|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 17, @02:16PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I think most men still get married for two reasons.
One, they aren't informed about what happens to men in divorce.
And two, They suffer from "It could never happen to me..." syndrome. They also just don't believe that the dainty, pretty, little thing they've married could be capable of such treachery, decite and hatered.
To those guys, all we can say to them is; "DON'T YOU BELIEVE IT...!!!"
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I got married because I wanted companionship and children. If this doesn't work out maybe I will become gay and just adopt kids :P.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 18, @12:03AM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Andrew.
I just became a crusty, bitter old Indian guy who spends too much time on the computer. (^_^)
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it's a good idea, generally. One problem is that there would be some backlash, for a while, as people (mostly women, who originate the majority of divorces) had to get used to the idea that marriage wasn't something you could just walk away from with 50% of your spouse's stuff.
However, there are cases where two people get married and decide to break up later, and it's totally mutual - a "we grew apart" type deal - and they stay friends, because they can BE friends, they just can't live together. I don't see a provision for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its a bad idea because it further involves governement in determining "fault" in a private relationship. Who gets to determine that? What are the criteria? What is the standard of proof?
And what if two people simply don't want to be married anymore, must they then formally lodge a complaint of some kind of "fault" even if it was a sham? This isn't discussed.
What if one spouse doesn't commit adultery or physical abuse or abandonment, but is, say verbally abusive (for just one example). If that's not on the list of "faults" which constitute legal reasons for a divorce, then what?
How many "faults" are on the list and what if one person considers something a "fault" that the courts do not, for example what if one person spends all the money frivolously, or if one spouse is addicted to porn for example. What if one spouse stops bathing?
And even if there is a claim of adultury, what is the standard of proof. Would there have to be photographs of the spouse actually having sex with another person? Because if not, then you've got a "guilty until proven innocent" standard set up, whereby two people could be going into a hotel room and not having sex, but the "court" decides they did have sex. Sounds very totalitarian and Talibanesque to me.
I think a requirement for counseling before divorce is a good idea. But fault-finding in interpersonal relationships is not a legitimate function of government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, you think it's a bad idea because then women couldn't just up and walk away from a marriage without reaping consequences.
Absolutely in the bill does it allow two consenting people to undo a marriage.
As is with anything else legal, the standard of proof is proof.
What if one spouse doesn't commit adultery or physical abuse or abandonment, but is, say verbally abusive (for just one example). If that's not on the list of "faults" which constitute legal reasons for a divorce, then what?
File reports. Get a paper trail.
How many "faults" are on the list and what if one person considers something a "fault" that the courts do not, for example what if one person spends all the money frivolously, or if one spouse is addicted to porn for example. What if one spouse stops bathing?
Again, create a paper trail. Insist the spouse come in for counseling. Get their "hell, no" on the record.
And even if there is a claim of adultury, what is the standard of proof. Would there have to be photographs of the spouse actually having sex with another person? Because if not, then you've got a "guilty until proven innocent" standard set up, whereby two people could be going into a hotel room and not having sex, but the "court" decides they did have sex. Sounds very totalitarian and Talibanesque to me.
Hey, nice straw man! Tell me, if I'm married and enter a hotel room with a woman for my luch hour, what are we doing, playing tiddley winks? I suppose it's possible, but time travel is also possible...
You know, every time something get's proposed that would cause womyn to lose their pheminine privilege, and be accountable for their actions, we can always count on you to come in and rationalize a reason why they shouldn't.
It's a pity your objection to government intrusion doesn't extend to your professed opposition to abortion where you think the government should intrude to prevent it, or to the intrusive collection and finding of fault in CS judgements, irregardless of case-to-case circumstances.
Your inconsistancy is staggering.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, nice straw man! Tell me, if I'm married and enter a hotel room with a woman for my luch hour, what are we doing, playing tiddley winks? I suppose it's possible, but time travel is also possible...
I don't know what you're doing unless I actually witness it and the government doesn't know either. You could be playing chess. Everything else is supposition. This kind of thinking is what the Taliban had the Ministry of Vice and Virtue for, to guess what people were up to based on circumstantial evidence, otherwise known as Guilty Until Proven Innocent.
