Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: C19fan
I am happily married and have never been divorced so this is all hypothetical for me. However I do not believe that getting married ought to come with any presumption of perpetual financial support should things go awry. It's unjust for a court to declare that a contract is legally severed yet one party (either party) must live on in permanent servitude to the other. Just my $0.02 worth.

Child support is another matter, until a child is grown there is a moral and legal responsibility (for both parents) to provide for that child and I am 100% on board with that.

8 posted on 09/30/2015 10:32:10 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (The only fiscally sound thing dems ever did: create a state run media they don't have to pay for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: pepsi_junkie

What about people who choose to have one person stay home for twenty years and spend all their time and energy raising the children? Then the guy leaves and she is older with no way to get hired????


15 posted on 09/30/2015 11:23:45 AM PDT by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: pepsi_junkie

No divorce here, either. It seems to me that if a marriage lasts a while, one spouse gives up a career to support the main breadwinner, and the breadwinner is the one seeking a divorce then spousal support is justified. I left a career field that would be all but impossible to return to after the 15 years I have spent caring for my family. If my husband left me I would be in dire straits (not just financially!). We aren’t living high on the hog, but we are at least not trying to live on minimum wage-which is what I am making now (plus tips).


16 posted on 09/30/2015 11:30:33 AM PDT by NorthstarMom (God says debt is a curse and children are a blessing, yet we apply for loans and prevent pregnancy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: pepsi_junkie

Celebrities like in the story are a different matter. But when it comes to Joe and Jane Schmoe, if one of them (usually the woman) stays home and takes care of the house and kids while the other works, and then they divorce, well, he’s better off now because he has the same salary and only has himself to support. She’s destitute because she has no recent job skills or experience, she’s spent her adult life supporting HIS career, putting him through school, shushing the kids when he worked or studied at home, cooking dinner when the boss came over, etc. Now she’s probably got custody of the kids, has to find a job (which won’t pay as much as her ex’s job,) and she won’t have anyone to do the wifely/motherly duties she did for him. It really isn’t fair to use a spouse to support your career, then dump that spouse and leave them with nothing. I think that’s why the idea of alimony and community property came about. If you think it’s unfair, imagine, say, your daughter in the position of the dumped stay-at-home wife. Yeah, she could have pursued her own career and put the kids in daycare, but then she’s a “selfish Feminazi.” Women really can’t win.


21 posted on 09/30/2015 12:28:38 PM PDT by Nea Wood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson