Skip to main content

This is Part XXX of MY STUPID STATE where I document what happens when a state full of Democrats elect a veto-proof, right-wing legislature along with a teabag, CRIMINAL governor to lead us. (Once again, yes--an actual bona-fide criminal who literally stole from seniors, who subsequently elected him.)

This is my documentation of my beloved but idiotic state of Florida's slow descent into chaos.

Because if there is ever an oppressed class, its unfaithful wealthy men...

This is also an example of how bad gerrymandering has gotten in this state.  Even during the large red wave of conservative activism last year, a constitutional amendment to end the practice was passed with a supermajority of voters.   (Although the FL legislature is spending millions to overturn it.)

They are angry that idiot legislators like Ritch Workman (R-Melbourne) are very, very safe and win big.  

SO safe, he can pitch DWARF-TOSSING as a jobs bill.  

So safe, that this SOB is now putting forth a horrible bill with the sole purpose of protecting rich men who cheat on their wives.

The bill  would:

-Forbid judges from considering adultery when they determine alimony.

-Put a cap on the amount and the length of time its paid.

-Allow any and all PREVIOUS divorce agreements to be reopened and renegotiated.

I'm sure this is completely unrelated... but Rich Workman just finalized his own divorce 8 DAYS after filing this travesty of a bill.  Any guesses the reason for that divorce?  Anyone?

Don't think for a second this doesn't stand a chance of passage.  We have a super majority Republican legislature that backs this stupidity... with many of them from the "moral values" crowd who are either currently divorced or even going through the process right now.    

Divorce lawyers stand to make a fortune in reopening claims--and there is a niche industry in Central Florida that cater to wealthy men who don't want to support their wives or children.  (If you live here, you've seen the bill boards).  And then, of course, you need to understand the powerful lobby groups, such as Fathers and Family, Florida Alimony Reform, etc., who represent rich, divorced men.  (I hear Newt is a fan.)  

Last year's session of the FL legislature served only to make the vast majority of us suffer.  Forced ultrasounds, schools cut to the bone, legalizing payoffs, cutting funding for the disabled, huge lawmaker raises, citizen protections stripped and voting rights destroyed just to name a few.  

Unfortunately, this awful bill, which even Workman admits he didn't think through, will likely be one of many torture sessions we must endure before election next November.

Conservative Floridians need to wake up between what is being preached and what the FL GOP is actually doing. There is nothing remotely "Christian" about this or any of the other bills being considered by this GOP legislature. Maybe instead of fighting to display the 10 Commandments at Florida courthouses, you might want to insist your legislator actually reads them.  

He can start with #7.  

Originally posted to SemDem on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 03:18 PM PST.

Also republished by DKos Florida.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (217+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Horace Boothroyd III, Johnny Wendell, eeff, tobendaro, Setsuna Mudo, Marie, dougymi, big annie, drainflake77, Naniboujou, Thinking Fella, la urracca, Josiah Bartlett, wayoutinthestix, James Allen, Karl Rover, Cedwyn, MKSinSA, PhilW, radarlady, murrayewv, implicate order, regis, Oaktown Girl, Ismay, G2geek, lexalou, emsprater, boofdah, Spaghetti Western, deepsouthdoug, haremoor, MadMs, vcmvo2, jnhobbs, Polly Syllabic, kevinpdx, middleagedhousewife, satanicpanic, JayDean, millwood, Gator Keyfitz, elengul, palantir, MartyM, Shockwave, banjolele, JekyllnHyde, Jjc2006, Sanuk, glorificus, zukesgirl64, NBBooks, cany, undercovercalico, Rogneid, buckstop, CharlieHipHop, kevin k, Mathazar, bronte17, ajr111240, historys mysteries, BarackStarObama, 207wickedgood, BluejayRN, hester, TheShovelJockey, Siri, Mister Met, maggiejean, terabytes, bnasley, rage, GoldnI, Gorilla in the room, RagingGurrl, nonnie9999, drawingporno, Marjmar, Zwoof, Habitat Vic, sawgrass727, petestern, DavidW, eyesoars, psnyder, Lujane, Trotskyrepublican, fixxit, turdraker, dejavu, Matilda, BlueInARedState, sockpuppet, Dube, catullus, bloomer 101, Anne was here, Praxxus, Lonely Texan, crystalboy, on the cusp, markdd, thomask, mookins, stitchmd, Oh Mary Oh, Youffraita, Ckntfld, ask, Clytemnestra, Native Light, Desert Scientist, Azubia, begone, hungrycoyote, ArtemisBSG, anodnhajo, Jeff Y, wishingwell, Dvalkure, agincour, ATFILLINOIS, Matt Z, kurt, mujr, AnnieR, Byron from Denver, envwq, Noor B, citizen dan, prgsvmama26, GoGoGoEverton, dear occupant, Nowhere Man, prettygirlxoxoxo, marleycat, vicki, Tinfoil Hat, DiegoUK, YaNevaNo, sodalis, donnamarie, nominalize, celdd, No one gets out alive, sny, Turbonerd, blue armadillo, mofembot, gulfgal98, ColoTim, Its any one guess, Scioto, Dave925, offred, Russ Jarmusch, stlsophos, lostboyjim, third Party please, mconvente, CA Nana, pamelabrown, Bcre8ve, Gowrie Gal, cybersaur, Stwriley, nzanne, Dave in AZ, zerelda, ewmorr, Time Waits for no Woman, blue jersey mom, MKinTN, BobBlueMass, lineatus, frsbdg, tegrat, stratocasterman, Alec, DWG, myboo, enhydra lutris, tidalwave1, Philpm, snoopydawg, gooderservice, MrJayTee, Matt Esler, glendaw271, pioneer111, fiddlingnero, TX Freethinker, Empower Ink, boran2, DBunn, DianeNYS, opinionated, GrannyOPhilly, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, appledown, themank, happymisanthropy, annrose, dewtx, Kamakhya, dksbook, JVolvo, Wreck Smurfy, WoodlandsPerson, wonmug, PBen, angelajean, Laughing Vergil, Bluefin, TexDemAtty

    The Seminole Democrat
    Waking up Florida one person at a time

    by SemDem on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 03:18:47 PM PST

  •  Thou shalt not commit what, again? (47+ / 0-)

    I anxiously await the reaction of the churches to this, if they're not too busy judging liberals, that is.

    A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

    by dougymi on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 03:36:40 PM PST

  •  is this really part XXX, as in 30.. (9+ / 0-)

    or just a placeholder number, or sumthin' else? ;)

    Anyways, it's a great series.

    A man, a plan, a canal, Panama

    by Karl Rover on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 03:55:14 PM PST

  •  Alimony should be reformed (24+ / 0-)

    The idea that one spouse of the divorced couple should pay to support the lifestyle of the other spouse indefinitely in order to maintain lifestyle expectations is a bit outdated.

    While temporary alimony may be fair in order to transition the couple into the financial changes required by living separate lives,  there is simply no reason why a couple in their 20's or 30's should qualify for indefinite or longterm alimony today.

    Simply put: Women and Men can both work and have careers and they do.

    I have met people who despite having college degrees, even advanced degrees, receive $50k+ in alimony from their former spouse, for no other reason than the courts allow for their desire to not be in the workforce.  

    I think if you were married after 1990 or so, alimony should be limited to a maximum of 5 years.

    Now child support is an entirely different matter and I have no problem with requiring that the wealthier parent pay child support although there should be a reasonable cap and it should not simply be a percentage of income since that results in the kind of ridiculous divorce decrees where one parent has to send five or six figures a month in "child support" even though just about any child could be taken care of with an extra $1500/month and most children live on far less than that.

    •  all of that is reasonable enough; however.... (23+ / 0-)

      .... the stinker in the deck that gives away the game, is the item about forbidding courts from considering adultery.

      Adultery is NOT a consenting adult act, nor is it a victimless act.

      It defrauds one's partner on the terms of the marital contract, and it exposes one's partner to a risk of sexually transmitted diseases, some of which can be fatal.  It smashes up families and puts children through living hell.  

      It ought to be criminalized as a form of fraud, with the obvious exception for "open marriages" that are agreed to in writing (in which case there's full consent all'round).  

      Instead, this arsehole is attempting to give adulterers a free pass to screw their paramours, screw (differently) their spouses, and screw (differently) their children.  

      "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 04:28:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Divorce should be no fault (6+ / 0-)

        Why should adultery be considered...should bogarting the TV remote be considered as well?

        However, if one party spends significant community (marital estate) assets on an affair then that should be accounted for in the property settlement.

        FL has permanent alimony where ex's will shack up and avoid second marriages to keep the alimony going forever. It is a ridiculous system that desperately needs reform.

        •  are you fucking serious?! (27+ / 0-)

          "Why should adultery be considered?"

          Because it defrauds the spouse on the terms of the marital contract.

          Because it exposes the spouse to the risk of STDs, some of which can be deadly.

          And because it causes families to break up with much pain and consequences to the kids.

          All so the adulterer can play the sexual futures market.  

          It's not the fucking TV remote control, and if that's all you think it is, you have your head so far up your ass you can't see the light of day.  

          "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 04:53:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Because adultery may have many causes (6+ / 0-)

            that are difficult to sort out in a court.

            One spouse can "drive" another to adultery.

