Page all of 3 123>
Topic Options
#40112 - 07/10/10 10:21 AM That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ...
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2576
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
Is California a great state or what?

Reminds me of a "Dear Abby" column arguing about the inconsideration of spousal suicide because of its emotional effect on the other. One woman agreed, saying it would deprive her of the opportunity to dispatch him herself.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#40115 - 07/10/10 11:44 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: Michael A.Aquino]
Oxus Offline
member


Registered: 04/15/10
Posts: 510
Dr. Aquino,

The link is not working


Ir Shti Shta-tu
Oxus

Top
#40118 - 07/10/10 02:29 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: Oxus]
Michael A.Aquino Offline
stalker


Registered: 09/28/08
Posts: 2576
Loc: San Francisco, CA, USA
The link tests OK for me, but here's the news item:

 Quote:
Schwarzenegger approves spouse protection bill

The Associated Press
Posted: 07/09/2010 06:05:11 PM PDT
Updated: 07/09/2010 06:05:11 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a bill to protect men and women from vengeful spouses.

The governor on Friday signed AB2674 by Assemblyman Marty Block, a Democrat from San Diego.

It says that spouses who solicit the murder of their husband or wife are not entitled to collect benefits in divorce proceedings.

The bill was inspired by the true-life story of a Pomona police detective, John Pomroy. His ex-wife collected about $70,000 from the couple's estate after she was convicted of soliciting a hit man to murder him in 2003.

Until now, California's no-fault divorce code was silent on such efforts. A couple's shared assets are usually split evenly during a divorce.

The bill takes effect in January.
_________________________
Michael A. Aquino

Top
#40120 - 07/10/10 06:48 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: Oxus]
zippadydooda Offline
pledge


Registered: 08/09/09
Posts: 61
Loc: San Diego, California
For once, I like the governators choice. At least he's done one thing right, lol. Since I can't vote yet, I can only hope that the next governor of California does a better job.

Edited by zippadydooda (07/10/10 06:51 PM)
Edit Reason: clarification and 1 liner
_________________________
Blathering nonsense.

Top
#40121 - 07/10/10 06:56 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: zippadydooda]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
I think the whole idea of alimony, in any case, is pretty outdated in this day and age. It used to be that a man's wife was his dependent, that women were exclusively homemakers or old maids, and that if a man left his wife she was without any means whatsoever of supporting herself.

Now that women can get jobs, they shouldn't feel entitled to maintain the standard of living they did in marriage when the marriage ends. Tough cookie. Get a job.

Presumably, if a couple gets divorced, both partners should be able to move on with their lives and start new relationships if they so choose. Saddling an ex with alimony for the rest of his/her life is basically saying, "If I can't have you, I'll at least keep your money so no one else can!" In the 21st century, alimony is as obsolete as button-up boots.

Note that I'm not talking about child support. That's a whole other kettle of fish. Children are still legitimately dependents and those who choose to have them need to take responsibility for them. But alimony? Send that the way of the dodo.


Edited by XiaoGui17 (07/10/10 06:58 PM)
Edit Reason: punctuation typo
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40812 - 07/25/10 07:14 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
I think the whole idea of alimony, in any case, is pretty outdated in this day and age. It used to be that a man's wife was his dependent, that women were exclusively homemakers or old maids, and that if a man left his wife she was without any means whatsoever of supporting herself.

Now that women can get jobs, they shouldn't feel entitled to maintain the standard of living they did in marriage when the marriage ends. Tough cookie. Get a job.

Presumably, if a couple gets divorced, both partners should be able to move on with their lives and start new relationships if they so choose. Saddling an ex with alimony for the rest of his/her life is basically saying, "If I can't have you, I'll at least keep your money so no one else can!" In the 21st century, alimony is as obsolete as button-up boots.

Note that I'm not talking about child support. That's a whole other kettle of fish. Children are still legitimately dependents and those who choose to have them need to take responsibility for them. But alimony? Send that the way of the dodo.


You don't know any body that has recently been through a divorce, do you? I do. Just this past fall as a matter of fact.

She has been out of the work force for over 11 years raising her children, because that's what he wanted her to do and what the children needed from her. Over 2 years ago, he packed his shit one day while she was out running errands and as she pulled in, he was leaving with the boys and a butt load of stuff (clothes, what have you). She asked where he was going and he announced he and their boys were going to his new apartment "so the boys can check it out". She has struggled financially since and has tried to get a job for the past 2 years. The job field dynamics have changed considerably, and not everyone can just "get a job", anymore. Without the measly $300 in alimony that their divorce gave her (for a horribly long 3 years after 12 years of marriage to this piece of shit), she'd not be able to pay for things like her electric and food. Yes, she gets child support but that's definitely not enough. I hate to say it, but alimony in her case, has helped keep the electric on and fed them. I know it doesn't always work that way, but it definitely shouldn't be completely disposed of either when it comes to divorces. He helped create that family unit with her, he should help support ALL of it while she either goes back to school so she CAN get a job, or until she can find a job on her own. Doesn't matter, either way.
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#40814 - 07/25/10 08:14 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: Nyte]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I disagree.

First, anyone who thinks marriage is by definition a life-long event should be flogged in public.

So, all decisions made during a marriage should be done realizing that when a marriage ends, certain decisions could bite you in the ass. I'm all for parents taking responsibility for their offspring, even if it is solely financial, but alimony for ex-partners should be removed from the system.
If a former ex-partner decides to support out of free will, it is his choice but none should be forced by the system because their former partner didn't have long-term consequences in mind when taking certain decisions during the marriage.

Responsibility to the responsible.

D.

Top
#40815 - 07/25/10 08:34 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: Diavolo]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
I disagree.

First, anyone who thinks marriage is by definition a life-long event should be flogged in public.

So, all decisions made during a marriage should be done realizing that when a marriage ends, certain decisions could bite you in the ass. I'm all for parents taking responsibility for their offspring, even if it is solely financial, but alimony for ex-partners should be removed from the system.
If a former ex-partner decides to support out of free will, it is his choice but none should be forced by the system because their former partner didn't have long-term consequences in mind when taking certain decisions during the marriage.

Responsibility to the responsible.

D.


I understand what you're saying. In turn, at the time they got married, she honestly believed it was for the rest of her life. I'm not excusing her actions of not furthering herself. In the same respect, I will not excuse what he did either, knowing she honestly believed they were in it for the LONG haul. She didn't marry him at 18 and drop 2 kids right away. She married in her late 20's. They made the decision together that she would stay home with their children. She's still learning the hard way, that not everything is forever and now knows she has to do for herself and her children. She's forwarding herself through huge strides and it's not like she's getting alimony from this man for the rest of either of their lives. Just long enough for her to get herself on her feet and should she find a stable, financially feesible job, she loses her alimony before those 3 years are up. He DID agree to this in their divorce settlement but if it was done away with, she wouldn't stand a fighting chance of actually getting on her feet with 2 young children in her home. I could see not getting it if she was all by herself but she's not, and raising children without the honest help of this man, other than his child support definitely makes things take a different path.

Let me make myself clear about this man. He likes playing part-time father and when she did have a job for a few weeks, he wouldn't watch the kids so she could work. Everyone else she knows works, so it's not like she can just drop them off with someone else when he decides he's not taking the boys because it's inconvenient for him. Babysitting is out of the question, because that takes money she doesn't have and her boys aren't old enough to be home alone. Day care is out as well, simply because of the cost. If this man was really a decent father, it would be different, but in some cases alimony does have it's purposes.

His child support is a minimum for these 2 children. Our state figures his earnings and then figures hers as if she has a job, even though when he left without warning, she didn't. It's been a rough road, but she's growing and learning every day that she has to depend on herself more and more. Right now though, his alimony has a genuine purpose of taking care of his children. I know that's not always the case, but sometimes it is, and I'd rather he give her alimony then her end up on welfare, which is where she possibly could end up without it. So let him pay for a few years for leaving like he did and for being an SOB about helping with his boys while she gets on her feet, is my feelings.

