When the wife decides she wants out of a marriage, it isn't up to the judge to decide she must remain with a man she no longer wishes to be with. It's up to her.
To use your analogy, the wife walked out of the marriage after helping to run up the credit cards, took every bit of joint property she could get her hands, and fired shots at the husband on her way out the door when he tried to keep part of it.
God! You people are really terrible at putting forth analogies. Firstly, it is the *WIFE* that paid for the bulk of everything. Secondly, all the property in question was stuff any reasonable person would acknowledge would be her stuff after the divorce, thirdly your claim that she "fired shots at the husband" means she used lethal force that could have killed him, (presumably referring to Ft. Sumter Union) is a ridiculous over reaction to an event that in no way threatened the continuation of the Union.
This is more accurate. The wife said "I am leaving." He gripped her arm more tightly. She slapped him. He then beat her near to death and said "You will never leave me or I will kill you."
See? That fits all the bits perfectly. Oh, and he raped her before he was done.
Only in your deluded mind is your scenario in anyway related to what happened in 1860. His scenario, however, is spot on.
True. But that doesn't legally end the marriage or magically transfer ownership of joint property to her alone.
Firstly, it is the *WIFE* that paid for the bulk of everything...
And your argument falls apart right there with that blatant untruth. But say for the sake of argument it was true, the wife still helped run up the credit cards and then left the debt to the husband to pay alone.
...Secondly, all the property in question was stuff any reasonable person would acknowledge would be her stuff after the divorce...
Perhaps. But that would be for a third party to decide or for the two parties to agree on through negotiations. Instead the wife left with everything not nailed down.
...thirdly your claim that she "fired shots at the husband" means she used lethal force that could have killed him, (presumably referring to Ft. Sumter Union) is a ridiculous over reaction to an event that in no way threatened the continuation of the Union.
And blasting away at her husband on her way out the door will not end the institution of marriage. But it does put a crimp in the marriage in question and is pretty much guaranteed that the resulting divorce would be acrimonious. Which is what the wife wanted to begin with.