obamacare marital separation

[Jon_S_1]

what if they had 50/50 custody? there would not be child support or alimony?

Umm no,

Sincerely, the guy who pays half of my income in child support and alimony while having 50/50 custody.

It is about having the “same standard of living at both home” even of I had 90% custody I 'd pay something.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The state cares nothing about “honesty” in a moral sense, but only in a legal sense. As the state departs more and more from morally-based laws, where does our obligation to obey them in spirit end, so long as we are obeying the letter?

One could argue that it’s immoral to take advantage of legitimate tax deductions because the state would prefer that we pay the maximum imaginable tax, and manifestly needs the money, though it does allow the deductions for other reasons.

This is none sense.

The state creates a tax code, not with loopholes, but incentives such as deductions.

This is completely different then “under penalty of perjury” telling them you live alone when you actually have a sugar daddy paying most everything.

It is theft. And that is that.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I’m really surprised that no one has mentioned this, but if he gets a divorce he will pay more in income tax. Any money his wife is awarded via child support and alimony will also be taxed, again.

 

[Serap]

AFHGOLD:

Jon S

What is your point here? Your saying that Royal Archer is a liar and a cheater? He technically isn’t. If your so concerned about people taking advantage of loop holes then get into office and change it!

No Jesus was not American and from the statements you make maybe you should be American as well.

You sound very self righteous and judgmental. You like throwing scripture around how about scripture be thrown back to you! Christ says no not judge remember?

It sounds like you support a communistic, socialistic, Totalitarian type society. If we didn’t have more Americans challenge the system, look for loop holes, fight for their freedoms by any mean s possible we would have a more tyrannical government who would probably take away our freedom to even practice our faith. Like I said earlier in my post thought government shutdown, the government prevented Catholic priests from allowing them to say mass. That was temporary law.

From the sounds of it you support immoral behavior and support anti freedom. What makes you so righteous to judge Royal Archers actions on trying to get his wealth back?

and if the law is not being broken, then what’s the big deal…it’s his risk to take anyway

 

[mandajane]

At the end of the day, he’s violating the basic tenet of marriage, that you’re supposed to love and accept your spouse, including the good and the bad. Just like we don’t get to use condoms to prevent having a child (because that would be saying “Oh I love you and want you, but not the parts that result in a child.”), you can’t morally divorce your wife but still live with her and enjoy her company (because that would be saying “Oh I love you and want you, but not the parts that cost me more money.”)

Frankly, if I heard my husband had said something like this… well… it would sure as hell be a contested divorce.

 

[Jon_S_1]

AFHGOLD:

Jon S

What is your point here? Your saying that Royal Archer is a liar and a cheater? He technically isn’t. If your so concerned about people taking advantage of loop holes then get into office and change it!

When someone says they need welfare only because they are tired of paying taxes, and they want to maintain their middle/upper class lifestyle then it is nothing more than cheating, lying and defrauding. It is not a loophole, when welfare requires that you share the “household income” and all “unearned income” (ie he pays his wifes car payment, rent, etc…)

No Jesus was not American and from the statements you make maybe you should be American as well.

Really?

I believe people should be honest, if thats un american then I am guilty

I believe people should obey the law, and if they dont like it, get it changed, if thats un american then again I am guilty.

I believe people should be married and not divorce over finances- if that is un-American than I am un American.

I believe that people should care for their fellow men, and not have their sole goal be to accumulate wealth. If that is un American then I am un american.

You sound very self righteous and judgmental. You like throwing scripture around how about scripture be thrown back to you! Christ says no not judge remember?

Ah yes the “I cant justify this morally, scripturally, legally so I will just tell you not to judge me argument” I am not judging anyone, I am trying to clearly articulate how this person is wishing to act against the law, against the church, and against morality as defined by our faith.

It sounds like you support a communistic, socialistic, Totalitarian type society. If we didn’t have more Americans challenge the system, look for loop holes, fight for their freedoms by any mean s possible we would have a more tyrannical government who would probably take away our freedom to even practice our faith. Like I said earlier in my post thought government shutdown, the government prevented Catholic priests from allowing them to say mass. That was temporary law.

