"Defending the family": Legalizations of no-fault divorce and of same-sex marriage

[dskysmine]

Sorry for a double post but I just read an article that confused me…
Are annulments in the USA decided by Civil courts or the Roman Rota?
This article:
fathersofmercy.com/news/fr-chuck-zmudzinski-annulments/
says that 92% of civil annulments in the USA are reversed by the Roman Rota.
That is an incredible fact…
and one that does put the American numbers of Anullments really into perspective.

God Bless,
D.

 

[MJJean]

I meant they were bad for the defense of the position that the Church is doing a swell of a job making sure that Catholics understand the importance of the Sacrament of marriage and the evil of divorce.
I am really not here to judge you or the Church court system on the merits of the cases, I am judging on why are there so many cases.
(I am using the word “judge” loosely here)

God bless,
D.

Well, yes, but you must understand that a good chunk of annulment cases are brought by folks who are converting and/or marrying a Catholic. The idea of marriage as a permanent state is relatively new to them. In most faiths, divorce and remarriage are totally acceptable. These people were never educated by the Church, but by secular society and faiths that do allow for divorce. That is not the Church’s failing and it is often difficult for the Church to change the way the people who are coming into the Church or who are marrying Catholics think on such matters.

For the Catholics who are divorced I think a lot of it has to do with a combination of how they’re raised and the influence of secular society. The Church teaches, but its not being backed up at home or among extended family and friends. If you grow up seeing half the marriages you know fail and seeing couples cohabitate and then split only to move on to new cohabitation arrangements, the Church can tell you it’s teachings all day every day and you still won’t really believe it because it contrasts sharply with what you’re seeing happen around you.

Sure, I think the Church could do a little more from the pulpit. At the end of the day, though, you can only lead the horse to water.

Sorry for a double post but I just read an article that confused me…
Are annulments in the USA decided by Civil courts or the Roman Rota?
This article:
fathersofmercy.com/news/fr-chuck-zmudzinski-annulments/
says that 92% of civil annulments in the USA are reversed by the Roman Rota.
That is an incredible fact…
and one that does put the American numbers of Anullments really into perspective.

God Bless,
D.

Keep in mind the cases that make it to Rome make it there because they have either been appealed by a spouse who does not wish the marriage to be annulled (either from sincere belief, an attempt to win back a spouse,or even due to spite) or because the Tribunal of First Instance and the Tribunal of Second instance disagree. One said the marriage was valid, the other disagreed and now Rome must make the decision. This would account for the high percentage of overturned annulments. The cases headed to Rome are already on shaky ground.

Rome also handles Pauline and Petrine Privliege cases. Which are hard to prove. Especially if the ex-spouse and family refuse to co-operate and submit in writing that the ex-spouse was never Baptized or the members of the ex-spouses family that could attest that the ex spouse was never Baptized are deceased.

Not to mention that
“Of course, if one still wishes to criticize America for its disproportional tribunal activity, one could just as easily, and just as misleadingly, point out that Italy, with just 5% of the world’s Catholic population, accounts for at least 70% of the Roman Rota’s case load; indeed, the Rota grants more annulments to Italians than it does to the rest of the world combined.”

So, no, I don’t think the American Tribunals are acting inappropriately and Rome is overturning their verdicts because the verdicts are somehow wrong. Rome merely gets our most difficult cases that cannot be handled here.

 

[MJJean]

Ad misericordiam. And, again, those are not biblical justifications for divorce (at most, this would permit only a separation). A great deal of divorces go along the lines of “I’m no longer in love” or “I need to find myself”, etc. Anyone who seeks to dissolve a marriage (state or church) should have to prove that the divorce is justified. If you have a genuine reason for divorce (namely, that you were wronged by your spouse by, say, adultery), then there is a fault and there is no reason to want a “no-fault” divorce.

The Church doesn’t require proof of anything to dissolve a marriage as the Church doesn’t dissolve marriages. The Church merely determines if a marriage was valid or invalid.

