is this why men are scared to divorce?????

[thorpe]

Raoul,

 

 

To me, if only one wants to get out of the marriage (leave the child support issue out of it for the moment) to live another life or to be with someone else, here's your share of what we have accumulated and go. Nothing else.

 

Reading all this I feel very lucky. My divorce was emotionally traumatic, but financially very easy. My wife wanted out of the marriage, but we had no children, so no issues there, and she had no desire for alimony or any part of our retirement accounts. Her lawyer and me both tried to get her to take 50% of the accounts that we'd saved together, but she just didn't want them. We split all the other accounts, belongings and proceeds form the sale of the house 50/50. I did my own divorce so had no legal costs. This seems to approach John Bendix's ideal.

 

The weird thing is that even after 13 years I have her as the primary beneficiary on my insurance and will as I feel that half of the seed capital for my retirement accounts is hers. She has no idea about this.

[amsterdam]

I think there are alot of women out there like that. But the person who wrote that obviously doesn't believe in monogamy, and so it's hard to take his views on marriage seriously.

[thorpe]

I think there are alot of women out there like that. But the person who wrote that obviously doesn't believe in monogamy, and so it's hard to take his views on marriage seriously.

 

I'm not sure to what you're referring.

 

It's grim reading some of these posts as they are unremittingly anti-ex. One thing that my divorce taught me is that it's difficult for both parties. We all want to be in loving relationships and when that just isn't happening it's only natural to start thinking about finding love somewhere else. It's rare that an ex is truly malicious and a little understanding by both parties can make the divorce process easier. My divorce certainly hurt me emotionally, but in all other ways my ex and I worked together to make things fair and easy. I would have done anything for her during that time, but she didn't take advantage of me. In the end I was grateful to her for that and she was grateful to me for understanding her reasons for leaving. I'd like to hear some more stories like that.

[travwilbury]

I'm not sure to what you're referring.

 

It's grim reading some of these posts as they are unremittingly anti-ex. One thing that my divorce taught me is that it's difficult for both parties. We all want to be in loving relationships and when that just isn't happening it's only natural to start thinking about finding love somewhere else. It's rare that an ex is truly malicious and a little understanding by both parties can make the divorce process easier. My divorce certainly hurt me emotionally, but in all other ways my ex and I worked together to make things fair and easy. I would have done anything for her during that time, but she didn't take advantage of me. In the end I was grateful to her for that and she was grateful to me for understanding her reasons for leaving. I'd like to hear some more stories like that.

 

My situation is similar to this. So in answering the original question of why are men so afraid of divorce, mine has nothing to do with financial or malicious reasons...........we are working together as well as can be expected. For me it is the uncertainty of the future, the sadness of the situation because I do care for her still, and the guilt of it all.

 

For those who have the other problems, such as a vindictive spouse, fighting, finances, etc...........I do not think I could have handled it all.

[thorpe]

My situation is similar to this. So in answering the original question of why are men so afraid of divorce, mine has nothing to do with financial or malicious reasons...........we are working together as well as can be expected. For me it is the uncertainty of the future, the sadness of the situation because I do care for her still, and the guilt of it all.

 

For those who have the other problems, such as a vindictive spouse, fighting, finances, etc...........I do not think I could have handled it all.

 

Sometimes being reasonable is difficult as it lets you believe that there's hope of reconciliation when that's the last thing that's possible.

[John Bendix]

That's outstanding that you and your X could work things out in a friendly matter, But because your situation differs from what some have written here does not make it the norm. I would love to hear more stories like that myself.

 

When you say it is only natural, natural in what way? It is natural for the ego to look elsewhere, to seek gratification for itself, to look past others in pursuit of its own insatsiable deisres. That part I agree with. But the ego is not natural. The ego, of which I speak (that dominates so much of our lives, to differing degrees) is a mind created self defense mechanism gone out of control.

 

When you say rare, it that based on statisitically analysis of divorce? Is self-interest as the expense of anyone else included in the malicious aspect?

[thorpe]

When you say it is only natural, natural in what way? It is natural for the ego to look elsewhere, to seek gratification for itself, to look past others in pursuit of its own insatsiable deisres. That part I agree with. But the ego is not natural. The ego, of which I speak (that dominates so much of our lives, to differing degrees) is a mind created self defense mechanism gone out of control.

 

When you say rare, it that based on statisitically analysis of divorce? Is self-interest as the expense of anyone else included in the malicious aspect?

