Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News No fault divorce, the biggest idiocy of all times ?

  1. Mar 22, 2010 #1
    I was looking at this fox News report regarding Bullock / James scandal


    it seems to me that family laws, presumably thought to protect and encourage the institution of family are becoming the biggest reason not to ever get married in many states around the world.

    It would be really annoying to see James walk away with half of what Bullock produced during the 5 years of marriage and pretty unfair.

    But generally speaking, why should one support an ex spouse in any way whatsoever, fault or no fault ? You get married, you get divorced, that's it, if there are no children both should walk away with their fortunes regardless if it was pre or post marriage income.
    It;s idiotic to ask a man to support his ex-wife. Those laws seem determined to kill the marriage , not to strengthen it. Only a lunatic would consider marriage with such laws.
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 22, 2010 #2
    This was all Fox speculation, no news reporting done that I can see.
  4. Mar 22, 2010 #3
    Maybe, but no fault laws are not Fox speculations. Hopefully Bullock has a bulletproof prenup.

    And then again, why would any sane person (not only celebrities) get married with such laws without a prenuptial cast in stone ? Why should anyone pay alimony ?
  5. Mar 22, 2010 #4
    I'm pretty sure it all depends on time your with the person and stuff as well. It has nothing to do with a sane person questioning marriage. It has to do with a sane person not getting married once every 7 years. The entire purpose of marriage is to be one with the person, it's a religious sacrament and if you read religious scriptures that's specifically what marriage entails.

    So if you don't want to be at 'one' with a person then don't marry them. If you do marry them and they screw you over then expect that everything earned while you were 'one' with the person to be equally theres.
  6. Mar 22, 2010 #5
    Sorry, I dont buy the religious part. Marriage it's a civil contract. Church didn't granted divorces anyway in past, so the issue of somebody walking away with your hard earned money was not really a possibility. And it's 2010, not 1400. We should stop citing religious scriptures for things which affect our lives.

    We seen the light and allowed couples to divorce relatively easy. Maybe is time to put an end to laws which grant support to ex-spouses. There is no wonder that more and more couples choose not to enter marriage, not even when children enter the equation.

    This is a very antiquated view. Half of the marriages in our society fail from one reason or another. Unfortunately, with civil laws like no fault divorce, the society really makes it hard
    to enter a marriage. Why would you after all ? With common sense legislation, maybe, it's worth trying to build a family.
  7. Mar 22, 2010 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    The best thing Bullock and James can do is avoid divorce lawyers like the plague, save those millions and the messiness, and part as amicably as possible. In CA, spousal support following dissolution of a short-duration marriage is limited to no more than half the duration of the marriage, though James should refuse even that option and walk away. His tattooed mistress won't make his high-dollar clients for custom bikes blink an eye. He can come out of this looking badder and more famous than before.
  8. Mar 22, 2010 #7
    That's exactly the problem, people enter marriages NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE. Who cares if it's 2010 or 1400??? It's still a marriage and it's purpose has always been the same. As well when talking about MARRIAGE you have to understand where it came from, which would be RELIGIONS/SPIRTUAL systems. It came from religion and it came with a purpose. Just because you don't like religion (assumption from the way you talk) has no bearing on the fact that it came from religion for a specific purpose and we still utilize it today.
    It doesn't matter if you see it as being a 'civil contract' under law or whatever, that's modern it's not where marriage comes from and it doesn't change its PURPOSE.

    Marriages should be hard to enter, thats the entire point. You do not enter a marriage with someone merely for the purpose of 'making a family', that's STUPID.
  9. Mar 22, 2010 #8
    I don't see it as a problem. Religion is not part of my life. Frankly I dont care for the marriage spiritual part. The world has changed. Trying to keep things in antiquated mystical forms is nothing but a factor delaying progress towards a better world.

    Today, we allow gay ppl to get married. We *legally* recognize them the right which religion denies. World changes.
    Marriage slowly becomes what it should be: strictly civil union.

    Nor you enter a marriage for some mystical religious reason. Thats mighty STUPID and antiquated. Much more stupid than entering a marriage to form a family and raise some kids.
  10. Mar 22, 2010 #9

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    You get married and there is no longer a "his" and "hers". The correct term is "ours" -- unless of course you wrote a rock-solid pre-nup that not only covered wealth accrued prior to getting married but also wealth accrued while being married. If you are that paranoid about getting married, why get married?
  11. Mar 22, 2010 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Simple - make marriage licenses renewable, just like driving licenses or dog licenses.
  12. Mar 22, 2010 #11
    Because we live in a world where success of a marriage is pretty much heads or tails. Laws should reflect this social reality. Wealth is not easy to acquire.
  13. Mar 22, 2010 #12
    Am I allowed to drive many cars with one license?
  14. Mar 22, 2010 #13
    Yes but your insurance goes way up :devil:
  15. Mar 22, 2010 #14
    The laws are based on the assumption that both partners contribute equally to the marriage, even if they do not contribute equally financially.

    If one partner decides to forego pursuing their own career in favour of keeping house/preparing meals every day, raising children, while the other partner pursues a career to support them both financially. Presumably, both partners have agreed that this is an equitable division of labour for the duration of the marriage. Upon divorce, however, the partner who was the house-wife/house-husband would be left with nothing, despite having been an "equal" contributor.
  16. Mar 22, 2010 #15
    zomgwtf, you're way off on marriage having it's roots in any religion.

    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
  17. Mar 22, 2010 #16


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Awesome idea!

    Any you wouldn't be allowed to renew until you'd paid off all outstanding moving violations and passed a clean emissions check.
  18. Mar 22, 2010 #17


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    And it would make some husbands a lot more attentive come the wedding anniversary (or at least help them remember the date)
  19. Mar 22, 2010 #18
    I like to take a classical car for a drive every now and then. Will I no longer be able to take old cars for drives because they do not pass the emission standards?
  20. Mar 22, 2010 #19


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yep. If you're not paid up on renewal date, you're pulled off the road.
  21. Mar 22, 2010 #20
    The problem is that those laws apply in other cases as well, when no children are involved.

    In the problem with stay at home moms, their contribution by doing so can be easily quantified. It doesn't mandate any kind of support after divorce, it only mandate a fair division of the common goods, taking in consideration how many years she spent raising the kids and making you food.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook