 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Divorce / September 2005Alimony = Slavery (Help Us Fight To End It)
Anybody who is forced to support another able bodied person against their will is a victim of Slavery - they just use a different name of Alimony. This is clearly unconstitutional. Please check out and sign up (if you are a victim) at: www.endalimonynow.org Thanks I respectfully disagree ... and I had to pay alimony for a period of time. I think it's justified in some cases. As a specific example, if a spouse puts their career/education on hold and works full time, only to be dumped when their spouse completes college and gets a good job, then I believe the person is entitled to alimony --for a period of time. If you're railing again alimony for an indefinate amount of time, then you've got my signature. And what percentage of payors are paying alimony for such reasons? > I respectfully disagree ... and I had to pay alimony for a period of > time. I think it's justified in some cases. As a specific example, if a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you're railing again alimony for an indefinate amount of time, then > you've got my signature. Q: And what percentage of payors are paying alimony for such reasons? A: More than 0% melned said > I respectfully disagree ... and I had to pay alimony for a period of > time. I think it's justified in some cases. As a specific example, if a > spouse puts their career/education on hold and works full time, only to > be dumped when their spouse completes college and gets a good job, then > I believe the person is entitled to alimony --for a period of time. I respectfully agree. It is justified in some cases. This is coming from someone still paying alimony. 10 more months and I'm done! > If you're railing again alimony for an indefinate amount of time, then > you've got my signature. Mine too. Casey >I respectfully agree. It is justified in some cases. This is coming >from someone still paying alimony. 10 more months and I'm done! *You* got hit for alimony? From what you have posted here about your divorce that seems terribly... unjust, to say the least. Fault made no difference at all on that? BP >>I respectfully agree. It is justified in some cases. This is coming >>from someone still paying alimony. 10 more months and I'm done! > > *You* got hit for alimony? From what you have posted here about your > divorce that seems terribly... unjust, to say the least. Fault made no > difference at all on that? It didn't with mine. :>>I respectfully agree. It is justified in some cases. This is coming :>>from someone still paying alimony. 10 more months and I'm done! :> :> *You* got hit for alimony? From what you have posted here about your :> divorce that seems terribly... unjust, to say the least. Fault made no :> difference at all on that? : It didn't with mine. My neighbor's wife started having sex with one of the elementary school janitors. She left him with 3 children. She received alimony because California is a no fault state relating to divorce. Essentially, the state law is rewarding her adultery. b. it's the same in florida with a kick. my wife commited several acts of adultery, was heavy drug and alcohol abuser, and ran up $30,000 in debt. when i found out about the affairs and the money, i filed for divorce. the no fault state of florida didn't care about any of it. she just gets rewarded for marrying well. <barry@psyber.com> wrote in news:1abe1$43341a82$cc1d9013$1206 @news.flashnewsgroups.com: >:>>I respectfully agree. It is justified in some cases. This is coming >:>>from someone still paying alimony. 10 more months and I'm done! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > b. BP said > >I respectfully agree. It is justified in some cases. This is coming > >from someone still paying alimony. 10 more months and I'm done! > > *You* got hit for alimony? From what you have posted here about your > divorce that seems terribly... unjust, to say the least. Fault made no > difference at all on that? That's right - fault made no difference at all. It all comes down to distribution of assets and temporary or permanent "adjustments" of income as well. Think of the divorce as a business settlement after the fact of whatever happened to cause the divorce. That's the case in Florida and probably most other no-fault states. Casey > I respectfully disagree ... and I had to pay alimony for a period of > time. I think it's justified in some cases. As a specific example, if a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > If you're railing again alimony for an indefinate amount of time, then > you've got my signature. I don't disagree that in some cases it should be ordered - but that should be part of the final orders, and it should be short in duration not going on forever....The bottom line is it should end. There should not be anything called "permanent" alimony. Do you have any idea what that means to the payor? Also, do you know the courts can re-open these support cases - so what does Final mean? Consider this: When you have to pay alimony - you have an obligation to her - but she has no obligation to you. How come no obligation to support your spouse exists WHILE you are married, but suddenly because you divorce you are obligated to support them. Why do they suddenly become dependants? The courts bend over backwards to maintain HER previous standard of living - but what about yours? When you are married, you can change your employment at will - even if that means lower earnings. Do you think you can do that when you are ordered to support your 'x' at a specific level? If you start earning less (for whatever reason), the court will impute income to you - so you bear the entire brunt of earning less...won't affect her at all. If you lose your job, you can go back to court and try to get your support obligations modified, but the court doesn't have to do it...and then you go into arrears. When you are married - you share the good and bad, and if you lose your job when married - you don't go into arrears to your spouse. You have all the risk. If you are fortunate to win a lottery, they can put their hand out. How does this make any sense. How is it that they have no stake at all in the negatives, but can grab from your wallet if you were fortunate enough to win some money.... Retiring doesn't affect this obligation either. You still have to pay. We don't have a debtor's prison in this country (supposedly), but if you don't pay, and by the judges ruling they find it is intentional, bye bye.... What I just described is involuntary servitude.....one is forced against their will with an implied threat of prison if they don't comply. One is forced to work for the benefit of another - without any compensation or even obligation on their part... Just some examples... The point of my rant is that the "payor" wants to re-establish a life too and being on the hook indefinitely puts a LOT of stress on him. The awards are too high, last too long - and the net result is that it puts his life on hold for her benefit.... It is simply not right - and I think one day we are gonna see this ruled on by the Supreme Court as Unconstitutional (13th Amendment forbids involuntary servitude). I hope that day comes soon. > I don't disagree that in some cases it should be ordered - but that > should be part of the final orders, and it should be short in duration > not going on forever....The bottom line is it should end. There should > not be anything called "permanent" alimony. Do you have any idea what > that means to the payor? Also, do you know the courts can re-open > these support cases - so what does Final mean? I believe we are in agreement. I responded to your original post, because it gave the impression you were against all occurrances of alimony --short or permanent. If a man is ordered to pay alimony, then why isn't the woman ordered to continue doing his housework and laundry? Oh, I forgot. The USA is a feminist country. Yes, this explains everything. --------------------------- > Consider this: > When you have to pay alimony - you have an obligation to her - but she [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > bad, and if you lose your job when married - you don't go into arrears > to your spouse. You have all the risk. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.