I've been down the road of "financial support ONLY" with my oldest son's father and let me tell you, I was fortunate enough to have help from family and friends that COULD watch my oldest while I worked, otherwise, I don't know if things would have been different, even now.
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#40843 - 07/25/10 08:10 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: Nyte]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Nyte

You don't know any body that has recently been through a divorce, do you? I do. Just this past fall as a matter of fact.


I do, in fact, which is part of why I feel so strongly about this. There are two sides to every story, and for every woman like that friend of yours who legitimately happens to have it rough because some POS left her high and dry, there's a gold-digger exploiting an honest, hard-working man who was just trying to do the right thing.

I've seen a lot, and I do mean a lot, of exploitative women. They don't work, they don't do housework, and they don't take care of any children they may have. They sit around watching Judge Judy and shoveling Cheetos into their mouths, letting themselves go because they "hooked" a man. Many hooked men in the first place by lying and claiming to be on birth control whilst deliberately trying to get pregnant to force the man into "honorably" marrying her "for the child." When the man finally wakes up and realizes how badly he's getting fucked up the ass in this arrangement, even if he leaves this cunt he's still stuck paying her alimony to pig out and watch TV.

The economy hit us all pretty bad, and we're all having trouble finding jobs. Yes, sometimes a divorced woman can't get a job after years being a homemaker. But what if a divorced man loses his job and can't afford alimony? I've seen this happen to honest men and it royally sucks for them as well. They can be imprisoned for contempt. Technically they shouldn't be if they're genuinely unable to pay, but the system is broken. Alimony is financial help to one party, but it's also a financial burden to another. And we could just as easily use the crummy economy as cause for abolishing such a financial burden.

If anything, your friend's situation is a sign of how badly the child support system in your state needs to be reformed, not a sign that alimony needs to be perpetuated. It seems to me she should be receiving WAY, way more in child support, since she was, after all, the children's primary caretaker. Part of the reason she's unemployable now is because of her dedication to her children. Instead of receiving a bit more in alimony in addition to child support, she should be receiving way more in child support.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40848 - 07/25/10 09:45 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

The real problem is women so willing to pop out babies thinking this will secure or fix their relationship. Responsibility for the responsible also means that when you choose to pop out a brat with someone this is your choice. You have chosen to forever change your existence with or without your spouse.

Child services suck because all the babies’ mommas are stressing the system. Those with children often feel they should be privileged because of their choice. Fuck that!

Welfare, alimony, child support lets just call these things what they are, handouts. People who are not secure should not have children its simple really.

Oh by the way the original article seems to have little to do with your speech on alimony and more to do with shared assets. It also strictly mentions that this bill affects only those who kill or plot to kill their spouse.

“It says that spouses who solicit the murder of their husband or wife are not entitled to collect benefits in divorce proceedings.”

Did you two have anything to say on topic? I mean do you agree or disagree with the ruling by Arnold?

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#40860 - 07/26/10 06:12 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: ta2zz]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
"The real problem is women so willing to pop out babies thinking this will secure or fix their relationship. Responsibility for the responsible also means that when you choose to pop out a brat with someone this is your choice. You have chosen to forever change your existence with or without your spouse." (ta2zz)

Oh? They pop them out all by themselves? I've said this to any number of men - married, cohabiting, playing the field - and I'll say it again. You have just as much responsibility to prevent parenthood as does the woman, if this is what you want. Use condoms every time (even if your lover is "on the Pill"), do something other than intercourse or be man enough to get a vasectomy. Otherwise, shut your whining when you find out you're about to become a father. It should be a privilege, not an accident.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#40869 - 07/26/10 05:45 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: ta2zz]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
Word, ta2zz.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz

Oh by the way the original article seems to have little to do with your speech on alimony and more to do with shared assets. It also strictly mentions that this bill affects only those who kill or plot to kill their spouse.

“It says that spouses who solicit the murder of their husband or wife are not entitled to collect benefits in divorce proceedings.”

Did you two have anything to say on topic? I mean do you agree or disagree with the ruling by Arnold?

~T~


As for Arnold's ruling, I guess my sentiment was, "Too little, too late." Making rulings about the minute details of the circumstances under which alimony should be dispensed is, to me, like trying to iron out the details of alcohol prohibition penalties or making adjustments to a single-payer healthcare program. When I have such a revulsion to the general thing in principle, tiny victories earn a shrug. I guess the thread did get a little off topic with my rant.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#40873 - 07/26/10 07:50 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: felixgarnet]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3894
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: felixgarnet
"The real problem is women so willing to pop out babies thinking this will secure or fix their relationship. Responsibility for the responsible also means that when you choose to pop out a brat with someone this is your choice. You have chosen to forever change your existence with or without your spouse." (ta2zz)

Oh? They pop them out all by themselves? I've said this to any number of men - married, cohabiting, playing the field - and I'll say it again. You have just as much responsibility to prevent parenthood as does the woman, if this is what you want. Use condoms every time (even if your lover is "on the Pill"), do something other than intercourse or be man enough to get a vasectomy. Otherwise, shut your whining when you find out you're about to become a father. It should be a privilege, not an accident.


This is the biggest bullshit canard argument of all time.

Basically you are saying if you drive a car, knowing an accident is possible, you deserve to die in an accident. That accidents happen does not obligate you to ride them out to their conclusion without taking any steps to right them or prevent them.

Just as women(and men) are responsible for what they do with their own bodies when it is convenient for them (happy sex time), so too is it theirs when it isn't. Responsibility for what a woman does with her body does not magically transfer to someone else just because she chooses to stay pregnant. What you are spewing is politically correct bubblegum 'wisdom' based on tired and outdated notions of equality for all responsibility for some, which is completely backwards.

This isn't to say I agree with deadbeat dads, but having sex is not an obligation to parenthood.

Also, who are you to say what 'should be' a privilege for others?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40874 - 07/26/10 08:02 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: Dan_Dread]
felixgarnet Offline
active member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 688
Loc: UK
Eh? I said quite clearly that if a man does not wish to create a child it is as much his responsibility to use contraception as it is the woman's. If you don't wish to become a father, take the necessary steps to avoid becoming one. Have I misunderstood something about "responsibility to the responsible"?
As for creating and raising a child, I believe it should be recognised as a privilege ( maybe a gift is a better word? ), not just as something you do because there's nothing on TV or you'd like some extra state benefits. You're creating human life not baking a cake.
_________________________
"Here's to Artifice!" - Anton Szandor LaVey.

Top
#40875 - 07/26/10 08:29 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: felixgarnet]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3894
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Right so say steps are taken to prevent pregnancy, but it still happens, and the woman chooses to carry it to term against the wishes of the man.

Where does the responsibility lie?

As for what you think should be recognized as a privilege, that begins and ends with you. You do not get to dictate that to others. Frankly, most people are worth less than a good cake.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#40888 - 07/27/10 10:24 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: Dan_Dread]
6Satan6Archist6 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/16/08
Posts: 2509
 Quote:
Right so say steps are taken to prevent pregnancy, but it still happens, and the woman chooses to carry it to term against the wishes of the man.


This is something that has been bothered me on and off for a while now. When a woman gets pregnant it is entirely up to her to decide whether to carry the child full term or have it aborted - the man gets no say. I think that if a man gets a woman pregnant (regardless of who took what precautions against it) and the man doesn't want the child but the woman doesn't want an abortion either then the man should be freed from all responsibilities to said child. And before anyone says anything consider the flip-side: If the man were to want to keep the child but it was the woman who wanted the abortion, it would be perfectly acceptable (to society) for the woman to get an abortion regardless of the man's desire to be a father. Anyone who is for equal rights for women, not special rights, would have to agree.