The courts are an entirely different matter. As a basic human rights issue, I do not believe that forcing people legally to stay in miserable marriages is moral. Nor it is good for society as a whole considering the effects on the children and the couple.

Another issue is “proving” anything. Infidelity and abuse can be very difficult to prove to the satisfaction of a court. Believe me, I know from personal experience.

My ex was chronically unfaithful. Literally never stopped dating. He was also physically and emotionally abusive. And he had a whole host of other problems. chronic liar about anything and everything, wouldn’t keep a job, when he did have a job he didn’t pay bills and then guilted his mother into paying rent and utilities, stole and even forged checks from his parents accounts, etc.

His mother refused to prosecute and I was stupid enough to put up with it for nearly 6 years. I believed I owed it to my child to have at least tried to be married to her father and raise her in a two biological parent home. It took him choking me on the stairs of our townhouse to the point where I lost control of my bladder and blacked out and a neighbor calling the police to get anything on record at all. And even then, the police only took him overnight to “cool off”. There wasn’t even an arrest report, just an “incident report” stating they came to our address on a domestic call and no other information.

Although the police refused to allow me to press charges, they called CPS and I got a visit from a worker the next day. I’d already called my ex MIL and had her collect her son and all of his belongings. The caseworker told me if I let him come back he would just continue to abuse me and that was an unhealthy environment, so they would remove my kids from the home.

Even a police incident report and Child Protective Services threatening to remove my children from my custody* in writing* wasn’t enough “proof” for the court to grant me a PPO (restraining order).

You must consider that the courts requirement of proof varies by state and local law and that judges have a lot of leeway. Really, requiring proof for at fault divorces is an added burden that families already in crisis don’t need. The idea of no fault divorce was to help people like me. Yes, it allows others to end marriage for lesser reasons. But reinstituting at fault divorces is not the solution. Changing the general view on marriage is about all we can do without causing harm to those who need the no fault laws to get out of bad situations.

 

[marymary1975]

Yes, the catholic church has always been against divorce and no fault divorce and when no fault divorce was legalized Catholics and church were furiously against it and they were called also back them bigots and it was said that catholism were denying people their rights. In fact, exactly the same arguments that are being told today in favor of SSM were exactly the same ones used back then to support no fault divorce. It was also said that in the countries where no fault divorce had been legalized no effect had been seen on marriage statistics. The same you see now with SSM was seen with no fault divorce. What happens is that people suffer from convenience amnesia.

Also, in the Netherlands where SSM has been legal the longest, there has not only been a serious decline in marriage since its approval but single.motherhood has risen and co habitation has risen. So yes there is a correlation, if you don’t want to see it is a different story.

 

[theplummer]

First of all, let me articulate that this is my first post to this forum (I’ve been lurking for quite a while, since my conversion 2 1/2 years ago). I too am saddled with the burdon of being in a horrible marriage, and suffering through the Ill’s of our culture, society, and courts system. There are so many “Wrongs” on so many levels, with regards to marriage, divoce, and anullements, that one can barely begin to scratch the surface of just how “EVIL” the entire matter has become. One can only assume that the father of lies has so engrained himself into the matter of the destruction of the family, from so many angles that it’s difficult to see with any clarity which direction to head to solve these problems, much less convince those completely unknowledgable in the matters of relationships, that are in authority, creating man’s laws, that trump “God’s Law”.

Let me state for the record, that I wholeheartedly empathize with MJJean’s plight. You have been wronged on so many levels by your Ex. The real problem here is that you have not been supported by our culture and court systems, to hold his abhorant behavior accountable. It’s obvious that this has caused you such consternation that you wholeheartedly are willing to buy the evil of divorce in the process.

But as a RCIA (one seeking TRUTH) candidate, you must look beyond your own sufferage, and look toward the ultimate “greater good”. One thing that you WILL learn in RCIA is that “An evil act committed, even for good, is still and evil act”. I know you don’t see it that way, yet, but over time, and your committment to seek the truth and understanding, you will come to understand what I’m about to write.