 

I have no statistics to back up my ideas. But I believe that most people involved in divorces are just trying to find happiness and it's when one person's idea of happiness conflicts with another's that the nastiness begins. In my case after a year of separation it was plain to me that my ex's happiness no longer included me and that all I was doing in trying to get us back together was making her resent me more. So I let go and we just got on with the divorce. I think my ex knew how much pain I was in and she just wanted to put me and the marriage behind her so she pushed the simplest and quickest financial and property agreement, so no alimony and no splitting or cashing in of retirement accounts, she just signed them over to me. So I feel it's right to keep her as my beneficiary.

[COtuner]

Wow, I'm really glad I bumped this thread, this has been an interesting discussion to read. Mainly because most single guys my age are starting to be divorced men (my ex was divorced) and I want to walk into relationships with my eyes wide open about this aspect of things. I used to only worry about child support and custody issues (since I don't want kids or to support someone else's kids) but it sounds like the stories I've heard are being somewhat validated by the discussions on this thread.

 

Stats or no stats, all rumors have a kernel of truth, and there's enough similarities between what I have heard, read, and witnessed and what I'm seeing here. Thanks for engaging in a discussion that is very valuable, even if you've all gone through pain to have this experience.

[LAYAAN]

My heart sinks after reading all this. Thats why people (and it includes me) are not motivated to get married. I'm not gonna have kids and I'm gonna have a prenup so that my husband can't harm me and really I don't want anyone's wealth that wasn't given willingly to me. It brings only troubles. Marriage in this country is really tough. Finding someone to marry is tough, getting married is tough, staying put is tough, kids are tough, divorce is tough. Why bother?

(sorry, didn't mean to sound -ve, but these days I'm really wondering what is the purpose of getting married.)

 

On a site note though, please excuse my ignorance, but when everyone says 50/50 split that is if the case goes to a court, right? what if your spouse is a good person and says "I don't want anything from your wealth, I don't want you to take anything from mine either." would there still be 50/50 split? Are all women milking men in divorce? and vice-versa?

[LAYAAN]

about women wanting to have kids -

This is what my mom told me. After she and my dad married and started living together, she slowly realized that this is not what she thought he would be. She was not happy in the marriage, neither was he. I'm raised in a conservative culture where once you are divorced, and you are a woman, you don't have a chance to remarry, not by law, but the society looks strange at you. Its changing now. So, my mom decided to have only those many kids that she could support on her own if divorce would happen. I'm the only child. My parents never divorced. I don't know of any infidelity issues in their marriage. I never dared to ask my mom about their sex life or what method of contraception they used.

A rough marriage is bad for kids. I can tell you that for sure. I still remember going to bed at night all worried if my parents will stay together and if I have to choose a home will I go with my dad b'coz he had a big home and lots of money.

[WhatThe]

Of course not all women are milking their ex'es and vice versa. In most states, the divorcing couple can negotiate whatever settlement they want, and submit it to the judge for approval. The judge has the right to deny the settlement if they think one spouse is getting screwed, but judges rarely take that action.

 

I think the biggest problem is that in some states there are no real guidelines for how property division and alimony are decided. For property division, the terms "reasonable and equitable" are often used, which is nothing but an invitation for a lawyer to get involved and cause a contentious split. For alimony, things are so wildly different between states that it makes no sense at all. A marriage in Texas that would result in one person paying the other $1000 a month for a year might result in a $3000/mo award forever in some other states, like MA or CO.

 

Even though it doesn't look like a lot of people end up paying alimony, that is because in many cases, the parties will negotiate to give the spouse who might be eligible for alimony more property to avoid alimony. So while on paper no alimony was paid, in reality it was paid up front in the property division. This is done to avoid taxes, because alimony is taxable to the spouse who receives it. So, if a spouse thinks they should get $1000/mo for a year, for example, they are better off taking a lesser amount as property up front to avoid paying taxes. Was alimony paid in this case? Not on record, but in reality, yes.

 

I read where alimony reform in MA is being blocked by the Mass. Bar. Judges in MA are sick of having to do every divorce as a custom deal with contentious situations tearing people apart. They want reasonable, specific guidelines put in place. They "Family Law" attorneys are afraid that if that happens, they will lose business, so they are insisting that there be "room for litigation" in the revised statutes. Apparently the rate of marriage in MA has plummeted due to the current divorce situation being so bad that people are just saying 'NO'.