Yes, people should realize that in having sex it is possible that pregnancy can result but even with all the precautions one can take against pregnancy, shit still happens. And let us not forget that are women out there who want to get knocked up, by anyone they can, so they can sit on their asses reap the benefits. Don't try to argue against me on this one I have known women like this and I suspect some of you may have too.
_________________________
No gods. No masters.

Top
#40905 - 07/27/10 08:44 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
 Originally Posted By: Nyte

You don't know any body that has recently been through a divorce, do you? I do. Just this past fall as a matter of fact.


I do, in fact, which is part of why I feel so strongly about this. There are two sides to every story, and for every woman like that friend of yours who legitimately happens to have it rough because some POS left her high and dry, there's a gold-digger exploiting an honest, hard-working man who was just trying to do the right thing.

I've seen a lot, and I do mean a lot, of exploitative women. They don't work, they don't do housework, and they don't take care of any children they may have. They sit around watching Judge Judy and shoveling Cheetos into their mouths, letting themselves go because they "hooked" a man. Many hooked men in the first place by lying and claiming to be on birth control whilst deliberately trying to get pregnant to force the man into "honorably" marrying her "for the child." When the man finally wakes up and realizes how badly he's getting fucked up the ass in this arrangement, even if he leaves this cunt he's still stuck paying her alimony to pig out and watch TV.

The economy hit us all pretty bad, and we're all having trouble finding jobs. Yes, sometimes a divorced woman can't get a job after years being a homemaker. But what if a divorced man loses his job and can't afford alimony? I've seen this happen to honest men and it royally sucks for them as well. They can be imprisoned for contempt. Technically they shouldn't be if they're genuinely unable to pay, but the system is broken. Alimony is financial help to one party, but it's also a financial burden to another. And we could just as easily use the crummy economy as cause for abolishing such a financial burden.

If anything, your friend's situation is a sign of how badly the child support system in your state needs to be reformed, not a sign that alimony needs to be perpetuated. It seems to me she should be receiving WAY, way more in child support, since she was, after all, the children's primary caretaker. Part of the reason she's unemployable now is because of her dedication to her children. Instead of receiving a bit more in alimony in addition to child support, she should be receiving way more in child support.


Here, you don't get alimony unless the other party agrees to pay it. And you're correct. The child support system does need changing drastically. But that's not likely to happen any time soon. In the mean time, her alimony is a good thing.

As for your comments about exploitative women, you've hit the nail on the head but forgot to include many a men like that too. The street runs both ways, at least where I live and I've seen it go both directions. Men who stay home with the kids while mom is off working. He stays up all night doing whatever is fun for him while she takes care of the house, kids, etc. after working all day. Eh, seems to run amuck both ways I guess.
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#40907 - 07/27/10 08:55 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: ta2zz]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz

The real problem is women so willing to pop out babies thinking this will secure or fix their relationship. Responsibility for the responsible also means that when you choose to pop out a brat with someone this is your choice. You have chosen to forever change your existence with or without your spouse.

Child services suck because all the babies’ mommas are stressing the system. Those with children often feel they should be privileged because of their choice. Fuck that!

Welfare, alimony, child support lets just call these things what they are, handouts. People who are not secure should not have children its simple really.

Oh by the way the original article seems to have little to do with your speech on alimony and more to do with shared assets. It also strictly mentions that this bill affects only those who kill or plot to kill their spouse.

“It says that spouses who solicit the murder of their husband or wife are not entitled to collect benefits in divorce proceedings.”

Did you two have anything to say on topic? I mean do you agree or disagree with the ruling by Arnold?

~T~


You're right Ta2zz, men can't make a concious effort to put on a condumn before intercourse to make sure there isn't a bun in the oven when they're done. Or am I missing something there?

It's not just moms that are overloading our current systems. Care to break it down the way it really should be?

As for the topic, that should have been a "given". The fact that some judge actually gave that dip shit financial assests after she was jailed for trying to hire someone to kill her husband just goes to show what a fucked up system we have. The fact that they had to actually pass a bill to stop that is completely pathetic in my mind. One more thing to waste the time and the money of "the people", I guess.
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#40909 - 07/27/10 11:19 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: Nyte]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

 Originally Posted By: Nyte
You're right Ta2zz, men can't make a concious effort to put on a condumn before intercourse to make sure there isn't a bun in the oven when they're done. Or am I missing something there?

Yes you missed it…

 Originally Posted By: Nyte
It's not just moms that are overloading our current systems. Care to break it down the way it really should be?

Responsibility to the responsible eh Nyte? Ultimately when a woman decides to have a child and not an abortion or thinking about giving the baby up for adoption it is her responsibility. We have been led to believe that it is a woman’s choice so to be fair your choice your responsibility. Divorce is common enough as is death I assume most people having children know this? When a woman has a child she should damn well think out all the possibilities. I mean seriously comparing the application of a condom with gestating a child inside your body for the better part of a year?

Let's not forget the responsibility of not spreading your legs if you know there is no condom. There are a few holes I can think of that wont make babies.

 Originally Posted By: Nyte
As for the topic, that should have been a "given". The fact that some judge actually gave that dip shit financial assests after she was jailed for trying to hire someone to kill her husband just goes to show what a fucked up system we have. The fact that they had to actually pass a bill to stop that is completely pathetic in my mind. One more thing to waste the time and the money of "the people", I guess.

This quote shows me nothing but how much you do not understand the process of law in America.

People who are disabled and those who worked until illness overwhelms them I think these people as well as the elderly deserve help.

Just because someone chose to have a child in my book doesn’t mean they deserve a handout automatically.

You reap what you sow.

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#40914 - 07/28/10 10:02 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: ta2zz]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz

 Originally Posted By: Nyte
You're right Ta2zz, men can't make a concious effort to put on a condumn before intercourse to make sure there isn't a bun in the oven when they're done. Or am I missing something there?

Yes you missed it…


I was being sarcastic Ta2zz. Yes, I know there are a LOT of women out there trying to lay down with any man that will have them and trying to make babies. I also know that men can be just as responsible for helping NOT make babies as well as women. I know this because I can't tell you how many condoms I sell each and every night that I work. We can't keep them in stock and believe me, 9 out of 10 times it's a man buying them. I know that from time to time condoms break or come off in the act and there are those "accidents". However, if the man did not want a child (hence, used contraception) and the woman did get pregnant from such an accident, and the woman decided to have the child anyway, then the woman should bear the responsibility of that child on her own. Now a days, it's easy enough to get a duplicate receipt if need be of such a purchase to prove the man was taking precautions. Shit, even my little hobnob store can produce receipts dated back a year through our system and with the verification of a name to the credit/debit card used for the transaction, we'll reprint it in 2 seconds. If the man needed proof he didn't want children, it's easy enough to show. There's even video tape of the purchase (well, computer video anyway). However, if they both lay down knowing they are either trying to have a child or without contraception, then they BOTH should bear the responsibility of said child, whether they stay together or not. Simple really.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
It's not just moms that are overloading our current systems. Care to break it down the way it really should be?

Responsibility to the responsible eh Nyte? Ultimately when a woman decides to have a child and not an abortion or thinking about giving the baby up for adoption it is her responsibility. We have been led to believe that it is a woman’s choice so to be fair your choice your responsibility. Divorce is common enough as is death I assume most people having children know this? When a woman has a child she should damn well think out all the possibilities. I mean seriously comparing the application of a condom with gestating a child inside your body for the better part of a year?

Let's not forget the responsibility of not spreading your legs if you know there is no condom. There are a few holes I can think of that wont make babies.