One of the major problems in this entire “disease” is the fact that “Men” believe they have authority over that with which they do not possess, namely issues such as Marriage and abortion.

Particularly, No-Fault divorce, on it’s face is Unconstitutional. How so?, Good question. The United States Constitution grants two inaeliable rights. #1. The first amendement grants all the right to “Practice their Freedom of Religion”. As a Christian whom believes in the sanctity of Marriage for life (either Protastant or Catholic, does not matter), When the courts allow for a “unilateral” divorce, that violates ones Religious beliefs. To force a divorce upon a human being, just because the one choosing to engage in mortal sin, is a violation of the other’s first amendement right. Therefore, the courts actually possess NO authority to govern over the sacrement of marriage in ANY form. This is a religious matter.

Ah, but the state claims authority by requiring all who marry to obtain a “marriage License”, thereby insisting on the intrusion of that with which it has no authority. No person whom has the legal authority to marry can marry without obtaining said license. Yet another intrusion on ones first amendement rights. I could expand upon this much more, but for brevity, I’ll refrain.

Point #2. The No-fault divorce process carries a second violation to the U.S. Constitution. In that every person brought before a court, has the right to “Due Process”, meaning that all accused (respondant), have the right to be proven unfit or guilty of not being worthy of being married to, nor does it place any burdon of proof to the accusor (Petitioner), to prove that every reasonable effort has been made to attempt to reconcile prior to receiving a culturally accepted reason to break their promise that they made.

My current thoughts on the matter are as follows. The courts should get out of what they have no business being in. But rather should be focusing on accountability to the initiating “First Cause” in the breakdown of the relationship, and seek to rehabilitate the offender, and involve the appropriate measure of “Emotional Maturation”, that forgiveness, and reconciliation can be fostered, rather than the unilateral approach that is no more thought to preservation than our current Abortion laws.

So again, I reitterate that I feel for your suffering, I cannot condone your right to get out of a bad marriage, as it leaves the door open to many others to abuse a badly broken system.

God bless you, and I pray for your healing and praise God for bringing you to seek TRUTH.

 

[edwest2]

I understand that many Catholic groups in the United States are doing what they can to stop the legalization of same-sex marriage. (I’m a Canadian, and same-sex marriage has been legal here for quite a few years now, and despite many of the claims in the USA that legalizing same-sex marriage will negatively affect society and the family, this has not been the case in Canada)

I was wondering if Catholic groups worked as hard in the past to stop the legalization of no-fault divorce? I understand that a lot of Catholics see their fighting against same-sex marriage as “defending the family” and not discrimination against homosexuals, but I was wondering if they did any work against divorce when no-fault divorce was legalized?

Divorce obviosly affects marriage and the family much more than same-sex marriage does, and fighting against it would surely be an example of “defending the family”, which I do agree is the bedrock of civilization.

I was interested in the history here if anyone was aware of it. But from what I observe today, when it comes to no-fault divorce, Catholics do not consider this a place to defend the family, despite the fact that it has huge negative effects on the family, children and society, much more than same-sex marriage ever could.

From what I understand, 85% of annulments granted by the Church are done in the USA, which seems a bit odd because the population of the USA is about 5% of the world population and less when it comes to the population of Catholics worldwide. This ridiculous situation has given rise to the term “catholic divorce” as a euphemism for an annulment. The existence of such a term gives more support to my observation that Catholics today do not do much to fight against divorce and thereby “defend the family” as they claim they are doing when they fight against same-sex marriage. In fact it seems from this statistic that they tacitly approve of the destruction of the family through divorce despite priding themselves in that Catholics Come Home commercial, saying “we defend the family”. But perhaps history will tell a different story.

Thanks in advance.

This post represents two different issues. It is wrong to mix the two.

