abolishing unilateral no-fault divorce by initiative?

[middleagedgamer]

Sounds kinda like an attempt to make women dependent on men, and to give non-working women (who may have wanted to work but were not allowed to or told not to) no recourse if they want to get out of an emotionally or physically abusive relationship.

If it's abusive, then there's fault. Then, she would have satisfied the "at-fault UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE" provision of my plan.

In short, it's sexist.

It's justice. 1/3 of all divorces, under this plan, will require the man to prove his claim.

Whether or not you want to make it legally impossible for someone to get out of a marriage, that's what your idea encourages, and even you admit it would affect women much more than men.

It would affect the petitioner for marriage a lot more than it would affect the one on the receiving end.

 

[Pal]

Then, she would have satisfied the "at-fault UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE" provision of my plan.

You can't prove emotional abusiveness and you can't always prove physical abusiveness, and it shouldn't be the burden of the victims of either of these things to prove themselves.

 

[middleagedgamer]

First of all, I find it rather inexcusable that the server is too busy at 4 o'clock in the morning in the central time zone. Shouldn't a majority of people be in bed at this hour? There is no excuse!

That being said, I could continue to break down Pal's comments, section for section, and provide intelligent counter-arguments against them, but there was one part in his post that just stuck out like a booger hanging out of a nose, and a stupid booger at that. I CAN'T provide an intelligent argument against the rest of his post, because this particular part made me dumber, just by reading it.

and it shouldn't be the burden of the victims of either of these things to prove themselves.

Oh my f*cking god!

Did you even pay attention to the sh*t that you typed?

The burden of proof should not lie on the accuser? What the F*CK are you smoking?

I'm going to sue you for assault and charge you ten thousand dollars. Oh, you didn't assault me? PROVE IT! The burden of proof lies on the accused, not the accuser! So, PROVE that you didn't assault me!

That has got to be the most ridiculous, most absurd, most retarded comment I've ever seen on the entire planet, online or off, message board or chat room alike, and believe me, I've heard some doozies.

Pal, it's official: You have absolutely NO credibility and you have NO idea what you're talking about! Please, stop posting in this thread; you're embarrassing yourself. Please, take what little dignity you have left and turn tail.

 

[missypea]

You can't prove emotional abusiveness and you can't always prove physical abusiveness, and it shouldn't be the burden of the victims of either of these things to prove themselves.

100% Correct.

I think you've hit the nail on the head for all of the emotional vomiting going on this thread.

 

[Pal]

Oh my f*cking god!

Did you even pay attention to the sh*t that you typed?

The burden of proof should not lie on the accuser? What the F*CK are you smoking?

I'm going to sue you for assault and charge you ten thousand dollars. Oh, you didn't assault me? PROVE IT! The burden of proof lies on the accused, not the accuser! So, PROVE that you didn't assault me!

That has got to be the most ridiculous, most absurd, most retarded comment I've ever seen on the entire planet, online or off, message board or chat room alike, and believe me, I've heard some doozies.

Pal, it's official: You have absolutely NO credibility and you have NO idea what you're talking about! Please, stop posting in this thread; you're embarrassing yourself. Please, take what little dignity you have left and turn tail.

Don't know why I'm surprised, once again you've shown you lack the emotional capacity to participate in a debate without flying off the handle the moment someone disagrees with your misogynistic ideas.

I am aware that the burden of proof lies with the accuser, what I was saying, since you didn't seem interested in inquiring, was that a victim of these things should not have to prove themselves in order to get out of a relationship, as you seem to believe. Of course if there's going to be a severe disparity in the division of assets based solely on a claim like this there needs to be some kind of proof

But you want me out of the thread? Fine, I don't see any more point in debating this with you either, I'll just report your last post to the mods and be on my way.

 

[Regicollis]

I can't see why divorce courts should be concerned with who is to blame for the divorce. This would just turn into an ugly blame-game that benefits no one.

People should not be forced to remain in a relationship if they don't want to. Thus divorces should be given upon application from one of the spouses.

As for dividing the assets the general rule should be that all assets are divided equally. Typically a marriage functions in a such way that the partners contribute to each other, either through work in the home or through income from work outside the home. People who wants things to be different should get a prenuptial agreement.

As for who will get custody of the children it shold be decided on a case-by-case basis with the best interests of the child being the prime objective for the assesment. Often the case will be that both parents are equally capable of raising the child and then the court should look into things like which parent has taken most interest in the child prior to the divorce, is living with one parent going to provide the child with better possibilities of being close to its friends or to stay in the same school and what parent the child has the closest connection to. Also the court should pay special attention to the wishes of the child itself if it is old and developed enough to have a say in the matter.