These are bold claims.

Please point to one point in any of my posts where I advocated “communism, socialism, totalitarianism”?

Or is this just the part where you build a big straw man. Maybe this is the part where someone calls someone hitler to “win”

Further, the government cannot take away your freedom of religion if you have already given it up yourself by not practicing it. They will take away something you claim to believe in but really dont. Yes I am aware of the Catholic Priests who could not say mass on the government base. I would be happy to work on changing our laws, and I actively support with my pocket book efforts to shore up our freedoms especially the freedom of religion and the second ammendment. But I would argue that it would be wrong to go and kill the nations leaders because I disagreed with what they said, or their actions. The ends do not justify the means. We must use the laws in place and the system to try to change things. Changing things by lying, cheating, stealing, only condemns your own soul.

From the sounds of it you support immoral behavior and support anti freedom. What makes you so righteous to judge Royal Archers actions on trying to get his wealth back?

I judge his actions as an impartial judge, based on the laws of the land and our church. He came here looking for that and asking about his actions. I answered.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m really surprised that no one has mentioned this, but if he gets a divorce he will pay more in income tax. Any money his wife is awarded via child support and alimony will also be taxed, again.

Excellent point.

I wonder why all the homosexuals feel disenfranchised because they cannot get the same government benefits (ie married tax break) as straight married couples?

Is it because it is more beneficial to be married or unmarried.

Maybe you should just encourage them to go defraud the welfare system so they dont have to fight for marriage equality anymore.

(No i do not support same sex marriage)

 

[royal_archer]

If you and your spouse have a loving relationship, there are other options. For example, most of the major drug companies help with the co-payments for prescriptions. Talk to your priest about help from the church; see a marital counselor and a financial counselor. Then examine your own conscience. Is it possible that this marriage and financial problems have driven you to see the marriage as a burden? If so, I suspect that you might decide to bail on the situation if you got divorced. It could be a powerful temptation in your situation.

The relationship would not change, just the legal status. There is not need to get charity.

 

[royal_archer]

I judge his actions as an impartial judge, based on the laws of the land and our church. He came here looking for that and asking about his actions. I answered.

Wrong, I did not come here looking for your moral opinion on this matter, you took advantage of a question about dealing with civil law and used it to impart your moral preferences. Which provide no value to the discussion.

Here is what the church teaches from the catechism:

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

While you can quibble about the exact implementation, The facts are that legal / civil separations are an option available for considering. and yes, I consider equal access to government distributions a legal right.

 

[royal_archer]

I’m really surprised that no one has mentioned this, but if he gets a divorce he will pay more in income tax. Any money his wife is awarded via child support and alimony will also be taxed, again.

That would have to be worked into the calculations I know that head of households do not get as big of a break but they still get one.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Wrong, I did not come here looking for your moral opinion on this matter, you took advantage of a question about dealing with civil law and used it to impart your moral preferences. Which provide no value to the discussion.

Here is what the church teaches from the catechism:

2383 The separation of spouses while maintaining the marriage bond can be legitimate in certain cases provided for by canon law.177

If civil divorce remains the only possible way of ensuring certain legal rights, the care of the children, or the protection of inheritance, it can be tolerated and does not constitute a moral offense.

While you can quibble about the exact implementation, The facts are that legal / civil separations are an option available for considering. and yes, I consider equal access to government distributions a legal right.

And like I said, none of us get to interpret and make our own truths out of the catechism/scriptures.

So take it to your priest, point out these passages and discuss it with him.

If he says you have God’s blessing than by all means do it.

I personally don’t believe that will be his answer but let us know what he says!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Make sure you read the whole section of the Catechism too!

• Divorce, for reasons other than safety and security however, is considered a grave offense because it “claims to break the [marriage] contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death” (#2384).
• “Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.” (#2385).

