For Better or for Worse

[hurting]

It seems to me you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth a bit, here. Sure, sometimes when there is an annulment, it is because the “attempt” was in reality no attempt at all. In other cases, however, both parties know very well that there was a great deal of “performance”, including bearing and rearing children. You aren’t married, no, but you also don’t leave the mother of your children behind as if she were a total stranger.

The reason I say that there is a little “both sides of the mouth” in your answer is your criticism of the Church in “adjudicating” unjust situations. A Catholic is liable to do what is actually just, not what the law will allow them to pretend is just. That is what I was trying to say. There is a Court we will all face, and we would do well not to live our lives as if we believe that decrees by judges relieve us of the decrees of an informed conscience.

IOW, I am not saying that we are bound by all that emotions of guilt might prompt us to do. I am saying that we shouldn’t limit what we do to the minimum that legal authorities require of us.

I don’t believe I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth at all. I do recognize Chev’s point that there are legal obligations one has to uphold as a function of the obligations and benefits arising from the civil elements of the putative marriage. Beyond that, however, the declaration of nullity ends the relationshiop between the spouses because indeed, it never existed in the first place. Please note that I’m referring to obligations of conscience here. From a very practical standpoint, if two annulled spouses are expected to continue to provide one another any meaningful spiritual support after the annulment, they should have just stayed married. That’s what spouses do.

 

[EasterJoy]

I don’t believe I’m talking out of both sides of my mouth at all. I do recognize Chev’s point that there are legal obligations one has to uphold as a function of the obligations and benefits arising from the civil elements of the putative marriage. Beyond that, however, the declaration of nullity ends the relationshiop between the spouses because indeed, it never existed in the first place. Please note that I’m referring to obligations of conscience here. From a very practical standpoint, if two annulled spouses are expected to continue to provide one another any meaningful spiritual support after the annulment, they should have just stayed married. That’s what spouses do.

No, it is not the relationship that never existed. It is validity that never existed. I don’t see how anyone can say they shared something that legitimately allowed them to consummate a marriage with a woman and then with a straight face say “no relationship ever existed”. There wasn’t a valid marriage, but there absolutely was a relationship, and there always will be, particularly if you are parents.

 

[hurting]

No, it is not the relationship that never existed. It is validity that never existed. I don’t see how anyone can say they shared something that legitimately allowed them to consummate a marriage with a woman and then with a straight face say “no relationship ever existed”. There wasn’t a valid marriage, but there absolutely was a relationship, and there always will be, particularly if you are parents.

Yes, a relationship existed, and in sadly too many cases one where there are totally innocent bystanders to the fallout (children). The relationship you describe (ongoing care and concern for one another) sounds a lot more like a marriage than you think.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, a relationship existed, and in sadly too many cases one where there are totally innocent bystanders to the fallout (children). The relationship you describe (ongoing care and concern for one another) sounds a lot more like a marriage than you think.

I think the “bystanders” expect their father and mother to show at least as much care for each other as they do for other members of the extended family. There is a million miles of degrees of caring and friendship between being in a valid marriage and “being kicked to the curb”. If the relationship between the spouses is not toxic (as is sometimes the case, I will not deny that), then maintaining some degree of friendship is desirable. Sometimes that is not possible, but that is the diagnosis of exclusion.

In the case that a previous poster noted, this wasn’t a case of malignant deception. In a case where there* was* malignant deception, then of course I would not deny that the duped spouse would understandably want to cut off all contact. I’m not saying someone has to stick around for mental abuse. Even the children, once they knew the whole story, could understand that. So yes, there are reasons for annulment that are rooted in the impossibility of a relationship. In the case the previous poster noted, however, it would be decent for the spouse who could not get past the deceit to at least extend what friendship he still could offer. The history described indicated that would be possible.

 

[chevalier]

Chev,

I’m know I’m stepping into by challenging you, but I remain unconvinced as to any implcations beyond the legal realm. Indeed, if putative spouses have amassed wealth together, then some equitable split (assuming the precursor divorce in the US is licit per the rules of the Church*) is reasonable, but to argue that such spouses retain some ongong obligation for spiritual support, for example, post-annulment is simply a bridge too far, especially in a situation where one or both of them remarries. Annulment indicates that there was no contract (in most cases in the US, it means there was no consent). No contract means no performance.