Believe me, I know there are quite a few women that should NEVER spread their legs without protection. What my comment was about, was "moms over taxing the system". It's not just moms that are over using the systems that are in place to help those who really do need it. It's dads and illegals as well. I've seen dad's use the system and then go out and work "under the table". I've seen illegals that use the system through their children that were born here in the US. Hell, we give fantastic benefits to immigrants and those benefits all come from "our" system. The "over taxing" is not just from moms. However, they're just as responsible as the others for over taxing our systems.

Don't assume that because you know that divorce is as common as death that someone else who is in a committed relationship and both partners decide that they are going to have children, that they are thinking about an inevitable divorce. If one leaves, they BOTH should still be responsible for their children. Quite frankly, I don't care what it's called, child support, alimony, so long as it keeps those kids out of the system and they are being taken care of by BOTH parents, then it's what IS needed. You're forgetting that we are talking about sheeple, after all and a lot of them don't think like Satanists do. And yes, I do believe that a man has just as much responsibility in using protection as a woman does. There are far too many ways to keep from impregnating a woman and not all of them rely on the woman alone. And if a man doesn't want a baby, and doesn't have a condom or some other form of protection, then he shouldn't be fucking either.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
As for the topic, that should have been a "given". The fact that some judge actually gave that dip shit financial assests after she was jailed for trying to hire someone to kill her husband just goes to show what a fucked up system we have. The fact that they had to actually pass a bill to stop that is completely pathetic in my mind. One more thing to waste the time and the money of "the people", I guess.

This quote shows me nothing but how much you do not understand the process of law in America.

People who are disabled and those who worked until illness overwhelms them I think these people as well as the elderly deserve help.

Just because someone chose to have a child in my book doesn’t mean they deserve a handout automatically.

You reap what you sow.

~T~


I comment on what I think should have been a common sense decision prior to the passage of a bill and you're telling me I don't understand our process of law in the US? Ya know, judges can set precedence with their decisions and the fact this took an actual bill being passed to make sure it doesn't happen is exactly why I believe our system is messed up. Think about this for a minute. A would be murderer gets to obtain financial gain from her spouse because he decides to divorce her after she is convicted of trying to hire someone to kill him. Then there has to be a bill passed to make sure this doesn't happen again? Come on....seriously? You really think the legal system worked this time? I sure don't. You're right. Maybe I don't understand it at all, considering she shouldn't have gotten not one damn dime from the divorce in the first place.

You're right about your last statement. Having children does not mean you should automatically get a hand out (from the system). That also means that men and women alike who decide to leave a relationship that have had children (both their decisions) should be held responsible for the care of their children, financially and otherwise. Better them than the system. Yes, responsibility to the responsible. He laid down just as easily as she did, so they BOTH should be responsible and not our system.
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#40915 - 07/28/10 10:21 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: 6Satan6Archist6]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: 6Satan6Archist6
 Quote:
Right so say steps are taken to prevent pregnancy, but it still happens, and the woman chooses to carry it to term against the wishes of the man.


This is something that has been bothered me on and off for a while now. When a woman gets pregnant it is entirely up to her to decide whether to carry the child full term or have it aborted - the man gets no say. I think that if a man gets a woman pregnant (regardless of who took what precautions against it) and the man doesn't want the child but the woman doesn't want an abortion either then the man should be freed from all responsibilities to said child. And before anyone says anything consider the flip-side: If the man were to want to keep the child but it was the woman who wanted the abortion, it would be perfectly acceptable (to society) for the woman to get an abortion regardless of the man's desire to be a father. Anyone who is for equal rights for women, not special rights, would have to agree.

Yes, people should realize that in having sex it is possible that pregnancy can result but even with all the precautions one can take against pregnancy, shit still happens. And let us not forget that are women out there who want to get knocked up, by anyone they can, so they can sit on their asses reap the benefits. Don't try to argue against me on this one I have known women like this and I suspect some of you may have too.


Not going to argue a bit with you. I think if there were precations taken and the woman still got pregnant, the man not wanting children shouldn't be held responsible. I don't know about your experiences, but the men I know that don't want kids have been VERY vocal about it and have managed not to have children. If any one of those men "accidentally" got a woman pregnant and she tried to make him pay for said child, I feel he should be able to bring in witnesses to testify that he made it clear he didn't want children so he wouldn't be held responsible. I know that's not how it works, and it's wrong, but it's how it should work in cases like that.

As for trying to make a woman carry an unwanted child full term because a man wanted the baby? I highly doubt any court would make a woman do that. But crazier things have happened, so who's to say that won't ever happen?
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#40955 - 07/28/10 06:37 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: Nyte]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
General comment:

If two people enter into a LEGALLY BINDING MARRIAGE CONTRACT and those two people decide that one partner will stay home and raise kids while the other one works, and then the worker decides that s/he just doesn't want to be a member of the family anymore, then fuck yeah, they need to shoulder the burden of that decision. P/alimony, child support, whatever the other person can nail them with so long as that other person is taking strides to get on their feet again. Granted, I don't think (for example) a man should have to pay alimony to a woman until she remarries - the whole time while she's mooching off a boyfriend. But if he enters into that contract, then HE breaks that contract...well sorry buddy. If I leave my cell phone company I have to pay them. If I break my lease I have to pay that. Contractual law is contractual law and if you don't like it, get a prenup.

That being said....

If they agree that the woman would stay home (or the man, but I'm just simplifying here) and she turns out to be doing something OTHER than the agreed upon rearing of the offspring - such as sluttin' around or shooting heroin or whatever, then I think she shouldn't get shit because she would be the one who broke the contract.

What happens to other marriages is totally irrelevant. If two people get married, that's a legally binding contract, like a lifetime lease. If you don't like it, don't get married. If you take out a lifetime lease then whoever breaks the contract is responsible for the terms outlined in said contract. Period.

I've been divorced for quite some time now and the reason why I haven't remarried is because I don't want that "lease" hanging over my head. If I DO remarry, I'll take my contract seriously and will expect the same in return...and if I have some specific concern that is not covered in my contract, I'll have a prenup drawn up...that's what they are for. Some people here talk about marriage like it is the same as dating. It's not. I'm not talking for one minute about religious hoohaw, I'm simply talking about contractual law. Marriage is a legally binding contract. Dating is not.

On the subject of two people just fucking...

If the man chooses not to use some form of protection, and a child is conceived, then he deserves what he gets. The fact that it's well known that there are bitches out there who are conniving enough to trick some guy into impregnating them just underscores the fact that only an idiot would have sex without giving himself some sort of peace of mind about whether or not he will have to suffer consequences. You want to talk about "responsibility to the responsible" and yet you want to say that a pregnancy is solely a woman's fault? That is utter bullshit!

Don't get me wrong, I am well aware that there are women out there who abort fetii (made up word, I know) that the father would keep, and I think that there should be something in place to prevent that as well. (This happened to one of my brothers as a matter of fact. He wanted the baby and she didn't and there wasn't shit he could do to stop her.) but the fact still remains that a penis is just as responsible for what happens as a vagina and if you don't want a kid, either fuck some post-menopausal bitch, take appropriate measures, or jerk off.

And if appropriate measures are taken, then the man should have just as much right to how the result is handled as the woman.

AND - a man CAN sign off his parental rights and get out of paying child support, so I'm not really sure what the big deal is anyway. If he didn't want the kid, and she has it anyway, there are STILL legal safeguards in place for him.


Edited by ceruleansteel (07/28/10 06:38 PM)

Top
#40969 - 07/28/10 10:06 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: ceruleansteel]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

General reply… To try to clarify what I am saying.

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
If the man chooses not to use some form of protection, and a child is conceived, then he deserves what he gets.