            It may be a momentary lapse of one spouse that is relied by the other spouse to gain the upper hand in a divorce from an otherwise doomed marriage. And, sometimes it is one spouse unfairly abusing the trust of the other.

            Wisely, many states and courts have got out of the "deciding fault" business when it comes to failed human relationships.

            It is hard enough for them (courts) to figure out how to fairly divide the property let alone assign blame.

            •  "Drives"? as in "dressed to get raped"? (18+ / 0-)

              One spouse "drives" the other to adultery = "the way that woman was dressed is what got her raped."  

              Are you so sure you want to go there?  

              Sorry bub, that shit doesn't wash, it doesn't rinse, and it doesn't even spin.  

              The sexually dissatisfied spouse can either learn to masturbate, or can get the divorce FIRST and then go screwing around AFTER the divorce.  

              There is NO excuse for screwing around while still married, unless it's an open marriage by mutual consent BEFORE the screwing around starts.

              "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 05:19:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I see you are (0+ / 0-)

                advocating strict liability for the partner who strays but luckily even in states where adultery is considered, courts (with obvious difficulty) tries to analyze mitigating factors.

                •  sure, analyze the mitigating circumstances! (5+ / 0-)

                  Just as with robbery and murder!

                  "Your honor, he drove me to murder him!"

                  Know what?  Courts ought to have the power to commit a couple to outpatient psychotherapy, consisting of both individual and joint sessions as needed to enable both of them to figure out what's up with them.

                  As for the often-heard thing that men tend to "wander" because they "need" "variety," that should be fixable with a good dose of porn and some lessons on wrist exercises.  

                  Or if the wife still wants him, prescribe Viagra and let the good times roll.

                  Now of course if there truly are mitigating circumstances, for example the wife turned out to be a necrophile and she wanted the husband to take cold baths before bedtime so it would feel like she's having sex with a corpse, well yeah sure let those cases go no-fault.

                  But those are few and far-between.  

                  Most of them are just straight-up scumbag behavior.  ME! ME! ME! selfish assholes, kids be damned as well.  

                  "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                  by G2geek on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 05:51:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You have a history with infidelity (0+ / 0-)

                    it is obvious.

                    So do I, but it obviously doesn't cut as deep with me as it does with you.

                    I also had a spouse that forged a $25,000 check that almost forced me into bankruptcy.

                    Both things are equally bad, imho.

                    •  Easy Catesby..that's an awfully big accusation (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      G2geek, Nowhere Man

                      to make while desk-jockeying behind a computer screen.

                      Justified anger does not grant you unrestricted license.

                      by GoGoGoEverton on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 05:13:09 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Perhaps he has a thing for personal responsibility (6+ / 0-)

                      Neither I nor Mrs. Nowhere have strayed; nor (to the best of my knowledge) did my parents. However, I find myself agreeing with G2Geek. Perhaps it's because I believe that no one can "make" anybody do anything, except through use or threat of violence.

                      Let us all have the strength to see the humanity in our enemies, and the courage to let them see the humanity in ourselves.

                      by Nowhere Man on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 05:18:04 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  I've seen the consequences. (5+ / 0-)

                      Kids whose lives got fucked when Mom or more often Dad decided to play the sexual futures market.  

                      At some point I saw the pattern, with friends who would refer to "Mom and her boyfriend" and "Dad and his girlfriend," who were being bounced around like billiard balls without anything like a stable place to call their own at either end of the billiard table.  

                      And they were supposed to be studying in school or developing a career or even just holding down a job under those circumstances?  While sleeping on a couch at Mom's place during the week and another couch at Dad's place over the weekend?

                      Yeah sure there are kids who make it when Mom is a crackhead and Dad is a gangbanger who does drive-bys for a living.  What-the-fuck-ever.  There are a few million people halfway around the globe who don't even get one meal a day, plus all the women in various Middle Eastern theocracies who are property.  

                      But arguements of the general type "don't complain, after all you could have been a Jew living under Naziism" don't cut it.  Those arguements are morally bankrupt because as long as humans don't go extinct they'll find ways to survive and persist despite the worst sorts of depravities and evils being inflicted upon them.  And the fact that there are always worse depravities and evils to inflict (Hitler could have ground up the Jews into sausage and fed them to his troops at the front lines in Russia) does not make other depravities and evils less so.  

                      The depravity of turning a child into a billiard ball as a casualty of the parent's desire to play the sex market, stands on its own two feet as an evil inflicted upon the kid regardless of whatever other bigger and worse evils could have been inflicted (hey at least the adulterous parent wasn't raping their own kid, right?).  

                      Parents, as well as politicians, need to learn the graceful art of keeping their pants (or dresses or whatever) on until they are no longer in a position of responsibility for anyone else.  And where would we be today in history if Bill Clinton had kept his pants on (hint: two terms of Gore, no 9/11, and climate mitigation well underway), and Elliott Spitzer had done likewise (hint: Goldman execs painting license plates in the penitentiary)...?

                      And as for me, I'm gay and single, so take whatever ad-hominem hypotheses you may have, and shove them.  

                      "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                      by G2geek on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:05:27 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Are you seriously comparing adultery to rape? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                erush1345, kestrel9000, Sparhawk

                That's beyond offensive.

                •  Maybe you should read the comment again. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nowhere Man, SemDem, myboo, i like bbq

                  And the previous one it was in response to.  I don't see a comparison.  S/he's comparing the bogus blame game of the previous comment with adultery to the bogus blame game when someone says a woman is asking for it by the way she dresses.  Big difference.

                  "They love the founding fathers so much they will destroy everything they created and remake it in Rush Limbaughs image." MinistryofTruth, 9/29/11

                  by AnnieR on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 04:00:04 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  as for "momentary lapse"... (13+ / 0-)

              ... and "get the upper hand in a divorce from an otherwise doomed marriage," the answer to that is, tough shit, adults can learn to deal with their problems without having to lie and cheat and break trust.  

              You're making dumb-ass excuses that are precisely equivalent to what "enablers" do for substance abusers.

              "My wife drives me to drink!  My boss drives me to pop pills!  Everyone drives me to drink and pop pills!"

              "Oh poor you, that all those mean people are driving you to drink and pop pills!"

              Bullshit.  The alcoholic drinks because he drinks, and the pill popper pops pills because he pops pills, and the answer in both cases is to just stop drinking or popping pills and stop rationalizing it.   And both of those are medical conditions, legitimate diseases, whereas the desire to play the sexual futures market isn't.

              "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 05:28:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  That was not an HRable comment (6+ / 0-)

              The author was expressing his or her opinion.

              I do not think it is obvious that one partner's adultery should automatically lead to a financial penalty.  

              In fact, given the invocation of religious doctrine, it makes me wonder if I'm truly on a liberal blog.  

              Does this bill discriminate against women?  The proposed bill does not specify that only the adultery of men should not be considered.  The bill states that adultery should not be considered, period.  

              Are husbands the only ones who cheat?  I think not.  Do more husbands cheat than wives?  Do husbands cheat more than wives?  There's no proof of that.

              Basically, this diarist has taken the act of a person who may be a sexist and turn it into a sexist act.  The diarist is entitled to his or her opinion.  But we should consider other possibilities as well.  Maybe we should read the frontpage article questioning the idea of monogamy.

              P.S.: If a spouse infects you with an STD due to infidelity, you can sue that spouse under tort law for battery.  

              One man gathers what another man spills

              by John Chapman on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 06:57:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Context makes it a gender issue (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Men have far more earning power than women overall. Women are the ones who must take time off to give birth. We still live in a country that discourages women from amibition and is sliding backwards on greased rails. You can't strip the divorce question of that kind of context, any more than you can declare "we're all equal now" because the Civil Rights Act was passed nearly 50 years ago but serious discrimination remains.

                As for "questioning the idea of monogamy," I'm all for letting people pursue alternative forms of marriage, but those must be agreed upon in advance, rather than a cheater changing horses mid-stream... or playing the kinds of head games too often found in the polyamory community (e.g., "the one-penis rule," in that he can bang as many women as he wants and so can she, but she can't bring home another guy).

            •  Hey SemDem: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Lefty Coaster

              You hiderated in your own diary.
              That's a no-no.

              "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State ..."- Vermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16

              by kestrel9000 on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 05:39:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Adultery has only one proximate cause (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JFeathersmith, milkbone, i like bbq

              You can make your partner to want to cheat, but you can't make them cheat.  That is their choice alone.

              Generally, if one partner is willing to run around on the other, it's a sign of a larger disrespect.  However, as Samulayo points out, this disrespect might well be earned, and there are different motivators of adulterers.

              Sometimes adultery is part of a larger pattern of abuse (in the broad sense), but sometimes it's a response to abuse.  For instance, if your spouse was emotionally or physically abusive, and your new partner/hook-up wasn't, is that as bad as if your abusive spouse locked you down at home (figuratively) to go go hook up?  

              "You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic."

              by nominalize on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 05:46:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  So, let's say the wife is suffering (0+ / 0-)

              from a condition that affects her libido. Perhaps she's seriously ill, or she has chronic pain that impairs her sexual response.

              Your implication is that if she doesn't "service" her husband, it's her fault she cheats.

              Or maybe vice versa: the husband is ill and the wife is frustrated sexually. But, statistically, the wife will be too busy caring for her ill husband to have much of a libido. Men are much less frequently caretakers than women are.