I was talking only about the economic support, and only on the basis that a joint investment should benefit both investors, even if their deal was invalid and the investment was done in the name of just one of them. In this sense med school or law school wouldn’t be much different from a car jointly paid for but registered in just one name, except you can sell a car but can’t sell a doctor’s or lawyer’s earning potential, you can only split it as the earnings come in. The lawyer’s or doctor’s spouse gets his or her entitlement as basically a joint investor in an enterprise.

This reminds me of something. There was that smart judge in Poland. The man and woman weren’t even married, actually, but the concubinage pooled the resources and the woman ended up investing a lot. The judge concluded that a general partnership was formed by way of facts.

 

[hurting]

I was talking only about the economic support, and only on the basis that a joint investment should benefit both investors, even if their deal was invalid and the investment was done in the name of just one of them. In this sense med school or law school wouldn’t be much different from a car jointly paid for but registered in just one name, except you can sell a car but can’t sell a doctor’s or lawyer’s earning potential, you can only split it as the earnings come in. The lawyer’s or doctor’s spouse gets his or her entitlement as basically a joint investor in an enterprise.

This reminds me of something. There was that smart judge in Poland. The man and woman weren’t even married, actually, but the concubinage pooled the resources and the woman ended up investing a lot. The judge concluded that a general partnership was formed by way of facts.

Chev,

I’d be interested in your take on EJ’s position as to the other.

What is frustrating is that the US courts do not take into account the degree to which the spouses actually invest in the partnership financially (it is assumed) nor, and more importantly, do they consider fault in the awards.

For example, the divorced stay at home spouse of an executive who works 60 hours a week (who for the sake of argument had all of her education paid for prior to the marriage) and makes $150K a year will typically receive a far different spousal support award than the stay at home spouse of a machinist who works 60 hours per week and makes $70K pe annum despite the fact that the both of the stay at home spouses contribute essentially the same economically to their respective households. On what legal basis should there be a differential in settlement?

Moreover, on what basis should there be any award absent breach? Yet this is exactly what happens every day in US divorce courts (alimony awarded with no proof of breach).

 

[EasterJoy]

Chev,

I’d be interested in your take on EJ’s position as to the other.

What is frustrating is that the US courts do not take into account the degree to which the spouses actually invest in the partnership financially (it is assumed) nor, and more importantly, do they consider fault in the awards.

For example, the divorced stay at home spouse of an executive who works 60 hours a week (who for the sake of argument had all of her education paid for prior to the marriage) and makes $150K a year will typically receive a far different spousal support award than the stay at home spouse of a machinist who works 60 hours per week and makes $70K pe annum despite the fact that the both of the stay at home spouses contribute essentially the same economically to their respective households. On what legal basis should there be a differential in settlement?

Moreover, on what basis should there be any award absent breach? Yet this is exactly what happens every day in US divorce courts (alimony awarded with no proof of breach).

The courts seem to have decided that both sides are equally “at fault” and have contributed equally to whatever assets and earning potential the couple has accrued since their marriage. The “at home” spouse was not a paid domestic who is due severance pay based on “services rendered” (which you have to admit amounts to treating him or her like a combination of maid and prostitute), but an equal partner in a single economic enterprise who gets half of what the enterprise was likely to produce the enterprise had stayed together…well, except that this is law, and the first thing to learn about the law is that it is never simple. That’s because lawyers run it , and it is an adversarial system, no matter what anyone says. The rules are written so that the game can be played; to be more fair to the lawyers, they are written so that someone looking out for your interests can get you a fair deal. You do not get a fair deal without someone looking out for you…we are in a vale of tears, and that is just the way it is, and probably the lawyers could not change that bit of human nature if they wanted to (which some would like to do).

Differential in settlement beyond that has a lot to do with who has a lawyer who is better at managing his client according to the system in place in their jurisdiction. That is no small thing! It is worthwhile to be very diligent in choosing an attorney, no matter why you need one. It is hard to measure the difference between good “workmanship” and bad, when it comes to law.

 

[hurting]

The courts seem to have decided that both sides are equally “at fault” and have contributed equally to whatever assets and earning potential the couple has accrued since their marriage. The “at home” spouse was not a paid domestic who is due severance pay based on “services rendered” (which you have to admit amounts to treating him or her like a combination of maid and prostitute), but an equal partner in a single economic enterprise who gets half of what the enterprise was likely to produce the enterprise had stayed together…well, except that this is law, and the first thing to learn about the law is that it is never simple. That’s because lawyers run it , and it is an adversarial system, no matter what anyone says. The rules are written so that the game can be played; to be more fair to the lawyers, they are written so that someone looking out for your interests can get you a fair deal. You do not get a fair deal without someone looking out for you…we are in a vale of tears, and that is just the way it is, and probably the lawyers could not change that bit of human nature if they wanted to (which some would like to do).

Differential in settlement beyond that has a lot to do with who has a lawyer who is better at managing his client according to the system in place in their jurisdiction. That is no small thing! It is worthwhile to be very diligent in choosing an attorney, no matter why you need one. It is hard to measure the difference between good “workmanship” and bad, when it comes to law.

EJ,

Yes, that is what the courts have decided, and it is patently at odds with any other form of contract law. It is this way, because superficially, lawyers and other insiders run the system for their benefit. They do so with their willing accomplices, women, who tend to benefit from the arrangement (hence the very lopsided filing percentages). It is the lopsidedness of the arrangement, indeed the very idea that no-fault is really mutual fault is really deep pockets fault that has caused the problem.

I would agree to the point as to quality of representation being important (especially competent in the jurisdiction), but the key issue is in the design of the system. There is a great deal of arbitrariness in the awards that makes it difficult to assess the quality of one’s counsel.

 

[chevalier]

Chev,

I’d be interested in your take on EJ’s position as to the other.

What is frustrating is that the US courts do not take into account the degree to which the spouses actually invest in the partnership financially (it is assumed) nor, and more importantly, do they consider fault in the awards.

For example, the divorced stay at home spouse of an executive who works 60 hours a week (who for the sake of argument had all of her education paid for prior to the marriage) and makes $150K a year will typically receive a far different spousal support award than the stay at home spouse of a machinist who works 60 hours per week and makes $70K pe annum despite the fact that the both of the stay at home spouses contribute essentially the same economically to their respective households. On what legal basis should there be a differential in settlement?

Moreover, on what basis should there be any award absent breach? Yet this is exactly what happens every day in US divorce courts (alimony awarded with no proof of breach).

Hurting, the spouse or, in this case, putative spouses, enter into a partnership. The stay-home spouse isn’t employed by the other as an employee. The spouse:

1. Gives up his or her own career prospects (or existing career).
2. Enables the other spouse to pursue his or her own.

There’s more to it than, say, the per-hour price of child care or house works, which would be assessed, say, in order to compensate a baby sitter or cook or gardener or cleaning person etc. that worked on a work-for-hire contract or salary.

You’re just failing to appreciate the partnership aspect of the spouses’ (or putative spouses’) contract. Partners actually get equal shares by default (i.e. unless specifically provided otherwise in their partnership agreement) in virtue of jointly undertaking a certain venture. Running a company isn’t much different from running a household.

The fact the partnership didn’t ultimately work out does NOT entitle the person currently holding the physical possession of the majority of the benefits of the shared effort to keep them. Just like if you and your pay had a partnership to buy a race horse and share the winnings, just because that partnership proved invalid the horse wouldn’t become the exclusive property of whichever one of you currently had that horse in his stable. You’d need either to restore each other to where you had been or split any gains equitably. An equitable split would basically be the same split you were relying on expecting under your invalid contract.

You can see it as some kind of reliance interest if you want. At any rate, the failure of a partnership does not entitle the partner currently in the physical possession of the putative partnership’s property to keep that property.

The property does include any earning potential acquired by joint efforts, with no benefit to whichever spouse actually underwent the education, passed the examinations etc.

 

[EasterJoy]

EJ,

Yes, that is what the courts have decided, and it is patently at odds with any other form of contract law. It is this way, because superficially, lawyers and other insiders run the system for their benefit. They do so with their willing accomplices, women, who tend to benefit from the arrangement (hence the very lopsided filing percentages). It is the lopsidedness of the arrangement, indeed the very idea that no-fault is really mutual fault is really deep pockets fault that has caused the problem.

I would agree to the point as to quality of representation being important (especially competent in the jurisdiction), but the key issue is in the design of the system. There is a great deal of arbitrariness in the awards that makes it difficult to assess the quality of one’s counsel.

The marriage contract is not like any other contract, though. Even in secular terms (at let’s hope we don’t look at it that way), each party is putting in the whole of his or her life, including their procreative faculty and the inner recesses of their soul, the history of their extended family, their legacy through time after they’re dead. You can’t put a price on that. The minute either party goes into a marriage looking at it as if it were any other business arrangement, you know the whole concept of marriage has been warped.

