when law meets love

[fume711]

read article (linked below)...i seriously believe it is stupid to let 10 strangers decide whether you and your significant other CAN divorce or not...

the law is based on
“It doesn’t matter if you deem this a deadbeat marriage or a loveless marriage,” he said. “The only thing that matters is: Are there grounds [for divorce]?” He then listed the four legally sanctioned grounds in New York, one of only three states that do not confer unilateral or one-party divorce (the others are Mississippi and Tennessee) and the only state that doesn’t provide a “no-fault” ground (i.e., irreconcilable differences). Rather, one must be able to prove one’s spouse guilty either of “cruel and inhuman” treatment, adultery, abandonment for one year, or having spent at least three years in prison. The only exception is if a couple mutually consents to the divorce and all financial and custody terms, which in acrimonious, contested situations—about one fourth of cases—just does not happen.

but i think it's retarded...why should someone be stuck in a marriage if they do not get along with each other (ie: no abuse involved)...isn't that some kind of torture then to say it is law you must stay together? is the law allowing torture (Geneva Convention) for two people to stay together even if they do not belong w/ each other?

http://www.elle.com/featurefullstory/13910/divorce-wars.html?ybf1=1

In this instance, Godner was suing to leave her husband of 13 years, Michael Godner, for cruel and inhuman treatment, which must meet a standard of abuse that “renders it unsafe or improper” for a couple to continue to cohabit. Clearly in the minds of these jurors, her husband’s behavior just wasn’t bad enough.

After crying her eyes out on the courtroom’s back steps, surrounded by her parents and lawyer, Godner climbed into her silver Range Rover and drove to her colonial-style home in the tony New York City suburb of Armonk. Michael, who had driven back from the courthouse separately, was in the kitchen with their three children. “Hey, how’s it going?’ he asked when she walked in.

[DOHC-LSR]

read article (linked below)...i seriously believe it is stupid to let 10 strangers decide whether you and your significant other CAN divorce or not...

the law is based on


but i think it's retarded...why should someone be stuck in a marriage if they do not get along with each other (ie: no abuse involved)...isn't that some kind of torture then to say it is law you must stay together? is the law allowing torture (Geneva Convention) for two people to stay together even if they do not belong w/ each other?

http://www.elle.com/featurefullstory/13910/divorce-wars.html?ybf1=1

Is she willing to walk away with 0-1% of his $14 million business? Why is Al reading Elle magazine? Why is Ray reading Elle magazine... because Al told Ray to... which leads me to ask... why is Al reading Elle magazine?

[fume711]

i think it was on yahoo's main page w/ a catchy title...something like city doesn't allow divorces or something like that...can't remember..but i got sold by the title haha

and what do you mean by "is she willing to walk away w/ 0-1% of his $14 million business".....i think what i'm trying to argue for is that if two people want to divorce, they should be given the same freedom as when they wanted to get married..regardless of how much money you get from the other party...cuz sometimes it's cuz they want to divorce cuz of incompatiblity, not because they are trying to make money off the other person...or so i hope..but i guess there are shady people out there.......it is not law to consult 10 strangers prior to gettin hitched....or is it?

[DOHC-LSR]

i think it was on yahoo's main page w/ a catchy title...something like city doesn't allow divorces or something like that...can't remember..but i got sold by the title haha

and what do you mean by "is she willing to walk away w/ 0-1% of his $14 million business".....i think what i'm trying to argue for is that if two people want to divorce, they should be given the same freedom as when they wanted to get married..regardless of how much money you get from the other party...cuz sometimes it's cuz they want to divorce cuz of incompatiblity, not because they are trying to make money off the other person...or so i hope..but i guess there are shady people out there.......it is not law to consult 10 strangers prior to gettin hitched....or is it?

I thought she's having problems because the husband basically is not agreeing to a divorce?

