Shout out to my cousin, who’s been holding down the posts for me! I’ve had some personal things going on, but I’m back. And I came across an article that touched a nerve.
Like so many stats indicate, the average marriage lasting past 5 years happens as often as Duke goes to the Final 4. I have watched a few couples get married who I knew at 1st glance were headed for a disastrous end. I even saw a couple I went to college with on Divorce Court back when Judge Mablean was on it. Cold world!
With divorce, comes exorbitant lawyer bills, multiple appearances in court, lost wages, child support, and the dreaded A word. Now if you were too belligerent to go into therapy to save your marriage, you deserve to have to incur the lawyer fees. You can’t get out of paying child support on children you both chose to have. But the A word??? Alimony??? It’s highway robbery and I’m glad to hear in 1 state it’s coming to an end.
In Massachusetts prior to March 1, 2011, alimony was for life. In addition to a raggedy broad siphoning off your hard-earned money, if your ex-wife did work during the marriage and her income was lower than yours, she was entitled to you furnishing her with the lifestyle you both had while you were married. It doesn’t end there though. So you met a new chick that’s 10x better than the old chick? Don’t get too happy, because your ex-wife will also get a piece of new chick’s change when ya’ll get married.
Thanks to former victim Steve Hitner, a new bill was signed into law last year where it basically told the exes “there’s stipulations on how and when can you rob me”. 1 of the requirements that jumped out at me was “It suspends, reduces or terminates alimony if a recipient spouse is co-habitating.” I mean as an independent woman
(buzz word of the last 15 years) why on Earth would you expect a man who can’t stand you to have to pay for you and your new boyfriend to sit around and watch DNA episodes of Maury? Alimony is defined as support payment from a spouse, who has the ability to pay, to a spouse in need, for a reasonable length of time. I think Martin Lawrence summarized it in a more astute manner — if your world f*cks up my world, you don’t get shit out of my world! (or at least, only for a limited time)
But you know this wouldn’t be a true victory for the fellas without some pseudo-feminist throwing rocks. Former Harvard Law scholar
(yawwnnn already) Wendy Murphy compared the new Massachusetts to pension; whereas the longer you stay married, the longer you’ll be eligible for alimony. She also purports in the case of formally educated women (IE: doctors, lawyers, accountants, teachers) that stayed home to raise children are adversely affected by a law such as this because they’re not likely to be hired. To that I say, sounds like a personal problem. If you choose to not use that $100K degree for X amount of years, well then you have to accept starting on the bottom rung of the ladder. What’s ironic is if you read her rebuttal, it’s far more polarizing and borderline sexist than the actual confines of the law. Women are great sources of contradictions.
At any rate, my personal stance on alimony is pretty simple. If you stayed home to take care of our children and do the housewife thing because I asked you to, I’m willing to pay alimony for at least 50% of the time we were married or until you re-marry, whichever comes 1st. But if the decision to step out of the job market was yours and yours alone, GET YOUR HANDS OUT OF MY POCKET!