abolishing unilateral no-fault divorce by initiative?

[missypea]

Abolish unilateral no-fault divorce by initiative?

Thoughts?

No fault divorces save time, energy, resources, money, emotional craziness, etc.

No fault divorces allow two adults to end a contract without pointing fingers and tearing up their lives anymore than they already are.


My thought is that abolishing no fault divorce is a nutty notion.



:2wave:

 

[middleagedgamer]

No fault divorces save time, energy, resources, money, emotional craziness, etc.

Presumption of fault will do the same.

No fault divorces allow two adults to end a contract without pointing fingers and tearing up their lives anymore than they already are.

So will requiring the petitioner to accept fault unless they can prove it.

Presumption of fault will do the same, but have the added benefit of eliminating gold-diggers.

 

[samsmart]

Then, you are on an island.

Try lobbying your legislature to pass a law recognizing criminal history as a protected class in employment. You'll get laughed out of the building.

So do you think we should sterilize criminals from breeding children?

I asked you what gauge we SHOULD use.

I don't think a person's gauge as a parent is relative to a person's gauge as a domestic partner, and thus is irrelevant.

Until then, I'm right, and you're wrong.

Not until you factor in the costs of living and deduct them from that pay, you aren't.

When it is time for divorce, would you like to have mandatory mediations before going to court?

I want whatever will get those two people separated and divorce as fast as possible.

 

[middleagedgamer]

So do you think we should sterilize criminals from breeding children?

You can't do that. They have 8th Amendment rights.

I don't think a person's gauge as a parent is relative to a person's gauge as a domestic partner, and thus is irrelevant.

Then, what IS relevant?

Not until you factor in the costs of living and deduct them from that pay, you aren't.

Poverty level is the minimum cost of living!

If you meet the poverty level, you can meet the minimum cost of living!

Seriously, is this the first time you've ever heard the word "poverty?"

I want whatever will get those two people separated and divorce as fast as possible.

What do you think will do that?

Don't tell me what you think WON'T do that; tell me what you think WILL do that.

 

[missypea]

Presumption of fault will do the same.


So will requiring the petitioner to accept fault unless they can prove it.

Presumption of fault will do the same, but have the added benefit of eliminating gold-diggers.

No, it doesn't save resources. You tie up the courts with a he said/she said game of nonsense. You use money and other resources because you aren't adult enough to figure it out between you.

As far as all that gold your referring to....If you didn't have a prenup, I'm guessing you acquired your gold while you were married which makes it half hers.

That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

 

[Jerry]

Good for you. However, there is still work that needs to be done if we are to clean up divorce courts.

99% of these problems can be solved in one fell swoop if we pass one of my two proposed amendments.

So, to that end, can you please tell me, specifically, what problems these amendments will actually create, or, specifically, how they will not solve the various problems already in place?

If you posted the exact text of proposed amendments, I must have missed it.

 

[samsmart]

Then, what IS relevant?

Whether or not they want to remain married to their domestic partner is the only thing that should be relevant in a divorce case.

Poverty level is the minimum cost of living!

If you meet the poverty level, you can meet the minimum cost of living!

Seriously, is this the first time you've ever heard the word "poverty?"

So show me the numbers in the cost of rent/mortgage, car payment, fuel payment, costs in food, and utilities.

What do you think will do that?

Don't tell me what you think WON'T do that; tell me what you think WILL do that.

Allowing no-fault divorces.

 

[middleagedgamer]

No, it doesn't save resources. You tie up the courts with a he said/she said game of nonsense.

If it's his word against her's, they cancel each other out. That's not a preponderance of the evidence.

You use money and other resources because you aren't adult enough to figure it out between you.

No, civil courts will require all investigations to be carried out, either by the plaintiff, or by a government agency that handles that kind of thing, like the EEOC, which is not tying up the courts; it's tying up the executive branch.

As far as all that gold your referring to....If you didn't have a prenup, I'm guessing you acquired your gold while you were married which makes it half hers.

That's just the way the cookie crumbles.

If there is no fault, then there should be no foul. You should only split the assets that you acquired together, and leave the assets you had before you married in the hands of their respective acquirers.

But, it's not like that. When we get married, what's mine is yours, what's yours is mine. At that point, it's the big bang (as Stephen Hawking puts it, the point at which events before do not influence events after; everything is reset).

 

[middleagedgamer]

Whether or not they want to remain married to their domestic partner is the only thing that should be relevant in a divorce case.

And yet, that is not a plausible option. What do we do with the assets if they can't decide on their own?

THAT'S what the divorce courts were actually invented for.

So show me the numbers in the cost of rent/mortgage, car payment, fuel payment, costs in food, and utilities.

Rent and utilities cost about 30% of your income. If they end up costing less, you can get Section 8 Federal Housing Assitance.

Food should cost about 15%. If you cannot get that much on the thrifty food plan (the food plan used to determine the cost of food at the poverty level), you can get food stamps for the rest.

And so on.

Allowing no-fault divorces.

That's bull. If allowing no-fault divorces is so easy, then why are no-fault divorces so long, tedious, expensive, and emotionally destroying?

 

[middleagedgamer]

If you posted the exact text of proposed amendments, I must have missed it.

Go back and read the thread. You missed them.

 

[Jerry]

Go back and read the thread. You missed them.

I re-read the thread before I posted my response....didn't see any amendments.

 

[middleagedgamer]

I re-read the thread before I posted my response....didn't see any amendments.

You had TWO MINUTES to re-read everything. Did you actually read it, or did you just gloss over it?

 

[middleagedgamer]

Guys, I think we're misunderstanding each other. I think all these thoughts have gotten jumbled up in our heads.

I'd like to start over. At this point, it's the big bang; events before have no bearing on events after; everything is reset.

If you agree to that, I will do a new opening post, and we can (hopefully) better understand each other.

Deal?

 

[Jerry]

You had TWO MINUTES to re-read everything. Did you actually read it, or did you just gloss over it?

According to the time stamps I had 64 minutes, not 2. Besides, posts are hardly heavy reading.

I just went through you posts again, I don't see anything in your posts which looks like something that would appear in an amendment. I see one-liners, accusations...but no legal-speak presented in a professional format.

 

[samsmart]

That's bull. If allowing no-fault divorces is so easy, then why are no-fault divorces so long, tedious, expensive, and emotionally destroying?

Because DIVORCES are long, tedious, expensive, and emotionally destroying, whether or not there's someone at fault or not. That's one reason why 1) I don't want people to marry too lightly, in case they decide to divorce later, and 2) if they divorce they should do so as expeditiously as possible.

Divorces suck and are hurtful and painful. That's just the way it is. And it happens to a majority of people. That's just the way it is too.

Which is why I, personally, don't believe in marriage. I'm never getting married. But I don't need to marry a person in order to love them. If that person no longer loves me, I don't want her to feel obligated to stay with me just because of a ring and piece of paper or because the law makes it difficult for her to leave. I want her to be able to go. To do anything otherwise is equivalent to slavery or indentured servitude, in my mind.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

If there is no fault, then there should be no foul. You should only split the assets that you acquired together, and leave the assets you had before you married in the hands of their respective acquirers.

But, it's not like that. When we get married, what's mine is yours, what's yours is mine. At that point, it's the big bang (as Stephen Hawking puts it, the point at which events before do not influence events after; everything is reset).

It is exactly as it should be, unless you are discounting the value of the wife's role as partner to her husband. A good wife supports her husband's career and maintains their assets, which requires a lot of work; a good husband recognizes this fact and thus the fact that she deserves her share of their assets. Since we're talking about "no-fault" divorce here, it should be the default assumption that both spouses were good spouses, no matter what their presence in divorce court would otherwise suggest.

The problem here is not that two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women or even that the court system can be seen as encouraging this, but the principle of no-fault divorce itself, which removes a major incentive for married couples to work to sustain their marriage.

 

[samsmart]

The problem here is not that two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women or even that the court system can be seen as encouraging this, but the principle of no-fault divorce itself, which removes a major incentive for married couples to work to sustain their marriage.

But I don't think that no-fault divorce is inherently bad. If we let people get married for capricious reasons, then we should let them get divorced for reasons that are just as capricious.

 

[middleagedgamer]

But I don't think that no-fault divorce is inherently bad. If we let people get married for capricious reasons, then we should let them get divorced for reasons that are just as capricious.

No-fault divorce is like prohibiting alcohol: It had the best of intentions, but it did more harm than good.

A man with a million dollars worth of assets marries a woman with ten thousand dollars worth of assets. She files for unilateral, no-fault divorce. His assets become only $500,000, and the man never asked for that!

If he had liabilities of $100,000, then his net worth goes from $900,000 to $400,000, instead of $450,000, because he does not halve his liabilities like he does his assets.

That's the biggest problem with no-fault divorce. If the divorce court had taken the following mentality, I'd probably be more receptive to the no-fault doctrine:

So, you want to divorce your husband without fault? Fine. But, he keeps that million dollars worth of assets that he had before he married you. All assets you acquired while married will be sold, any debts that you two incured as a couple will be paid off in their entirety, and any remainder will be split even-steven amongst you. If you, as a couple do not have enough assets to pay off the dually-incurred debts, you, the no-fault petitioner, must be solely responsible for the leftover debts.

Also, he pays no alimony; you can get a job if you want money. He also gets custody of the kids unless you can PROVE that you'd be a better parent.

Those are the terms of your no-fault divorce; take it or leave it.

 

[samsmart]

No-fault divorce is like prohibiting alcohol: It had the best of intentions, but it did more harm than good.

A man with a million dollars worth of assets marries a woman with ten thousand dollars worth of assets. She files for unilateral, no-fault divorce. His assets become only $500,000, and the man never asked for that!

If he had liabilities of $100,000, then his net worth goes from $900,000 to $400,000, instead of $450,000, because he does not halve his liabilities like he does his assets.

That's the biggest problem with no-fault divorce. If the divorce court had taken the following mentality, I'd probably be more receptive to the no-fault doctrine:

Then the man should have either 1) demanded a pre-nup or 2) hired a better lawyer. Those are much easier and better solutions than to change all of divorce law based on this case.

 

[middleagedgamer]

Then the man should have either 1) demanded a pre-nup or

So, what's to stop him from demanding that the pre-nup include that she cannot file for divorce at any time for any reason?

What's there to stop him from including in the pre-nup that, if they DO get divorced, that he gets everything, including the assets that she had before they got married, and she's left with nothing but her own misery?

Do you see the problems that are inherent to this?

2) hired a better lawyer.

Even the best of lawyers can only practice up to the limits established by law (whether that law be constitutional, case, common, or statutory).

Those are much easier and better solutions than to change all of divorce law based on this case.

Specifically, what is wrong with being allowed to divorce a person, unilaterally, no fuss no muss, if they are willing to accept fault for the divorce?

After all, for all intents and purposes, it is the petitioner's fault for the divorce! SHE'S the one who fell out of love with her husband! SHE's the one who wanted the relationship terminated! She SHOULD be considered at-fault unless she can prove otherwise!

How is it NOT her fault that SHE petitioned for the divorce! If he hasn't hit her or cheated on her, then he should not be punished by loosing assets just because SHE doesn't like him, anymore.

 

[samsmart]

So, what's to stop him from demanding that the pre-nup include that she cannot file for divorce at any time for any reason?

For the same reason the state cannot outlaw marriage. Divorce is as much of a right as marriage is.

What's there to stop him from including in the pre-nup that, if they DO get divorced, that he gets everything, including the assets that she had before they got married, and she's left with nothing but her own misery?

If she agrees to that, then fine. She'd be foolish to, but fine.

Do you see the problems that are inherent to this?

No.

Even the best of lawyers can only practice up to the limits established by law (whether that law be constitutional, case, common, or statutory).

Okay.

Specifically, what is wrong with being allowed to divorce a person, unilaterally, no fuss no muss, if they are willing to accept fault for the divorce?

After all, for all intents and purposes, it is the petitioner's fault for the divorce! SHE'S the one who fell out of love with her husband! SHE's the one who wanted the relationship terminated! She SHOULD be considered at-fault unless she can prove otherwise!

How is it NOT her fault that SHE petitioned for the divorce! If he hasn't hit her or cheated on her, then he should not be punished by loosing assets just because SHE doesn't like him, anymore.

Why should she be punished with loss of assets just because she doesn't like him anymore?

 

[middleagedgamer]

For the same reason the state cannot outlaw marriage. Divorce is as much of a right as marriage is.

Says who?

No.

Then, stop posting, because you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

Why should she be punished with loss of assets just because she doesn't like him anymore?

I could give a rat's ass if she doesn't like him anymore. The problem is, acting on said dislike.

You can be attracted to little kids if you want; it's when you actually start having sex with them that it becomes a problem.

You can be racist if you want; it's when you start refusing to give blacks jobs in the company that you are head of personnel of that you've done something wrong.

 

[samsmart]

Says who?

Because forced marriage is a type of slavery, which is illegal in this country.

Then, stop posting, because you obviously have no clue what you're talking about.

Or there aren't really any problems and you're the one who has no clue as to what you're talking about.

I could give a rat's ass if she doesn't like him anymore. The problem is, acting on said dislike.

You can be attracted to little kids if you want; it's when you actually start having sex with them that it becomes a problem.

You can be racist if you want; it's when you start refusing to give blacks jobs in the company that you are head of personnel of that you've done something wrong.[/QUOTE]

So you're equating divorce to pedophilia and racism?

Really?

Is that what you're really trying to do?

 

[middleagedgamer]

Because forced marriage is a type of slavery, which is illegal in this country.

Nobody forced you to get married in the first place.

Also, if you want divorce, the court will only stop you to the point needed to make the other spouse whole. Just like, you can breach a regular contract if you want, and the courts will only give specific performance in the ensuing breach of contract case if there is no way to make the plaintiff whole with an award of mere monetary damages.

Or there aren't really any problems and you're the one who has no clue as to what you're talking about.

PROVE that they are not problematic.

So you're equating divorce to pedophilia and racism?

Really?

Is that what you're really trying to do?

I am comparing "there's a difference between having an emotion and acting on that emotion" to "there's a difference between having an emotion and acting on that emotion."

 

[samsmart]

Nobody forced you to get married in the first place.

And nobody should be able to stop a person from getting a divorce.

Also, if you want divorce, the court will only stop you to the point needed to make the other spouse whole. Just like, you can breach a regular contract if you want, and the courts will only give specific performance in the ensuing breach of contract case if there is no way to make the plaintiff whole with an award of mere monetary damages.

So you want to ensure that marriages are a contract then? Fine. Do what I suggested earlier and force all couples to get pre-nups before they get married to ensure that said contract is spelled out before a possible breach is incurred.

PROVE that they are not problematic.

It is my official policy to not prove a negative until Glenn Beck proves he did not rape and murder a girl in 1990.

I am comparing "there's a difference between having an emotion and acting on that emotion" to "there's a difference between having an emotion and acting on that emotion."

And what's so wrong with acting on emotion in order to get a divorce? Wait. I already know the answer: Nothing.