Do you think divorce laws in this country should change?

In the media we have been hearing of a lot of rich men getting divorce and their wives getting half. Do you think it's fair that the spouse who has the most money should give half of their earnings or paying alimony until the ex spouse remarries?

I know my views on divorce laws is rare for women to have but I personally think it is unfair to make someone pay a monthly fee to someone they are not even married to anymore. I think a sum of money should be going to the spouse that makes less money to help them get back on their feet but only if they were a stay at home mother (or even father) other than that i think the ex should get nada. especially if they were working.

Alimony laws were created during a time when women stayed at home pretty much during their married life so they had nothing to live on after marriage. But nowadays most women are working and even if they didn't work during the marriage there is opportunity for them to work afterwards. And the same goes especially for men. i cannot imagine paying my ex-husband money until he remarries or after a certain time period in some states.

I think child support is the only thing that should owed after a divorce.

The courts are outdated, to them women are all opressed as much as the soil in Iowa is. Well this is why you get a pre-nup, or the fact that men need to get a prenup probably should tell them to not marry. Rich people attract whores like flies on sh*t. Marriage is a rigged system, anything that deals with a "minority," is a bad system if it goes to courts. They always pander to minorities, those bastards. For example the marriage has to be recognized by the State... And I am marrying a minority... BAD DEAL! If I wanted to get married without going through the wedding sh*t I would have to marry in front of a judge. This is the person who will take her side automatically if she goes nuts, or I get tired of her. I guess the best thing is that if these guys did not think to get a pre-nup then maybe they deserve to be taken advantage of? Maybe they asked for it.

It used to be where one could leave their spouse with nothing and that wasnt right. But I dont know about giving them half of everything or more sometimes. I think they should be able to get enough support but I dont think they should necessarily get half unless they were invovled in the procurement of those assets.

It used to be where one could leave their spouse with nothing and that wasnt right. But I dont know about giving them half of everything or more sometimes. I think they should be able to get enough support but I dont think they should necessarily get half unless they were invovled in the procurement of those assets.

sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

It used to be where one could leave their spouse with nothing and that wasnt right. But I dont know about giving them half of everything or more sometimes. I think they should be able to get enough support but I dont think they should necessarily get half unless they were invovled in the procurement of those assets.

dagreenfish

[QUOTE="dagreenfish"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

It used to be where one could leave their spouse with nothing and that wasnt right. But I dont know about giving them half of everything or more sometimes. I think they should be able to get enough support but I dont think they should necessarily get half unless they were invovled in the procurement of those assets.

helwa1988

These laws just make women out to be money hungry skets. Which is true, but we as a society should at least hide the fact. There are actually some women who like have money for themselves. In fact being one of those women who marry a man and take half is like the most upper class form of prostitution.

It used to be where one could leave their spouse with nothing and that wasnt right. But I dont know about giving them half of everything or more sometimes. I think they should be able to get enough support but I dont think they should necessarily get half unless they were invovled in the procurement of those assets.

sonicare

a simple solution to all this......... don't get married, seriously, people get married because thats what society tells them too,

Prenups already solve this.

Prenups already solve this.

-Sun_Tzu-

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Prenups already solve this.

helwa1988

I dont see the point of getting married if you need to do a pre-nup. Seems so pointless.

I think morals and values and basically PEOPLE should "change" in this country. Nobody cares about anyone any more. Never any real consequences with anything..

[QUOTE="helwa1988"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

Prenups already solve this.

-Sun_Tzu-

............ This is nothing but the men's fault in that example.. Maybe next time they should stop marrying trophy wives.. I hold no pity for those people.. The "horror" stories you hear of men losing tons of their money are men who often times choose trophy wives or women with out careers.. So its very much a lopsided afair when it comes to finances.. It their own fault in the end.sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]............ This is nothing but the men's fault in that example.. Maybe next time they should stop marrying trophy wives.. I hold no pity for those people.. The "horror" stories you hear of men losing tons of their money are men who often times choose trophy wives or women with out careers.. So its very much a lopsided afair when it comes to finances.. It their own fault in the end.Frame_Dragger

Yes and no.. I would argue that a Pre-Nup pretty much tells your spouse that you don't trust them in the end.. If you need a prenup, why get married at all to begin with?