I’ve seen women who have baby number four making them baby’s momma number three. Clearly daddy isn’t too worried about ever paying child support. I say if the woman chooses to decide to carry and birth the child it is hers and only her responsibility knowing this.

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
The fact that it's well known that there are bitches out there who are conniving enough to trick some guy into impregnating them just underscores the fact that only an idiot would have sex without giving himself some sort of peace of mind about whether or not he will have to suffer consequences.

I agree lets not forget that there are guys just looking to make babies with whatever bitch is stupid enough to lay with him. Needless this agrees with my first statement. Too many women willing to be baby’s mamas stress the system.

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
You want to talk about "responsibility to the responsible" and yet you want to say that a pregnancy is solely a woman's fault? That is utter bullshit!

Clearly even though flying under a general comment flag this is directed at me.

I am beyond the act of fucking, conception has happened. At this point it is clearly the woman’s decision to let this baby grow inside her and forever change her existence. The man wearing a condom or not to me has no comparison to this decision. If a woman makes the choice to carry and birth a child ultimately she holds the most responsibility for said child. It is her responsibility to judge the reliability of the father, their income, the future etc.

The man wearing a condom or not is more along the lines of where he sticks his dick or decides to blow his load. Last I checked a face or mouthful of semen does not a baby make. If there is no condom and you fuck the guy then yes it is the woman's fault for spreading her legs and not her mouth.

I don't know many men to turn down head do you?

I was born to a single mother in 1966 back when something like this was almost unheard of. She was told to put me up for adoption or abort the pregnancy, instead she made a decision to have the child. She never whined or thought she was owed anything due to her decision. She worked her ass off at two jobs and made sure to raise me elitist. She never looked or asked for assistance until she was no longer able to work due to her health. I am sure this colors my thoughts and attitude towards others.

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#40972 - 07/28/10 11:01 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: Nyte]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

 Originally Posted By: Nyte
I was being sarcastic Ta2zz.

Me too… \:D

 Originally Posted By: Nyte
I comment on what I think should have been a common sense decision prior to the passage of a bill and you're telling me I don't understand our process of law in the US?

Yes I am. You assume the law works on commonsense?

 Originally Posted By: Nyte
Ya know, judges can set precedence with their decisions and the fact this took an actual bill being passed to make sure it doesn't happen is exactly why I believe our system is messed up.

I’m no law student nor do I wish to suggest that I’m very learned in law, but we are talking basics here and commonsense.

Watch Me

Read Me

Right or wrong it is our system there are ways to legally change it. Unless you are working to change this system it would do best to at least try to understand it.

 Originally Posted By: Nyte
You're right about your last statement. Having children does not mean you should automatically get a hand out (from the system).

I think I have more of a problem with those who at work think or expect to get more jobs or more hours because they chose to have children. Single or struggling parents should get help from the system if they are really providing for the child.

I am also all for forced sterilization after two children in career welfare recipients.

 Originally Posted By: Nyte
He laid down just as easily as she did, so they BOTH should be responsible and not our system.

The woman chooses to have the child much later than the laying this is why I suggest she has the most responsibility.

I am all for forcing deadbeat parents into labor camps and giving the children to loving people who want and can afford to have children.

But alas such is just fantasy. The work involved in passing such a law is much greater than my care or need for such change.

Arnold started the process of changing a law I think we all agree it is for the best?

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#40973 - 07/28/10 11:09 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: ceruleansteel]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
General comment:

If two people enter into a LEGALLY BINDING MARRIAGE CONTRACT and those two people decide that one partner will stay home and raise kids while the other one works, and then the worker decides that s/he just doesn't want to be a member of the family anymore, then fuck yeah, they need to shoulder the burden of that decision...

If they agree that the woman would stay home (or the man, but I'm just simplifying here) and she turns out to be doing something OTHER than the agreed upon rearing of the offspring - such as sluttin' around or shooting heroin or whatever, then I think she shouldn't get shit because she would be the one who broke the contract.


The problem is that, the way many family courts handle divorce, alimony is basically a cut-and-dry formula of "which partner made more." Whoever makes more pays the spouse who makes less, even if both worked, they were childless, and neither one was a homemaker in any sense. The implicit contract of marriage doesn't necessarily take into account whether or not one spouse was holding up his/her end of the deal. Cheaters, junkies, and just plain lazy folks get alimony all the time. The rules vary from state to state, but a lot of states are still old-fashioned and "fault" doesn't necessarily come into play when alimony is awarded. The very subject of this thread demonstrates that. I'd consider hiring a hit against your spouse to be a violation of the contractual obligation of marriage, but the woman got alimony anyway. Someone had to pass a law to alter that.

Marriage is indeed a contract, but as far as many states are concerned, the contract is merely one of communal property. Behavior within marriage often isn't considered part of the contract, as I mentioned in my note about many states ignoring "fault." What's more, a good many states ban or override prenup clauses that require good behavior. In California, courts do not permit prenup penalties for adultery or drug abuse, much less neglecting menial responsibilities like housework.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41029 - 07/29/10 02:31 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: ta2zz]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
 Quote:
Clearly even though flying under a general comment flag this is directed at me


No, I really thought I saw several people echoing those sentiments and it really was directed generally. You know me well enough by now to know that if I wanted to single anyone out, I would. I just happened to get to this thread after so many posts were made that it seemed counterproductive to single out one person's words when there are several sides to this debate.

 Quote:
The man wearing a condom or not is more along the lines of where he sticks his dick or decides to blow his load. Last I checked a face or mouthful of semen does not a baby make. If there is no condom and you fuck the guy then yes it is the woman's fault for spreading her legs and not her mouth.


This seems to be contradictory to me. I totally agree with you about a man making the decision on where to blow his load, but then you let him off the hook if he makes the conscious decision NOT to avoid the uterus?

He can stick his dick in a hundred different places that don't produce a baby. Why is it solely her fault/problem if they agree to THE ONE PLACE that does and she becomes pregnant? It is, after all, an agreement between the two of them as to where the launch occurs. Hell, if she's being pushy and gives him no choice, he can forgo fucking her entirely and go find someone else who's up for a facefull of jizz...or get to fappin'...or whatever.

And I hope you don't feel like I'm trying to psychoanalyze you or anything, but you seem to respect your mother for how she handled her situation (you), yet the things you are saying would be highly critical of her. Also - if you don't mind - where was your dad in all of this and how do you feel about his part in your situation? Was it solely your mom's fault or do you feel like he should shoulder responsibility for his decision to create you? After all (and I know I'm talking about your mom, here, but let's look past that for this upcoming statement), he could have blown his load on her face instead, or in her mouth or up her ass.

What I'm trying to say is that I agree largely with what you are saying, but I feel like you are giving men a free ride here if the woman decides to carry the baby instead of giving it up or aborting. Regardless of whether or not either party made a conscious decision to create a child, both share responsibility for the fact that a child was created, and unless it was rape, they both agreed on where the sperm was going to go. Therefore, regardless of what she decides to do after she conceives, it's both party's problem. Like I said before, he can take her to court and sign over his rights, forcing her to deal with it on her own and freeing him from responsibility if he doesn't want the child. I don't know how many options he has, though, if he wants the child and she doesn't. I can only think of one instance offhand in which a man tried to force a woman to have a child that she wanted to abort and I recall that he failed.

I have a friend who was dumb enough to fall for the whole, "I can't get pregnant" schtick. He's currently about 8 years into his life sentence now and while I have nothing nice to say about the girl who fed him a line of bullshit, when he told me what had happened my first words to him were, "Jeez, Dan, how could you be so stupid?"

He could have done a hundred different things to avoid a pregnancy, but he chose to ignore those hundred different options.

