Divorce has consequences!?!? (WSJ) No shit, you say. Good point, I respond. Seriously, I'm happily married, but I couldn't help but find this article fascinating.
Turns out many judges and many states are beginning a rethink of how we force one spouse to financially support the other years and decades past their date of separation. To be sure, this discussion does not affect child support. We want parents to remain financially responsible for their progeny even if the love (or lust) that produced said offspring has long since vanquished.
Questions arise when (most often) a husband continues to pay money to a his former wife who has since remarried or perhaps even makes more than husband #1. Is this fair? Some don't think so, like the folks at Massachusetts Alimony Reform.
At the same time, this isn't an issue that I imagine most state legislatures are eager to embrace. It'd be easy to be seen as anti-woman or as anti-family. I can hear the attacks now, "You make divorce cheap and easy. You hate families. You're a bin Laden loving liberal." Now that I think about it, screw men.
0 comments:
Post a Comment