No-Fault Divorce was engineered by the same “let’s have sex with anyone” perverts who were behind the sex without love revolution. And like abortion, it became law by fiat, not by the will of the people.

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/marriage/five-myths-about-no-fault-divorce/

Peace,
Ed

 

[ThinkingSapien]

As a Christian whom believes in the sanctity of Marriage for life (either Protastant or Catholic, does not matter), When the courts allow for a “unilateral” divorce, that violates ones Religious beliefs. To force a divorce upon a human being, just because the one choosing to engage in mortal sin, is a violation of the other’s first amendement right. Therefore, the courts actually possess NO authority to govern over the sacrement of marriage in ANY form. This is a religious matter.

I thought the legal system makes rulings on civil marriage and that such rulings don’t have an impact on dissolving one’s sacramental union.

 

[theplummer]

I thought the legal system makes rulings on civil marriage and that such rulings don’t have an impact on dissolving one’s sacramental union.

Technically you are correct. According to God, scripture, and Church, two are married for life. In practice though, when one chooses to obtain a no fault divorce through the legal process, that party ignores the sacramental nature of marriage and has the legal “permission” to be socially acceptable to engage in adultery. Forcing the other party to either remain chaste for life or also engage in the same sin of adultery, thereby removing the possibility of either of receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist.

The only remedy allowable is for the party to seek an anullment tribunal, and that’s not a guaranted, unlike no fault divorce. Not to mention the damage to children, financial stability, and the burdon placed on the state.

If the courts would acknowledge the authority does not befall upon them (in religious marriages), the church would have much more ability to repair broken marriages through counseling, marriage training and spiritual healing, thereby reducing the burdons of the ills to all that divorce causes.

Problem is, no divorce atty will ever present these arguments as a defense against nofalt as they would be shooting themselves in the foot, because this would virtually eliminate a large part of their profitable industry.

Constitution be damned.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Technically you are correct.

Okay.

If the courts would acknowledge the authority does not befall upon them

I can’t remember how long ago, but I remember there being public discussion about separating religious marriages from civil marriages and on the state level having something else that would serve the same purpose that marriage had for legal reasons while letting religious institutions have ownership of marriage. It didn’t go over well. At the time there were people that were quite vocal about not wanting such a thing to happen.

(in religious marriages), the church would have much more ability to repair broken marriages through counseling, marriage training and spiritual healing, thereby reducing the burdons of the ills to all that divorce causes.

While an interesting idea I wonder how this would work out for couples that are not members of the same religion/denomination, either from differences before they got married or from a change in their disposition during their marriage. Or for couples that didn’t have this view of marriage to begin with. In such cases one may have a different view of something you said earlier:

In practice though, when one chooses to obtain a no fault divorce through the legal process, that party ignores the sacramental nature of marriage and has the legal “permission” to be socially acceptable to engage in adultery. Forcing the other party to either remain chaste for life or also engage in the same sin of adultery, thereby removing the possibility of either of receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist.

If neither party sees their marriage as sacramental then they may also not see divorce as obligating a chaste life style nor might they see remarriage as adultery.

 

[theplummer]

Okay.

I can’t remember how long ago, but I remember there being public discussion about separating religious marriages from civil marriages and on the state level having something else that would serve the same purpose that marriage had for legal reasons while letting religious institutions have ownership of marriage. It didn’t go over well. At the time there were people that were quite vocal about not wanting such a thing to happen.

While an interesting idea I wonder how this would work out for couples that are not members of the same religion/denomination, either from differences before they got married or from a change in their disposition during their marriage. Or for couples that didn’t have this view of marriage to begin with. In such cases one may have a different view of something you said earlier:

If neither party sees their marriage as sacramental then they may also not see divorce as obligating a chaste life style nor might they see remarriage as adultery.

Thank you for engaging my thoughts. You bring up some good points that need to be looked at, and this forum is as good a place to do so as any. Unfortunately a 5000 character limit on posts are a hinderance to completely explaining a issue.