If I met a guy who had kids all over town - regardless of whether or not he was supporting them - I wouldn't go near him. Period. Because having kids all over town shows irresponsibility at best and poor decision making at worst. That being said, any guy who fucks some chick who's already shown the same level of irresponsibility - I think - yes: gets exactly what he deserves.

EDIT:

I just read your reply to Nyte, and now understand better why you stand where you stand, but doesn't it occur to you that the action that caused the outcome is still 50% his fault? I don't see where time elapsed has anything to do with it. Should a murderer be allowed to walk simply because he wasn't caught until 20 years later?


Edited by ceruleansteel (07/29/10 02:47 PM)
Edit Reason: noted

Top
#41030 - 07/29/10 02:38 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
All I'm seeing here is conjecture. You talk in general terms and want to present it as fact and I'm not buying it. It's one thing to state your opinion, but disguising your opinion as a general fact isn't going to play. So either present your opinion as just that, or show me something that backs up what you are saying.
Top
#41073 - 07/30/10 03:26 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: ceruleansteel]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
All I'm seeing here is conjecture. You talk in general terms and want to present it as fact and I'm not buying it. It's one thing to state your opinion, but disguising your opinion as a general fact isn't going to play. So either present your opinion as just that, or show me something that backs up what you are saying.


Conjecture? I made concrete assertions which could easily be looked up and verified (quoted below in yellow). But ah well, you want something done right, you have to do it yourself. Let me dig up some citations for what I'm talking about.

"The very subject of this thread demonstrates that. I'd consider hiring a hit against your spouse to be a violation of the contractual obligation of marriage, but the woman got alimony anyway."

Uh, yeah. See the beginning of this thread. The post is right there. A woman in Pomona hired a hit against her spouse, and she got alimony anyway, which was what inspired this bill in the first place. If marriage is a contract, and one should pay alimony for breaking the terms of that contract, the one who broke the terms should be the one paying. Yet up until this bill, trying to get your spouse killed was not warranted a "violation" of a marital contract enough to nullify entitlement to alimony. It's right there.

"What's more, a good many states ban or override prenup clauses that require good behavior."

"Prenuptial agreements are used by parties to organize many aspects of their married lives. When push comes to shove, however, most of these lifestyle arrangements are probably unenforceable in a court," said Lee Rosen, founder of Rosen Law Firm in Raleigh, N.C.

"In California, courts do not permit prenup penalties for adultery or drug abuse, much less neglecting menial responsibilities like housework."


"California law does not permit a provision in a prenuptial agreement that penalizes a spouse for infidelity. A party to a prenup cannot be penalized with a smaller share or marital assets upon a divorce because of infidelity."

"In California courts do not allow a party to penalize the other spouse for having cheated on the spouse."

"California courts will not allow provisions that penalize a party for infidelity or drug use. Prenuptial agreements are also not the place to require children to be raised in a particular religion or a party to provide domestic services and provisions like these have also been struck down in California courts."

California Family Code
Division 4: Rights and Obligations During Marriage
Part 5: Marital Agreements
Chapter 3: Agreements between husband and wife
Section 1620: Except as otherwise provided by law, a husband and wife cannot, by a contract with each other, alter their legal relations, except as to property.


Like I said, in California the only think prenups can alter is the legal assumptions involving property. A spouse can waive a right to alimony ("spousal support" under California code,) but only unconditionally. Agreements contingent upon a spouse's conduct are void.

And California is more likely to uphold prenups than many other states. The Uniform Premarital Agreement Act requires states to uphold prenups unless they are void for lack of disclosure, duress, or unconscionability. Only about half of the states in the US are signatory to this act, and even then many have amended it saying that claims to alimony cannot be waived in a prenup. In states that are not signatory, prenups can be thrown out at the whim of the court, solely at the court's discretion.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41078 - 07/30/10 04:38 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
In your previous post you say "many" and "most" states act in a certain way, then you totally misquoted your own source by saying that "many states" have added provisions regarding alimony, yet the website that you linked says, "some states". There is a difference between "many" and "some".

And the whole time you only mention two states, and only cite actual law sources for one: California. Your North Carolina source says "are probably not enforceable" and it's a quote from a lawyer, not from a law. Huge difference.

Why aren't you citing Texas law, where you reside? Oh! Because a prenup in Texas can cover damn near anything they please...so yeah, that would put a big dent in your CONJECTURE, wouldn't it?

So far, every state that I've looked at says the exact same thing as Texas, and that is that a prenup can cover... (8) any other matter, including their personal rights and obligations, not in violation of public policy or a statute imposing a criminal penalty. so long as it doesn't violate some other statute.

As for the ease of looking up and verifying, you're the one trying to say that most states (charge 1500$ for) a contract that will not be honored in court, not me. So prove it.

 Quote:
California Family Code
Division 4: Rights and Obligations During Marriage
Part 5: Marital Agreements
Chapter 3: Agreements between husband and wife
Section 1620: Except as otherwise provided by law, a husband and wife cannot, by a contract with each other, alter their legal relations, except as to property


Nice try. Now read the code that actually deals with premarital agreements.

Yep. You made ASSertions, alright...

Top
#41082 - 07/30/10 05:34 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: ceruleansteel]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
In your previous post you say "many" and "most" states act in a certain way...

 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17
The problem is that, the way many family courts... but a lot of states... as far as many states are concerned... a good many states

I said jack-all about "most." Most implies a majority, that is, more than half. I never said that. "Many" is a vague, indefinite term that means more than one, and implies that the quantity being described is large enough to warrant discussion, as opposed to "a few" which implies something negligible.

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
...then you totally misquoted your own source by saying that "many states" have added provisions regarding alimony, yet the website that you linked says, "some states". There is a difference between "many" and "some".

I didn't put quotation marks around it, so I don't see how I could "misquote" it at all. Misinterpret, perhaps. I consider "some" and "many" to be interchangeable as far as amount is concerned. Both are indeterminate in both concrete number and proportion of a whole. The only difference, in my mind, is one of emphasis. How many states, exactly, would you consider "some" as opposed to "many"? Do you have a specific range so I'll know what quantifier to use next time?

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
Your North Carolina source says "are probably not enforceable" and it's a quote from a lawyer, not from a law. Huge difference.

The fact that there is not a law written that explicitly states "no sanctions against bad behavior" does not mean that such sanctions will be upheld. Precedent, in addition to legislation, is going to hold sway over how courts rule in a case. A lawyer mentioning what probably will and will not be upheld is meant to establish a rough idea of how courts are going to rule based on his previous observations. Not to mention, personal conduct is an impractical thing to expect a court to verify. (Oh, your wife sat around watching TV instead of doing the dishes? Can you prove that?)

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel

Both the quote I provided and the one you did are laws applicable to premarital agreements, so I don't know why you're referring to your excerpt as the one that "actually" deals with premarital agreements. Mine "actually" deals with premarital agreements, too.

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
So far, every state that I've looked at says the exact same thing as Texas, and that is that a prenup can cover... (8) any other matter, including their personal rights and obligations, not in violation of public policy or a statute imposing a criminal penalty. so long as it doesn't violate some other statute.

Gee, that little ditty about "except as to property" couldn't possibly constitute "another statute" that behavioral sanctions would "violate," could it?

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
...you're the one trying to say that most states (charge 1500$ for) a contract that will not be honored in court, not me.

Again, I never said "most." As for $1500 for a contract that will not be honored in court, I was only referring to specific aspects of a prenup (behavioral sanctions) not being honored, not the prenup as a whole.

 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
And the whole time you only mention two states, and only cite actual law sources for one: California... Why aren't you citing Texas law, where you reside?