[fume711]

yeah, he is not agreeing to the divorce, but the way they are living their lives:


Dana had first asked for a divorce: the children, ages five to 10, tiptoeing around their parents’ chilly conversation; Dana cooking dinner for herself and the kids (and tossing the leftovers down the disposal when she heard the key in the door), then retiring to bed separately in the guest room.

imagine if u were living ur life like that, would you want 10 strangers to tell you that you have to stay together just cuz they believe so? i see how doing this may give time to work things out, but from what she's saying, it seems as though it's not working for the pass 2 yrs...so why not allow for a divorce?

[DOHC-LSR]

yeah, he is not agreeing to the divorce, but the way they are living their lives:



imagine if u were living ur life like that, would you want 10 strangers to tell you that you have to stay together just cuz they believe so? i see how doing this may give time to work things out, but from what she's saying, it seems as though it's not working for the pass 2 yrs...so why not allow for a divorce?

to punish her for marrying to quickly! muhahahhhahahah... From the quote you posted above... sounds like she's a bitch. Throwing away food that he husband can eat when coming home from work and sleeping voluntarily away from your husband... I don't understand why this marriage isn't working out... I mean that behavior is normal and expected of a wife right?

If I were on the Jury... and I heard all this crap I would NOT grant her a divorce either. The husband doesn't sound abusive, and she doesn't sound like she's trying. I have a feeling she's a gold digger, so again.... if she's willing to walk away with 0%-1% maybe 2% of his $14 million then fine.

This is a good reminder to reinstate the good old days of death do you part to have meaning. Marriage is a commitment, its not just the next step after going steady. You don't get a divorce just as if you're breaking up with a gf. If you are not a movie star, you can't get married and divorced left and right. Only movie stars and celebrities can get married and divorced over and over again all while sleeping around.:thumb_up:

[fume711]

wat if she's doing all that because she is unhappy and wanting to get out of the marriage...then wouldn't you do everything you can to 1) piss off the other person till he agrees and 2) want to not have anything to do w/ the other person thus avoid him/her as much as you can (not cook for him, sleep away from him, etc...)....i understand the part about being a gold digger...but it doesn't state anywhere she's doing it for the money (per the article, but i don't know about real life), but what if she genuinely wants out of the marriage because them two are not compatible...or don't get along anymore

Michael was totally consumed with growing his investment business; Dana was focused on her new mommy role. Three years later, their third child, another boy, was born.

As sometimes happens to young parents, they began to share less and less. Michael was preoccupied with work and resented being pulled into household concerns. “I don’t ask you to solve problems in my office,”

sounds like she wants out because he is the one not putting in the effort in the marriage, being consumed by work.....imo marriage is a two person relationship which i agree w/ dohc-lsr when you wrote:

Originally Posted by DOHC-LSR
Marriage is a commitment


and i don't believe she is a gold digger as

Everyday expenses required his approval—buying a rug, booking airline tickets, signing off on a contractor’s bill. Michael insisted on separate bank accounts and would replenish Dana’s monthly “allowance” on the first of the month. This was money she could spend on personal needs—clothes, hair, tennis lessons.

and she still wants the divorce...if she was a gold digger, i believe she would rather have the free monthly allowance rather than the divorce...she would have a free ride for life then and don't need to spend anytime w/ the husband (which a gold digger would want, the money and not the guy/gal)

hahah this is a pretty good debate thread...more threads like this should appear on helluvafast w/ more people inputting their opinions hahha yeah!

[DOHC-LSR]

if she was a gold digger, i believe she would rather have the free monthly allowance rather than the divorce...she would have a free ride for life then and don't need to spend anytime w/ the husband (which a gold digger would want, the money and not the guy/gal)



I read this part as she wasn't happy about the "allowance"... like she wants equal access to ALL the assets. It like trying to buy stuff at work and getting approved to get it signed off and get the check. Everyone would like to skip the approval process, and just get the actual signature stamp and send of payments yourself. :big_grin:

[fume711]

interesting take on it...i took it the other way as though she was more unhappy w/ the marriage and not interested in the equal division of his assets......