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]............ This is nothing but the men's fault in that example.. Maybe next time they should stop marrying trophy wives.. I hold no pity for those people.. The "horror" stories you hear of men losing tons of their money are men who often times choose trophy wives or women with out careers.. So its very much a lopsided afair when it comes to finances.. It their own fault in the end.sSubZerOo

Yes and no.. I would argue that a Pre-Nup pretty much tells your spouse that you don't trust them in the end.. If you need a prenup, why get married at all to begin with?

............ This is nothing but the men's fault in that example.. Maybe next time they should stop marrying trophy wives.. I hold no pity for those people.. The "horror" stories you hear of men losing tons of their money are men who often times choose trophy wives or women with out careers.. So its very much a lopsided afair when it comes to finances.. It their own fault in the end.sSubZerOo

I think marriage, civil unions, domestic contracts, or what have you should be eliminated from the government. It's not the government's responsibility to recognize who we love.Genetic_Code

............ This is nothing but the men's fault in that example.. Maybe next time they should stop marrying trophy wives.. I hold no pity for those people.. The "horror" stories you hear of men losing tons of their money are men who often times choose trophy wives or women with out careers.. So its very much a lopsided afair when it comes to finances.. It their own fault in the end.sSubZerOo

I totally agree. If you want to leave and the other person had done nothing to break marriage vows, you're welcome to walk out the door with the clothes on your back, any personal items that are exclusively tied to you (say, old family photos of your parents/grandparents), and anything that your former spouse chooses to let you keep. It's harsh, but YOU broke the contract. On the other hand, if you can prove that the other person broke the marriage contract (say, cheating), then you should be entitled the lion's share of property. Maybe not quite to the extreme as walking away from the marriage because "you're unhappy," but much higher than 50/50. The final form of divorce would be mutually agreed divorces. Property/assets would be divided by the divorcing couple. If there is an asset/assets that cannot be agreed upon, they shall be sold on the market with the divorcees getting 50% of the net revenue each. I realize my first two suggestions are not going to be popular, so I'd be satisfied if just the last part became the standard for divorce.LongZhiZi

I think they should be changed, and I personally believe they will be with time. I understand the logic that the one sitting at home and raising the children is decreasing their earning potential, however I don't believe that's enough to warrant 75 million dollars or millions of dollars in any case. When couples split they should split what they already own and move on, but there should be special cases when millions of dollars are concerned.

Somebody should not be able to sit on their ass after a 10 year marriage collecting alimony along with child support along with being rewarded half of everything else just because they didn't work within that period of time and took time to raise the kids. In Canada your ex can actually claim half of your Canada pension when you go to draw it, that's how disgusting it can get in many countries.

Divorce laws need to be changed, not just in the U.S but also in other countries and I really dont know why it's so hard to figure out, split what you already own, split the child support equally, give joint custody of the child and house the child with the parent who can provide for it and make the other parent pay child support off the childs actual needs and make sure it's equal between parents. (without bias towards women or men) Alimoney should only be used in extreme cases where the other person cannot possibly find a job to support themselves, and the moment they find a job or move in with somebody else for a certian period of time, that alimoney should end.

I know it can get a lot more complicated, and I'm sure you could pick this apart and say "what if" and really there's a bunch of crap that could be said about it. I just think it's total crap as is.

I think there should be a harsher penalty on the couple who get's the divorce.

These laws just make women out to be money hungry skets. Which is true, but we as a society should at least hide the fact. There are actually some women who like have money for themselves. In fact being one of those women who marry a man and take half is like the most upper class form of prostitution.

Ilovegames1992

I think you should be given what you came into the marriage with, what you made, and that's it.

I think they should be changed, and I personally believe they will be with time. I understand the logic that the one sitting at home and raising the children is decreasing their earning potential, however I don't believe that's enough to warrant 75 million dollars or millions of dollars in any case.