Why am I mentioning Cali instead of Texas? Gee, I dunno, maybe because it's 1)the original topic of the thread and 2)the state I made an assertion about in the first place. How is the particular state I live in relevant? I could live in Kandy, Sri Lanka and still know about general trends in US family court.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#41101 - 07/30/10 01:37 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
 Originally Posted By: x
"many" is a vague, indefinite term



Well at least you admit to being vague and indefinite


 Originally Posted By: x
(Oh, your wife sat around watching TV instead of doing the dishes? Can you prove that?)


Aside from the fact that you know this is a gross misinterpretation of what I was saying, personal conduct IS easy to prove.

Either you are stupid, or you just don't know how to read law. Your statute says: "Except as otherwise provided by law, a husband and wife cannot, by a contract with each other, alter their legal relations, except as to property" What do you think the "except as otherwise provided by law" refers to, if not the statute that I pointed out? Not to mention the fact that legal definitions and lay definitions are not always the same. This use of "relations" refers to the actual divorce itself, not the relationship between the two people during marriage. This is backed up by the part about property. Two people can legally define their specific roles in the relationship with a premarital agreement, but they cannot use custody of the children as a penalty for failure to comply, they can only use property rights in the divorce as a penalty.

If I sign a prenup saying that I'm going to finish school and get a job within 5 years and instead I sit around mooching for the duration of those years, my husband can divorce me on those grounds and withhold the loot that he had and accrued during our marriage because I didn't keep my end of the deal. Likewise, if we have an agreement that says I will stay home and raise the kids and take care of the house, and instead there are 25 witnesses to me staying drunk, keeping a toxic waste site inside my home and neglecting my children, then he can likewise withhold the loot, because I DIDN'T KEEP MY SIDE OF THE CONTRACT.

I mentioned the fact that you only brought up California because your own words continually refer to other states in addition to California. If you are only talking about California, then only talk about California. Don't drag the rest of the states into if your not willing to back up a claim about them as well. You are attempting to filter the information in order to back up your hasty claim and it's not going to work, especially in this particular area and with this particular person.

Over and over again, premarital agreement law states:
 Quote:
Any other matter, including their personal rights and
obligations, not in violation of public policy or a statute imposing a criminal penalty.


This is backed by your referenced statute because that statute says that "except as otherwise permitted" and this one does NOT contradict yours because it states "or a statute imposing a criminal penalty". There is no criminal penalty for making an agreement as to whether one will rear the kids or both will work, etc. I couldn't put a clause in that says my husband will provide me with cocaine because that's illegal. I can however, put in a clause that says if he beats me then I get it all and he's out on the street. Whether or not I can prove it in court is my own problem, but if he signs the contract, he agrees to the clause - so long as I can prove I didn't hold a gun to his head when it was signed and THUS the reason why it is also required that both party have a lawyer present during the review and signing of the agreement.

In short, you can stipulate any damn thing you please in your premarital contract, so long as it does not force the other person to commit a criminal act in order to maintain their side of the agreement.



Edited by ceruleansteel (07/30/10 01:42 PM)

Top
#41200 - 08/01/10 10:58 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: ta2zz]
Nyte Offline
member


Registered: 10/19/09
Posts: 380
Loc: Ohio
 Originally Posted By: ta2zz

 Originally Posted By: Nyte
I was being sarcastic Ta2zz.

Me too… \:D


Well, since we're both on the same page and all.... \:\/

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
I comment on what I think should have been a common sense decision prior to the passage of a bill and you're telling me I don't understand our process of law in the US?

Yes I am. You assume the law works on commonsense?


I know it doesn't. That's what gets so fucking irritating for me. Judges interpret the laws all the time and set precedences with their rulings on many occassions. It makes me nuts when something like this does take an actual bill to fix.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
Ya know, judges can set precedence with their decisions and the fact this took an actual bill being passed to make sure it doesn't happen is exactly why I believe our system is messed up.

I’m no law student nor do I wish to suggest that I’m very learned in law, but we are talking basics here and commonsense.

Watch Me

Read Me

Right or wrong it is our system there are ways to legally change it. Unless you are working to change this system it would do best to at least try to understand it.


Yes, I know. It just seems that sometimes this country is so concerned about "paperwork" after something like the ruling in this particular case, when it should have been a "given". It's a headdeskbang moment for me.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
You're right about your last statement. Having children does not mean you should automatically get a hand out (from the system).

I think I have more of a problem with those who at work think or expect to get more jobs or more hours because they chose to have children. Single or struggling parents should get help from the system if they are really providing for the child.

I am also all for forced sterilization after two children in career welfare recipients.


I hate the ones that think they don't get paid enough to do their jobs and have found those are the ones that don't have any financial ties what so ever. They walk or stand around and bitch because they're suppose to do the same things as everyone else and some how manage NOT to get one thing done. They can't work nights, weekends, holidays, or birthdays, etc. But as I've stated before, it's that "entitlement" attitude that so many are exhibiting (even the group we're talking about) anymore. Just because they eat, breath and shit like everyone else, they deserve so much more. It makes me want to seriously kick their asses, the whole lot of them. But that would take entirely too much energy and way more time than I've got right now.

I sometimes wonder about forced sterilization and career welfare recipients. What bothers me about that thought process, is kind of like what we're seeing with the smokers and now the medical "cases". First it started with smoking and banning that anywhere and everywhere. Now, they're banning foods with sugar and sugar derivatives. I'm highly allergic to Splenda and other substitutes like that, so I can't drink or eat things with that crap in it. We'll hear next, it will be mandatory excersize programs, banning things like chips, and over weight people from the medical field. This country is on a serious roll of regulating everything and as much as I like the idea of sterilization for career welfare cases, I worry about what that will lead to next.

 Originally Posted By: ta2zz
 Originally Posted By: Nyte
He laid down just as easily as she did, so they BOTH should be responsible and not our system.

The woman chooses to have the child much later than the laying this is why I suggest she has the most responsibility.

I am all for forcing deadbeat parents into labor camps and giving the children to loving people who want and can afford to have children.

But alas such is just fantasy. The work involved in passing such a law is much greater than my care or need for such change.

Arnold started the process of changing a law I think we all agree it is for the best?

~T~


As for forced labor camps, I wish someone would have done that to my ex. He is self employed (what a full blown crock of shit) and because of that, it took years to get him to pay his support. He started the support proceedings and wanted his son until it became too much "work" for him. Too much work for him to come spend time with him, too much work to take him for weekend visits, too much work for him to drill him about what was going on in my life. Then it was a ton of work just to get him to help financially at all. When he was in arrears (he was on the "diversion" program to avoid jail time), the case worker asked me one time what I would do if they had put him in jail and he couldn't pay his support. I told her,"It doesn't matter because he's not paying his support NOW! At least in jail you can put him into a work program!" Yep, my view is a bit "colored", I know.

Yes, it was a law that needed changed desperately and for obvious reasons. It still doesn't make it any less irritating, for me that is.
_________________________
If only just for today.....

Top
#78888 - 07/30/13 11:41 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6789
Loc: Virginia
Alimony seems archaic to me. The added Legislation is just setting up protections for spouses that use it as way to stick it to the ex financially. Not a bad idea really, sometimes financial support keeps marriages together a lot longer than they should be. The bread-winner doesn't want to be stuck paying Alimony so he/she suffers through it.

This is an out.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#78924 - 07/31/13 07:01 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: SIN3]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Alimony seems archaic to me.

Yeah, to me, too. And thank goodness for this "well durr" legislation.

In all fairness, this was probably an oversight, in the same way that rapists can sue for custody of their kids. A lot of feminists have a shitfit, but honestly, this is just some legislators writing "the biological father can seek custody of the children," it not even occurring to them that a rapist may attempt to do so. It's not a case of "haha, rapists get yo kids!" I don't imagine the spouse that hired a hit occurred to the legislators, either.

Still, we have a long way to go...