So, that being said, now that I’ve made my statements and you are choosing to engage and me and don’t appear to be anything less than inquisitive, rather than being adversarial, I’d love to expand my thoughts, but will have to do them in small peicemeal fashion.

let me start from the beginning of my thoughts. Human beings have a tendancy to make things “easy” for us. No one wants to do the difficult thing, unless s/he has the fortitude to forgoe the “easy” for the “right” thing. Coupled with the desire for doing things easy in addition to the legal systems desire toward profit, human beings are being used to evil devises on very deep levels.

No divorce attorney wants to present a case that would summarily cause his profession to deteriorate, so it’s in his/her best interest to propogate the destruction of the family. A good friend of mine, a Catholic male attorney, is all for “Gay Marriage”. He is for it, simply because he knows the nature of homesexual relatrionships are traditionally less stable, in the long run, and more subject to separation. In addition, the more “people” that “marry” the more people divorce, giving his practice more potential for profit.

Judges on the other hand, are summarily overtaxed due to the case load, and thier natural tendancy is not what’s in the best interested of the family, but rather they are interested in just reducing their case load. They also want it to be “easy” so they develop their own “cookie cutter” divorce plan that they will modify slightly on a per case basis, but basicley a judge gets into a “pattern” of ruling.

I call that “one size for all” thinking. Or “black white” issues. Refusing to see shades of grey make their job easier.

I’ll stop there, as the 5000 character limit.

 

[theplummer]

To continue,

If legislation, both state and case history legislation would recognize that first there are multiple “types” of unions (marriages).

There are Civil marriages, before a Judge, magistrate, secular marriage officiators, some clergy, boat captains, and such.

There are religious ceremonies performed by clergy of differing denominations. The state of Missouri particularily refuses to acknowledge a marriage as anything other than a “Contract”, and a license MUST be obtained before engaging in such activity.

Now case law begins to rear it’s ugly head. A divorce attorney spelled out what marriage is to me in reality, or the way the courts view it. The courts refuse to acknowledge it as a Contract (even though state law identifies it), but rather a marriage to the court is nothing more than a “Status”.

With that mindset, among the courts and it’s officiators, is clearly a slight of hand “cognative dissonance”. Meaning actions are not in congruancy with words. When a person enteres into a “contract” that person EXPECTS a certain amount of support by the culture, and legal system.

Now that person has the right to either allow the culture/courts to violate his/her rights, and does not complain, because ultimately s/he desires the divorce. For those people, Great. I’m not going to impose my beliefs upon them. When two people whom are married, agree to terminate the marriage, irespective of their personal convicitons, great.

But when one party to a marriage chooses not to have his constitutional rights trampled upon, Initially by the Petitioner and followed up with support by the petitioner’s councel and ultimately the court system, the respondant should have the right to call “foul”, at that point the divorce process needs to morph into another direction all together.

You spoke of one party having a “change in conviction” or “Change in belief/faith/or whatever”. That’s fine and needs to be vetted out very early in the proceedings. I’ll analogize here, Let’s say two Catholics get married, children are produced, and one day one party decides that they are no longer a believer in Christ. Therefore they no longer feel the need to desire to follow the Church teaching and decide to file for divorce.

The court should readily recognize that that party is now to be held accountable for them no longer honoring the committment that the made, in some fashion, unless the original contract/vows specifically said something to the effect “To have and hold, until one of you no longer desires to”. Most of the time, vows usuallly include, Better or worse, sickness and health, richer or poorer, till death till you part. Any party deciding to exit stage left, without good cause (I’ll explain that later), is nothing less than a liar, cheat, thief, or the like, and should be heald summarily accountable by the courts for choosing to engage in such abhorant behavior.

Continued.

