best for their own kids.

That would be the best-case scenario.

Indeed, as long as they are able to.

That's the reality of the situation.
And what has been before, gets to continue after a divorce.

Self-serving nonsense. Obviously, divorce changes everything.

Only for bitter twitters.

Children are bitter twitters? A spouse abandoned for another is a
bitter twitter?

The arrangement of who takes care of the kids was
put into motion by the two parents and that doesn't change, nor should
it.
Why would you believe that someone who has been at home with the kids
all
their married lives should suddenly get out and get a job and turn the
kids
over to the other parent? The one who wasn't at home with the kids?
Pshaw!
What was arranged before, continues.

The arrangement before included two parents living in the home and
having daily, personal contact with their children. All that gets
thrown out on its ear, but you insist that every other pre-existing
arrangement can change except one.

If you don't like that, do something
different. Your choice. Of course we all know that men have
beenwhining
for decades now about custody inequities and the solution to their
complaint
is staring them in the face; BE the primary caregiver if that's what you
wish to be seen as. Have men risen to this challenge? Only a very few
smart ones.

Tell me again how many women are perfectly happy to be the primary wage
earner and go to work 40+ hours in order to allow their husbands to
stay home and raise the children. If you want to talk about rising to
challenges, talk about that one as well.

The rest are perfectly willing to leave the raising of the kids
to their wives *until* a divorce occurs and then they being whining like
banshees; unfair, discrimination, taking my kids away. You're a bunch
of
babies is all.

Not at all. It's hardly baby-ish to point out the inequity in
recognizing only one form of contribution designed to serve a special
interest.


If you don't
like the result, then change the *before*.

Absolutely. Either don't get married, or get a pre-nup. The pre-nup
request will certainly sort out some of the brides-to-be. Two young
men I know asked their fiancees for a pre-nup, and both women refused.
Both men broke off the engagements. Smart guys.

Smart for both I would say. Better to not marry than to be deceived.
And the kids still will stay with the one who has been primary
caregiver.
That's not going to change. If you think it will, you're whistling in
the
dark.

Depends on the pre-nup, doesn't it. And things can always change, your
claim to the contrary notwithstanding.


This is not an unusual stance, when an individual violates a
contract
for no reason other then their wish to do so, they ARE indeed
permitted
to do so, but there is seldom a reward but often a cost associated
with
that violation.

That's where you and yours are wearing blinders. There is NO reward
for
divorcing;

Depends on the situation. Sometimes there is.

Nope.

Yep.


merely a get out of the marriage card that BOTH can use. And it
isn't a violation at all, but merely an ending to a partnership and
once
that happens, the assets of the partnership are split between the
parties
involved. It is fair and the courts think so too.

You and Hy continue to compare marriage to contract law, and as Ken
has
pointed out to you, in contract law, one party breaking the terms of
an
agreement does so to his/her detriment. In marriage, one party can
have nothing to do with either the creation or generation of assets
and
yet still profit simply on a wish to do so.

The courts see a marriage as a partnership where each has, sometimes,
different duties but both receive equal benefits. If you wish to have
something different, the tell your wife she's going to have to live out
in
the dog house and earn her own money for her own food and clothing, oh,
at
the same times she's still supposed to do the ironing, the cooking, the
cleaning, the childcare etc. Yeah, that's going to work.

Ah, exaggerated nonsense designed to try and provoke an emotional
response.





Courts empirically favor
mothers when granting custody, and with the children come child
support.

And there are valid reasons for that. And you expected
otherwise?
Fool.

There is no inherently valid reason for the virtually automatic
award
of custody to the mother. The old "tender years doctrine" has been
thoroughly discredited and it has been decisively demonstrated
that
the
current "primary caregiver" doctrine is nothing more than a more
modern
reincarnation of "tender years"...which codifies a situation of
dependence for women and would be viewed with anathema by *real*
feminists...by which I mean feminists who actually think that
women
are
independent adults able to look after themselves

Adult women can indeed look after themselves and do so. However,
the
primary caregiver doctrine is a valid one and one that will remain
where
it
does. If you don't like it, then don't get yourself into that
situation.
Are men stupid? So it would seem if they think things will work out
differently.

It would appear they honor their commitments more than women.

You can see it that way if you wish to. I certainly don't care how you
view
women or men.

I guess that's fair, considering I hold the same opinion of your views.


But in
general, more men are refusing to marry or requesting pre-nups--that
seems to be helping.

I'm certainly glad that those who don't wish to marry, aren't marrying.
It's not a problem as far as I'm concerned. Stay single. Be my guest.

Then tell your sisters to quit complaining about it.



Mothers who initiate unilateral divorce tend to keep the
children
and a
substantial portion of the property and future wages of the
father.
In a
marriage involving disputes over finances, no-fault divorce
gives
mothers a legal way to seize control of property and income
without
having to deal with the father.

Cool.

Another major criticism is that the current form of no-fault
divorce
is
a unilateral dissolution of marriage, home and family, with no
recourse
by the other spouse.

You wanted it, you got it.

Of course, this is helping men attach women's assets as well.

Indeed. Equality, ya know? What makes you believe I would have a
problem
with that? I'm not greedy as some men seem to be.

Being greedy is not what I would accuse you of.



The Petitioner, most often the wife, has the

opportunity to prepare for the battle to follow, while the
Respondent,
usually the husband, often is trying to hold the marriage
together.


Too little, too late, eh?


Thus, an unfaithful wife who becomes pregnant in an affair may
end
her
marriage, take possession of the home, custody of the children,
and
collect a substantial portion of her husband's income for many
years
into the future.


Not if the child isn't his.

