Originally posted by zeeblebothttp://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/
http://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/
Wedded Abyss
Making you think before you take the plunge into Marriage 2.0
Tying the Knot in the Age of Marriage 2.0
So You Want to Get Married?
You are here because you are thinking about getting married. Perhaps one of your friends did you a favor, and sent you here. If you are going to be the higher-earner spouse in the marriage, then this article is for you.
...
Here are some things working against you, when you are the primary breadwinner spouse within Marriage 2.0, and your spouse decides to walk out (cash out?) on you:
1. Women Filing Majority of Divorces - 66-75% of all divorces are now filed by wives. Publications like Cosmo love to harp on men for having a “fear of commitment”. Guys must ask themselves, why commit when it’s the other party who can’t live up to the commitment 3/4 of the time?
2. Unilateral Divorce – This is also known as no-fault divorce, with no recourse for the other spouse. There is nothing you can do legally speaking to stop a divorce.
3. Domestic Violence Fraud : Presumed guilty until proven innocent DV laws are now widely used as the “opening chess move” of many divorces. Once the husband is removed from the primary residence he never comes back, and she gets the primary residence in the asset split. Also known as the Federal VAWA Legislation, this new unconstitutional law has been fraudalently misused by divorcing spouses ever since it came out. There are no equivalent laws to protect men in abusive situations.
4. Decriminalization of Adultery - Adultery is no longer a crime. However the failure to pay alimony to an adulterous spouse is. Go figure.
5. No Custody for Dad - Custody of the children is most often awarded to the lower-earner spouse in family courts. Basically this amounts to: Goodbye Daddy, hello ATM. When you read of cases like this October 2009 case where a little boy’s mother was arrested for prostitution and his stable/employed dad was still denied custody, you quickly understand how this loaded dice always rolls.
6. Nonenforcement of Visitation Rights – States enforce payment obligations by non-custodial parents with an iron fist, however they don’t lift a finger to enforce the other side of the bargain, which is the visitation rights of non-custodial parents. If you are going to police one parent’s obligation to pay, why not police the other parent’s obligation to allow regular meaningful access to one’s children?
7. Children as Cashcows - The National Organization for Women (NOW) has been lobbying against Shared Parenting bills in many states. Why would NOW do that? What is more equal than shared parenting? The reason is that NOW’s brand of feminism is no longer about equality, but about a zero-sum game for resources. Children are cash-cows, and NOW will be damned if they allow Shared Parenting to stop the cash-flow.
8. No-Fault Alimony – In many states, fault is no longer a factor in awarding alimony. So there are plenty of cases of “spouse-A cheats, but spouse-B pays”. In what other area of contract law does the party br
...
9, 10, 11, conclusion
Originally posted by zeeblebotThat's been written by a bitter ex who didn't know how to get their rights asserted.
http://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/
Wedded Abyss
Making you think before you take the plunge into Marriage 2.0
Tying the Knot in the Age of Marriage 2.0
So You Want to Get Married?
You are here because you are thinking about getting married. Perhaps one of your friends did you a favor, and sent you here. If you are going to be the higher-earner s ...[text shortened]... se-B pays”. In what other area of contract law does the party br
...
9, 10, 11, conclusion
Originally posted by yo its mePerhaps; but there's also a lot of truth mixed in with a fair amount of exaggeration in that article.
That's been written by a bitter ex who didn't know how to get their rights asserted.
If breadwinners would take a step back and learn about what really happens in real life divorce cases and based a decision to marry on logic and not merely emotion, marriage rates would instantly be decimated.
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76Clearly, it's possible for people to become married in the legal sense without being married in the religious sense. Those who don't belong to any organized religion have no option but to do this.
Perhaps; but there's also a lot of truth mixed in with a fair amount of exaggeration in that article.
If breadwinners would take a step back and learn about what really happens in real life divorce cases and based a decision to marry on logic and not merely emotion, marriage rates would instantly be decimated.
But might it be possible for people to become married in the religious sense without doing so in the legal sense? So two people can express their boundless love for one another without getting entangled in what they may regard as an unfair legal contract?
Originally posted by MelanerpesOf course it's possible. Happens all the time. It doesn't really work in states that recognize common law marriages, but most states do not nowadays.
Clearly, it's possible for people to become married in the legal sense without being married in the religious sense. Those who don't belong to any organized religion have no option but to do this.
But might it be possible for people to become married in the religious sense without doing so in the legal sense? So two people can express their boundless l ...[text shortened]... for one another without getting entangled in what they may regard as an unfair legal contract?
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I think marriage not only requires a suspension of disbelief, to occur in the first place, but also requires continued additional dollops of wishful and fair minded (okay.....delusional..) thinking to keep the train rolling.
If breadwinners ..............based a decision to marry on logic and not merely emotion, marriage rates would instantly be decimated.
call it resigned optimism if you must but marriage partners have to get over the expectation that the marriage will define or fulfill them. ...they still need to get a life.....
2 edits
Originally posted by kmax87I agree
I think marriage not only requires a suspension of disbelief, to occur in the first place, but also requires continued additional dollops of wishful and fair minded (okay.....delusional..) thinking to keep the train rolling.
call it resigned optimism if you must but marriage partners have to get over the expectation that the marriage will define or fulfill them. ...they still need to get a life.....
The original purpose of marriage was to provide a stable environment for the raising of children. Clearly, the marriage partners should care about one another and be able to work through any disagreements without having to damage any of the fine china.
But it seems once people believe marriage is this romantic bliss that is supposed to fulfill their every need, there's no way even the best marriages can live up to the expectations -- and the result is an epidemic of divorces and broken homes.
No one should get married just because they're "lonely" or their lives are "empty". Those who simply want to find a good friend should just find someone to be a good friend. Those who lack strong friendships or family ties should delay marriage until they have first found people to meet those needs.