As for dividing the debt in a divorce I don't think it should be done at all. If mr. and mrs. Smith took out a mortgage while married they should still owe the money in solidum when they are not married, that is both still owe the money, the creditor can claim all the money from either of the debtors if he wishes so and a debtor who has paid off more of her share of the debt should have a corresponding claim at the other creditor. As for debts incurred by only one of the spouses it should still be the sole responsibility of that spouse to pay off the debt.

Furthermore I think that divorce courts should rubberstamp any agreement regarding sharing the assets and custody over the child that people are able to agree on themselves, unless these agreements are completely insane. A mutual agreement regarding these matters are going to provide the best result for all parties involved.

I would favour making it more restrictive to get married. For instance I think all couples should be told about prenuptials and forced to decide whether or not to have one before they are allowed to marry. Furthermore I think there should be a trial period of every marriage, for instance the first five years. If someone files for divorce within the trial period the assets should be divided as if the spouses had a prenuptial agreement stating that they don't want any splitting of assets.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

People should not be forced to remain in a relationship if they don't want to.

That's the main difference between being "in a relationship" and being married.

 

[liblady]

California has one of the easiest constitutional amendment procedures in the nation. Ten percent of the voters propose, and a simple majority (not 3/5, not 2/3, but a simple majority) ratify the amendment. The only thing that makes it harder than a regular statute is that the proposal process requires 10% of the signatures, instead of 8% for statutory initiatives.

I just checked the 2009 estimated census for California:

California QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

About fifty percent of them are women. It doesn't state the percentage of men, but it should come without saying that there are 50% men in California.

This means, if an initiative to abolish unilateral no-fault divorce is voted across sexual lines (all men vote yes, all women vote no), it should not pass. However, in any given area, there are some female sympathizers with the men who suffer under the feminist agenda. If you want to divorce your husband just because you don't like to look at his face, anymore, you shouldn't be allowed to take half his assets without taking any of his debts, therefore, slashing his net worth by a tremendous amount. There are some women out there who agree that that's wrong.

Using the few women who sympathize with the men, we might can get the majority we need to amend the California Constitution with the following amendment:

"Divorce, in the state of California, shall only be granted at the consent of both divorcees, or if a divorcee who is not consenting has committed either domestic violence, child abuse, or adultery, without consent of the petitioning party."

Notice, that last clause, "without consent of the petitioning party." If you agree, beforehand, "hey, let's try swinging" there's no adultery. If you say "hey, let's do some BDSM," there's no domestic violence.

Thoughts?

um.....why do you assume it's just HIS net worth? wouldn't that be a case by case thing?

 

[Regicollis]

That's the main difference between being "in a relationship" and being married.

Marriage is whatever we decide it to be through legislation and social norms. Currently there is no mainstream western definition of marriage that makes it impossible to get out of.

Marriage is just a specific form of relationship. Why would anyone force people to remain married against their will?

 

[Jerry]

Marriage is whatever we decide it to be through legislation and social norms. Currently there is no mainstream western definition of marriage that makes it impossible to get out of.

Marriage is just a specific form of relationship. Why would anyone force people to remain married against their will?

Their desire to brake their vow and leave the union could be wrong and unjustified.

 

[Regicollis]

Their desire to brake their vow and leave the union could be wrong and unjustified.

How can a desire to no longer be with someone be "wrong and unjustified"? Being married or in another form of relationship with someone is not a right, it is a privilege that can be revoked at all times.

 

[Jerry]

How can a desire to no longer be with someone be "wrong and unjustified"?

When it will harm others.

If you are raising children then you owe it to those children to keep the home stable and intact until they are grown.

If you don't have children then the state has no reason to give a **** about your relationship and you can do whatever you want.

 

[Regicollis]

When it will harm others.

If you are raising children then you owe it to those children to keep the home stable and intact until they are grown.

If you don't have children then the state has no reason to give a **** about your relationship and you can do whatever you want.

Do you think the best solution for the children is to live in a home with two parents who resent each other? I don't.

A divorce don't have to be a disaster for the children. If the parents are able to cooperate on visitation and custody (which most divorced parents are) the children will not suffer.

 

[Jerry]

Do you think the best solution for the children is to live in a home with two parents who resent each other? I don't.

I agree, the parent's are in the wrong for resenting each-other.

Neither couple should be allowed to simply hoist anker and leave. They should be legally compelled to address the problems, the causes for the resent, and follow a program to resolve those issues.

A divorce don't have to be a disaster for the children.

Even when a divorce is a the best course of action, a divorce is always a disaster for the children. No exceptions.

If the parents are able to cooperate on visitation and custody (which most divorced parents are) the children will not suffer.