Having said that, “no-fault” divorce by unilateral decree is a travesty. To allow couples to mutually agree that no fault will be found is one thing; that allows them to decide to amiably put all their differences behind them. To allow one side to unilaterally file for dissolution for no reason whatsoever, as if it were such a flimsy business contract that it could be breached at will with only financial consequences to reckon–and only an even split at that!–was just asking for exactly what we have gotten, which is marriages wrecked by even short-term bouts with self-centeredness and disaffection by one party alone. The problem is, I think society will have to totally go onto the rocks before this tide (among the many other cases of indulgence that people believe “decent” society entitles them to) is ever turned. I shudder to think how bad things will get before the great middle inertia of thought will turn away from its present course. History says that those will be very bad days, indeed, and long ones at that.

 

[hurting]

Hurting, the spouse or, in this case, putative spouses, enter into a partnership. The stay-home spouse isn’t employed by the other as an employee. The spouse:

1. Gives up his or her own career prospects (or existing career).
2. Enables the other spouse to pursue his or her own.

There’s more to it than, say, the per-hour price of child care or house works, which would be assessed, say, in order to compensate a baby sitter or cook or gardener or cleaning person etc. that worked on a work-for-hire contract or salary.

You’re just failing to appreciate the partnership aspect of the spouses’ (or putative spouses’) contract. Partners actually get equal shares by default (i.e. unless specifically provided otherwise in their partnership agreement) in virtue of jointly undertaking a certain venture. Running a company isn’t much different from running a household.

The fact the partnership didn’t ultimately work out does NOT entitle the person currently holding the physical possession of the majority of the benefits of the shared effort to keep them. Just like if you and your pay had a partnership to buy a race horse and share the winnings, just because that partnership proved invalid the horse wouldn’t become the exclusive property of whichever one of you currently had that horse in his stable. You’d need either to restore each other to where you had been or split any gains equitably. An equitable split would basically be the same split you were relying on expecting under your invalid contract.

You can see it as some kind of reliance interest if you want. At any rate, the failure of a partnership does not entitle the partner currently in the physical possession of the putative partnership’s property to keep that property.

The property does include any earning potential acquired by joint efforts, with no benefit to whichever spouse actually underwent the education, passed the examinations etc.

Chev, I will take exception with your general partnership characterization as it relates to the secular aspects of the marriage. I suspect in the vast majority of marriages there are no pre-established, written terms, just as in some non-marriage contracts the written terms do not cover certain subsequent investments by one or both of the partners.

Also, the US jurisprudence goes far beyond the equitable distribution of assets at the point of termination. Indeed alimony, for example, requires continued performance of one party per the terms of the contract despite regardless of breach. How in the world could that be equitable under any vestige of contract law?

 

[hurting]

The marriage contract is not like any other contract, though. Even in secular terms (at let’s hope we don’t look at it that way), each party is putting in the whole of his or her life, including their procreative faculty and the inner recesses of their soul, the history of their extended family, their legacy through time after they’re dead. You can’t put a price on that. The minute either party goes into a marriage looking at it as if it were any other business arrangement, you know the whole concept of marriage has been warped.

Having said that, “no-fault” divorce by unilateral decree is a travesty. To allow couples to mutually agree that no fault will be found is one thing; that allows them to decide to amiably put all their differences behind them. To allow one side to unilaterally file for dissolution for no reason whatsoever, as if it were such a flimsy business contract that it could be breached at will with only financial consequences to reckon–and only an even split at that!–was just asking for exactly what we have gotten, which is marriages wrecked by even short-term bouts with self-centeredness and disaffection by one party alone. The problem is, I think society will have to totally go onto the rocks before this tide (among the many other cases of indulgence that people believe “decent” society entitles them to) is ever turned. I shudder to think how bad things will get before the great middle inertia of thought will turn away from its present course. History says that those will be very bad days, indeed, and long ones at that.

EJ, your first paragraph actually encapsulates the point I’m trying to make. It is indeed the “two become one” nature of marriage that, if anything, makes a marriage far different than any other contract. Indeed, to the extent that a marriage creates an inseparable bond between spouses, that inseverability should extend to the civil divorce proceedings. Wanna leave your marriage for flimsy reasons? Fine, but you should have to do so at great peril, foregoing custody of children, accumulated wealth and any claim on future earnings of the spouse you’re abandoning due to your breach of contract. Indeed, the abandoner should pay the abandonee lifetime alimony to compensate the innocent party for the diminution in standard of living he/she would otherwise enjoy.

