Home
Weiye Loh's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
The Roman Catholic Church reacted harshly Friday to a bill proposed by Mexico City legislators that would require all couples to sign a prenuptial agreement specifying how to handle child custody and other issues in case of divorce – and estimating how long the marriage is expected to last.
people should be aware of their responsibilities when entering into any legally binding arrangement-especially one that involves their entire financial life (or at least a large portion of it). While people are supposed to know about what they are getting into and everyone has heard the horror stories about divorces, it seems that most people do not fully understand the legal aspects of marriage and it is clearly remiss that the state grants licenses without providing such information.
-
Interestingly, Mexico City law makers have proposed a bill intended to address the court clogging legal battles between divorcing couples. This bill would require couples to create a pre-nuptual agreement that would create a contract specifying what would occur if the couple divorces. This would include financial matters as well as issues regarding children. The intent is, of course, to reduce the burden on the courts and allow divorces to be settled quickly. Since the divorce rate about 40%, this certainly makes sense. It also makes sense because the couple would know what their exact obligations will be and they will not be going into a serious financial contract blindly.
-
One rather controversial aspect of the proposal is that the marriages are supposed to have predicted timed of termination. Couples can, of course, use the traditional termination: “until death do us part” or they can opt for a shorter contract.
- 5 more annotation(s)...
Most divorces require spouses to part with some of their property, but in Connecticut, a soon-to-be ex-husband and wife are being asked to give up more than just investments, cars, TVs, kids, and pets. They have to hand over their social networking passwords. At the end of September, Judge Kenneth Shluger ordered that the attorneys for Stephen and Courtney Gallion exchange “their client’s Facebook and dating website passwords.”
The well-qualified man stayed at home caring for the kids while his wife worked as an IT manager, earning $12,000 a month.
When they got divorced, the court made the woman support her ex-husband and kids.
The ex-husband, was also given 40 per cent of the matrimonial assets (valued at about $700,000) as recognition for his sacrifices, though he had contributed only about 20 per cent.
The court also granted the husband’s application to be entitled to 50 per cent of the value of the wife’s unit trusts, valued at $115,000.
-
Lawyers who have handled divorces told The New Paper on Sunday that while it was rare for a wife to maintain her husband, it depended on the circumstances.
Mr Michael Low of Crossbows LLP said: “In this case, it makes sense for the woman to pay the ex-husband, since their children are with him, especially whenthe wife has a higher earning capacity.”
-
Asked for her comment, Ms Lelia Loges, chairman of the work-life balance sub-committee at women’s group Aware, said: “I don’t see why she shouldn’t pay... “He had to sacrifice his job for her to succeed, and lost 18 years of a chance at a career and seniority in the work place. It will be hard to find employment now since he is past 50.
“She is successful because he stayed home and took care of the children, and he should be recognised for that support.”
the point of this video – as indeed I did not realize at first – is to make opposition to homosexual “marriage” seem ridiculous through comparison to divorce. After all, no one in their right mind could possibly want to ban divorce, right? And so… if you won’t oppose divorce, what grounds do you have to oppose gay marriage? If you want to “protect marriage” by opposing homosexuality, you’ve got to “protect marriage” by opposing divorce as well.
And of course the response to this – and the reason I failed to perceive the satire at first – is to agree. To the folks who crafted that video, I say: yes, you’re right. If we are concerned about “protecting the family”, we should – and do – want to ban divorce as well. I may not have written it here, on this blog, but I have agreed for a long time that compared to divorce, homosexuality is a sideshow. No-fault divorce has wrought untold devastation upon the family and should be repealed at once.
-
the lefties who crafted this video seem to be seriously out of touch with the folks they are arguing against. Worlds apart.
To the point that I initially failed to realize that the piece is intended as satire, and I still think it utterly fails as a parody. Why? Because I and many others agree with it literally. Look, the essence of successful political satire is to take a position, alter it slightly, and ridicule the new, altered position. The goal is for everyone to thus realize just how absurd the original stance was, too.
-
, none of this is news to either Christian traditionalists or the pagan manosphere. In these camps, the idea of curtailing divorce laws is pedestrian (how many of you, as you watched the first minute of that video, found yourselves agreeing completely and wondering where on earth the punchline was?). Outside the internet, in The Real World, there are similar rumblings in actual state legislatures. And that’s the reason I bothered to write about all this in the first place: I was stunned that these lefties actually thought that banning divorce was so far-fetched that the idea could only appear as parody. That’s how out of touch the anti-traditional values crowd is.
-
The experience of being a divorced woman has changed, along with the statistics. “The No. 1 reaction I get from people when I tell them I’m getting divorced is, ‘You’re so brave,’ ” said Stephanie Dolgoff, a 44-year-old mother of two elementary-school daughters who was separated last year. “In the 1970s, when a woman got divorced, she was seen as taking back her life in that Me Decade way. Nowadays, it’s not seen as liberating to divorce. It’s scary.”
-
Ms. Coontz, whose most recent book, “A Strange Stirring: The Feminine Mystique and Women at the Dawn of the 1960s,” examines the changes in marital expectations for women, said that for many women of that earlier era: “Divorce was freedom. Many of these marriages in the ’70s were fundamentally unequal. With the women’s movements, they learned that there were alternatives, and that made divorce kind of a liberation.”
But in an era of peer marriages, in which both partners are expected to contribute and truck along, that mentality appears to have diminished. As noted by the National Marriage Project study, “Highly educated Americans have moved in a more marriage-minded direction, despite the fact that historically, they have been more socially liberal.”
- 9 more annotation(s)...
A recent divorce case has caught the attention of the local mainstream media, as well as a local non-profit women’s rights group and not a few bewildered legal practitioners. In the course of the proceedings, a question was raised about the wife’s physical appearance in determining the amount of money which the wife was to receive in maintenance (or, more popularly, “alimony”), and the resulting judgment drastically reduced the alimony to just 5% of what was asked. A statement defending the judgment was presented to the Court as to why the wife’s good looks would come into play in the decision, saying, “This was not an irrelevant question because the court can take into account the chances of re-marriage when exercising its discretion in ancillary issues… ”.
-
That a divorcee’s looks should be taken into consideration for her own future prospects of re-settling down with another – and consequently as grounds for deciding how much money she should be getting from her previous partner as a result – is not without merit. The moral implications of such evaluation, however, verily speaks of bias against a certain demographic of women whom psychological studies have shown usually enjoy rather favourable dispositions whilst dealing with society.
-
this seemingly far-fetched interpretation of a “circumstance of the case” to be regarded by the court in determining maintenance does bring up a very liquid point which the law has up till now found awkward at best in addressing. In the case of ancillary matters, how do you put a monetary value – positive or negative – on such subjective entities as beauty, sex appeal, or charm? And what about honour, trust and love? Should the factors leading to the breakdown in marriage also be quantified, such as boredom, frigidity, selfishness, or hate?
Should this be the way courts in future consider the issue of maintenance?
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Top Contributors
Groups interested in Divorce
Highlighter, Sticky notes, Tagging, Groups and Network: integrated suite dramatically boosting research productivity. Learn more »
Join Diigo