As compared to having both parents in the same stable home, yes, they will suffer. They now have access to only one parent at a time, not both together. They now live in a single parent home unless one parent takes another spouse. In which case the children now have the divided attention of that parent, conflicts with the new step-parent (especially in the teen years), conflicts with any step-children. If that parent has a child with their new spouse, the children now get to be rejected as they watch that parent replace them.

Alternatively, the children would have to tolerate their parent's boy/girl friends, more split attention and further problems.

 

[rivrrat]

Do you think the best solution for the children is to live in a home with two parents who resent each other? I don't.

A divorce don't have to be a disaster for the children. If the parents are able to cooperate on visitation and custody (which most divorced parents are) the children will not suffer.

Indeed. IMO, the children suffer much more when they're forced to be with two people who obviously don't want to be together.

Staying together simply because you 'made a vow' has to be one of the most selfish, stubborn, harmful, and illogical things two people could do to each other. Ditto for "staying together for the children".

 

[Jerry]

Indeed. IMO, the children suffer much more when they're forced to be with two people who obviously don't want to be together.

Staying together simply because you 'made a vow' has to be one of the most selfish, stubborn, harmful, and illogical things two people could do to each other. Ditto for "staying together for the children".

 

[rivrrat]

I will not and you can't make me. So put that in your authoritarian pipe and smoke it after shoving it up your ass. :lol:

 

[Jerry]

I will not and you can't make me. So put that in your authoritarian pipe and smoke it after shoving it up your ass. :lol:

I love it when you talk dirty :mrgreen:

 

[rivrrat]

I love it when you talk dirty :mrgreen:

I know you do, Kinky McKinkerson

 

[samsmart]

When it will harm others.

Does this mean the state can dissolve marriages when it is harmful to others, despite what the married couple decides?

If you are raising children then you owe it to those children to keep the home stable and intact until they are grown.

Yes, but that still doesn't demand that the parents have to be married in order to provide stable, intact homes to their children. Indeed, the parents being forced to remain in a marriage that one or both have no desire to be in could be the cause of instability in a home, and thus a divorce could actually benefit everybody involved in the family.

If you don't have children then the state has no reason to give a **** about your relationship and you can do whatever you want.

I think the state should have no reason to give a **** about people's relationships even when they do have children.

 

[Mell]

''all men vote yes, all women vote no''

There might be a good reason why all women vote no then. Staying married should be completely optional.



''Using the few women who sympathize with the men...''

Women who sympathise with men?? They are pretty weird, considering that it is women who are at the butt end of gender discrimination. Turkeys voting for Christmas.



''"hey, let's try swinging" there's no adultery. If you say "hey, let's do some BDSM," there's no domestic violence.''

But, is there enough of anything good, to make a life long partnership work? If not, there is no point in staying in it.


'' Instead, I'd rather make an amendment that divorcees have to share the debt they incur as a couple. ''

That would create complications though, because if there are children, then usually somebodies(usually the womans) earning potential decreases, because of dedication to child bearing, childcare, housekeeping.



''And, how, exactly, would you make it more difficult to get married?''

Make marriage lessons compulsary. Before getting married, couple could learn how to communicate in times of stress, how to resolve conflict...



''Mr. and Mrs. Smith''

F*ck, I hate that name changing custom women so readily submit to. How did we let ourselves become so accepting of things which reduce our status and identity... Likely, there is still some kind of social pressure women give into. Seems likely, because I too often get abused(verbally) for my daughters double name.



''That's if I didn't outlaw it completely as a legal institution and instead made it only a religious institution.''

How would this provide financial protection for mothers and children? If mothers can choose to dedicate their time to their children, then this is in the interest of child welfare.



''...the absurd hypothesis that people would vote on gender. ''
Yeah, that is absurd! Many people surely have more common sense than that.



''Pre-nups are more than capable of handling debt sharing and asset splitting''

How would the law the prevent women from making naive agreements? Before having children, they would be unaware of what it entails, to a large extent.

 

[samsmart]

'' Instead, I'd rather make an amendment that divorcees have to share the debt they incur as a couple. ''

That would create complications though, because if there are children, then usually somebodies(usually the womans) earning potential decreases, because of dedication to child bearing, childcare, housekeeping.

But couples, even unmarried ones, get tax credits to offset the loss in earning potential that comes from caring for and raising a child.

''And, how, exactly, would you make it more difficult to get married?''

Make marriage lessons compulsary. Before getting married, couple could learn how to communicate in times of stress, how to resolve conflict...

That would be an excellent thing to do.

''Mr. and Mrs. Smith''

F*ck, I hate that name changing custom women so readily submit to. How did we let ourselves become so accepting of things which reduce our status and identity... Likely, there is still some kind of social pressure women give into. Seems likely, because I too often get abused(verbally) for my daughters double name.

