Actually there are quite a few things to come to mind... the most high profile would be NFL contracts. The teams have the right to terminate a contract each season.... this is exactly the opposite of baseball where no matter the performance players get paid.

As much as I hate the whole idea of divorce... I do not think for a minute that making divorce more difficult is really the answer. Bottom line is... if someone doesn't want to be with me... then I don't want them around. I have a finite amount of time on this planet and want to be able to enjoy what life has to offer. If the person that I call wife really and truly wants out...I sincerely don't want her being forced to stay because of the "law of contracts." It just makes no sense to me.

I think "they" should make it more diifcult to get married in the first place.

Absofrigginloutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We should teach our children marriage skills in school.... in the homes... and there should be mandatory classes (not just those associated with religion) which give people skills to help them in marriage. We make people study for a test to drive a car... but not to get married and have kids!!!
I could not agree more.

Marriage Building and PORH classes would do a lot more for the divorce rate.

I am trying to figure out who decides what adultery is......do they have to PROVE intercourse...or do other forms of infidelity count?

My personal opionion is that no-fault should be allowed until the marriage has children (or a pregnancy.) With children in the mix, removing no-fault seems fine to me. Society has a strong interest in providing children a stable environment.

The problem with the 'marriage as a contract' view is that it's not at all a contract. I deal in contracts every day. Contracts are specific with respect to duties, deliverables and measurements. Let me suggest that "love honor and cherish." is neither specific nor measurable.

Now if instead we promised to "have sex a minimum of 3 times a week when phyisically well with no less than 120 times a year regardless of physical state; wherein each encouter must include at least 20 minutes of foreplay, defined in Schedule A. Further each party will provide at least 10 displays of affection comprising one of the acts specificed in Schedule B." We might be on the right road.

But as it is, many people get the hots for each other; they marry and 3 years later they start figuring out the long term plan when their lust starts to fade. Sometimes it works for them, sometimes not.

The real problem is how easy it is to get married fast, not how easy it is to get divorced. I don't think anyone takes divorce lightly. (For context, I was the BS and was "irreconcilable differenced" by WW.)

But that's just the old cliched argument for no-fault divorce.

If you've read here for a while, you know that most cheaters DON'T want out of the marriage. They are trying to have both a marriage and a single life, but they cause so much torment to the BS with this that divorce becomes virtually inevitable. And their decision to live like this is tacitly approved by society-in-general which says, "Just do what makes you happy", and by the laws, which provide *no* recourse to the BS for the emotional *ss-raping they receive at the hands of the WS.

I don't think forced marriage is the answer.

But I do think there should be serious legal consequences for the WS who grossly abuses their marriage this way: Loss of child custodoy, loss of marital assets, payment of punitive damages to the betrayed spouse for a good long time, etc.

Knowledge that this is out there waiting *might* make a few WS think twice before they are so lost in fog that they no longer care. And they might not look so good to OP if it's well known that all the money, toys and goodies are going straight to the BS if the marriage is destroyed by infidelity.

And at least the BS could feel that *some* measure of justice has been done, and that the WS hasn't gotten away with murder scott-free while society pats them on the back and says, "Aw, that's okay - your personal happiness counts much more than honesty, committment and your own children."
Mulan

Agreed! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />


I disagree. I believe our society is "evolving" into something that cannot be maintained. We need to look at our society and stop much of what is taking place, before we lose our moral compass and end up with a nation in full crisis. Too often, people want to rules changed to fit their lifestyle. I say change the lifestyle, to fit the rules!


The family is already the functional thing to do. We jsut want to do it differently. When I use a screw driver as a hammer, it doesnt work as it is intended. And doesnt work as well on a nail, as using a hammer.


Modern life is going to have to find a way to "evolve" into something more healthy. The family is healthy for all involved.


Didnt say that. You can choose NOT to marry. You see, I could choose not to join the military. But once I did, I couldnt choose to just up and leave one day because I wanted to do something different. I had given my word and oath. And I was going to live up to it. even if the US military forced me to do so! Or jailed me.


I understand the "change" of time. So did the Founders. It is this false notion of "change" that gives people this false notion of a "living" Constitution. We do not have a living Constitution! People say we need a Cosntitution that will conform to the times. Well, the Founders gave a way to do that...thru the amendment process. But they made it very hard to do so. Why? Because they were students of history. They understood that while there were changes throughout history in the way mankind lived...the base issues of mankind have all remained the same. They understood what was needed to govern people, to allow them to pursue happiness. And those things never change.