 

[EasterJoy]

EJ, your first paragraph actually encapsulates the point I’m trying to make. It is indeed the “two become one” nature of marriage that, if anything, makes a marriage far different than any other contract. Indeed, to the extent that a marriage creates an inseparable bond between spouses, that inseverability should extend to the civil divorce proceedings. Wanna leave your marriage for flimsy reasons? Fine, but you should have to do so at great peril, foregoing custody of children, accumulated wealth and any claim on future earnings of the spouse you’re abandoning due to your breach of contract. Indeed, the abandoner should pay the abandonee lifetime alimony to compensate the innocent party for the diminution in standard of living he/she would otherwise enjoy.

We’re on the same page, then…maybe not with regards to the details of compensation, but on the idea that it should not be possible to abandon a spouse and claim half the marital assets when there is not a shred of evidence required to show that the abandoned and faithful spouse has done a single thing wrong! That is one of the great miscarriages of justice of our times.

 

[hurting]

We’re on the same page, then…maybe not with regards to the details of compensation, but on the idea that it should not be possible to abandon a spouse and claim half the marital assets when there is not a shred of evidence required to show that the abandoned and faithful spouse has done a single thing wrong! That is one of the great miscarriages of justice of our times.

EJ,

Sorry for beating this dead horse, but one of the big problems is the ignorance that many if not most Catholics bring to the legal aspects of marriage, most importantly the reality that either one of the spouses can walk away from the legal arrangement as you describe. It seriously troubles me as well that the clergy are so devastatingly ignorant of this reality.

One more point about Chev’s general partnership analogy: we Catholics do not and generally are not allowed to have written agreements that specify how the civil partnership would be divvied up upon dissolution of the marriage. No one in his (and here I generally do mean ‘his’) right mind would enter a partnership with the implicit terms and conditions embedded in the modern marriage contract.

 

[Rence]

One more point about Chev’s general partnership analogy: we Catholics do not and generally are not allowed to have written agreements that specify how the civil partnership would be divvied up upon dissolution of the marriage. No one in his (and here I generally do mean ‘his’) right mind would enter a partnership with the implicit terms and conditions embedded in the modern marriage contract.

We can have a prenuptual agreement, but it has to be carefully worded to not put any conditions on the future of the marriage. This is especially true of second marriages in which there are other children involved and to protect their interests. For example, one can’t say: “…in case of divorce, this or that”. But they can say something like, "all property obtained by ‘this party’ before the marriage continues to be the sole property of ‘this party’, or …‘this account/property/item’ remains the sole property of ‘this party’. And yes, in this day and age, and with the laws in place, it would be kind of imprudent to not protect one’s interests and then cry about it later.

One can also put certain items/accounts/properties in a trust. Usually trusts aren’t affected by marriages and remain the property of the original owner.

 

[Rence]

Having said that, “no-fault” divorce by unilateral decree is a travesty. To allow couples to mutually agree that no fault will be found is one thing; that allows them to decide to amiably put all their differences behind them. To allow one side to unilaterally file for dissolution for no reason whatsoever, as if it were such a flimsy business contract that it could be breached at will with only financial consequences to reckon–.

I have to disagree with the above. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule/situation. But I’ve seen no-fault divorce save people, so I am convinced it was the best thing available. One of them being my own mother. One should be allowed to unilaterally file for dissolution for no reason whatsoever, so that a non-commited spouse can’t hold the wronged spouse hostage out of sheer spite. It makes it a lot less expensive for the wronged spouse to get out of such contracts without draining them dry in the process.

 

[EasterJoy]

I have to disagree with the above. Yes, there are exceptions to every rule/situation. But I’ve seen no-fault divorce save people, so I am convinced it was the best thing available. One of them being my own mother. One should be allowed to unilaterally file for dissolution for no reason whatsoever, so that a non-commited spouse can’t hold the wronged spouse hostage out of sheer spite. It makes it a lot less expensive for the wronged spouse to get out of such contracts without draining them dry in the process.

Your mother had *no reason whatsoever *to file for dissolution? If that is true, why was her divorce some kind of salvation?

