Government DID intervene in 1969 to essentially make marriage a "non-binding" contract for the purpose of weakening the institution of marriage. (Get it?)
Before that there were fewer problems.
This allowed one party to essentially say "I divorce you" 3 times and materially harm/ruin the life of the other party financially and otherwise.
When in history was it ever so common for a man to face financial ruin because of the divorce?
Enter "no-fault divorce."
no-Fault is fine IF it's:
"Leave a marriage if you want, but don't expect to leave with anything from that marriage besides your personal belongings and your own income/savings." Anything else is government assisted robbery.
Government DID intervene in 1969 to essentially make marriage a "non-binding" contract for the purpose of weakening the institution of marriage. (Get it?)
I get it. However I wouldn't call this a "government intervention". If anything, it's the opposite. It's a deregulation, however that created a whole new quagmire with the way it was handled. More on that below.
When in history was it ever so common for a man to face financial ruin because of the divorce?
I will ask you a counter question: when in history have women achieved such level of prosperity as they currently do?
The thing was that those laws applied to a time when men were the sole bread winners of their families. Times have changed and so has our society.
"Leave a marriage if you want, but don't expect to leave with anything from that marriage besides your personal belongings and your own income/savings."
Countries outside the west do have things like these in place. For example: during the divorce, a spouse can't touch the assets that were in your possession prior to getting married, your inheritance, etc
To be clear, I'm for no fault divorce, however that doesn't automatically entitle your spouse to taking 50% or more of your income. If anything all assets should be split down the income contribution. For example: if the husband is making 70% of the income, he should get 70% of the assets. If the wife is a stay at home mom, then she should be getting 10% tops.
Child support should be a fixed monthly stipend around $250-$300 no matter your income.If the dad wants to pay more, then it's at his discretion.
If you want to be a sarcastic git, learn to read.
I said that we should keep the no fault divorce laws because the government shouldn't be involved in the day to day life of it's citizens.
Government DID intervene in 1969 to essentially make marriage a "non-binding" contract for the purpose of weakening the institution of marriage. (Get it?)
Before that there were fewer problems.
This allowed one party to essentially say "I divorce you" 3 times and materially harm/ruin the life of the other party financially and otherwise.
When in history was it ever so common for a man to face financial ruin because of the divorce? Enter "no-fault divorce."
no-Fault is fine IF it's: "Leave a marriage if you want, but don't expect to leave with anything from that marriage besides your personal belongings and your own income/savings." Anything else is government assisted robbery.
I get it. However I wouldn't call this a "government intervention". If anything, it's the opposite. It's a deregulation, however that created a whole new quagmire with the way it was handled. More on that below.
I will ask you a counter question: when in history have women achieved such level of prosperity as they currently do?
The thing was that those laws applied to a time when men were the sole bread winners of their families. Times have changed and so has our society.
Countries outside the west do have things like these in place. For example: during the divorce, a spouse can't touch the assets that were in your possession prior to getting married, your inheritance, etc
To be clear, I'm for no fault divorce, however that doesn't automatically entitle your spouse to taking 50% or more of your income. If anything all assets should be split down the income contribution. For example: if the husband is making 70% of the income, he should get 70% of the assets. If the wife is a stay at home mom, then she should be getting 10% tops.
Child support should be a fixed monthly stipend around $250-$300 no matter your income.If the dad wants to pay more, then it's at his discretion.