Let's Update the Divorce Courts, Shall We?

I've said before I don't believe we should have alimony. That's not exactly true. The thing is, alimony came about when wives were expected to stay at home after marriage, thus preventing them from advancing their career, and making it impossible for them to get a job afterwards since they had no marketable skills. When it was conceived, it was a good thing, since it meant that women were not left without any income after the divorce.

However, today alimony is used as a revenge tool to bilk the wealthier partners out of their money. Many people who receive alimony are employable or even have a job, they just want to maintain their previous lifestyle.

So my view on alimony is this: If both partners are employed full time, there should be no alimony. Ever. Clearly they can support themselves (though they might require child support).

Now, if one partner chose to be employed at a job for which the part-time pay puts them beneath the poverty line, at the time of the divorce, due to reasons directly relating to the marriage (to maintain the household or to care for children), then the partner who was employed full-time should have to pay the part-time employed partner some court-determined amount that is just enough to raise them above the poverty line, but is not enough to either lower the breadwinner's income BENEATH the poverty line or to raise them up extravagantly high. Then, the alimony would end as soon as the partner with the part-time job either got a full-time job or remarried.

So for example, let's say partner A makes $20,000 a year and B makes $5,000 a year, and the poverty line is $10,000 a year. A would have to pay B $5,000 a year in alimony. But if A made 100,000 a year and B made $5,000 a year, B would still only get $5,000 a year, and if A made only $12,000 a year, B could get no more than $2,000 a year.

If one partner was not employed at all at the time of the divorce, the same rule as above should apply, maximum $10,000 a year until they get a job or remarry. However, the partner had to again be unemployed for reasons relating to the marriage-- because they chose to stay at home and maintain the household or, more significantly, to raise the children. If they are disabled or they wanted to pursue other interests, then they are not the other partner's responsibility.

And if neither partner is employed, neither should have to pay alimony, even if one of them gets a job after the divorce. Only exception would be if you could somehow prove that one of the spouses quit their job to prevent having to pay alimony to the other.

All of this excludes child support, of course, so the primary caretaker, if they are unemployed, shouldn't not have to sustain their children at that level. My only complaint is with alimony (glorified welfare).

Now, I know that there are "no-fault" laws but there are definitely situations where a person shouldn't have to pay alimony even if they meet the above criteria. For example, if the marriage was shorter than three years, the unemployed partner can probably go back to their previous job. Also applies if the unemployment was for less than three years. If you can prove that the person wasn't actually staying home for the kids or to maintain the house, they shouldn't get alimony. If they were abusive to the working spouse, they shouldn't get alimony. Basically it would have to be decided by a court, but while child support can be as high as necessary, alimony should be very low, and only for homemakers who have made themselves hard to employ through their marriage.

Also, no partner should get more than 50% of the joint assets, and not a penny of the assets that are in their spouse's name alone. If they were foolish enough to not keep either their own or a joint (if they are the less well-off) account, it is their own fault.

Divorce penalizes the rich and the hard working. It shouldn't penalize anyone. People have a legal responsibility to take care of their dependents (children), but not their spouses. I think it's time the divorce courts acknowledged that.

Cheating

Every once in a while on Fark there will be an article about someone who cheated on their spouse and got some terrible and disturbingly humorous retribution, or whose infidelity was discovered in an interesting way. A while ago-- a long while-- there was one on how the US is the country that most disapproves of infidelity. Other cultures, particularly in Europe, take a "don't ask, don't tell" approach, or consider it people's private business, but in the US, several states still have adultery laws and infidelity is considered to be the WORST thing you could do to a significant other with the possible exception of certain bedroom behaviors a lady doesn't share in her online blog.

In fact, statistics say that 22% of married men and 14% of married women in the US have had extramarital affairs, and yet 90% of us believe, at least in public, that it's morally wrong. Keep in mind that all those statistics need to be adjusted for the inherent secrecy of infidelity. And couples counselors estimate that 50% of male clients and 40% of female clients cheat, according to Newsweek.

This harks back to our Puritan days. We are a comparatively very conservative nation. But at the same time, those who disapprove of infidelity aren't just the diehard Christians. You can be an American atheist and be furious to learn that someone you know is cheating or is being cheated on. It's not just a religious taboo, it's a cultural, social taboo.

I mean, no one wants to be cheated on, ever. But the WORST thing? Women will support their spouses while they sit in jail but if they cheat, it's over. I think I would prefer to find out my husband had a mistress to finding out he was a murderer, or only married to me for tax reasons, or poking holes in the condoms. Admittedly, there are serious health problems that can result from infidelity-- monogamous relationships don't pass on STDs. But that's not what people think when they first find out they've been cheated on. They think, I've been wronged.

What's even more interesting than our powerful cultural reaction to infidelity, however, is that it happens anyway. You'd think that with that much of a taboo stacked against us, cheating would be out of the question. But it isn't. Cheating happens all the time. Is it just a biological imperative to diversify the gene pool? But such liaisons don't usually produce children. You would think that the power of our collective morality would be more of a deterrent.

The other factor is, no one wants to be cheated on, and yet many people cheat-- why? Why do people think, It's okay that I cheat, but if my significant other did, then it's over? Some people claim it's justified-- He's busy at work, she's always too tired-- but in the end, no justification is enough if they are the abandoned one.

I wonder about this because the thought of cheating, for me, is unfathomable. I really can't imagine a situation where I would. Finding a date is HARD, why would I go back to it once I had someone? If I was truly unhappy in a marriage, I would divorce, after much counseling had failed. And yet, the first thought I would have if I found out my spouse had been cheating would more likely be, Oh, shit, did I get some disease? followed by Oh, shit, did he have a KID? followed by Why did he cheat, what have I been doing wrong, why didn't he tell me if he was unhappy, and oh god, what if he wants to leave me for her? It wouldn't be, He betrayed me-- he deserves to die, or at least lose as much of his money as possible in a messy divorce.

It's interesting.

The Case For Group Marriage

I am a big fan of legalizing stuff. I'm a social libertarian when it comes to adults. I've always thought laws should protect people from other people (i.e. no murder) and protect children and the mentally ill, but if you're of sound mind and body and you want to become a crackhead, I'm not about to stop you, unless I actually care about you personally.

But there's some things that are tricky.

Group marriage is a good example. I'm calling it group marriage because the term "polygamy" is used colloquially to refer to "religious-based polygyny" but "group marriage" both includes traditional polygamy and those weirdos where there's three men and four women and they all love each other.

Now, I think people should be allowed to marry how many people they want. And yet. There should be restrictions. If group marriage was legalized, you would have to say:

-All members would have to be over 18. This applies even if people can marry their first partner at a younger age, like how in Utah it's 14. Teenagers can be a lot more impressionable than adults and you want to hold off that sort of thing as long as possible. They need to be out from under their parent's control, and if my other idea of a national service was enacted, wait until they get out of the national service, when they're 20 or so. The longer they are out from under their parent's immediate control before the marriage, the better.

-All previous spouses must agree. Let's say a man decides he wants to marry his mistress, but he and his first wife don't want to divorce because of the kids, and his first wife doesn't approve. He can't just marry the second woman. The first wife has to give her consent before a judge and that judge has to make an effort to make sure the first wife was in no way coerced. The second wife would also have to be doing this of her own volition (and not under parental control or anything) and be fully aware of the man's situation. I'm thinking waiting periods and consent forms and opt-out clauses and everything.

-All partners have to have regular access to the mainstream community and the right to file a divorce if they so chose.

-You have to figure out certain logistics. Like what happens in case of a divorce? I say if one woman divorces her husband, who has three other wives, then she should get MAXIMUM 1/5th of his money and belongings. He should still have to pay normal child support though (and I favor abolishing alimony).

-Another logistic would be who makes the decisions? Let's say you're in a polyamorous marriage and one of your two husbands is on life support, but your third wife is radically anti-pulling the plug and your first wife thinks it's time. I say that unless the husband writes a living will labeling one of the partners as the decider it should be chosen by vote.


But there are other issues with group marriage, like the toll it takes on a society. Look at the Muslims, who have created an underclass of unmarried, very frustrated men who blow up buildings for God. Now, let's face it. There is no way that legalizing group marriage in America will make it mainstream, not with the above restrictions. There's too many Christians, too many empowered women, and too many educated men who understand the flaws in that system. You would have three groups who try it: Fundamentalist Mormons, who are doing it anyway and at least the prospect of making it legally binding and giving them validity would (potentially) make them come into the open and thus help us regulate the negative sides to it-- plus most of their practices would be illegal under my system anyway; very few Fundamentalist Muslims, mostly just-off-the-boat immigrants-- Westernized Muslims don't do the plural marriage thing; and nutty polyamorous people who are a tiny minority AND tend to be educated enough that people leave when they figure out that they don't like it.

If we make it seem to the religious polygamists that we are more accepting of their lifestyle, they will be a bit more trusting of us. Then we can start educating their children.* Once you educate the younger generation on your own you can start to empower the young women to protest, encourage the young men to see the problems in the system, and over many generations of Westernization the ideas will lose popularity.

Laws don't really change society, education for children changes society, and much faster.


*In an ideal world you would also say that no person can have more than two biological children. That would basically ELIMINATE religious-based group marriage, because those men don't want to support a wife who can't provide offspring. But that's unlikely at best.