              When you insist that one spouse must "service" the other or be considered at fault for cheating, you're defining sex as not an act done enthusiastically by two (or more) participants, but a service provided by one person to another that need not involve the former's enjoyment. This is a pernicious idea, especially considering that patriarchal society considers women to exist for men's convenience and pleasure. It's an idea that, quite frankly, gives aid and support to rape culture.

          •  Historically ignoring adultery was a FEMINIST idea (5+ / 0-)

            You may disagree with the policy, but eliminating fault was at least initially a feminist idea.

            The old fashioned divorce laws were based on fault and alimony.

            Fault meant you had to so something bad for your spouse to divorce you.  This meant that women (and men) were trapped in loveless marriages, so long as the other spouse didn't do anything terrible (or get caught).  Even when both spouses wanted to get out, they had to "stage" an episode of adultery, usually with the divorce lawyer's secretary, the lawyer's private investigator and the husband doing a photoshoot.  

            Alimony treated women like children, assuming they were incapable of supporting themselves.

            The modern trend was to say that either party could get a divorce simply because they didn't want to be married anymore, eg because they didn't love the spouse, which was phrased as irreconcilable differences or irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.  

            Alimony was converted to equitable division of the property -- which actually usually provided more to the poorer spouse than alimony, which was like a stingy allowance.

            Equitable division of the property actually is more financially damaging to rich men than alimony.

            Feminists have re-examined what they initially promoted, but very few progressive legal scholars who study divorce think the fault and alimony model is a good one, especially for women.

            So you may disagree with no fault, but your being outraged that another poster supports it puts you somewhat out of the mainstream.

            •  Your points are well taken, (0+ / 0-)

              but what, precisely, should be done for women who grew up in a culture such as the Dominionist one, learned how to do nothing except housework and baby-making (perhaps not even reading), and then is abandoned by her husband Lord & Master for a younger, more-fertile model?

              •  Equitable distribution and rehabilitative alimony (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                i like bbq

                A lot of states have pretty good equitable distribution statutes and case law.

                They get rid of fault and alimony, and treat the marriage as a partnership that needs to be dissolved without the court getting into the detail -- that it's terribly suited to examine -- of who was at fault.

                If the woman was a stay at home Mom, she contributed just as much to the husband's savings, property, business, etc. and gets half of it.  Many states even give her half of any professional license he gained, like a law or medical license, and half of his business.

                Even states that focus on property distribution have a fail safe clause called, "rehabilitative alimony."  That means that in the case of your stay at home Mom who sacrificed the opportunity to learn a skill, in addition to half the property, she gets old fashioned alimony (but limited in time) for her to learn the skills to get into the job market.

        •  as for exes shacking up.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          .... that can be considered by a court as grounds for terminating alimony.  

          All without having to grant the adulterer a free pass, as you and that scumbag Republican seem so eager to do.

          Hey, why don't you see if you can get Newt to support it too, while you're at it?  

          "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 04:56:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  In most cases it doesn't work that way. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345, Sparhawk

            In most cases, unless the ex is legally married the prior order stands.

            Heard of cases where the ex does a full-blown marriage except for legally filing/recording (Wedding pictures and all.) And the alimony order remains in force.

            •  depends on the state (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              erush1345, SemDem, G2geek

              in VA aliimony ends on "remarriage or relationship analogous to marriage".  My husband's alimony ended because his ex's BF moved in.  After a period of time (6 mos, 1 year?) he was able to get the alimony reduced to $0.00.

              •  In PA, there is no alimony, only child support (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                Now I have heard of cases here in PA where a separated spouse can request temporary alimony until the divorce is final. But most of the time, it is really just child support prior to the final divorce decree.

                •  I knew a couple where the woman (5+ / 0-)

                  had been a stay at home mom for 35 years when he divorced her for the young thing at the office.  The kids were grown so there was no child support.  I personally feel he should pay alimony forever.  His religion kept her at home, submissive, with him balancing the check book, etc.  Then when he decides his libido is more important than his religion, he dumps her without the skills to fend for herself.  

                  So, I think alimony should be an option.  At least for a period of time in which the stay-at-home parent/partner [re]establishes him/herself in a career.  Businessmen who want their wives to be country club/hostess wives and not career women, shouldn't get to dump them back into subsistence living if/when they trade in for a new model.

                  Both wage earners? each able to be self-supporting?  sure, alimony isn't necessary.  But when one has given up wages, especially at the request of the other, some re-building time is only fair.

            •  the fact that people treat each other like shit... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              ... and then treat each other like shit the other way 'round as some kind of revenge or mere opportunism, doesn't make either instance right.

              "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:07:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Is this hitting close to home Samualayo? (11+ / 0-)

          Adultery should definitely be considered...

          By the way, many times the wives are forbidden to work by their husbands.  Especially in "Christian" households...yes, they deserve something.

          More important, its the children who suffer.  They shouldn't be punished for their father's daliances.

          The Seminole Democrat
          Waking up Florida one person at a time

          by SemDem on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 05:11:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yeah really, I was wondering about that. (6+ / 0-)

            Though strictly speaking, his/her ideas stand on their own two feet, or fall on their face as the case may be.

            I'm not going to get in-your-face personally judgemental if someone admits they screwed around, but I reserve the right to call down fire and brimstone on the generic case of screwing around.  

            I know people who suffered as kids, even as almost-adult-kids, from this shit.  They become little billiard-balls, bounced back and forth between Mom-and-her-boyfriend's house, and Dad-and-his-girlfriend's-house, resented by both parents' new sweeties because they're not "theirs" (meaning, their own precious genes) or because they're "in the way" of the new relationship (meaning, "honey we can't do it when the kid is sleeping in the next room!"), and never having a stable home base.  Sleeping on the couch at both ends, like a refugee from a natural disaster.  

            Times like this, I think there ought to be a parenthood license, dependent upon successfully passing a parenthood education course.  But I'll be nice about it and say that parenthood education should be a required subject in high school, with a passing grade required for graduation.  

            "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 05:35:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  *shrug* (0+ / 0-)

              What you say is true in many cases, but parents should also not be required to give up their entire life, happiness, career, etc for their kids.

              The idea that parents should do that is a pipe dream, and the idea that you give up any rights to your own happiness or self-determination because your kids might be negatively impacted is deeply obnoxious.

              Everything has to be balanced. If you are not happy in a marriage, getting out is priority one. Then you decide how to impact the kids the least.

              (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
              Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

              by Sparhawk on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 09:10:13 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Married 20+ and happy. (8+ / 0-)

            Just did some family law practice in an earlier life.

            A lot of screwed up marriages involve screwed up people.

            Forcing courts into the position of deciding which party caused a divorce and subsequently allocating blame in failed relationships is a fool's game. Court resources are wasted and divorce proceedings become more acrimonious without leading to a better outcome.  

            (Hence, why no-fault divorces are favored in many jurisdictions.)

            The best plan is to get the property separated as fast (and cheaply) as possible so the parties can move on with their lives.

          •  Kind of lame you HR'd me (8+ / 0-)

            Courts have to consider the underlying facts in many adultery based divorce cases.

            And, as you can imagine, it often turns in a big horror-show of he said, she said, making everyone worse off, including any children unfortunate enough to be in the middle.

            But, it does generate tons of legal fees that could be better spent on post-divorce living expenses.

          •  a side issue, but you misuse the word "punish". (0+ / 0-)

            Suffering as a result of something / being punished

            Children suffer greatly as a result of divorce, but they're not being punished for anything.  

            This is a common extension of the word 'punish', but it's best avoided because it implicates entitlements that just aren't there.  For instance, it's the kind of logic that lets Republicans say that taxes punish hard work---

            Hard work = higher pay
            Higher pay = More taxes
            Paying taxes = Major suckitude (i.e. suffering)
            (Suffering as a result of something = Punishment)
            Ergo, Paying taxes = Punishment for hard work

            "You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic."

            by nominalize on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 06:01:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Breach of contract! (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It's generally one of the promises one makes when one marries. Nothing was mentioned about the fucking TV remote in my wedding vows. YMMV.

          Twenty years from now, you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. Throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. --Mark Twain

          by Debby on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 07:17:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  So the next time a woman hurts my feelings... (2+ / 0-)

        do I get a check? The whole idea of adultery is an archaic throwback to our puritan theocratic past. Sometimes you get burned in this world. People suck. Shit happens.

        Personally I am opposed to the whole idea of state recognized marriage. Only civil unions should be publicly recognized and family courts should be primarily for child custody cases, and in those cases I think the courts should rethink their habit of awarding custody of the kids to the mother. Female children should go the mother, but male children would be better off with their fathers.

        All I want to do is find a minature zebra, put a saddle on it and ride it.

        by Eric Stratton on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:41:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "Hurts your feelings"? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DMiller, SemDem

          Is that just as bad, according to your dudely self, as subjecting a woman to an unwanted STD?

          Oh, and why, precisely, should the mother get the girls and the father get the boys? Either parent should be adequately able to parent a child of either sex (or an intersex child, as the case may be). The rare occasions when an adult of the same sex is called for can be handled by other adults; e.g., relatives of the extended family or family friends.

          •  You can get a disease (0+ / 0-)

            from shaking someone's hand.

            If an STI actually actually happens, then by all means sue away. But you don't get to take people's money for hypothetical damage.