Grimm v. Grimm, 2003 Ohio 80
Prenup was unenforceable because it was not "voluntarily" entered into. Did the groom-to-be hold a gun to her head? No, the wife admitted she only "skimmed" the document and would have signed anything to make him happy, so it wasn't what one might call informed consent, though she was the one that chose not to inform herself. Well gee, read the thing next time. Or don't, because apparently that's the Ohio "get out of prenup free" card.

In re Marriage of Facter, 212 Cal. App. 4th 967
A woman married to a multimillionaire would only have gotten, under the prenup, $200K, a Jaguar, all the furniture, and half the proceeds from the sale of the mansion. But the spousal support waiver in the prenup was voided as "unconscionable" because she wouldn't have the same standard of living she did when married, nor what she would have received from court-ordered spousal support, and thus this was "manifestly inadequate." I thought the whole purpose of a prenup was to change what the spouse would have gotten; why does changing it make it "unconscionable"? Shit, can I get what California considers adequate?

Bassler v. Bassler, 156 Vt. 353
A prenup that says that the wife take nothing from the husband in the event of divorce "violates public policy and should not be enforced," because the wife was living on public assistance after the separation, but the husband was supporting himself decently. Apparently the state of Vermont didn't want to support her, so they foisted the duty off on her ex. (Least sympathetic husband; he was hiding his assets by shuffling them over to his mother, but only from the court after it determined his prenup was void--not from his wife when she signed.)

Parkhurst v. Gibson, 133 N.H. 57
A prenup was said to be inapplicable in divorce proceedings because it was allegedly "not made in contemplation of divorce," only if the marriage ended in death. I think they have another type of document for that, called wills or something. I guess they don't have wills in New Hampshire.

Mamot v. Mamot, 283 Neb. 659
A prenup was unenforceable based on the following factors: it was "coercive" for a husband to present his wife with a prenup only 5 days before the wedding (returning a few hours later to ask if she had signed it), there was a "disparity in bargaining power" because the husband had partial ownership in three businesses whereas the wife quit an hourly job to be a homemaker, and despite having signed a prenup for her last marriage and understanding it had something to do with division of assets, she didn't have a "complete understanding" of the legal nuance. Frankly, Nebraska, that sounds like a gross exaggeration of little details to make the wife appear completely helpless when she wasn't. Much emphasis was placed on the fact that she didn't consult an attorney. Simple solution: "Honey, I want to see a lawyer before I sign this." (Wylie v. Wylie, 1988 Kan. App. LEXIS 48, had a similar ruling. So Kansas sucks, too.)

I have a little more sympathy for the cases where the groom sprung the prenup on the wife just minutes before she was scheduled to walk down the aisle, but still, that should raise some big red flags that say "DO NOT MARRY THIS GUY."

I really doubt this BS would hold up for any other contract. Can you imagine a businessperson using the defense of "Well, I didn't read it," or "This exculpation/ indemnification/ subrogation/ warranty clause is just so manifestly inadequate because it's less than what I would have gotten if I had just sued in tort!", "This contract violates public policy because I'll have to declare bankruptcy!", "I didn't make this sales contract in contemplation of sales!", "The formation of this contract was coercive because he only asked me to look at it five days before the merger, and we're such a small company there's a disparity in bargaining power!"
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#78926 - 07/31/13 07:10 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6789
Loc: Virginia
Yeah the whole legal-system allows for too many loop-holes and translations to fit the end game. Plus all the hand-shaking and having Judges in your pocket doesn't hurt either.

The institution of marriage needs to get with the times anyway. I mean really, it's the 21st century not the 18th for crying out loud. It also needs to allow for plural marriage and same-sex marriage. It's not a religious institution and hasn't been for quite sometime. Civil Unions is the way to go.

Marriage is often used as a business arrangement, I know mine was. As short as it was, it served its purpose and then done.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#78948 - 08/02/13 03:30 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: SIN3]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Marriage is often used as a business arrangement, I know mine was. As short as it was, it served its purpose and then done.

For all this moving forward to the 21st century, I often wish we could go back to the days of marriage brokers and matchmaking. There are a number of websites and freelance individuals who claim to do the job, but none of them are reputable. It's all a bunch of scams that would make that Nigerian email dude who wants your bank account number blush. I've done my research, and I can't find a single one that's gotten a single good review that isn't in its own ads or on its own website.

My parents said they'd make me a deal. As long as I told them whoever I was dating, they wouldn't try to set me up with anyone. My reaction surprised them. "Can you? ...please?"

They have mail-order brides. Why can't I get a mail-order husband? Sheesh, if they legalize gay marriage, can I get a mail-order bride?

Meh, maybe I'll consider speed dating. I have a pretty good BS detector at this point, two minutes is probably more than enough.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#78950 - 08/02/13 04:20 AM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6789
Loc: Virginia
Funny, I'm just the opposite. I say eliminate the Broker and go Privatized. Created your own Website and the potential Beau submit's his bid, and credentials. Complete with Background check, and Validation of claims. Not only would it eliminate all the annoyances of screening on the 'dating scene' it would create jobs for the third-party validation service.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
#78986 - 08/03/13 04:47 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: SIN3]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1140
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: SIN3
Not only would it eliminate all the annoyances of screening on the 'dating scene' it would create jobs for the third-party validation service.

Doesn't sound bad. It sounds a little similar to the Han Chinese tradition. They've got it down to a science.

(1) Mother puts out a general notice that her daughter is looking for a husband.
(2) Men who are interested send in what's essentially an application. It includes their education, occupation, details about their family, etc.
(3) Mother and daughter sit down together and narrow it down to the best options.
(4) Mom uses her circle of contacts (guangxi) to get the dirt on any of the prospects, anything they failed to reveal. Criminal record? Health problems? Bad habits? Personality flaws? It will all come out. (In the meanwhile, the man is also having his own mother do the same for the women to whom they sent applications.) The one flaw in this step is that a jealous rival may start a nasty rumor, so there's a need to be judicious about credibility of conflict of interest when it comes to the source.
(5) Men who passed these first two rounds are invited over to have dinner with mother and daughter.
(6) If a man seems like a decent prospect after this, the woman's father goes over to man's place and has dinner with his family. This is a stage of evaluation for both families.
(7) If still interested, the man will return to the woman's family's place. What is served will indicate whether he's been accepted or rejected. (Long noodles mean you passed.) But either way, he has to be polite and gracious. Sometimes, it will take several more visits before he gets the long noodle green light.
(8) After long noodles are served, the courtship ritual begins, and the woman and man can now go out to movies and dinner and whatnot by themselves.

The problem in the US is that "meeting the parents" is an indication that the relationship is already serious, and some parents will be afraid to give their honest appraisal for fear of alienating their son or daughter. But I really like the idea of having the parents involved in the screening process. It's a great way to get some insightful evaluation.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#78988 - 08/03/13 05:43 PM Re: That shouldn't let the bastard off alimony ... [Re: XiaoGui17]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6789
Loc: Virginia
Not a bad process really but another flaw that may arise is the the family may be pushing towards a specific candidate not necessarily with their son/daughter's best interest in mind.

So not only do you have to contend with jealous rivals but perhaps even jealous family members.

I guess this is where your own judgement steps in to sort all that out.

Another option is a temporary assignment, that way you get to try it before you buy it.

Hand-fasting ceremonies are a year and a day before the actual nuptials take place. Sort of like a trial run. I don't see why civil unions couldn't be that way with all the legal perks added.

I mean if American Society is going to allot 'spouses' special privileges and entitlements, I don't see why these couldn't just be temporary contracts with provisions in place.

In the U.S. Living Together is another indication that the relationship is already serious, when in reality it isn't.



Edited by SIN3 (08/03/13 05:45 PM)
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
Page all of 3 123>


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.056 seconds of which 0.002 seconds were spent on 52 queries. Zlib compression disabled.