 

This is the state of marriage in the US. Lawyers are purposely pushing for statutes that ensure that people will be at each other's throats in the courtroom during a divorce. It is a great example of why marriage is dying all over the US. It doesn't matter where you are married, it matters where you divorce, so anyone contemplating marriage is at risk for someday being taken to the cleaners in a divorce.

[LAYAAN]

I am sad to hear all this. But I have no sympathy for men who chose hot girls over hard-working, nice girls just b'coz "they didn't feel the chemistry during initial 3 dates." I have no sympathy what so ever for how things turned out in their lives, you chose it that way, b'coz you let your other head decide which girl to choose. Why do you cry now? I've been turned down by men in the dating world because "You currently don't have a job.""You are going to school""You are too backward for me (I'm not all physical in 1st few dates)" Go ahead then, why do you cry?

I feel sorry for those men who were wise and chose girls wisely, but things did not work out.

Same applies to women too. If you choose a man for car and physique and money, this is exactly what would happen to you. Unfortunately luck will play a role but other things that you can control, don't screw those up.

I sincerely hope that all divorced men and women and all single men and women learn from this post.

[thorpe]

 

On a site note though, please excuse my ignorance, but when everyone says 50/50 split that is if the case goes to a court, right? what if your spouse is a good person and says "I don't want anything from your wealth, I don't want you to take anything from mine either." would there still be 50/50 split? Are all women milking men in divorce? and vice-versa?

 

A divorce has to go to court, but the court doesn't necessarily have to make any ruling about alimony and division of assets if the spouses have agreed all this in a separation agreement. Who owns what in a marriage is a difficult question, what did you come in with, how much did you earn? etc.

 

I think that any assets gained during the marriage by either party should be split 50/50 and then pre marriage assets are the issue. In my divorce we just took everything we owned and divided it 50/50 apart from the retirement accounts which my wife didn't want, however much me and her lawyer tried to convince her otherwise.

 

I can see why alimony is appropriate in long marriages where one spouse has been out of the workforce for many years, but in general I don't think it's a good thing and people should support themselves. Also how about child support being paid in proportion to the amount of custody. ie shared custody 50/50. If one parent only gets the child 1/4 of the time then they pay 1/4 of the child support.

[WhatThe]

I can see why alimony is appropriate in long marriages where one spouse has been out of the workforce for many years, but in general I don't think it's a good thing and people should support themselves.

 

Too bad the laws in most states don't agree. Well, too bad for the higher-earning spouse, anyway. It is a goldmine for some, which is why the laws have been so hard to change. For every person screwed by alimony, there is one jumping for joy. It is one of the most onerous and archaic principles in US law. No other country has alimony laws as punitive the US, and it is all about padding lawyer's fees and allowing lazy spouses to be lazy forever.

 

A friend of mine is about to declare bankruptcy over his alimony. He was 'imputed' earning capability far beyond what he can make, since the job market for tech workers has been destroyed by outsourcing. The courts don't care. Until he loses all of his assets, INCLUDING his 401K, he has to pay the ordered alimony, which is over $3000 a month. On top of that he has to pay $1800 a month in child support. Right there something is wrong. The court guideline for support of three children is $1800 a month, but his wife needs $3000 on top of that? How does that make any sense? Anyway, His GROSS is $7000 a month. The $3000 comes off the top for tax purposes, but the $1800 is after taxes. Basically, he makes $84K a year, but out of that after alimony, child support and taxes, he has to live on $1500 a month, and that is having his kids half time! He is going to lose his house, and have to declare bankruptcy, but that does NOTHING to his alimony and child support obligations.

 

He is going to have to rent a one bedroom apartment, but when he does that he thinks his ex will petition the court for full custody of the children on the grouds that they have no where to stay when they are with him. This means his child support obligations will increase by ANOTHER $400 a month, meaning he will have to live on $1100/mo, even though he his 'making' $84K a year! Once he has depleted all of his assets, he can petition the courts to have his alimony lowered. Of course, he will have no money to pay a lawyer, so how in hell is he supposed to do that?

 

It is totally, completely nuts.

[travwilbury]

I did not think of this subject when I was young, I just happened to luck out. When I say luck out I mean that although my wife and I are in the divorce process, we both have similar professional jobs, both to get a retirement within a few years of each other, and with 401K's at the same level. Which means, no one owes the other anything and both can provide for ourselves.

 

Knowing how all this works now, I would advise any young person not to marry a spouse who does not have a way to earn a living. To have a stay at home spouse nowadays is sooooooo dangerous from the aspect that they can take half your retirement, etc. Now, if they at least had a profession to fall back on, ok. But to marry someone with no real profession or job skills to fall back on, you can really be screwed. She can be the most beautiful check out girl at Walmart and the nicest person in the world.........but at 50% divorce rate, what a bad gamble that is.

[Nutz]

On the second point - I do agree completely. I am a divorced dad who's wife cheated on him. Since I live in liberal ol' New England, she still got to keep our child, get outrageous child support (I make almost 3 times the average salary here and, thanks to the child support, cannot even rent an apartment on what is left over, while she has take n3 trips to Florida and bought a brand new car since the separation/divorce). And she also got to take my 401k and the bank account I had set up for our child's education, which has since been drained.

 

That's why men shouldn't get married to begin with. Or get a prenup. Tom Leykis has been preaching this for years now. Until the family court laws are balanced just don't get married. That's the only "power" men have over things is to just not get married to begin with. If men as a whole "just said no" I guarantee things would change post haste.

 

 

Raoul's story is not unique. The divorce laws in many states are criminal to the point that people are just refusing to marry. Men AND women are seeing what being married for a long period of time can mean, and they are just saying 'No'.

 

First off, people need to understand the difference between alimony and child support. Child support is an ethical and necessary obligation of BOTH parents to a minor child. It is right and proper that people should be forced to pay child support. Child support is always done through an equitable formula, although there are abuses, as in Raoul's case.

 

Alimony is *completely* different. Alimony is paid to a spouse to 'compensate' them after the divorce for being the lower wage earner in a marriage. It is indentured servitude for the higher earning ex-spouse, and nothing less.

 

Do you realize that 40% of children are now born out of wedlock? Why would that be? Well, one of the reasons is that the 'breadwinner' realizes that simply getting a marriage license bestows nothing positive on to the relationship but a small tax advantage, while the negatives can be huge, as Raoul found out.

 

"No Fault" divorce allows a spouse who is a slacker, male or female, to cheat on the marriage, demand a divorce, and be awarded LIFETIME alimony from the ex-spouse that they cheated on. How does this make any sense?

 

Alimony is not a debt, it is a court ordered obligation. Once you have been ordered to pay alimony, you MUST pay it. Bankruptcy does nothing to the obligation. If you lose your job, tough cookies. You must sell your assets to to pay the alimony. Only once you are indigent will the courts consider a reduction in most cases, and even then, they will order a temporary reduction with the amount not paid going into 'arrears', meaning it must be paid eventually. Imagine this scenario: you divorced, were ordered to pay $75K a year in alimony as Raoul faces, and you get remarried. You lose your job, and after three years of paying about half the alimony, you are now $100,000 in arrears. Because of the stress, you die of a heart attack. Guess what, your SECOND WIFE now has to pay alimony to your ex-wife! That's right, your SECOND WIFE, now has to support your FIRST! This is just twisted. By the way, if the second wife is unable to pay, she can be thrown in jail.

 

Alimony laws have been modified in a few states, recognizing that things are just not right. However, in most states, the divorce lawyers block any attempt at modification, because divorces and constant rehearings are how they make their money. We need a federal law equalizing and simplifying alimony statutes, and recognizing that allowing someone to be put into indentured serviture is outlawed by the 13th amendment.

 

DING! DING! DING! Many men are figuring this out, and as Tom Leykis and others have been harping on for years now it's just not worth the risk to get married. At least not until the laws are fixed and make equal again. Fat chance of that happening anytime soon though. Best course of action is to just stay single (in the technical sense according to the law).

 

 

Too bad the laws in most states don't agree. Well, too bad for the higher-earning spouse, anyway. It is a goldmine for some, which is why the laws have been so hard to change. For every person screwed by alimony, there is one jumping for joy. It is one of the most onerous and archaic principles in US law. No other country has alimony laws as punitive the US, and it is all about padding lawyer's fees and allowing lazy spouses to be lazy forever.