Also here is the canon law you referenced:

ARTICLE 2: SEPARATION WHILE THE BOND REMAINS

Can. 1151 Spouses have the obligation and the right to maintain their common conjugal life, unless a lawful reason excuses them.

Can. 1152 §1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other’s fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.

§2 Tacit condonation occurs if the innocent spouse, after becoming aware of the adultery, has willingly engaged in a marital relationship with the other spouse; it is presumed, however, if the innocent spouse has maintained the common conjugal life for six months, and has not had recourse to ecclesiastical or to civil authority.

§3 Within six months of having spontaneously terminated the common conjugal life, the innocent spouse is to bring a case for separation to the competent ecclesiastical authority. Having examined all the circumstances, this authority is to consider whether the innocent spouse can be brought to condone the fault and not prolong the separation permanently.

Can. 1153 §1 A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.

§2 In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 1154 When a separation of spouses has taken place, provision is always, and in good time, to be made for the due maintenance and upbringing of the children.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse may laudably readmit the other spouse to the conjugal life, in which case he or she renounces the right to separation .

I see nothing in here remotely close to allowing what you propose.

 

[royal_archer]

Millions of people on welfare are working too. These rude ideas toward the poor are so un-Christian. How about bring thankful that you have a job that provides enough for you?

Please don’t insult me because of a false insinuation of something I obviously did not say. I never said those on welfare do not work. I know there are plenty of people who work but still collect government hand outs. But they still seem to depend on me and some get very irate if I even consider not continuing to work to give them more money.

This whole thread is sickening, and I’m surprised moderators haven’t shut it down.

I presume you are referring to the false accusations against me.

Go ahead, dude, scam the system and take money away from people who legitimately need it and tell yourself that you deserve it more than they do. It’s morally wrong, but you just want to keep justifying it to yourself.

I do not need justification in this matter.

And if you’re not concerned with the ethical aspect, then go to a forum of attorneys or just hire your own for these questions. My suspicion is that you know what you’re doing is wrong and you want to try to talk CAF members into giving you the okay so that you won’t have to feel as guilty. Not sure how much Russian lit you’ve read, but crime is punishment. Your guilt will catch you if you’re a worthwhile person.

interspersed with the insults and unfounded allegations and accusations, is actually some good information. which will help me ask the right questions if we decide to do anything and get a lawyer involved.

 

[royal_archer]

Unless you are adding adultery to the list of false accusations, most of that is totally irrelevant. here are the only potentially applicable parts:

Make sure you read the whole section of the Catechism too!

• Divorce, for reasons other than safety and security however, is considered a grave offense because it “claims to break the [marriage] contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death” (#2384).

Financial security

• “Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.” (#2385).

This is written for the entire world, our American society has changed in a way that no longer recognizes marriage to begin with. The rest is irrelevant to someone who is only seeking a civil separation and not a divorce in the eyes of the church.

Also here is the canon law you referenced:

Can. 1154 When a separation of spouses has taken place, provision is always, and in good time, to be made for the due maintenance and upbringing of the children.

They would be provided for, just indirectly with the willing government intervening. there quality of life would not suffer and in theory would get better.

 

[royal_archer]

At the end of the day, he’s violating the basic tenet of marriage, that you’re supposed to love and accept your spouse, including the good and the bad. Just like we don’t get to use condoms to prevent having a child (because that would be saying “Oh I love you and want you, but not the parts that result in a child.”), you can’t morally divorce your wife but still live with her and enjoy her company (because that would be saying “Oh I love you and want you, but not the parts that cost me more money.”)

Frankly, if I heard my husband had said something like this… well… it would sure as hell be a contested divorce.

No I have no intent to change that basic tenet. What I have asked about is purely constrained within changing an administrative aspect in order to align with the legal code so that my wife is no longer penalized for her marriage to me.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Unless you are adding adultery to the list of false accusations, most of that is totally irrelevant. here are the only potentially applicable parts:

Financial security

This is written for the entire world, our American society has changed in a way that no longer recognizes marriage to begin with. The rest is irrelevant to someone who is only seeking a civil separation and not a divorce in the eyes of the church.

They would be provided for, just indirectly with the willing government intervening. there quality of life would not suffer and in theory would get better.

Like I said, take it to your priest.

But it sounds like you have already convinced yourselves.

It is the same way Protestants convince themselves that baptism is just a symbol or the bible should just have 66 books.

It is the same way women convince themselves abortion is ok

It is the same way Nancy Pelosi justifies her stand on abortion and homosexual marriage is “in line with Catholic teaching”

It is the same way Piers Morgan convinces himself that guns are morally evil.

The same way the Kennedy’s twist church teaching to create a government nanny state.

And you finding your soul in your “victim” mentality will find yourself in good company with them.

Peace, and try a novel idea.

Try skipping the next episode of infowars and go talk to your priest and spend some time with God in prayer over this issue.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

That would have to be worked into the calculations I know that head of households do not get as big of a break but they still get one.

I got married in summer, but my husband changed his filing status at the beginning of the year so that we would get more money each paycheck instead of getting a large tax refund in spring. When he changed his filing status he started getting just over $400 more every month. Marriage is significant. Kids are significant.

Speaking of kids, how will you explain this to them? “Mommy and daddy got a legal divorce and we have to represent ourselves and divorced even though we aren’t so that we can get money from the government to buy luxury items that we don’t need”. I try not to judge other’s parenting, but that is so far over the line of acceptable. That’s how you end up raising Bernie Madoff.

And scandal? If I knew someone was catholic and I saw that they did this, well let’s just say that they would lose a lot of credibility with me (and everyone that I told about this, and I would talk) when they started talking about promoting “traditional family values”. In fact, I’m not sure I could actually hear you say the word “values” without rolling on the floor laughing with tears in my eyes.

 

[skigirl1689]

I got married in summer, but my husband changed his filing status at the beginning of the year so that we would get more money each paycheck instead of getting a large tax refund in spring. When he changed his filing status he started getting just over $400 more every month. Marriage is significant. Kids are significant.

Speaking of kids, how will you explain this to them? “Mommy and daddy got a legal divorce and we have to represent ourselves and divorced even though we aren’t so that we can get money from the government to buy luxury items that we don’t need”. I try not to judge other’s parenting, but that is so far over the line of acceptable. That’s how you end up raising Bernie Madoff.

And scandal? If I knew someone was catholic and I saw that they did this, well let’s just say that they would lose a lot of credibility with me (and everyone that I told about this, and I would talk) when they started talking about promoting “traditional family values”. In fact, I’m not sure I could actually hear you say the word “values” without rolling on the floor laughing with tears in my eyes.

I just thought the same thing, this is a huge scandal as people would not understand it as the OP could not possibly explain the situation to everyone he encounters.

Plus, wouldn’t a person who did this be denied the Sacraments as he’d be living with his “ex-wife” as defined by law. As I understand, the Church does still define marriage by legal definitions and cannot separate sacramental marriage from the legal. What I mean is, the Church has to have a marriage license prior to marrying a couple, so wouldn’t the Church see a legally divorced man as breaking his marriage vows?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Plus, wouldn’t a person who did this be denied the Sacraments as he’d be living with his “ex-wife” as defined by law. As I understand, the Church does still define marriage by legal definitions and cannot separate sacramental marriage from the legal. What I mean is, the Church has to have a marriage license prior to marrying a couple, so wouldn’t the Church see a legally divorced man as breaking his marriage vows?

No.

The Church does not depend on the state’s judgment of who is married and who isn’t. The Church does comply with state laws because they’re laws. But, as with priests saying Mass in Ireland when my great grandparents lived there, the Church does not abandon sacraments just because the state might forbid them.

 

[Jon_S_1]

No.

The Church does not depend on the state’s judgment of who is married and who isn’t. The Church does comply with state laws because they’re laws. But, as with priests saying Mass in Ireland when my great grandparents lived there, the Church does not abandon sacraments just because the state might forbid them.

But at the same time the church does require a civil license if you want to perform the marriage sacrament.