If I got married, I wouldn't want my wife to change her name. I've heard that since 9/11, there's all sorts of bull**** that can happen when a person changes their name, even when it's because they get married.

''That's if I didn't outlaw it completely as a legal institution and instead made it only a religious institution.''

How would this provide financial protection for mothers and children? If mothers can choose to dedicate their time to their children, then this is in the interest of child welfare.

Just because people can't get married doesn't mean they can't have children. Unmarried couples have children all the time right now, and those children get taken care of just fine.

''Pre-nups are more than capable of handling debt sharing and asset splitting''

How would the law the prevent women from making naive agreements? Before having children, they would be unaware of what it entails, to a large extent.

The same could be asked of men who make naive agreements. Life is uncertain sometimes, and people need to be more careful how they live it.

 

[Regicollis]

I agree, the parent's are in the wrong for resenting each-other.

The worst thing to do during a divorce is to start the blame game. This can cause red hot hostility that will most definitely harm the children. In most cases both spouses are good people who have done nothing wrong except marrying to someone they are not compatible with.

Neither couple should be allowed to simply hoist anker and leave. They should be legally compelled to address the problems, the causes for the resent, and follow a program to resolve those issues.

Relationship issues are not something you can simply fix like a leaky roof. In some cases the best solution to the differences between the spouses is to leave each other so they don't make each other and thus their children unhappy.

Actually forcing adults who has done nothing wrong except marrying the wrong one to take therapy is way too totalitarian for my taste.

Even when a divorce is a the best course of action, a divorce is always a disaster for the children. No exceptions.

Sometimes the disaster that was the marriage can make the divorce a relief for everyone involved.

As compared to having both parents in the same stable home, yes, they will suffer. They now have access to only one parent at a time, not both together. They now live in a single parent home unless one parent takes another spouse. In which case the children now have the divided attention of that parent, conflicts with the new step-parent (especially in the teen years), conflicts with any step-children. If that parent has a child with their new spouse, the children now get to be rejected as they watch that parent replace them.

A child don't need a traditional nuclear family taken out of a Norman Rockwell picture to grow up happy. What a child needs is love, guidance and protection and a parent that is forced to live with someone they are incompatible with don't have the necessary emotional resources to provide that.

Of course the best thing would be if all children grew up in loving homes with both parents but the world don't work that way as not all parents love each other. What you are proposing is to force families to live in love-less homes which will harm everyone, especially the children.

I don't know how far your totalitarian tendencies go, but unless you are ready to force people to live together against their will, your stubborn denial of divorce will only be on a legal level. Spouses who wants a divorce but are denied one will move away from each other, no matter if they are forced to be married or not. So your proposal will not provide a single two-parent home for the children, it will just provide two homes with a lot of added legal trouble.

 

[Mell]

''But couples, even unmarried ones, get tax credits to offset the loss in earning potential that comes from caring for and raising a child.''

Well yeah, but this doesnt provide enough protection. For example, a women marries a man. He encourages her to rely on him financially. She either wants to keep earning, or she takes him up on his kind and loving offer to give her her a life of leisure. She does not know this relationship will not last forever. Then, 10 years later they get divorced. She has missed out on 10 years work experience, so is worth less in the job market place. And, she has to retrain and spend time searching for a job...

And, if she has children, then the financial situation is even more severe. Even after divorce, her time will be taken up with childcare, cutting into the time she has available for working. Essentially, she likely wont have an earning potential she and her children can live on.

 

[samsmart]

''But couples, even unmarried ones, get tax credits to offset the loss in earning potential that comes from caring for and raising a child.''

Well yeah, but this doesnt provide enough protection. For example, a women marries a man. He encourages her to rely on him financially. She either wants to keep earning, or she takes him up on his kind and loving offer to give her her a life of leisure. She does not know this relationship will not last forever. Then, 10 years later they get divorced. She has missed out on 10 years work experience, so is worth less in the job market place. And, she has to retrain and spend time searching for a job...

And, if she has children, then the financial situation is even more severe. Even after divorce, her time will be taken up with childcare, cutting into the time she has available for working. Essentially, she likely wont have an earning potential she and her children can live on.

Maybe we should require couples to take out "divorce insurance" that they pay into and then can take funds from in case they ever divorce to help offset that.

I would say something along the lines of, "Well, let's implement a government program that pays mothers for raising children." However, that would lead to more welfare mothers who does nothing but breed more children we don't need. I also don't think we need to give tax breaks on people who use government services, something Bill Maher mentioned a few weeks ago on his show.

So maybe this kind of divorce insurance would be helpful in cases like that. I dunno.