NPO: New Jersey Reforms Alimony Law — A Bit

Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2014-09-21 18:50

Article here. Excerpt:

'It's only a small victory, but a victory nonetheless. Last Wednesday, Governor Chris Christie signed a bill to reform New Jersey’s very out of date alimony laws. Of course divorce lawyers resisted with every fiber of their beings, but the bill received strong bi-partisan support in the state legislature. Here’s one article on the subject (Washington Times, 9/11/14).

The new law has a short reach. It confines the duration of an alimony order to the length of the marriage as long as it’s under 20 years. Marriages longer than 20 years that end in divorce can still result in permanent alimony for the lower-earning spouse. The law also permits greater leeway in modifying alimony orders, for example, if the paying spouse is unemployed longer than 90 days. Except in unusual circumstances, payers will not be required to pay past the usual age of retirement, i.e. 65 or 66. Alimony will now be considered “transitional,” meaning that recipients will be expected to seek and obtain gainful employment.

In short, the bill is a half measure that, in our usual democratic process, satisfies neither reform advocates nor divorce lawyers seeking to maintain their own cash flow and their comrades in arms, radical feminists seeking to maintain the maximum cash flow from men to women. It’s nowhere near what it should be, but it’s better than nothing.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/11/new-jersey-updates-alimony-laws/#comment-1599477925:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but... there ought to be no alimony, period, paid to anyone after a divorce.  As the article says, at one point it may have made sense but even back then, unlimited length of payment from one "spouse" (i.e., the husband) to the other (i.e., the wife) was ludicrous.

Women living off husbands today *choose* to be stay-home moms; the work world isn't just open to them, it's wide-open.  They should be getting zilch, post-divorce.  The time such women spend being stay-home moms is indeed, contrary to feminists and traditionalists alike, well-compensated in the form of housing, food, presents at holidays and other times, clothing, the husband's employer-provided health insurance which he pays part of in contributory premiums (failing that, gov't health insurance indirectly paid for by the husband's taxes, as well as via taxes paid by other sources such as corporations and institutions founded and/or run by men), and so on.  If "Mrs. Jones" decides to leave her hubby for the UPS guy, she has the nerve to lay claim to her ex's income and retirement savings -- in NJ, indefinitely only until this law was passed, and getting the kid(s), also child support money from her victim/ex.  And, such women would say it's all good, perfectly fair.  Hardly.

What a racket.  What's amazing is how so many men keep falling for this kind of rope-a-dope play, over and over.  That the marriage rate is as high as it is in the US, much less NJ, is what's astounding.  If as feminists often insist that marriage is a bad deal for women, then tell me, why does it seem they're the ones consistently pushing for it?  How often do you hear men talking about how they really wish their gf would just make up her mind and agree to marry him, or better yet, ask him to marry her? (Can there be anything more ridiculous than person A fairly begging person B to *ask* person A to do something?  This is how obviously outdated an institution it is, predicated on assumptions abt the dist'n of power between the sexes and under the law that simply are no longer true.)  The typical woman cannot wait to get to the altar, simply b/c she knows in the whole deal, the cards are stacked way in her favor should there be legal issues of any kind wherein her interests as an individual conflict w/ her husband's.  Likewise, men who know what's really going on know that a "traditional marriage arrangement" is Russian roulette for him and a jackpot for her.

If a man does get married these days, at least let him know the kind of risks he is taking.  May I suggest he limit himself only to women w/ a solid track record of mature, responsible behavior who are either past childbearing age or who have had all the kids they want (and are all over 21 *and* not in college)/clearly shown they don't want kids, and have very compatible personalities, sex drives, values, and interests.  I.e., low divorce-chance-index.  And oh yes: she works, likes to work, isn't lazy, and agrees that women who allow men to "rent" them either w/in marriage or on a per-encounter basis (e.g.: she acts like dating entails man-paying-for-everything and should he think that's not fair, she immediately decides he's not a "contender", for that reason alone, or as part of a bigger assessment of him).  And, she must walk the talk, not just talk it.  Anything less, then I ask the man, why would you take the chance when entering a contractual obligation so much slanted vs. you?  Only by mitigating the standard pitfall factors can marriage as administered today be reasonably safe for a man to enter into.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Sun, 2014-09-21 20:32

Many people think alimony law reform involves "simply changing the gender words." So that would mean that what used to read "husband" now reads "spouse," and what would previously read "wife" now reads "spouse." But that doesn't do it. Because the law inherently includes gender roles, notably husband earns the money and wife stays at home and raises kids. Which means that husband is the one who pays alimony, in by far most cases, not the wife. The changes need to be on the level of gender expectations, not simply wording tweaks, or changes in the number of years that alimony should be paid. Alimony should only be paid in those situations where one ex-spouse is unable to work, or has to go through a period of retraining in order to be gainfully employed. Otherwise no alimony should be awarded, period.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by redwoodwriter on Sun, 2014-09-21 22:40

men are getting caught in a dilemma between wanting what our forefathers had, a real 'forever' marriage, and the enema the courts have decided we are entitled to, also known as divorce (amerikan style).

'ah yes, divorce...from the latin word meaning to remove one's genitals through his wallet'. Robin Williams.

he died of depression, officially.

$25 mil >>>>> $0 in just a few months(?), from alimony and a very expensive new wife? yeah, depression kinda nails it I guess, in amerika today. princesses got to be supported, no matter the cost to anyone else. all hail feminism!

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by daveinga on Mon, 2014-09-22 16:33