            All I want to do is find a minature zebra, put a saddle on it and ride it.

            by Eric Stratton on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 03:06:28 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Also... (0+ / 0-)

            before I have to explain anything, you need to tell me why the mother almost always gets custody of kids. Do you think men are inferior?

            BTW this is the worst part of being a democrat. The Chomsky disciples are a little tiresome, and the communists are so painfully naive. But the misandry really gets to me.

            P.S. It's almost funny. When I typed that last line Google Chrome's spell check corrected "misandry". It truly is the hate that dare not speak it's name.

            All I want to do is find a minature zebra, put a saddle on it and ride it.

            by Eric Stratton on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 03:20:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  I am sincerely hoping that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SemDem, i like bbq

          the uprates are for the first part of your ill thought out screed, and not the last sentence.

          Obama is not a dark-skinned anti-war socialist who offers free healthcare. You're thinking of Jesus.

          by DMiller on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 11:03:23 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Amazing. (0+ / 0-)

            Men have their children ripped away from them every day in our society by family courts. The logic behind this is that women are better parents than fathers. You're OK with that blatantly sexist attitude, apparently. But my attempt to at least make things equal... to try and make what is obviously a horrible situation at least somewhat fair, is reprehensible to you.

            Amazing. All I can say in response is that you won't get away with this forever. The chickens are coming home to roost. Young men and boys are falling behind in every area that matters. The backlash is coming.

            I look forward to accusations that I'm really a Rush Limbaugh loving conservative activist or whatever.

            All I want to do is find a minature zebra, put a saddle on it and ride it.

            by Eric Stratton on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 03:14:55 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Adultery is more than hurt feelings... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          i like bbq


          The Seminole Democrat
          Waking up Florida one person at a time

          by SemDem on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 12:45:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Honestly... (0+ / 0-)

            It think it's probably less than hurt feelings. It exists in most marriages and alot of people simply accept that fact.

            It was different when marriage was the primary means for young women securing financial security. Today young women are doing just fine in the workforce.

            Bottom line is, either you think that government belongs in the bedroom or you don't. Marriage is consensual sex between adults. Adultery is consensual sex between adults. Choose your partners wisely.

            All I want to do is find a minature zebra, put a saddle on it and ride it.

            by Eric Stratton on Wed Nov 30, 2011 at 03:27:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I believe that women have the right (0+ / 0-)

        to control their own bodies.  Even if they are married, ultimately it is their decision alone whether to have an abortion.

        The same is true for men--even if they are married, ultimately it is their right to do whatever the hell they want with their body parts.

        Is it grounds for divorce?  That decision is up to the couple involved.  Are their ethical issues?  Does it make him a "bad person?"  Most likely.  But it should have nothing to do with alimony.

        Wisconsin is closed for political maintenance.

        by Subversive on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 06:26:23 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  marriage is a contract and adultery is a violation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        clear and simple.

        marriage is sacred and all until they don't want it to be

        •  The state has no business making marriage 'sacred' (2+ / 0-)

          The state's only interest is in seeing that marriages and divorces proceed in an orderly and nominally fair manner. 'Sacred' is between spouses and maybe your church or whatever. If two spouses have different ideas as to what sacred means, it's not the state's business to figure it out.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:04:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Marriage vows are religious mumbo jumbo (0+ / 0-)

        ...just for ceremony, and not legally binding. They are not that different than what a politician says when running for office.  That's why vows are not required for civil ceremonies, only for religious weddings, and why at many weddings participants write their own vows.

        I'm not saying that married couples should screw around on each other, with or without the consent of their partners, just that wedding vows are not legally binding.  If they were, then there would be no such thing as divorce.

        As for STDs, well sure, unintentionally bringing STDs into a relationship assumed by the other partner to be monogamous is a shitty thing to do (intentionally doing it is already a crime).  But nobody is forcing married couples to have sex with each other, let alone unprotected sex.  Not having sex or unprotected sex may make for an unhappy marriage and lead to divorce, but it still takes two to tango, and there is ALWAYS choice.  Marriage does not free one from the responsibility of making smart choices.

        Wisconsin is closed for political maintenance.

        by Subversive on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 08:10:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  thatgeeknit - I completely agree (0+ / 0-)

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 04:37:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No fault divorce is better for all concerned (8+ / 0-)

        Adultery is wrong, but courts need not be tied up by spouses battling over who is more to blame.

        If protecting the children's interests was paramount as opposed just given lip-service, all of divorce law would be different and judges could basically order couples to stay together, to live closeby, to fine them for undermining each other or fighting in front the of the children. Trust me, we don't want courts being the parenting-police either.

        If judges are going to punish a spouse for seeking out sex or companionship in a marriage that does not provide for it, then are they going to be able to order frigid spouses to perform their "marital duties" under pain of a reduced alimony check?

        Courts are for hurt wallets and hurt bodies, not for hurt feelings, and its a mistake to turn them into a forum for the relationship blame-game.

        •  Before everyone goes balistic, Adultry is not (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Eric Stratton, Subversive

          considered in many of the Blue states here in the Northeast, the decision was made a long time ago that if Adultry occurs the marriage has already broken down.

           That piece of his legislation I could agree with, going back to the "she ate crackers in bed" reason was always dumb. And if you are not old enough to remember that it was the reason Frank Sinatra and Ava Gardner divorced.

           The rest of his legislation however is a bit strange and seemingly self serving.

    •  The purpose of alimony (11+ / 0-)

      is to provide support to the woman who devoted her life to being a housewife, has been tossed aside by the husband for a younger model, and is now essentially unemployable and likely to live out her years in poverty and on government assistance even if she can find work. He is probably doing quite well financially and doesn't want to share a dime with her.

      Not every woman has a high powered career, and the fact that women take years off to take care of their kids almost invariably means she ends up working a crap job on hourly wages rather than a salary when she does go back to work. In fact, above a certain income, the fact that a woman's earning power after her kids no longer need her care at home is so steeply reduced is often a factor in the two of them deciding that she should stay at home, get hobbies, or do volunteer work rather than working a pointless job for money the couple does not need.

      When a marriage breaks up and the husband makes millions a year, but you want child support limited to $1500 a month (well, actually it sounds like you think it should be limited to a lot less), given the woman's likely earning power of poverty wages, you are betraying your general dislike of males supporting their families at all, and your desire for women to be punished for growing older and no longer being beautiful and carefree, no longer able to service their men in the style a wealthy man deserves. That is miserly and pathetic of you.

      •  Um.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        The purpose of alimony is to provide support to the woman who devoted her life to being a housewife, has been tossed aside by the husband for a younger model, and is now essentially unemployable and likely to live out her years in poverty and on government assistance even if she can find work. He is probably doing quite well financially and doesn't want to share a dime with her.

        Since over 75% of women in the U.S. today work, the scenario you're describing accounts for a tiny minority of divorce cases.

    •  I am so sick of hearing how the parent (10+ / 0-)

      doing the majority of the childcare should be capped in how much child support as a percentage of the wealthy parent's income is "unfair".  No it isn't the child should not have to live in poverty just because his parents split.  I am literally waiting for a friend to drop off her kids while she goes to get a protection order from the husband she has been separated from for 3 years and hopefully emergency custody as well.  He makes six figures and has been paying next to nothing for the children since their separation while she battles two kinds of cancers and works and still he makes her life a living hell and never knows where the next house payment is coming from.  As it is women and children are far more likely to end up with a dramatic drop in standard of living after divorce.  I have too many friends that have creative exs who find all sorts of ways to not pay.  The LAST thing we need is laws making it easier.  For every hollywood big divorce settlement there are thousands of women who can't get reasonable child support and transitional support.

    •  Agreed, alimony needs serious reform (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      He gets to keep his shit. She gets to keep her shit. If one party doesn't have any shit, then tough shit.

      A good friend of my parents got screwed by the judge during his divorce. He was working 3 jobs to pay his ex wife alimony and child support, while she had just inherited millions of dollars from her parents right after the divorce. She didn't spend a dime of the child support on the kids, and he couldn't afford a good lawyer to handle the case and help him out.

      There was no adultery in the relationship, no abuse, nothing. Just 2 people who decided it would be best to split. I don't see why she deserved any alimony.

      TEABAGGER: Totally Enraged About Blacks And Gays Getting Equal Rights

      by yg17 on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:00:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  that's not the standard (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        myboo, DianeNYS, i like bbq

        no doubt your friend got screwed.. .and yes there needs to be reform.  

        But that's not what this bill is about.  

        I know of two instances where the wife didn't work or wasn't allowed to work, and the husband ran off with someone.  IN both cases, the husband didn't want to pay for the kids because the wife might get her hands on it.   In both cases, the husband was very wealthy.

        PS-  I hope your friend appealed.

        The Seminole Democrat
        Waking up Florida one person at a time

        by SemDem on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:24:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  It's always the stories of men getting screwed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DMiller, SemDem

        that somehow make it into the national consciousness. The countless women who subsist on crumbs along with their kids, while their exes find all kinds of creative ways of never parting with a cent of their considerable incomes? Those somehow get ignored. I wonder why that is....?

      •  Oh, and yeah, HER labor (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DMiller, SemDem

        helped him earn "his" shit. Because "women's work" is still invisible, unpaid, and scorned as "something anybody can do."

      •  Point of info (0+ / 0-)

        Inheritance is not considered generally in divorce.  Modern divorce considers the couple to be an economic partnership and property they accumulate by being married together, is divided equally.