XileLord

[QUOTE="XileLord"]

I think they should be changed, and I personally believe they will be with time. I understand the logic that the one sitting at home and raising the children is decreasing their earning potential, however I don't believe that's enough to warrant 75 million dollars or millions of dollars in any case.

Ninja-Hippo

I don't think its fair. Mel Gibsons wife for example got $250 Million! of mel gibsons savings . Its completely unacceptable. What I want is for people to part with their own individual assets, and maybe pay alimony. If they're rich, maybe $50,000 per year, but that is IT.DeX2010

if you would like it so that what you earn belongs to you, and what your partner earns belongs to them, then it's very simple. Don't get married.

My mom and dad have been married for 37 years. During that time my mom has, for the most part, not worked. That's 37 years she's spent raising his children, upkeeping his house, cooking his meals, etc. Were it not for that she could have spent those 37 years working for herself, developing a career for herself.

My mom and dad have been married for 37 years. During that time my mom has, for the most part, not worked. That's 37 years she's spent raising his children, upkeeping his house, cooking his meals, etc. Were it not for that she could have spent those 37 years working for herself, developing a career for herself.

worlock77

If she really wanted a career she could have had one no?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

My mom and dad have been married for 37 years. During that time my mom has, for the most part, not worked. That's 37 years she's spent raising his children, upkeeping his house, cooking his meals, etc. Were it not for that she could have spent those 37 years working for herself, developing a career for herself.

Ilovegames1992

If she really wanted a career she could have had one no?

Could isn't the point. The point is she didn't.

I don't think its fair. Mel Gibsons wife for example got $250 Million! of mel gibsons savings . Its completely unacceptable. What I want is for people to part with their own individual assets, and maybe pay alimony. If they're rich, maybe $50,000 per year, but that is IT.DeX2010

[QUOTE="DeX2010"]I don't think its fair. Mel Gibsons wife for example got $250 Million! of mel gibsons savings . Its completely unacceptable. What I want is for people to part with their own individual assets, and maybe pay alimony. If they're rich, maybe $50,000 per year, but that is IT.Ninja-Hippo

No. Our marriage laws have already been worked out over many years. Any changes will bring about unintended consequences that far outweigh any benefits.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="DeX2010"]I don't think its fair. Mel Gibsons wife for example got $250 Million! of mel gibsons savings . Its completely unacceptable. What I want is for people to part with their own individual assets, and maybe pay alimony. If they're rich, maybe $50,000 per year, but that is IT.DeX2010

You may be earning the income but she's upkeeping the house, raising the children, buying the groceries, cooking the meals, etc. So you benefit for what she does as much as she benefits from what you do. That's marriage. It's an equal partnership for the mutual benefit of both and the family that both create together. If you're not willing to view it as such then yeah, you shouldn't be getting marriend.

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="DeX2010"]I don't think its fair. Mel Gibsons wife for example got $250 Million! of mel gibsons savings . Its completely unacceptable. What I want is for people to part with their own individual assets, and maybe pay alimony. If they're rich, maybe $50,000 per year, but that is IT.DeX2010

that right there is your problem. you clearly don't get it. You did not earn 90% of the family income. ITS FAMILY INCOME, Its right there in the name, it belongs to the FAMILY. It doesn't matter who leaves the house and does the work, it belongs to both husband and wife. You and your wife TOGETHER earned 100% of the family income regardless of who actually leaves the home. if you don't agree, here is a great solution! Don't get married.

Are you seriously suggesting the work of a housewife or househusband is worth 0% just because they didn't actually receive a check.

[QUOTE="DeX2010"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Nope, she got $250 million of *the family's* savings. Mel Gibson does not have any money when he is married. Everything you earn while married belongs to that one married unit. If you think your income and capital are separate you clearly dont understand what marriage is and shouldn't do it in the first place. worlock77

You may be earning the income but she's upkeeping the house, raising the children, buying the groceries, cooking the meals, etc. So you benefit for what she does as much as she benefits from what you do. That's marriage. It's an equal partnership for the mutual benefit of both and the family that both create together. If you're not willing to view it as such then yeah, you shouldn't be getting marriend.