 

A friend of mine is about to declare bankruptcy over his alimony. He was 'imputed' earning capability far beyond what he can make, since the job market for tech workers has been destroyed by outsourcing. The courts don't care. Until he loses all of his assets, INCLUDING his 401K, he has to pay the ordered alimony, which is over $3000 a month. On top of that he has to pay $1800 a month in child support. Right there something is wrong. The court guideline for support of three children is $1800 a month, but his wife needs $3000 on top of that? How does that make any sense? Anyway, His GROSS is $7000 a month. The $3000 comes off the top for tax purposes, but the $1800 is after taxes. Basically, he makes $84K a year, but out of that after alimony, child support and taxes, he has to live on $1500 a month, and that is having his kids half time! He is going to lose his house, and have to declare bankruptcy, but that does NOTHING to his alimony and child support obligations.

 

He is going to have to rent a one bedroom apartment, but when he does that he thinks his ex will petition the court for full custody of the children on the grouds that they have no where to stay when they are with him. This means his child support obligations will increase by ANOTHER $400 a month, meaning he will have to live on $1100/mo, even though he his 'making' $84K a year! Once he has depleted all of his assets, he can petition the courts to have his alimony lowered. Of course, he will have no money to pay a lawyer, so how in hell is he supposed to do that?

 

It is totally, completely nuts.

 

Fully and completely agree that it's insane. Let this be a lesson to everyone out there considering marriage to someone that earns far less than they do. Prenup! Prenup! Prenup!

[Nutz]

I'm sure its depends on person to person. Not everyone is alike and no two divorces are the same.

 

Mine did fight for custody. But he did it for leverage. In court.... he tried to hold the children for ransom... if I gave him XYZ... he'd drop the custody fight and give me custody.

 

HOW MESSED UP IS THAT?????

 

IF I gave him to what amounted to 75% of our home... he'd let the kids go?

 

I'd offered him a 50-50 split on the assets. With 75% going to him... where were my kids supposed to LIVE?????

 

What did he say??? You will easily find another man to buy you a house.

 

Mind you.... I've worked through out our entire marriage and BTW.. been the breadwinner through most of it.

 

In his case he's got a good precedent to point at as what you just described is exactly how it usually goes, but in reverse. Typically the man is the breadwinner and the woman gets the house and most of the assets. He just flipped the script. Only difference is you still got the kids.

 

The following article gives reasons why men as a gender earn more than women - it is from Australia but the reasons are much the same throughout the western world: link removed

 

See also:

 

link removed

 

The affair and destruction of the marriage was a mugging, the divorce a rape and the settlement costitutes slavery. I pay her so that she can fall of a barstool and ignore her kids to the point where the court psychiatrist evaluating 'residential custody' mandated therapy for my 12-year old daughter for depression. Yet, 'family' law (what a joke that term is!) destroys my ability to care for my family.

 

Such is the 'victimization' of women in NJ/USA under 'no-fault' divorce with 'equitable distribution' of assets.

 

Half of everything we had until the divorce? Sure, that's fair. We built it together, so let's do that. But her legal bills, permanent alimony and child support when I have the kids and she is broke because she spends it all on nothing? Where is the 'equity' in that?

 

Amen to that!

 

Its actually worse than it seems. My wife earns $87,000 a year in a 'bulletproof' state job with stupendous benefits both now and in retirement. But the value of those benefits is ignored in the legal process. Actuaries determined that my wife really earns 180% of her 'income' or nearly $156,000/yr. Its true that I'm eligible for half of 24 years of her pension. But who knows what that means or how it will work? Best to plan for nothing.

 

Once divorced, I will need to buy my own health care benefits and continue funding my own retirement. But I will do that (or the court pretends I can do that) with $66,000 in alimony going to my wife along with $10,000 in annual child support, even though I have our children most of the time. Its all based upon a long-term marriage with income 'inequalities' (I went to school for 18 years, work my ass off and take lots of risk, she is a long-term civil servant).

 

The lawyers admit that its a cracked system (while laughing all the way to the bank) and that our economic lives as a married couple makes me 'ground zero' for financial devastation.

 

But the bottom line is that, unless I want to be a criminal, I will pay. So my choice is to be a slave or a scofflaw. Some choice.

 

Raoul

 

There has to be a solution to such a screwed up situation. Call the news channels that have watchdog groups. Call your congresscritters. Put a spotlight on the inequality of the system. Instead of being ground zero for financial ruin you have a chance at being ground zero for monumental change. If all else fails you could always liquidate your assets and move out of country, Canada perhaps?, and claim you were being forced into slavery as a means of asylum.