 

[theplummer]

The party that is disengenuous should realize that the courts/culture are not going to be favorable to that desire and WILL rule in such a fashion that the petitioner will be walking away from the union with nothing more than what they entered it with, and if children are involved, they will be subject with supporting the children financially, but not having much influence in the children’s lives, as they shall be deemed “unfit” as a parent for having such poor convictions.

Now should a party desire to fight for the right of MORE than the above, it should be the duty of the petitioner to Prove (beyond the preponderance of the evidence) that:

#1. The defendant has done something so agregious that a divorce is warranted. In Missouri that is the three A’s (by statute), Adultry, Abuse, and Abandonment.

#2. That the petitioner has made every “reasonable attempt” to repair or reconcile the brokeness of the relationship.

#3. That the defendant is unrepentant and unwilling to accept accountability and desire a change in attitude and action in the marriage.

#4. That the petitioner has made clear introspection upon thier hand in the deterioration of the relationship and are making clear steps toward repairing the dysfunction in thier own psyche.

Anything less than proving those four points, the petitioner should be deemed as the “first cause” to the deterioration to the relationship and be subject to the above type of settlement.

If those four points can be proven, the defendant is then deemed “unfit” to be married to and to be a positive influence in the children’s lives, in a meaningful manner, as that would be evidence to thier dysfunction.

 

[theplummer]

Continued,

Now this method of determining the fitness of marriage and divorce, would still be a violation of constitutional rights of the respondant IF the respondant chooses to envoke that claim.

The court would have to then be obligated to the authority of the marriage, if the marrige was instituted before a higher authority (God), and the evidence could be presented to the governing authority (Church) and used in consort to determine a direction to take that particular marriage. Once a consensus is made from the Church, the court would be obligated to follow the wishes of the authority.

The RCC, particularily already has a tribunal that would perfectly fit within this model. It would be the duty of other denominations to determine their own brand of governing.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

No fault allows for separations for trivial reason like “I’m not in love with you anymore” or “You’ve gained too much weight and are no longer attractive to me” and so on as well as for the non-trivial reasons like physical abuse, adultery and/or addiction (to drugs, alcohol or gambling).

Wives file about 2/3’s of all divorces where children are involved. Turns out that more than half of all wife-initiated divorces do not involve the 3 A’s (abuse, addiction, adultery). Yet in nearly every case, the wife is allowed to walk away with custody and child support. Perhaps alimony as well. Even if she is divorcing for trivial reasons which essentially amount to “she fell out of love”, she still gets to walk away with an income stream from the ex-husband. This in the face of data that we have that shows that children of divorced parents usually do worse in school, behave more poorly and have shorter life expectancies than children of couples who stay together. Hence we have the specter of men who are becoming aware of these risks and are less willing to put their head on the family law block and pray that their wives won’t swing at their necks. Incentives matter. Not only the religious ones, but secular as well.

Hence, it’s time to return to fault divorce. Force the husband or wife petitioner to prove the presence of one or more of the 3 A’s. Or go to counseling to repair their marriage if the 3 A’s are not present. Sure that is very confrontational. But the current system is already confrontational anyway, especially with respect to property division and child support.

 

[theplummer]

Be careful in what you say here, you’ll be accused of being a “male schovenist pig”.

Even though you speak the truth, something that no equal rights minority group will ever admit to, you’ll never get anyone in the industry of law to admit to it.

One thing about lawyers, there not stupid. They know that as long as one particular gender feels empowered by using a overpriced system that rewards summarily, by a two to one margin, little to no loss of income stream and time/authority over the children, they are assured a plentiful and rich stream from which to fish.

Couple that with the natural tendency for the female gender to equate feelings as facts, and tend to act out on those “facts”, in addition to receiving enormous amounts of emotional support (entitlement) from feminist driven culture and fellow already divorced friends/ family/ co-workers/ counselors, once a party starts to “feel” like divorce is an option, there is virtually no hope. Immediately, the culture starts agreeing and demonizing the spouse, that they really don’t know, the feelings are facts based thinking runs rampant and the targeted spouse becomes a mortal enemy and doesn’t deserve any regard other than “pay up sucker”.