What you're suggesting is creating an even MORE dangerous opportunity for people to frame other people and other types of fraud and creating an opportunity for people spying on each other, or worse having the government spy on people to verify their whereabouts and actions.
We don't need this kind of government babysitting for adults at all, especially at the cost of civil liberties which are at stake.
And furthermore my question is WHO gets to set the standards for fault? Don't you think women would want to get in on that game as well? They'd be part of the group defining "fault" and some of what they think are "faults" which justify a divorce may not sit well with men.
Be careful what you ask for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"We don't need this kind of government babysitting for adults at all, especially at the cost of civil liberties which are at stake."
Exactly that's why the government should completly stay out of people's family lives. Including child support, alimony, custody, abortion ect...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 17, @08:37PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I too think getting rid of no-fault is a bad idea particularly because any time judges get to mingle with "fault" in relationships it's males who on average get the shaft. This is where I differ with S. Baskerville. Perhaps no-fault divorce did increase divorces by making it easier to get out of a marriage, but it's the *windfall to women* that is the ultimate divorce increaser. When strong joint custody and fair policies are enforced the divorce rate drops, from what I've read, because the windfall to women is no longer there, regardless of whether no-fault exists or not. No-fault becomes the boogie-man because it makes divorces a little easier, but a fault system is even worse for men because of all the judicial bias, and in California I'd say we in reality are still in a fault based system no matter what they call it, and it's not a good thing for men.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 18, @12:07AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Marc.
Exactly. In divorce if the court is gonig to find "fault" they have and will continue to find it in the husband, hands down.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also agree with Marc here.
The problem, at least as far as trying to get men a fair shake in marriage/divorce, is not the ease with which divorces can be obtained whether for good reason or bad, but a system which literally bribes dishonest women to divorce and reap the guy's kids, car, house, 1/2 his pension and support for life. Take away "no-fault" while leaving the financial rewards in place for divorcing women will only increase false accusations of abuse, adultery, etc. Then, the poor guy is not only divorced and penniless, he also has a record. That's not progress.
Make divorce settlements truly 50/50 and keep it no-fault, and people trapped in honestly horrid marriages can still get out with integrity, dignity and financial stability without encouraging a free money tree for one side only.
David S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 18, @10:15AM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
That is almost a good idea except why should it be 50/50? That is the remaining problem with marriage.. it was designed to protect women by infantizing them and making them dependents.. in this day and age it should not be that the second you are married your salary is automatically cut in half, while your spouses rises the same. It was a social contract meant for a much different time. This "default" business arrangement should be done away with and everything should be spelled out clearly, just like any other business contract.
A marriage should be between 2 people and/or their religious beliefs. All of the financial aspects should be clearly spelled out in a financial contract that both parties agree on before signing... if they don't sign such a contract, there is no default dependency relationship anymore, and everyone is responsible for themselves.
The problem with marriage is the enforcement of a social contract that is meant for chivalrous protection of women, with assumptions that are advantages in an equal society. Women should be expected to have responsibility for themselves, and should not be considered the dependent of a man in return for a relationship...
trying to maintain that entire social construct in a truly equal society is futile.. and very polarizing and painful on the way out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I think a requirement for counseling before divorce is a good idea."
Great way to throw in a bit of the feminazi agenda in a sad attempt to pretend that you support marriage. Considering many therapists are feminazis themselves or follow feminazi styles of warped fraudian counselling. I doubt this would do much to save marriages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all I DO support marriage. I think it's a great tradition as well as a wonderful arrangement for people who want to commit to each other. It's not for everyone, but I happen to think it's great.
Secondly, you're right it's not the government's business to 'require' counseling. I was trying to say I think it is a good idea for couples to attempt to work out their differences before calling it quits, not that "requiring" counseling is a good idea (as in government requirement). But I didn't word that properly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday April 17, @11:08PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"And what if two people simply don't want to be married anymore, must they then formally lodge a complaint of some kind of "fault" even if it was a sham?....What if one spouse doesn't commit adultery or physical abuse or abandonment, but is, say verbally abusive (for just one example)"
I find saying these things as legitimate grounds for divorce and making this statement
"I DO support marriage"
to be mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 18, @12:10AM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
You have to hand it to Lorainne. Whether you like her or don't, she takes a lickin' but keeps on tickin', whenever she comes here.
-Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your and my idea of what is a marriage must be very different. Which is why I ask the question no one will answer, WHO will be the arbitor of "fault".
And another thing, people who are legally married may not still live together as husband and wife, or do some of you propose the government force people to live together as well as stay married?
What is the endgame here? Forcing people to live in a "moral" way according to the government?
Bad Bad idea from every perspective, including just from a practical level alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 18, @05:11AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Nobody should force anyone to do anything in marriage. It's just incredibly stupid to say on one hand that you support marriage then on the other hand say that people should get divorced over trivial things like just deciding that they don't like it anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday April 18, @06:08AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"Which is why I ask the question no one will answer, WHO will be the arbitor of "fault"."
It would most likely end up being feminazis like yourself. These guys are idiots and only want to further women's power in family courts by getting rid of no-fault divorces. Feminazi judges already control custody and support rulings having them control if men can get divorced or not is beyond idiocy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allright, you don't want fault? Here's what's "fair and equitable."
reintroduce fault and keep it side by side with no-fault. You can have no-fault divorce isf you want. Put on a pair of clothes, grab your passport, driver's license, birth certificate, and social security card. And walk.
The downside is, you lose everything else. Custody of children. Cars. Claims to property. Alimony. You get the clothes on your back, and whatever personal property you have managed to squirrel away elsewhere.
You cannot petition anywhere at anytime - without a profoundly high burden of proof - for a change in this either. You're a quitter. Therefore, it's prima facie evidence that you're unfit for custody of children, you've already shown you will walk away from your commitments. Burden is on you to PROVE otherwise.
I, for one, am not afraid of this being laid down on men, because men are raised with honor and with the idea that abandoning your family and responsibilities to find "personal fulfillment" is cowardly and craven.
Guess pheminists have a different take on it, eh?
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds like a good proposal but the main problem is that the way anti-family courts run in my country it would end up being totally inequitable. Women would be able to easily lie about there spouses while men will be denied unless concrete evidence is shown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I followed a link in the article to the Louisiana Legislature's website. A search on Mike Smith turned up a number of interesting bills he has submitted recently. First is the at-fault divorce bill SB319. In case you were interested the grounds for such an action are:
A spouse may obtain a judgment of separation from bed and board only upon proof of any of the following:
(1) The other spouse has committed adultery.
(2) The other spouse has committed a felony and has been sentenced to death or imprisonment at hard labor.
(3) The other spouse has abandoned the matrimonial domicile for a period of one year and constantly refuses to return.
(4) The other spouse has physically or sexually abused the spouse seeking the divorce or a child of one of the spouses.
(5) The spouses have been living separate and apart continuously without reconciliation for a period of two years.
(6) On account of habitual intemperance of the other spouse, or excesses, cruel treatment, or outrages of the other spouse, if such habitual intemperance, or such ill-treatment is of such a nature as to render their living together insupportable.
But, what's really interesting are his other bills:
SB 290, which requires the court to award shared custody (defined as an order in which each parent has physical custody of the child for an approximately equal amount of time), unless the parents have agreed otherwise or it is proven that custody in one parent is in the best interest of the child.
SB 802 - "Proposed law retains present law and extends the exception of not having to pay the minimum child support, not less than $100, to an obligor with serious health problems that limit his ability to pay the minimum."
I think it would be worthwhile for any men's activists in the area to contact Mr. Smith and possibly work with him. (If they aren't doing so already.)
It might help fight things like SB 317, which "repeals the provisions that make it unlawful for any person to willfully and knowingly make a written or oral false statement concerning biological paternity in or in support of a certificate, record, report, or in the act of surrender of parental rights."
Yikes!!!
Larry
Proud member of the Sperm Cartel
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