Children born into a marriage are presumed to be those of the
husband's, and he is responsible for child support even if the child
is
later proven to not be his.

I'm a bit leery of this one as I know of men who KNOW they aren'[t the
biological father and yet still marry a woman and promise to raise the
child
as their own. If they should divorce, such a scumbag could then walk
away
if things were changed to allow him to do so and disavow any
responsibilities to the child. I don't think that's reasonable.

I agree it's scumbag behavior, but absent some sort of adoption, I
don't know what anyone could do about it.

On the
other hand, I don't think it's reasonable to force anyone to support a
child
that isn't theirs. Of course, one way we could change things is to
NEVER
allow a man to have legal custody and allow ONLY women to be parents.
That
would solve that problem. I'm game for that.

Children as a group are already being harmed by being raised in single
female parent households, and you'd advocate a program that would
exacerbate this?


DNA testing exists, now.

And it's very easy to simply add DNA testing as a matter of course
when
a child is born. Feminists don't seem to want this. Wonder why.

Actually, I don't know of anyone who wants this.

We travel in different circles; I know quite a few who'd like to see
this.

It could be implemented if
there was any good reason to do so, however, I certainly don't see one.

Avoiding paternity fraud would be a very good reason.

I
guess I just don't see the importance of doing such for every child
born.
Certainly we always know who the mother is but just WHO is going to be
tested to prove who the father is? The entire village/town/city?

How about the man the woman namkes as the father? I suppose if she has
to name the entire village as potential fathers, we have other issues.

I just
don't see it happening.

Maybe it will, maybe it won't.




It is also contended that, far from ending perjury, no-fault
divorce
has prompted "attorney-sponsored character assassination" as a
means
of
winning custody and financial advantages.
The "revolution" in no-fault divorce is now entering the third
generation in some families, leaving children with parents,
grandparents
and even great-grandparents that divorced.


There have always been those who cannot stay married. What do
you
have
against them divorcing?

According to Judith S.

Wallerstein, director of the longest-term study on the effects
of
divorce, begun in the early 1970s, "divorce is a long-term
crisis"
which
inflicts permanent psychological damage on children of divorce,
who
themselves are more likely to suffer failed marriages ("they
don't
have
the template to follow") or even avoid marriage in order to
avoid
divorce. "A huge number are staying single."

Cool.

There's no sense in trying to carry on a reasonable discussion
with
such a biased, a man hating individual as you...does your
"partner"
*really* know what you're saying on these news groups ?

Yes, he does but what relevance does that have? The laws are
perfectly
fine
IMO.

The presence of a law and it's enforcement are sometimes two wildly
different things.

If you say so. I disagree, obviously.

Well, look at it from another angle. If you believe that one's
socioeconomic status has a bearing on that person's treatment in a
given system (criminal justice, social services, schools, whatever),
then you see what I mean. A law intended to be non-discriminatory can
be enforced in an inequitable manner.

If you don't like the outcome, don't marry. Very simple. So
simple I
would expect that even men could understand it. :-)

Do you think
he'd be proud to call you his partner if he did know ? How long do
you
think he would stick around if he knew how much you loathe men in
general, which, of necessity, includes him ?

I don't loathe men

That's why you consider them mere sperm donors when it comes to
parenthood.

I've never said that, ever.

Yes, you did. You also said something to the effect of men fooling
themselves by thinking they're fathers just because they contribute
sperm.

That IS something that men do, just as women
provide an egg and gestate. Anything beyond that is mere speculation
for
both sexes. As for parenthood, you ARE a parent if you are one. That
isn't
the same as raising children however.

and interesting that you would make that charge just
because I won't agree with giving special perks to men in a divorce
situation. And as for him sticking around, we've been married for
41
years
(just celebrated our 41st anniversay). He doesn't seem to be going
anywhere
(nor am I, obviously). You see, we're one of those RARE couples who
actually care about one another and work to be with one another.
And
yes,
he knows how I feel about the divorce laws and agrees with them
completely.

I don't comment on the partners of others debating here.

I appreciate that. However, the previous poster to whom I responded
seemed
to feel it was the way to win an argument.

It's not.


Please note that I haven't retaliated with a comment about you
perhaps
hating women. You see, hate doesn't figure into it, for me.

Perhaps not, but contempt certainly does.

Nor contempt. You are reading, perhaps, your own feelings and
frustrations
into things. I don't have any personal stake in any of this. I've
already
had and raised 3 children and am past childbearing. I'm not about to
divorce my husband (nor he me), but IF we did divorce, we would adhere
to
the laws that exist. And yes, he would pay me alimony as he has earned
the
biggest share of the salary through the years.

You seem to think I'm flatly against alimony and child support. I'm
not. I'm against unreasonable enforcement of the law. People in
long-term relationships should ge alimony--Paul McCartney's second wife
should get jack.

However, we both have
separate savings accounts and our own moneys as well. We would split
the
house, that is IF we could bear to sell it. However, we might just live
in
it together and just ignore one another. :-) Yes, the house is that
lovely!

I consider it
to be more like men whining when they don't get what they feel is
their
due.
Things are fair and equal and obviously YOU cannot deal with that.
Your
loss actually.

Losing a feminist is not a loss.

I would imagine that losing anyone one once felt something for feels
pretty
bad.

Better the loss should occur before years are invested in a
relationship and children and considerable assets are involved. I've
both broken up with women and had them break up with me. Looking back
on all of these break-ups with perspective, they were the right
decisions on both sides.

However, wanting to see their destruction goes against the grain for
me. I'm truly sorry for you that you don't feel that way.

Huh? Where in hell did you see anything indicating I wanted to see
anyone's destruction. Vehemence of the arguments aside, I don't wish
anyone ill will.



.