 

about women wanting to have kids -

This is what my mom told me. After she and my dad married and started living with one another, she slowly realized that this is not what she thought he would be. She was not happy in the marriage, neither was he. I'm raised in a conservative culture where once you are divorced, and you are a woman, you don't have a chance to remarry, not by the law, but the society looks strange at you. Its changing now. So, my mom decided to have only those many kids that she could support on her own if divorce would happen. I'm the only child. My parents never divorced. I don't know of any infidelity issues either, but a rough marriage is bad for kids. I can tell you that for sure.

 

That's fantastic on her part. More women need to adopt that perspective. It's 100% a matter of risk management which is a form of personal responsibility. If you take the risk to leave the workforce for the next 5-18 years, then you're implicitly accepting all of the risks that comes along with that decision.

[Nutz]

Give women tooo much ??? i think not, most are stay home mothers, the hardest job out there.... 24/7 they work a lot harder than theyre husbands, and some on top of that work too but still manage to care for the house the children the husband the hamster and the dog.

Stay of home moms, earned 50% of the money assets etc just as the man did therefore its rightfully theirs just as 50% is rightfully his.

 

I fully disagree. This is the same faulty logic as saying women are worth the same as a CEO, nurse, financial adviser, etc all rolled into one. Sorry, but the world doesn't work that way.

[Lamprey]

I always crack up at claims that the stay at home mom "earned" half of her husband's income. For the first few years, while she cares for a baby, maybe. But after the first 4-5 years what is there to being a stay at home mom?

 

Just about any functioning human being can do the "stay at home parent" job. You cook twice a day, you clean once a week, you pick kids up from school and take them there. Even a lot of the mildly retarded can do it; all you need is half a brain and functioning arms/legs. On the other hand, how many people can earn a million dollars a year?

 

Which is why every time I hear someone claiming half their (very) successful spouse's assets should be their "because they earned it too, by staying home!" I burst into laughter.

[Imprecision]

I always crack up at claims that the stay at home mom "earned" half of her husband's income. For the first few years, while she cares for a baby, maybe. But after the first 4-5 years what is there to being a stay at home mom?

 

Just about any functioning human being can do the "stay at home parent" job. You cook twice a day, you clean once a week, you pick kids up from school and take them there. Even a lot of the mildly retarded can do it; all you need is half a brain and functioning arms/legs. On the other hand, how many people can earn a million dollars a year?

 

Which is why every time I hear someone claiming half their (very) successful spouse's assets should be their "because they earned it too, by staying home!" I burst into laughter.

 

There's really no such thing as fair or unfair. Things are just the way they are, and then humans impute innumerable "shoulds" onto them.

 

A woman does lose a lot if she marries and then divorces. She loses her youth, for instance. Youth carries different significance for men and women, and so you really can't compare them.

 

Marriage is a deeply-ingrained institution for humans. Perhaps we're biologically conditioned to think in terms of marriage. Or perhaps it's a divinely-ordained. In any case, I predict the continued popularity of marriage in spite of everything.

 

Tinu,

 

I am sad to hear all this. But I have no sympathy for men who chose hot girls over hard-working, nice girls just b'coz "they didn't feel the chemistry during initial 3 dates." I have no sympathy what so ever for how things turned out in their lives, you chose it that way, b'coz you let your other head decide which girl to choose. Why do you cry now? I've been turned down by men in the dating world because "You currently don't have a job.""You are going to school""You are too backward for me (I'm not all physical in 1st few dates)" Go ahead then, why do you cry?

 

Lol, uh...Doesn't marriage involve, at least nominally, love and affection?

[John Bendix]

Maybe we should at the origins of marriage. Especially when the concept of the legal concept did not start until around the 17th Century (although limited to the wealthy and for their economic and political use) in Western society. Church recogonized marriage in Christian society did not start to about this same time.

 

link removed

[Imprecision]

Haha, funny, because I was looking at the same page just a few days ago.

 

The facts on the webpage, as well as the facts mentioned by previous commentators, tend to support a libertarian stance on marriage.

 

This being the case, the excesses of the current laws on divorce are merely one minor consequence in the global trend toward big government. Technology has enabled governments increasingly to regulate the lives of their citizens. And so here we are.

 

I am, however, suspicious of the generalisations on that particular wikipedia page. Perhaps further research is needed.

 

Divorces hurt men. That's for sure. However, we all have sisters. If divorce laws help out our sisters, that's one consolation.