        But if one spouse inherits lots of money that's excluded because they didn't earn it together.

    •  Alimony is a relic from era of one income families (0+ / 0-)

      and I think putting a a limit on the length of time it can be paid is a very reasonable and needed reform.

      However barring courts from considering adultery is just plain silly.

      Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

      by Lefty Coaster on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:33:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  What about the choice of the married couple? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      i like bbq, SemDem

          In many marriages, especially those of evangelical Christians, couples choose to have the woman stay home and raise the children while the man earns the living.  So, under your theory of marriages in the 90s, assume we have a couple who married in 1995, and further assume the wife has a college degree.  But she has stayed home and raised two children, who are between 10 and 15 years old.  Child support will not cover the support of the children and the wife (especially since the wife is expected to contribute in most states).   The wife's college degree is almost worthless due to lack of a career.  Don't you think it is now fair that the husband continue with the agreement made by the parties that wife stay home and care for the children to their majority?  Wife has given up years of earning power and it is not easy to get back into the work force.  In a long term marriage, maintenance is a way to equalize income.
         Also, every state will have a method to modify maintenance. If wife earns good money or husband suffers a decrease in income, these will be reasons for a modification.
          Lastly, what is so ridiculous about paying child support of five or six figures a month if the parent earns so much that is possible?  Just because the parents are divorced, the children should not get punished. As you are aware, those instances are very rare.  

      "This isn't for the ones who would gladly swallow everything their leaders would have them know". Mary Chapin Carpenter

      by malenda on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 10:36:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Anyone when they scan the list (9+ / 0-)

    read this post as Fleabag legislator?

    LOL apt either way.

    Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.

    by Horace Boothroyd III on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 04:05:30 PM PST

  •  as I said to a republican (15+ / 0-)

    who questioned my politics the other day..."I cannot understand how any self respecting woman can vote for a republican."  What is wrong with those women? They are voting for people who are bound and determined to disenfranchise them.

    It's the Supreme Court Stupid!!!

    by regis on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 04:09:55 PM PST

  •  re: Any guesses the reason for that divorce? (5+ / 0-)

    Hmmm.  It's difficult to guess. I'm sure his legislation was completely unrelated to the events of his personal life. Maybe his wife was a bad cook?

    "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

    by middleagedhousewife on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 04:54:37 PM PST

  •  Sounds like a good idea. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345, Sparhawk

    Why should alimony be permanent?

    Though opening prior settlements up for review may be lame but some people are stuck in pretty onerous alimony situations that deserve review and relief. In my progressive state, alimony is disfavored by the courts and must be limited.

    In general divorces/dissolutions are relatively easy to revisit and it happens all the time when hidden assets are discovered or when alimony gets adjusted, etc. (Not to mention if children are involved then the case is essentially active until the children age out of the parenting plan)

    •  in a situation of true equality perhaps (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, i like bbq

      That would be easy enough. But the fact is in a large percentage of families, the wife has worked at home for many years and has no way to begin to make a liveable wage for herself. Should she starve (we arent just talking lifestyle here)  because she was a traditionalist who trusted her husband was also?

      I am not saying that this is the only divorce scenario, but it is a common injustice that needs to be acknowledged.

      •  Her husband was a traditionalist (4+ / 0-)

        in that scenario. He just changed his mind retroactively. This is a less-common divorce scenario, but it is still significant.

      •  Over 75% of women in the U.S. today work (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You're talking about a bygone era.

        •  so screw the 25percent that don't or can't work? (11+ / 0-)

          I was just divorced from a man who makes a ridiculously generous 6 figure salary. His annual bonus is six figures too. I left a lucrative career field in the 80s because he was in the military and we didn't want to be seperated so we took the adventures that we could and i did odd jobs as i was able in the various places we lived (3 different continents and a move generally every other year on average) When he retired, he took a number of positions that required uprooting our little family and readjusting again - when he'd finally "arrived" at his new corporate executive position (very secure and in a growth field) he decided he was bored with the same old wife and wanted essentially, a fancier, better socially connected partner to go do "fun" things with so I was out - in my mid fifties with fairly minimal job skills although I can do quite a bit with a computer - not enough to get a decent salary especially in this economy.

          There may not be many of us that are in the same boat I wound up in, and with the interent it is so much easier to keep working or get education no matter where in the world you wind up, but I think sweeping "reforms" that only serve to protect the pocketbooks of wealthy, wandering creeps are a big mistake. Some of us did marry for love and gave up a lot of our own careers for the good of the family and ther person we loved, trusted and agreed to support for life. Alimony makes sure that if the higer earner (or only earner) decides to bail to go find his "passion" elsewhere at middle age, he'd better be prepared to honor the rest of those silly little promises made earlier in life. And it should be the same whether the higher earner is the husband or wife who bails.
          But in long term partnerships where one has enjoyed the chance to pursue a timeconsuming career path while the partner keeps the home fires burning and tends to the family responsibilities...that alimony has beens earned.

          In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. John Adams

          by blue armadillo on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 06:23:32 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  3 divorce lawyers reviewed this bill & called BS (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lonely Texan, i like bbq

          See Scott Maxwell's column on it:

          As one of them said, it clearly has an anti-woman agenda.

          The Seminole Democrat
          Waking up Florida one person at a time

          by SemDem on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 06:54:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I wish I were (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SemDem, i like bbq

          but in some states and some occupations, things haven't changed all that much yet...there are many living in a bygone era still.

          And of those 75% that work, how many are families where there is still a breadwinner and then a wife who makes 15,000 to 22,000 a year just to add to the family purse before the kids come.

  •  Couldn't help but wonder (5+ / 0-)

    Does FL Teabag = Fleabag?

  •  Naturally (6+ / 0-)

    South Florida has a lot of trophy wives (I've met a few) and what old fart wants to be stuck with last year's model when the new ones show up?

  •  It is sad that we have legislators (5+ / 0-)

    such as Workman.  He had an excellent Democratic opponent, but voters just voted for the person with R next to his name.

  •  OT somewhat. Everytime I see a picture of (8+ / 0-)

    Rick Scott, he reminds me of Voldemort.

    Plutocracy (noun) Greek ploutokratia, from ploutos wealth; 1) government by the wealthy; 2) 21st c. U.S.A.; 3) 22nd c. The World

    by bkamr on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 05:40:50 PM PST

  •  "Conservative Floridians need to wake up..." (4+ / 0-)

    sadly, I wouldn't count on this.

  •  yeah I have lived in some really dumb places (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hadrons, wishingwell, SemDem

    What with the possible terrorist in Ga.  to the Cross City deal.
    I heard about the 10 commandments and Freedom Rally ...and this statement is so Dixie County...Cussing and the preaching in one statement.
    from the link provided....

    A bunch of people that ain't got no damn sense want to tear down the good Lord," said Jeannie Hoffman from neighboring Tennille. "They took prayer out of schools, they took paddlings out of schools, they took all your rights away right there."

    The poorest county in Florida and reistered dem who vote republican and what say they if the Quoran was up there at the courthouse.

    Rolls eyes and glad I am in a little more liberal area of Florida... (I hope)

    We the People have to make a difference and the Change.....Just do it ! Be part of helping us build a veteran community online. United Veterans of America

    by Vetwife on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 06:27:51 PM PST

  •  Wait, isn't this the party of the religious right? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z

    Wouldn't it be more idealogical consistent for these moral value voters to be pitching canings and arrests for infidelity and divorce?

    There are only 2 things in life I believe about religion: There could be a God and I'm sure as heck not him.

    by Irixsh on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 07:30:29 PM PST

  •  Okay, I've been invited to apply for a job in (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jan4insight, wishingwell, Matt Z, SemDem

    Florida.  In Miami.

    Why would I ever want to move to Florida now?  The Governor is insane and the state seems to be taken over by demon Republicans.  

    Can you tell me good things about Florida that might make a progressive think one should move there?

    That's one more thing to add to my long list of small problems. --my son, age 10

    by concernedamerican on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 07:43:38 PM PST

    •  I love Florida (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      if you ignore the politics, it is beautiful, and in S Florida, the people are wonderful.

      I have missed the multicultural life ever since I have left there.

    •  Hell yeah! we need your help! (0+ / 0-)

      I hope a ton of progressives move here and work to make things better.  we have a vocal minority of GOP thugs that run things... and a large apathetic population.

      After just ONE year of Rick Scott, people are finally waking up.  I think we had to hit rock bottom before we could start clawing our way out...

      There are some strong progressives here organizing.  come be a part of that.

      PS-Miami is fucking awesome!

      The Seminole Democrat
      Waking up Florida one person at a time

      by SemDem on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 06:37:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I live in a no fault, no alimony state. (16+ / 0-)

    Both spouses are presumed to be equally capable of holding a job and earning a living.

    (Spousal support may be awarded if one spouse is judged not capable of working.)

    The expense of work time child care for the custodial parent is factored into the child support award.

    I think the whole concept of alimony is a paternalistic anachronism, and the idea of exacting alimony punitively for "breaking the marital contract" is bullshit.

    I've been married and divorced twice. The reasons for each breakup are too complex and nuanced for comment here. In the first marriage my spouse was unfaithful to me; in the second, it was I that strayed.

    In NEITHER case did the infidelity break up the marriage; rather the infidelity was one of the manifestations of a marriage that was already broken.

    I find the majority of the comments posted upthread to be frankly weird on a supposedly progressive blog.