Sure, the family isnt out on the family farm anymore working from dust until dawn. Sure we have all of those things. But at the basis of it all, the family is still the family. A dad...a mom...and kids. The family isnt obsolete. Instead, society is ignoring what works in any generation...for choosing its own way instead. And all society continues to do is make a mess!


Character is making RIGHT choices when no one is looking. Sure, you can choose not to do what is right. But society has a right to bring consequences for those wrong, dishonorable choices! Like I said, the Army could make me live up to my word. Or, if I still persisted, it could throw me in jail for not living up to my word. For not having honor and living up to my responsibilities and my promise.


I fought my wife tooth and nail for 4 years. And we are no back together. There are reasons NOT to let the other spouse go. But as I said, the aggrieved person should be the one to decide if, when and how the marriage should end. Not the wayward. now, as this law talks to...if BOTH choose to end it, then they can. But as far as I am concerned, the person that broke their word has no right in making the decisions on the marriage or how it will end. They forfeited that when they left! Just as I believe they also forfeited everything else that belongs to the family (house, money, kids, etc). The family is a unit. You choose to leave, then leave. But the family remains...all of it and all parts of it and its belongings.


As I said, it aint that difficult. We do it everyday in the Army!


Which is why I said that this society is breaking!


I believe you do!


Unattractive because society has made it so easy to throw it away. So, you marry someone not knowing if they are just gonna up and divorce you 6 months later. The door is always open...even a crack. When we marry, there should be a walling up of the door.


If people dont want to uphold their word and uphold marriage and the family, then they shouldnt be married. Why should they be allowed to be in an institution they hold in such little regard??


Agreed. And as I said, I hope they do address these consequences in the law.


Agreed.


Agreed.


And the same. Human nature is the same. The basic parts of humanity, what drives us...is the same. All the rest is just "tools." Instead of horse...we have cars. Instead of paper, we have email. Just tools.


To ignore human nature and to ignore the past, dooms us to repeating past mistakes. There are constants...even in change!


This question was raised in a Bible study once. Why does God in the Bible allow for the exception of adultery? Why not say "no divorces?" Good question. As I said, our laws are based on the Bible...like it or not. That exception was granted in the Bible. Thus, I am for granting it in society. but on a secular approach, let just say this. When a person commits adultery, they break the contract. The contract was "one man, one woman, for a lifetime." Since the contract has been broken by the WS, the BS is allowed to decide what to do about the broken contract.

liek my bank analogy. If I dont pay my installments, I break the contract. Now, the bank has in its right to cancel any future payments and make me pay the balance now. Or, it can choose to decide to "rehabilitate" the loan (contract) through a different payment plan.

The main thing to take away from my analogy is that the aggrieved party (the bank) got to decide the solution. Not me. It decided, and then gave to me what it decided. That is the nature of contracts.


While somewhat true, the Commonwealth of Virginia also has in its laws that it does not recognize gay "marriages." So, Massachusetts marries two men, they move to Virginia and expect their "marriage" to be recognized in Virginia. But it is not. Reciprocity has limits.

Thanks Pep...it really is the meat of the issue!

Mebe,



Very interesting suggestion. However I think that as an unintended consequence of that provision would be a skyrocketing abortion rate.

MEDC,

I hope all is well with you also.

I have seen those studies. But, as soon as I get a chance, will also show the studies that show the damage of divorce. I will try to get it up here tonight, if I can.

This bill can't pass fast enough IMO. Forget about the part about having children. I wish my WW would have no recourse but to stay in the M. That way we could move past whether she is staying or going and get to working on the M again. Bring it on MO!

I'm all for taking that away also! The Supreme Court had no right to decide that issue anyway. They even admitted that they didnt find what they decided in the Constitution (they wanted to believe we have a living Constitution and that because of modern society, we needed this change). If anything, the Supreme Court could only decide on protecting life, if they wanted to. But they had no jurisdiction in making the Roe v. Wade decision. At least not Constitutionally. We have many unConstitutional laws and court decisions.

One day, maybe we will decide to force or lawmakers and justices to live up to the Constitution. And if we want to make a change...then do it Constitutionally!!

Quote:

Why not just slap the BS in the face and say "Sorry you're hurt but do your friggin duty, why don't you?" Sometimes, doing your duty sux.


Interestingly enough most BSs [myself included] had to self administer this precise slap while the rest of the world was calling them a fool.

Agreed, Mulan!!