Accountability to commitments made by the advantaged are completely ignored. But, be late on a support payment by the disadvantaged party, and the persecution is perpetuated.

I pray that some reasonable, logical, right reasoning legislator, lawyer, or judge can read this, see the evil for what it is and have the desire and influence to turn the tide. For I fear that we have nearly destroyed our society for the mere sake of maximizing profit.

 

[theplummer]

FYI, there’s a new documentary just being released in larger cities in the US identifying the corrupt nature of the divorce industry. See the link: divorcecorp.com

I don’t agree with the creator necessarily about his idea to resolve the ills, as he advocates a Scandanavian model for divorce. However, the model he proposes would eliminate the profitability of the industry, as take away the probability for the income streams attached with divorce, child support and alimony. Take away the profit for one party to enable them to leave and maybe they’d decide to work out the differences and that would be a good thing.

 

[MJJean]

FYI, there’s a new documentary just being released in larger cities in the US identifying the corrupt nature of the divorce industry. See the link: divorcecorp.com

I don’t agree with the creator necessarily about his idea to resolve the ills, as he advocates a Scandanavian model for divorce. However, the model he proposes would eliminate the profitability of the industry, as take away the probability for the income streams attached with divorce, child support and alimony. Take away the profit for one party to enable them to leave and maybe they’d decide to work out the differences and that would be a good thing.

Are you saying that you believe that there should be no alimony or child support in cases of divorce?

Remember, many wives stay home and raise children while taking care of the household so that the husband can concentrate on his career. These are women who have either no education and work experience or who have been out of the workforce so long that their educations and job experience no longer count. Forcing these women to stay in bad marriages simply because they cannot afford to leave is…cruel and unjust at minimum.

I am one of those women, btw. A stay at home mom for the last decade. The only reason my husband is able to work the job he does is because I gave up having a career of my own. My husband works his job and that is all. I literally do everything else. Child care, home repairs, auto repairs, all cooking and all cleaning, all yard work, all paperwork and bill payments, all errands, and so on. If my husband were to have an affair, become abusive, or decide to leave me you bet your bottom dollar I would fight for a decent share of marital assets and child support (if the kids were still minors) as well as alimony. I’ve earned it. Without my share of assets and alimony/child support I would be destitute. Not because I am some layabout, but because I have sacrificed my ability to support myself and my children on my own so that he could have a career and not worry about anything other than his job.

 

[theplummer]

No MJjean, that is not what I said, why take the arguement to black/white thinking. How about looking at it from a both/and perspective.

That’s why I do not abdicate a Scandavian model, other than I do appreciate the erradication of the lucrative divorce industry. That part NEEDS to go, and post haste.

If you go back a few pages, I gave a lengthy proposition of what I feel the level of divorce should be reconcilled to, as it will obviously ELIMINATE, a “privilaged” party from taking clear advantage of the other party, if they are doing so for nafarious or malicious reasons.

Basically what I’m saying is, it’s the plaintiff’s burdon to PROVE that the respondant is A. the “first cause” of the failure of the marriage. B. The petitionar made every “reasonable attempt to reconcile”. C. that the respondant is abslutely unwilling or incapable of reconcilling. D. That the elements of the contract ARE honored, in the choice to terminate the contract, in that the defendant did so in such a matter as to nullify the contract, and gives the petitioner the right to no longer abide by such contract. This must be with respect to the pretence that the governing authority granted and approved of the marriage. I’ll use a Catholic marriage as an example, as the organizational body is already in place and makes accomodations for such. Approval from the Church would then be a relevant part in determining the acceptability of the dissolution.

To relegate EVERY marriage to merely the standard of a STATUS, as the family court system does, is a travisty of justice to both, as well as the children. As well as the burdon’s on society.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:

• the issues that spurred them are often no longer “hot” or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
• posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.

Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
**
Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed. **