    •  The presumption that both spouses (7+ / 0-)

      are equally capable of earning a living is a convenient lie in many cases, even giving the variability of what you may consider "a living" might be. If the man is earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year at the peak of his earning power, and the woman is looking for work at Walmart after devoting a decade to looking after her kids, is that what you really see as fair? I mean, besides in a greed-oriented "I got mine" way?

      •  Two points: (4+ / 0-)

        My state (as I believe most are) is a community property state. If the man has been earning "hundreds of thousands of dollars," the high likelihood is that the couple will have acquired substantial assets, that, when divided, will yield the wife a substantial cushion as she begins her new unmarried life.

        Second, child support payments are generally structured to reflect the basic lifestyle the children have experienced prior to the divorce. The Court does not award a Walmart level of support for children who've been raised in an affluent household.

        I'm not saying that a woman who departs a single breadwinner marriage is going to avoid financial impact, but the horror stories we're all most familiar with are usually a function of the husband trying to hide assets that by law belong half to her, or cases of the husband playing games with Court ordered child support.

        If two people are going to enter into a marriage with the understanding that one of them is going to be a stay-at-home parent, they should marry with a prenup that specifies continued spousal support should the marriage end in divorce. There is nothing in the marriage vows usually taken that says, "I promise to love, honor and cherish you til death do us part (and I will continue to provide your income should either of us break that promise)."

        •  Many of these marriages are long term (4+ / 0-)

          and were entered into long before "prenups" became anything that was commonly done, except perhaps in the cases of very wealthy partners.

          I do thinnk a long term spouse that sacrificed the chance to enter in to a career due to the demands of the higher earners career demands (particularly if those demands required the stay at home or minimal earner to take on the demands of running the home and taking care of the children pretty exclusively) - because the underylying presumption is that "WE are doing this to save for OUR retirement"....then the high earner does indeed have a duty to pay from the fruits of that salary to the other spouse.

          i am in that very position and spent decades supporting the careers of my ex - he is at his peak earnings now, and i am working an entry level crap job at 55, when we had discussions in the past about trying to stay in one place so I could get established somewhere but the needs of his career always trumped my job or eduction prospects. I damn sure think he owes me a lot - i gave up a lifetime so we could secure our financial security for retirement. He is now very secure and I am not. It is not "enslavement" to honor promises made.

          In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. John Adams

          by blue armadillo on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 06:50:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  As far as prenups are concerned (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            i like bbq

            They never work that way. While supposedly they can protect the personal property of both parties, overwhelmingly they are used to bully a woman into signing away her legal rights so the man can walk away from the marriage and leave her with nothing.

      •  And yet, by what reasoning is the lesser-earning (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sparhawk, meatballs

        partner owed a portion of the greater-earning partner's wages, in the event of dissolution of the marriage?

        Loss of earning potential by one partner during a marriage should be considered in division of assets, but to effectively enslave one former partner to another - by forcibly extracting wages from them, is disgusting.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 05:20:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  "enslavement" "forcibly extracting wages"? (4+ / 0-)


          I believe in long term marriages, where one spouse is the bread winner and the other was supporting the family, running the house, minding the children, pets and ailing parents....yes, that damn high wage earner only got there and had a family because someone else was doing all the work on the home side.

          If that marriage dissolves because that high wage earner decides to walk - and leaves the spouse that didn't have the chance to get out into the working wold - hell yes that high earner better support that spouse that took care of the home for him for all those years.

          I just got divorced from a guy like that - everything we did we did for "us", for the family, for our "retirement" - but at the peak of the career i helped support, he decided he'd like a fancier partner, new friends - same high paying career but more fun - and now I am left to do what - rebuild? Yes - hooray for community property" but he hasn't been earning these big bucks all that long for us to have accumulated substantial assests - he'll be able to haul those in in the next several years before his very secure retirement and i will be having to cobble together some semblance of a "career" ... more likely hanging on to crap jobs if I am lucky ... to presserve what few assets I was awarded.

          Bailing on marriage vows, years of "promises" and dreams - hell yeah those that do owe it to the ones they decide to bail on so they can go "find" themselves in middle age. It is not "enslavement". In many cases it is justice.

          In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress. John Adams

          by blue armadillo on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:03:19 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So, basically, the alimony-receiver gets out (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sparhawk, meatballs

            of the relationship; and the alimony-payer is shackled to it for a court-determined period of time.

            Yes, that's forced servitude. Giving up one's career to support a marriage entitles one to an increased portion of the marital assets, as an "in-kind" contribution to them.

            But no adult has the right to live off the work of another against that person's will.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:18:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Give me a break (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              i like bbq

              Greed, greed, greed. You sucked her dry and you want to dump her and let her die in poverty. You lived off her unpaid labor for decades - clearly indentured servitude if not slavery - and now you want to toss her aside and laugh as she works a minimum wage job or two or three to try to support the kids, like Joe Walsh's wife.

          •  Re (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            I believe in long term marriages, where one spouse is the bread winner and the other was supporting the family, running the house, minding the children, pets and ailing parents....yes, that damn high wage earner only got there and had a family because someone else was doing all the work on the home side.

            I don't, and won't date women who do. It is important to me that my spouse has a career and does not need me economically. I have no interest in being involved in the situation you describe, and women without work skills are not interesting to me anyway (what do you talk about?).

            (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
            Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

            by Sparhawk on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 09:22:32 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Many men feel this way (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Divorce law sets men for failure.  

              Men today have seen the fathers of the previous generation go through the horrors of divorce and they don't want to be the next victim.

              So many men are looking to acquire their assets before marriage and then marry a woman who is as self-supportive as they are.

              When you add someone to your life who is as self-supportive as you are the results can be very good.  The financial benefit is obvious and there is great potential for mutual respect.

              They create a family law paper fortress without a pre-nuptuial agreement.


              Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

              by meatballs on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 09:28:49 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  "Forcibly extracting wages" (0+ / 0-)

          as "enslavement" is a wonderful right wing meme you're using there. You left out "at gunpoint".

          •  How are the wages not forcibly extracted? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Child support is one thing - but alimony? That's a social endorsement of parasitism.

            Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

            by Robobagpiper on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:22:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ah, yes (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SemDem, i like bbq

              "Parasitism". I forgot that one.  Yet another right-wing meme.

              Yes, indeed. Toss her aside. The fact that she may have only 1/10th or 1/100th the earning power thanks to her years of devoted unpaid labor are immaterial when you want to keep all your bling to yourself. Just make sure the next one signs a pre-nuptial agreement so you can abandon that one more easily.

              Unfortunately you can't abandon your kids by getting your wife to sign away their birthright. Too bad the state is letting those little parasites suck you dry so they can live luxuriously on your hard-earned wages at $100 a week.

              •  I don't see how (0+ / 0-)

                Getting half of the marital assets is "un-paid labor"

                Oh and child support and alimony are two separate issues.

                When a man is committed to equally sharing the parenting time - and both former spouses work and make similar incomes - WHAT MAKES YOU THINK YOU ARE ENTITLED TO HIS CASH?

                Give me a break.  Expenses should be shared and that's it.  

                It's called child support - not ex-wife support.

                Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

                by meatballs on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 11:43:47 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  When a man is equally committed (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  i like bbq

                  to sharing parenting time is quite clearly not what we are discussing here. We are talking about a man who advanced in his career because his wife managed his house, family, and obligations full-time. Most of these men did not have time to parent fully, due to the requirements of moving up the ladder of success. They committed themselves to this fully, as did their wives.

                  Selling off everything you own to survive on is not nearly as generous an arrangement as you want to believe.

                  •  Unfortunately (0+ / 0-)

                    The men who are committed parents get screwed royally.  

                    What you are talking about is not a real representation of the majority of cases.

                    I'm with you - if a man dumps the wife that helped him get to be a big success for a trophy bride - then yeah he should be made to pay - royally - but not for life.

                    At some point, the ex-wife is an adult and she should become self-sufficient.

                    If the man is THAT wealthy - then the divorce settlement should go a long ways towards setting her up for life anyways - if not - then the child support payments should be hefty enough to keep her and the children from wanting too much.  After they're 18 - she should at least have some sort of path to self-sufficiency.

                    Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

                    by meatballs on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 01:04:56 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  As enlightened about gender issues (0+ / 0-)

          as you are about racial issues.

      •  Right. Or then women should all work and never (3+ / 0-)

        stay home with the kids or if she does, then tough noogies if you get divorced.

        the risk is all the woman's, the man risks nothing

        •  The (formerly) non-working spouse... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

 entitled to reasonable transition payments and child support, but not endless.

          At some point, you know, it's important to develop marketable work skills no matter who you are. Getting married is not a ticket to live a particular lifestyle forever. The only sure thing (as sure as it can be in today's economy) is to develop your own skills so that you don't need someone else.

          (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
          Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

          by Sparhawk on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 09:27:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Marriage is about a FAMILY, a team, that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            i like bbq

            supports each other in what is best for the Family. Women most often sacrifice career to be home, which they both consider best for the TEAM.

            I just interviewed with an older man who said he "convinced his wife to retire." She was a party planner and NOT old. So, they divorce. He is responsible for her lack of business to go back to.

            •  It's the libertarian version of marriage (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              i like bbq

              What's fair to property owners trumps what's fair to people every time.

              •  Devious immoral people (0+ / 0-)

                Should get their just due.  Unfortunately, it doesn't happen that way.

                Often, the people who do the underhanded nasty stuff come away in better positions.

                The way I look at it is, the only thing you can do is continually take the high road.  In the end, you'll be the one who sleeps at night and lives without regrets.

                The world is full of injustices - especially in family court - all you can do is control yourself - so you should do that the best way you can.

                Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

                by meatballs on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 01:26:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  So you are saying (0+ / 0-)

            that she should abandon the kids (or even the idea of having kids) and the household in order to advance her career, even though they both agreed that she would stay at home to take care of them?

  •  This is a bigger issue than one state. It looks to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    thomask, terrypinder, DMiller

    me like marriage is heading towards becoming a failed institution. I used to be offended when someone described it as "just a piece of paper." Sadly, they understood better than I did.

    Marriage seems to be working for only a small percentage of the population in the USA, yet it affects almost everyone. I have no solution, but I see more divorces and misery until the government realizes that marriage needs a legal reworking.

    I voted with my feet. Good Bye and Good Luck America!!

    by shann on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 08:40:52 PM PST

  •  Your headline (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, SemDem

    FL Teabag Legislator: Rich Men who Screw Around...

    I read that as Fleabag Legislator, - no need to amend...

    Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid. You step out of line, the man come and take you away. - S. Stills

    by ask on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:19:57 PM PST

  •  And tonight I watched on 60 Minutes (6+ / 0-)

    a segment that reported that one full third of all the homeless people in this country live in Florida.

    GOP has some screwed up priorities.

    Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. -- Eleanor Roosevelt

    by hungrycoyote on Sun Nov 27, 2011 at 10:51:46 PM PST

    •  something to consider about (0+ / 0-)

      1/3 of homeless living in Florida is that they didn't get homeless there, they traveled there. It is easier to be homeless in a warm state with beaches and showers and restaurants with sidewalk seating, etc.

      I know, because I sent my homeless father there after he endured many winters on Wacker Drive in Chicago. Long story, obviously, but wanted you to consider that possibility.

      Peace.  Mrs M

  •  Florida is full of old, brain challenged people. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    karenc13, SemDem

    I can't stand the state.  As far as I'm concerned we could trade it and Texas to the Chinese for debt forgiveness.  Throw in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana for good measure.  We should have allowed the South to secede.  Good for them, better for us.

    •  could you imagine if they'd never come back? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Even if they got rid of slavery eventually, the South would be a third-world apartheid land without the massive US government intervention of the 20th century.  The Confederacy would have stayed agricultural, and found it hard to get out of that.  By the 1950's, it'd be blacklisted from foreign investment and international sport like South Africa was.  And we'd be wondering what to do with all the illegal immigrants from the CSA.  

      Of course, there probably wouldn't be much of a CSA by this point--- the states would have seceded from it to be independent and broke.  I wonder how the Indian tribes in modern Oklahoma would have fared.  Would they gain independence?  Fight amongst themselves?  I am sure that my own tribe (the Kiowa) and their allies, the Comanche, would have had a much easier time raiding a weak-government Texas than one supported by the US Army.

      The US would have been different too: All of the Beltway development would have been on the Maryland side, with the palatial Lee estate overlooking them from the Arlington side.  

      The great Black migrations of the '20s and '60s would never have happened, meaning Northern cities would be vastly different than they are today, without white flight to empty them.  

      That's just to start.

      "You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic."

      by nominalize on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 06:20:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  For real? Not consider adultry in alimoney? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SemDem, blue armadillo

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution, inevitable." - President John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963)

    by LamontCranston on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 06:10:30 AM PST

  •  I am all for the idea of (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    not considering adultery when considering alimony. Adultery is disgusting but should not be effectively criminalized.

    As for limits - no.

    As for reopening past settled cases - only if every person who has their case reopened gets to send the bill for all legal fees to Rep. Workman, who must pay it immediately from his personal funds.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 06:22:45 AM PST

  •  this is the sort of intellectual drivel (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    we can expect from teabaggers when they actually write their own bills and aren't introducing ALEC inspired legislation.
    most of these MORANS.......oh, forget it.
    you get the picture.

    Shame is the New Black.

    by dear occupant on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 06:51:47 AM PST

  •  Start calling this "The Open Marriage Bill" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DWG, Mrs M

    and Republicans will drop it so fast it will make your head spin.

    Gasoline made from the tar sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. ~ Al Gore

    by Lefty Coaster on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:41:17 AM PST

  •  Oh these moralizers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    they always know exactly what should be done.  The evil of considering adultery in divorce proceedings must be addressed.  Government has no better role than meddling in the divorce process.  Every moralizer knows that.  And alimony is out of control in this country.  We need to rein that in.  And as for second divorces, well, who cannot see the wisdom in making a second or third divorce grounds for renegotiating all earlier divorce proceedings?  Dumping spouse number 3 has always been a good reason to reduce payments to spouses 1 and 2, but the courts won't go for it.  So, moralizers will use government to force courts to accept it.  

    The robb'd that smiles steals something from the thief. -- Shakespeare

    by not2plato on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 07:53:04 AM PST

  •  Family Law needs reform (0+ / 0-)

    Like it or not preditory family law practice is a reality.

    If a woman devotes her life to being a housewife she certainly is entitled to half the assets (including retirement accounts) accrued during the marriage and a transitional monthly stipend - but beyond that divorced housewives are adults and need to eventually be self supportive like adults.

    A marriage is not a thing you can retire and collect a perpetuity from.  It is not a business decision.  

    The reality is that the overwhelming amount of divorces are pursued by women (nearly 70% overall and 90% in college educated couples).

    Why is that?  Is it because men are cads?  Hardly.  It's because of the clear financial advantage women enjoy in family law court.  

    When marriages get tough, there simply is no financial incentive for women to try to make it work.  They generally retain control of the children, get half (or more) of the assets and get a monthly check.  Afterwards they are free, obviously, to find another mate and add his earning power to their household income.  They enjoy the ex-husband's money and the current man's money.  What a deal, huh?  

    The financial considerations should be nuetral in divorce.  These arguments about the shenanigans of rich men (the behavior of which I admit is dubious), cause real harm to men who are not rich.  Each former spouse is entitled to being able to provide a home for themselves and their children and it is the best interests of the children to have free access to each home.  Putting all the eggs into the basket of one of the former spouses undermines the goal of civil shared parenting.  It creates a situation of exploitation.

    As a divorced father I can tell you this...  I provide a comfortable home for my kids.  I shouldn't be made to provide two homes, but that is the reality.  I'm definitely not rich.  My ex-wife and her unemployed boyfriend reside in the former marital home with the children.  I have very limited visitation even though my MSA states we have "Shared Parenting Rights".  My name is still on the mortgage (but not on the real estate) and I pay child support.  The judge is unwilling to force a refinance or sale of the residence.

    My ex knows that control over the children has a financial advantage.  She routinely engages in alienation tactics in effort to perpetuate the status quo.  I barely see my 11 year old son (2 nights a month) and I haven't seen my 13 year old daughter in 2 years.  I have spent nearly $50K in attorneys fees over the course of 6 years with terrible results.  I filed a motion to try to get to see my daughter back in June.  I'm due to get a docket sounding on the 14th of December.  This is truly deplorable.  The sad fact is dads (and children's relationships with dads) are a non-factor in family law court.  

    When I hear women cry foul about divorce law I have to tell you - it doesn't seem credible.  Even though I'm sure there are women out there that get a raw deal in family court, in my experience, that is a rare event.  All I have to do is walk 5 feet out my front door before I bump into a man with a divorce horror story.  It's all too common.

    Family law is grossly slanted towards women, and because of that - children are often used as means to financial ends.  Divorce is incentivized because of the gains inherent to the process.  Efforts to reform family law court should not be patently branded as anti-women.  Family law as it is now has failed my children.  It has enabled my ex-wife to use them as pawns against me.  The extent of the damage being done to them is frightening to me.  I am powerless to prevent it.  

    It's high time the members of the Kos community recognize that blindly prioritizing women's rights in family law court allows for some very undesirable results.  I would never ask the community to roll back the advances of women's rights.  I only want practical intelligent discussions.  Family Law reform is necessary.  Would I do it exactly as this tea bagging rep is proposing?  No, but that doesn't mean the discussion should not occur.

    Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

    by meatballs on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 09:07:45 AM PST

    •  Oh, look, another whiny MRA (0+ / 0-)

      who is probably fine with women doing the bulk of the childcare... until the judge decides that, therefore, she should get custody.

      If you want courts to consider both parents as equally good canddidates for full custody, work on changing gender roles, rather than whiiiiiiiining on the minority of occasions when Patriarchy Hurts Men, Too.

      BTW, not all courts favor the woman. And you can read upthread the comments from Blue Armadillo and others about men who owe their children money, and owe their wives for sacrificing their careers or career potential to the husbands' career, earning six figures yet finding all sorts of creative ways to duck their obligations.

      •  I'm not defending the bad characters (0+ / 0-)

        Nor am I against changing gender roles.  You assume I am some boorish neanderthal wanting to keep women barefoot and pregnant.  That isn't the case.

        The simple fact is there are people like me out there who have gotten exploited through the family law court system.  

        It's not such a small minority either.  The only thing that prevents a woman from manipulating the family law system to her favor in many cases is her own conscience.