You’ve seen this “save” people, but I’ve seen the people with the spouse who just got tired of the difficulties of marriage or who found someone whom they fancied more than their spouse and their family responsibilities who just up and left. Took their half of the stuff and walked out, just like the Prodigal Son. Have you seen the children of marriages like that, the ones who mother* just up and left them behind*? Have you seen the spouses with decades of marriage who were not told their spouse even wanted a divorce until that spouse had already resolved unilaterally to dissolve the marriage? What kind of marriage is that? That is no salvation. That is an unearned trip through hell.

The money is not the first fraction of the expense of a unilateral divorce. I’m not saying that unilateral divorce is never in order, but it has gotten way out of hand. There needs to be a substantial reason for divorce–to be honest, it would be fair if society wanted that even if both parties just “get tired” of being married, since those parties were quite happy to take the legal benefits of marriage for as long as the arrangement was convenient to them–and if the parties don’t think that way, then they really need to ask themselves whether they want a civil marriage contract worth the paper it is written on. What stake does society have in giving legal benefits to a relationship so tenuous as that?

“My spouse could decide to take half the assets and earning capacity we’ve accumulated since our marriage and walk out any day, with no warning and for no reason” does not sound like it is worth much to me. It leaves every married person entirely vulnerable to abandonment, no matter how innocent or even how exemplary they have been as a spouse. (And please, let no one say that an exemplary spouse is never abandoned. Heaven forbid, because that simply is not true.)

 

[EasterJoy]

EJ,

Sorry for beating this dead horse, but one of the big problems is the ignorance that many if not most Catholics bring to the legal aspects of marriage, most importantly the reality that either one of the spouses can walk away from the legal arrangement as you describe. It seriously troubles me as well that the clergy are so devastatingly ignorant of this reality.

One more point about Chev’s general partnership analogy: we Catholics do not and generally are not allowed to have written agreements that specify how the civil partnership would be divvied up upon dissolution of the marriage. No one in his (and here I generally do mean ‘his’) right mind would enter a partnership with the implicit terms and conditions embedded in the modern marriage contract.

The protection of modern marriage laws is not as good as the protection of the handshake of a person of character. The truth is, I would go so far as to say that modern marriage law does more to undermine the exercise of good character than to enhance it. The more integrity you have, the more you need to find a good attorney if your spouse files papers on you, because a good character alone leaves one as a sheep among wolves in divorce court. I’ve seen many sad cases, particularly with regards to husbands being walked out on who are not willing to forgo custody of the children. If they don’t get good attorneys, they can plan on handing over most of their assets and most of their kids’ lives to their exiting wives.

 

[hurting]

We can have a prenuptual agreement, but it has to be carefully worded to not put any conditions on the future of the marriage. This is especially true of second marriages in which there are other children involved and to protect their interests. For example, one can’t say: “…in case of divorce, this or that”. But they can say something like, "all property obtained by ‘this party’ before the marriage continues to be the sole property of ‘this party’, or …‘this account/property/item’ remains the sole property of ‘this party’. And yes, in this day and age, and with the laws in place, it would be kind of imprudent to not protect one’s interests and then cry about it later.

One can also put certain items/accounts/properties in a trust. Usually trusts aren’t affected by marriages and remain the property of the original owner.

You are splitting hairs here. Any attempt to protect one’s assets in the manner you described violates the spirit of the prohibition against pre-nups the Church generally upholds. How does protecting one’s earning potential by way of a “no alimony” clause differ substantially from protecting existing assets. All such protections imply a causal event whether stated or not; the break-up of the marriage.

The language I’ve seen in the Church’s teachings say that pre-nups to protect inheritances are OK? Why would a “no alimony” pre-nup, which would definitely protect the inheritance of children of a failed marriage be viewed unfavorably by the Church?

 

[hurting]

The protection of modern marriage laws is not as good as the protection of the handshake of a person of character. **The truth is, I would go so far as to say that modern marriage law does more to undermine the exercise of good character than to enhance it. **The more integrity you have, the more you need to find a good attorney if your spouse files papers on you, because a good character alone leaves one as a sheep among wolves in divorce court. I’ve seen many sad cases, particularly with regards to husbands being walked out on who are not willing to forgo custody of the children. If they don’t get good attorneys, they can plan on handing over most of their assets and most of their kids’ lives to their exiting wives.

Exactly. This is precisely why the Church should get out of the state-sponsored marriage business all together. Net-net, the state’s involvement produces more heartache and detriment to sacramental marriage than benefit.