Posted on 04/15/2009 1:54:44 PM PDT by lewisglad
THREE cheers for feminism. With a desperate lack of anything worthwhile to aim their gunsights at, they turn on self-made billionaire Mel Gibson to support his estranged wife Robyn's demands for half his $US1 billion fortune.
The problem with absurd demands like this, underwritten by feminist approval, is that the girls always want it both ways.
For many years Robyn was prepared to remain at home as a loving wife. Retired as a dental nurse, supported by her husband.
Now, after the marriage has soured, Gibson has to pay for the life she apparently "gave up" to run their home, slave over a stove, and clean and raise their kids so he could make their millions.
I'm confused. Does that mean the traditional homemaking duties are not acts of love but merely bargaining chips in case of an iceberg down the line?
Over 28 years her claim for $500,000,000 works out at $4879 a day. Or $34,153 a week.
To argue that they are living in California, entitling her to half the fortune under California law, is once again more evidence of wanting it both ways.
It penalises Gibson for once having faith in his marriage and believing it would last.
Imagine the outcry if he had insisted on a pre-nup, to be applied retroactively, when they moved to California.
For years Gibson has taken the bullets that are a by-product of his fortune - privacy invasions, critical attacks, slander.
It entitles Gibson to keep the greater share of his wealth, a fortune amassed through his own creative genius.
Only a handful of people in the world have the talent to do what he does.
The argument that without Robyn's support he would never have succeeded is just desperate. The truer argument is that talent finds a way.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
Ouch. My Dad used to do divorcees. Then again, there is a reason he wanted to absolutely get out of this type of civil law as soon as possible, even with never handling cases that dealt with children. He does something much more respectable...He chases ambulances :D (sort of, more like motorcyclists who are in them)
No, I am not a supreme court nominee. I’m just pointing out that in the Judeo part of the Judeo-Christian tradition, no fault divorce was acceptable and moral for 1,000s of years.
I think if at least one party wants out of the marriage, he or she should do it, with no financial penalty. Maintaining a 50% interest in marital property is contingent on being married, not contingent on staying faithful.
I just don’t see the upside of forcing two people to remain married when one person wants out.
My Dad used to do divorcees.
I’m happy for your father.
All I see is a hug and it looks like she is hugging him. This doesn’t prove anything.
They shouldn’t be getting a divorce.
i have lost all respect for him. his faith cannot mean much to him.
Can’t speak for anyone else, but most of Mel’s appeal for me all these years was the fact that he’s a family man.
His wife, though in the background, provided credibility.
Now he has none.
i totally agree, b9. there are plenty of hot male actors with scummy personal lives who hold no appeal for me; mel’s appeal was the total package. apparently it was not a true picture.
trisham, i think they have at least 7 kids.
Not really. You said that eliminating no fault divorce ‘merely restores consequences to divorce, AND it makes it more difficult.’ I’m saying the consequences of divorce should be that each party gets the whole of their fair share and is free to go out and do whatever they want with it.
Nothing you wrote undermines the value of that point. I don’t think no fault makes anyone more or less likely to stray - that’s another issue, regardless of your dismissive talk of point/counterpoint.
His wife was/is an amazing woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.