        Gratefully, there is a goodly amount of women out there who understand how dangerous parental alienation is to children.  

        Unfortunately, there are those that are too obsessively self-absorbed to understand the consequences of their destructive behaviors.  The court should recognize these situations for what they are.  It's not much to ask for.

        You know it could be possible to protect BOTH women AND men from preditory family law practice.  There is no reason for anyone to be exploited by poorly written law.

        I'm not saying throw all women to the wolves in family court.  Don't interpret my intentions as such.  I'm saying there are women that definitely abuse the system and the consequences are real.

        You calling me whiny tells me that I hit an exposed nerve.  What is your intention?  To allow such destructive behavior to continue without consequence?  It's proven that malignant parents often cause severe psychological damage to children.

        This is no small matter to dismiss.  This is a real problem.  

        Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

        by meatballs on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 11:17:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  the reality is (0+ / 0-)

        the women who are stay at home moms/spouses are a dwindling minority.

        Gender roles ARE changing.  

        My fiancee and I do a very good job of equally sharing the responsibility of caring for our 2 year old.  

        I cook, clean, give baths, change and dress, read stories, play make believe, etc...

        We don't all spend our time drinking beer, watching football, throwing orders around and put our feet up...

        The modern family doesn't work that way.  The latest generation of women won't tolerate it in most part - and good for them for demanding better of their mates.

        As a father, I want to actively rear my children and be there for them every step of the way - and show them about household responsibilities and mutual respect for all family members...

        You seem to be advocating protecting a very small, shrinking segment of the population (ex-wives of affluent men) at the expense of people like me - and their children.

        Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

        by meatballs on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 11:34:48 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Floridians need to WAKE up and vote Dems to take (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    back the state from the Insane GOP.

    "No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." Abraham Lincoln

    by appledown on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 10:24:17 AM PST

  •  Okay (0+ / 0-)

    A) Who's to say that this guy would be any less safe without gerrymandering? Sometimes there are nice, compact districts that are solidly Republican.
    B) Who says this will pass?
    C) You have to stop saying that Florida is a state full of Democrats. Any state that is so solidly Republican on the local level cannot possibly have that many true Democrats. Democrats haven't held the legislature since 1994, and with the exception of Bill Nelson and Alex Sink, Democrats haven't won a single non-presidential statewide race since 1998. You act as if your state went crazy and elected Republicans, when they've actually elected Republicans for a while now.

    People panic too much on this site.

    by thematt523 on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 10:50:43 AM PST

  •  Don't blame all of Florida (0+ / 0-)

    Just blame FL-1. If that had broken off and joined Alabama, Betty Castor would likely be a senator today (or would have been from 2004-2010), Alex Sink would be governor today, and Gore would have EASILY been president in 2000, with no recount necessary.

    People panic too much on this site.

    by thematt523 on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 10:53:26 AM PST

  •  You know (0+ / 0-)

    The shit that has happened to me is real and it is terrible.  I've tried once before to tell Kos members that this is an authentic problem.  The reaction was and continues to be very cynical.  

    I was buying a car some months ago and I had to explain my credit report to the finance company (the mortgage still on it) and my divorce horror story started to come out.

    The salesman was nearly speechless and said to me "That would have destroyed most men."

    He's right.   What happened to me would have been too much for some men to overcome.

    But here we are 6 years later and now I'm debt free - other than my car and student loans.  I have a little bit of a savings now.  I'm less than a year away from graduating college with plans on continuing towards getting an MBA.  I met a wonderful woman and had another baby.  

    I proved to be resilient.  I was a 35 year old divorced man buried under a pile of debt, practically homeless, with no college education, etc...  who worked two jobs to get his ex-wife through college only to have her serve me w/papers the week she got her masters.  I am an adult, responsible for my actions - it was my poor judgment that got me into that mess.  I married the wrong woman.  I made that mistake.    

    Nobody felt sorry for me and needed to be politically active for the plight I was in.  There was no grand outrage that I had just spent 9 years of my life propping someone else up only to have them dump me and leave me penniless in a hole not many people could get themselves out of.

    I picked myself up by my bootstraps and got to work bettering myself.  That's life.  You do what you gotta do.

    However, the nastiness of the divorce still has lingering effects on my children.  At the end of it all, they're the ones who have suffered the most.  Yeah, the financial stuff and the viciousness and everything else was an extremely tough hurdle to get over, but its the configuration of family law that put my kids in a vulnerable position.  They were and continue to be used by my ex-wife who sees no wrong in using whatever means at her disposal.  You know some people have a sociopathic, win at all costs mentality - and sometimes those people are ex-wives.  This is where the court should be able to step in and let former spouses know that some behaviors aren't tolerable.  Kids are not to be manipulated in such a way.

    As far as the financial stuff goes.  I'm fine paying child support.  Do I think it is completely fair?  I'm overpaying for years now.  No, it's not fair.  But at least I know my side of the street is clean.  I'm no deadbeat dad.  I care about my children.  I want to see them have a roof over their heads and food in their bellies.  I view it as a cross to bare, because I know without that check every month my ex would fail - and she makes more money than me - she just can't manage it worth a shit.  

    The mortgage situation I'm still dealing with years later - THAT"S A FUCKING JOKE.  You'd think two adults living in that house would be made to get their own financing - but no - it's supposedly all about the children having a roof over their heads (even though they could live with me in the 3 bedroom pool home I live in).  So the system is rewarding my ex-wife even though she is an outright maglignant, alienating parent who took in an unemployed drunk boyfriend and makes horrific decisions with credit cards and everything else.

    This is real life.  This kind of shit happens every day.  Cry me a fucking river about spoiled housewives who want to turn their 14 year marriage into a pension.  Do what I did.  Take responsibility for your obvious horrible judge of character - pick up the pieces and take responsibility for yourself.

    From my perspective, the ones who wail about how terrible the family law system is for women are only advocating that position to perpetuate the already flaming out of control advantage women have in family court.

    I'm calling bullshit on you.

    You think you got it tough?  Try being me for the last 5-6 years.  

    Are there no prisons? No workhouses?

    by meatballs on Mon Nov 28, 2011 at 12:56:46 PM PST

JekyllnHyde, vicki, sny, MadRuth, hester, teacherken, Geenius at Wrok, Alec, Emerson, Shockwave, Wintermute, Jay C, celdd, eeff, devtob, catullus, opinionated, bronte17, annrose, undercovercalico, ask, themank, jalbert, Cedwyn, dksbook, tidalwave1, Dube, psnyder, sockpuppet, Oaktown Girl, Matt Esler, zerelda, mungley, JayDean, Steven D, lyvwyr101, boran2, Josiah Bartlett, Gowrie Gal, vcmvo2, G2geek, bloomer 101, historys mysteries, radarlady, Tinfoil Hat, DianeNYS, Ckntfld, BluejayRN, Othniel, PBen, Bcre8ve, terrypinder, dewtx, Praxxus, fixxit, boofdah, blue jersey mom, Steve in Urbana, markdd, Tool, Savvy813, petestern, HiBob, sodalis, deepsouthdoug, turdraker, Rogneid, peacestpete, begone, Philpm, SoulCatcher, martini, third Party please, Shirl In Idaho, Sanuk, tommymet, myboo, Clytemnestra, BlueInARedState, tobendaro, hungrycoyote, Naniboujou, NBBooks, nonnie9999, gooderservice, gatorcog, JVolvo, Zwoof, middleagedhousewife, anninla, Turbonerd, onionjim, rage, CA Nana, fiddlingnero, PhilW, andrewj54, Quicklund, GoldnI, tegrat, Noor B, donnamarie, Russ Jarmusch, Oxyrhopus, blue armadillo, ColoTim, Stwriley, la urracca, Matt Z, terabytes, DWG, bnasley, puzzled, stratocasterman, jnhobbs, millwood, Wreck Smurfy, homerun, eyesoars, spearfish, Azubia, on the cusp, Empower Ink, MKinTN, mconvente, Scioto, TX Freethinker, BobBlueMass, wayoutinthestix, Sixty Something, Youffraita, Laughing Vergil, ajr111240, lineatus, Its any one guess, Lujane, pamelabrown, Jeff Y, envwq, mofembot, glendaw271, Ismay, Karl Rover, palantir, watercarrier4diogenes, GrannyOPhilly, satanicpanic, 207wickedgood, maggiejean, prettygirlxoxoxo, juca, ewmorr, matmak, Gorilla in the room, petral, MKSinSA, Lopez99, sfarkash, haremoor, estreya, Polly Syllabic, rkthomas, appledown, ATFILLINOIS, gulfgal98, DiegoUK, shel3364, DrTerwilliker, elengul, nosleep4u, soaglow, slice, Mister Met, Bluefin, implicate order, kevin k, Haf2Read, marleycat, zukesgirl64, Jasonhouse, thomask, BarackStarObama, nogo postal, enhydra lutris, disconnect the dots, stlsophos, drawingporno, ArtemisBSG, No one gets out alive, Mathazar, YaNevaNo, James Allen, anodnhajo, Siri, oldcrow, AnnieR, Lonely Texan, Trotskyrepublican, Dave in AZ, Yonkers Boy, Horace Boothroyd III, This old man, kait, Mike RinRI, TexDemAtty, Forward is D not R, TBug, MartyM, Kinak, databob, Greatwyrm, GoGoGoEverton, Studiorion, glorificus, Setsuna Mudo

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site