I dont either. I believe that you should be able to choose if you want to get married or not. But once married, I believe you should be held to your word!


Yeah! I agree!


Agreed. Also, if the BS decides not to allow the divorce...but the WS continues to leave and/or commit adultery, maybe we handle it like the military. The BS can take the WS before the court. The court will tell them to cease their illegal and immoral behavior. Then, if they continue...they can be arrested for breaking a court order!


Right there with you, Mulan!

It's a good point. Perhaps one way to prevent this would be to make abortion something that removes eligibility for no-fault divorce.

Edited: user error.

Does anybody know how the law defines adultery...is it only intercourse?

Couldnt have said it better myself, Noodle!

I agree 100%. But it cannot be limited to WS... it should be ANYONE who grossly abuses the marriage.

*shrugs* The 'rules' aren't doing much good if they are so easy to discard or disregard.

Relying on such 'rules' hasn't worked very well lately. It might have worked in the past, but for whatever reason (too many options available, maybe?) it's not working very well currently.

Full crisis or not, we've got a mess on our hands. I know you and I probably disagree on how to go about 'fixing' the mess, but I do think we at least agree that there's a mess. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />


I don't agree. I still think the majority of people want families to function the way they used to function. There are lots of books out there about how men feel displaced as primary breadwinners and how women feel they are doing double duty (home duties and work duties). There used to be a much more sharply defined division of labor and, frankly, I think there used to be more of a 'work ethic' involved in marriage. My grandmother has told me that marriage is 'work' - you work at it and you don't always get what you want. In her day, that's what you did.

The roles have changed -- and the old paradigms don't really work anymore. People no longer fit into the traditional package. Women work and need more help around the house. People are tired because they're pulling double duty (work and child rearing) and the division of labor has been smudged. People resent doing too much and not getting enough out of it. I'm not sure whether people really are working harder or if it just seems that way. Meanwhile, people's tolerance for 'more work' has gone down.


Well, yes, that would be nice.


Right. And, what do we do with all those people and their children? Ignore them?


We've all ready discussed jailing people for adultery. You can increase the consequences enough to compell people to do things but then you have to deal with managing that. Our society is running out of resources to manage that type of problem.


You and I seem to be talking about different types of change.

Oddly, I'm taking the more conservative stance and advocating to delay change or not change (the law to eliminate no-fault divorces) until more thought is given to what that change will bring. Even though the change is a 'change back' that doesn't put me on the bandwagon that it's going to fix anything. There were problems in the system that provided impetus to change the law in the first place. Those problems -- plus new ones -- might manifest if we decide to rewind the law. There is no clean "UNDO" button that we can click and restore things to the way things were. Problem solving would be a whole lot easier if there was.


The key is the word choice. Eliminating options/choices does nothing to build character.


I'm so happy for you -- truly. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Forfeiting things is a different set of consequences than not allowing the person to be divorced in the first place.


How are marriages fairing in the army? Not that good last I checked.


Too simplistic, MM. Where/how are we going to find the resources to enforce all those consequences? It takes energy, time, organization, and resources. Arguably, it might be worth the expense. At some point we have to pick our priorities. Maybe we should make this a priority over say... the costly drug war.

Who knows... investing the resources from the drug war into families might cause a significant decrease in that problem anyway. I'm open minded about it. Convincing other people of that would be a trick, though.


Unattractive because what used to work so well for people has become emotionally confusing. It's not just the disposable nature -- it's that people have a hard time figuring out how to relate to each other.


*shrugs* I could actually live with this --- but it simply fails to acknowledge the problem of non-wedded couples and their children.


If what drives us is the same, then why are we always talking about how the problem with society is that people are too self centered? Either they always were or something's changed.


True. I didn't mean ignore the past. But, let's move on from the past. We can't recreate any moment that's gone by or any era. We have to move into the future and build something different. We don't have to disregard everything and move on (we shouldn't) but somehow we have to see things from the perspective of what IS not what WAS or what we wish it SHOULD be.


I believe/learned differently. Let's agree to disagree about this.


Then, we're defining the only way to break the contract is through infidelity or abuse? What about neglect? What about the rest of the vows? What's the recourse for that?


Right. And, for a while, it was a big mess because they had to pass a separate law to specifically not allow reciprocity in those cases.

Mys

Noodle


I know, noodle, and I commend each and every one for making that difficult decision.

Do you think there's a difference between deciding that for yourself and having someone else tell you that you have to do it?

Mys