Changing horses mid-race: why do feminists oppose the elimination of lifetime alimony?

I read with interest an article on Fox News today, Florida lawmakers move to end permanent alimony, as governor weighs legislation:

Florida could become one of the first states in the country to overhaul the alimony system by ending life-long payments and allowing judges to change existing deals — if Gov. Rick Scott signs the controversial legislation.

The Republican-led effort, which critics call “anti-woman,” passed the Legislature last week and now sits on Scott’s desk. If signed, Florida would follow Massachusetts in reining in alimony laws, which often require a spouse to pay until death. Massachusetts in 2011 became the only state to enact such legislation — but other states are now considering similar bills.

Florida Republican Rep. Ritch Workman said he sponsored the legislation in his state because he saw the need for better guidelines in awarding alimony payments. He has support from female Republicans in the chamber and at least one female Democrat, Rep. Katie Edwards from South Florida. Among the provisions, the legislation would generally bar payments from lasting more than half the duration of a marriage and impose benefit caps based on salary. The bill also would allow courts to adjust some existing alimony deals and require judges to give divorced parents, under most circumstances, equal child custody.

However, the legislation has been met with criticism from women, Democratic lawmakers and family court lawyers, who are expected to appeal to the governor to reject the bill. State Rep. Cynthia Stafford, a Miami Democrat, called the bill “one-sided, anti-woman and mean-spirited.” Carin Porras, a Fort Lauderdale attorney and chairwoman of the Family Law Section of the Florida Bar, told The Miami Herald the legislation is “not in the best interest of children and families.”

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the democratic lawmakers who oppose the bill would self-identify as feminists. Yet isn’t feminism supposed to be about egalitarianism? If we women are just as strong and capable as men are, why should we need lifetime alimony, and why would eliminating it be “anti-woman”? Why would granting fathers equal custody be “anti-woman”? Isn’t it for the best that children have as much access as possible to their fathers? And how exactly is the bill “one-sided”? It applies equally to everyone – no lifetime alimony regardless of who is paying whom.

You see, in these kinds of situations, feminists like to change horses mid-race. They go from spouting propaganda about how what women really need is more education, a career, and independence…to spouting that what a woman really needs is to be taken care of by a man for the rest of her life. Saying that women are strong enough to take care of themselves but still need a man to support them for life isn’t even like switching horses mid-race; it’s more like trying to run the race while straddling two horses.

But if women are so weak and fragile that they need to be taken care of by a man for the rest of their lives, then my goodness, should they really be in the workforce? If they are not capable of taking care of themselves, then they ought to be at home. And guess what! That is exactly where they could be if they were married and their husbands were willing. So that’s the solution to the problem right there, isn’t it?

It’s nice to think that such bills would reduce the divorce rate. After all, women file for 70% of all divorces, so maybe reducing their financial reward for divorcing would cause them to reconsider filing in the first place. But I don’t think that will work because our welfare entitlements in the U.S. are just too juicy. So now instead of drawing alimony from one man, women will be drawing it from all men in the form of government assistance.

Although I support eliminating lifetime alimony, doing so won’t solve our underlying problem because it just shifts the burden from one man to all men.  In every educational bracket, men have higher lifetime earnings than women have:

This means that men are also paying the bulk of federal and state income taxes.  But entitlement spending is skewed as well; 61% of women but only 49% of men have ever received payments from at least one of the six big entitlement programs.  I’m not sure what the difference is in the amount received, but I would guess that it is even more heavily in favor of women.

Here is the truth: women who have children are by and large not able to support themselves without some kind of financial assistance from men. They can get that assistance from a husband, from an ex-husband or baby daddy, or the government, but they will get it. The most logical and the safest place for a woman to get the assistance she needs for raising children is in a marriage, where at least the man gets something in return (theoretically) for his provisioning.

Both alimony and welfare should be ended.  Men who do not wish to marry or have children should not do so, but those men who wish to be fathers should become fathers within the context of marriage and support their own wives and children.  Wives should accept that support while in return fulfilling their marital duties of providing sexual access and producing and rearing children.  This is the only model of social organization that provides for all of the needs and some of the wants of men, women, and children and produces a stable society.

Further reading on the topics of divorce, welfare, and familial/societal structure:

About these ads

50 thoughts on “Changing horses mid-race: why do feminists oppose the elimination of lifetime alimony?

  1. Miserman

    Yet isn’t feminism supposed to be about egalitarianism? If we women are just as strong and capable as men are, why should we need lifetime alimony, and why would eliminating it be “anti-woman”?

    I believe this is a case of the left, and feminists in particular, saying they have as their goal one thing, when in reality their motives are ulterior. At my undergraduate alma matter, a female professor has started something called Gender Justice and to me that is the ulterior motive. Feminists have ultimately touted equality of opportunity and freedom from abuse as justifications for their politics, but when push comes to shove, I would say saying making men pay for their “sins” plays a large and hushed part of their ambitions.

  2. Looking Glass

    Supremacists. That’s how they act. “Four legs good, two legs better” and “Some animals are more equal than others”.

    Animal Farm really should be required reading for everyone.

  3. earl

    “Animal Farm really should be required reading for everyone.”

    And then listen to the music version of it by Pink Floyd.

  4. an observer

    Special snowflakes need ongoing support in order to be strong and independent.

    There is a parallel in the labour market. Outside of government, why would a small business hire a young woman?

  5. an observer

    Before animal farm, i recommend brave new world.

    Huxleys envisioned a society hooked on a pleasure drug (soma), constantly engaging in recreational sex (where procreation was controlled), distracted by amusement and allocated to specific jobs in the labour market.

  6. Nergal

    What was that that Big Red feminist chick was saying? “Feminists don’t want you to pay…” something…

    I can’t quite recall….

    ” 61% of women but only 49% of men have ever received payments from at least one of the six big entitlement programs. ”

    Same skew as in education,if I recall. Seems like a pattern.

  7. CoffeeCrazed

    Interesting. The special snowflake here describes alimony as construct of the patriarchy, thus a very bad thing. See the comment starting at 2:30.

    Whole bunch of other gems there though that make it sound like feminists are supporting men’s rights also.

    Note, I didn’t read the second linked article, but the preamble on the cover of vivalamanosphere.com seemed to reflect this sentiment that STFU girl is trying to express.

    Video found at Captain Capitalism’s blog, though I have seen a number of clips of the female protesting at a disrupted men’s rights event at U of Toronto.

  8. sunshinemary Post author

    Off topic question: Anyone know what is going on with The Private Man’s blog? There is a wordpress message that says his blog has been removed for violating terms of service. What does that mean?

  9. Cautiously Pessimistic

    There is a wordpress message that says his blog has been removed for violating terms of service. What does that mean?
    It’s the Matriarchy. He was too close to the truth. ;)

  10. FuzzieWuzzie

    SSM, I wouldn’t worry. Months ago, he stated that he was going to start something commercial along the lines of online dating coaching. Cutting his ties to the manosphere would advance his credibility with the demographic group he could be most effective with. Online dating sucks for guys while gals have to deal with winnowing the wheat from the chaff.
    In the months that I have been lurking, I’ve never seen him put aq foot wrong to bring down someone’s ire.
    Let’s hope that he finds this. I wish him all success.

  11. ChesterPoe

    I am glad to finally see my governor doing something right. What is truly surprising, however, is that Massachusetts, of all states, has already passed similar legislation.

  12. alcestiseshtemoa

    I second all of the other commenters here. Read “Animal Farm, “Brave New World” and other dystopian novels. It’s quite eerie the parallels to the modern enlightened secular liberal world it is. And don’t forget to watch “The Matrix”.

  13. RICanuck

    @ChesterPoe

    You are surprised that Mass was the first state to pass this sort of resolution?
    It’s the gays. I used to work in Back Bay (a pretty gay part of Boston).

    After gay marriage was legalized (2005) I warned one of my co-workers who was an enthusiastic foot soldier in the gay rights movement, to never marry a man who was paying alimony or child support, because if his spouse ever hit financial trouble, he would be required to pay it. He couldn’t believe that Massachusetts family law could be so perverse.

    The gays rights organizations are pretty effective at political/social activism, and dedicate a lot of time to the cause. Once marriage breakup law adversely affected them they did something about.

  14. Jeremy

    It’s amazing how the women who fight this law manage to hide the stench of hypocrisy emanating from their mouths.

    “I demand empowerment so that I shall never be dependent on a man!”
    …same breath, different lips…
    “Screw empowerment, I want money for life because I was married for 1 week!”

  15. alcestiseshtemoa

    Feminists oppose the elimination of lifetime alimony due to “Do as I say, not as I do” (see the actions over the words, because words have no meaning in that world) and a general subconscious feeling that they need those bad, dirty, evil men (even sometimes throwing their “enlightened” stooge brothers under the bus) to fund them. After they complete their “feminist merit badge” done in their 20s and become 30, suddenly it’s time to become naughty, bitchy SAHMs for 5-20 years (see the show “Desperative Housewives” for a peek), not as a vocation or some preference, but because they are superficial, manipulative, dangerous and lazy.

  16. alcestiseshtemoa

    Outside of government, why would a small business hire a young woman?

    It isn’t a mistake that big multinational corporations, technocrats, NGOs and the big bureaucratic government all push for feminism. Small companies and mid sized moderate businesses are suffering right now.

    I think a big corporation can handle some dysfunction and still operate at some level, but sooner or later the problems become too much in the long-term. In a smaller company, bad stuff wouldn’t be tolerated and it would become worse even sooner (like in an instant).

  17. Natalie

    I’ll add one to your list of legitimate sources of unearned income (which is something of a misnomer because a housewife should be earning her keep) – the Church. If a church supports a woman divorcing her husband then they should put their money where their mouths are. Firstly, the financial incentives on the diaconate side will encourage the session to approve cases where divorce is an honest to goodness right and necessary option. Secondly, this provides a level of accountability for husbands in that their wives do have recourse in extreme situations. With that aside, I agree that alimony should be readjusted.

    And before someone goes off on the feminized church, allow me to suggest that you not attend these institutions. My church has seen more than one excommunication for marital infidelity. It’s not something we take lightly. If a woman comes up to my pastor and says “I’m not happy.” I’d bet you ten dollars his reaction would be something like “So?” He’s a compassionate man, but he’s no pollyanna cuckoo cloud lander.

  18. Ton

    Nothing is ever about egalitarianism. Things are always about power.

    Feminism, the civil rights act, the immigration of the mid and late 1800’s/ early 1900’s, current attempts at immigration reform etc all are about electing a new people and gaining more power for centralized government. They focus on taking power away from native born/ founding stock White men who prefer smaller government and giving power to other groups who tend to favor bigger, centralized government.

    This has been going on in some form or fashion since before the war of northern aggression and is now approaching its zenith.

    Big company’s are happy with heavy regulation burdens such as feminism, environmentalism, all manners of labor law. They are large enough to deal with small levels of dysfunction, and the burdens makes it much more difficult for smaller outfits to compete against the bigger.

  19. Crimson Viceroy

    What I find interesting is that the people who really pushed for this or at least were able to make some headway was that Debbie Israel and her Second Wives Club. Interesting how when THEY are the ones whose second spouses have to pay lifetime alimony and they enter the fray in marrying them and having their own wages reduced to pay for their spouses ex-wife, do they suddenly talk about the unfairness of lifetime alimony. I’m all for equality and fairness under the law. I was in favor of that before it had a personal financial toll on me, unlike the Second Wives Club.

    PS – Hey SSM, I sent you an email yesterday. Please check your inbox. I’m not sure if you got it or not.

    [ssm: Thanks, CV, got it. I will respond later, probably tomorrow; I have a couple of questions for you.]

  20. Looking Glass

    @CV:

    That’s a good point. There’s actually an interest on the part of a lot of women that want to “trade up” on preventing the previous harlot from taking even more of his money. At least among the upper crust.

  21. Mint

    If you consider what feminists say upfront, the conclusion would be simply that they are engaging in doublethink. To suggest that women need a male provider is anti-woman…and then to deny them that very same resource (in the place where the woman merits that provision the least, no less–in divorce) is also anti-woman.

    Of course, it isn’t really doublethink, because their primary interest is indeed being “pro-woman” (by which I mean the transfer of resources and power from men to women, no matter how unfair or depraved said pro-woman-ness is).

    Really, how can lifetime alimony exist in the first place? If a man and woman marry and then divorce after 5 years, and the woman then remarries and everyone lives another 50 years, husband #1 has to continue to provide for her for 10 times the length of the marriage even though she already has a replacement source of income. In other words, a woman can discard her man at will, but the man remains financially married to her. How’s that for being “trapped in marriage”?

  22. Mint

    ^ I suppose that being supported by 2 men instead of 1 is “pro-woman” (in a perverted way, of course).

  23. 30words

    Oklahoma has maintained a “sum certain” rule since at least 1931 Oder v. Oder. An alimony award must have a set amount or it is void. What is called “alimony” here are actually usually payments on property awards. (For instance the man gets the business and the wife is said to be entitled to 25% so he will pay her out because he is not going to sell the business and split it up that way).
    Woman can get alimony but really it’s not so common and would happen in the case of a long term marriage with a stay at home mom.
    I can’t think of an instance where we saw a working woman get an alimony award.
    Guys- if you want to get out of alimony keep your wife working (or at least educated and ready to do so) If you have a wife with no education who stays home. You will end up with an alimony bill for her college and “transition to self support” time.

  24. Norm

    My BIL and his brother have remarried, but when they retire they have to give 1\2 their pension to their exs. Even though the Xs are not facing any financial difficulties. OTOH, I know a heavy duty mechanic who also will have to pay half his pension, but his ex will have to pay half of hers to his also, and her pension will be slightly more than his. This doesn’t happen too often, but good on him. This happened in British Columbia.

  25. Elspeth

    My husband has a co-worker whose wife is an RN. She worked throughout the marriage and she was awarded alimony.

    This law is desperately needed down here in FL.

  26. theprivateman

    My blog is back. It was a WordPress issue because they thought my latest post was all about da spam.

    [ssm: That's good news! Thanks for stopping by to let me know.]

    [ssm: OK, I just clicked on your handle to get to your blog, but I am still getting the same message:

    theprivateman.wordpress.com is no longer available.
    This blog has been archived or suspended for a violation of our Terms of Service.
    For more information and to contact us please read this support document.

  27. MaMu1977

    @30words

    Post less, lurk moar.
    Or, to be nice and clear: alimony laws in Oklahoma may be “fair and balanced”, but the entire population of the state doesn’t compare to the populations of cities like

    Los Angeles
    New York City
    Miami
    Boston
    Atlanta…

    I’ve heard all of the stories and I’ve noticed that the most gender-neutral/male friendly states are the emptiest states un the Union. The fact that hundreds of thousands of alimony horror stories (female) in the Midwest are available online, does nothing to discount the millions of alimony horror stories (male) that pop up in the highest-populated areas of the country. You’re complaining about the bushel of rotten apples in front of you as apples are rotting away in the far-away orchards.

  28. The Private Man

    @SSM. Hold down the Ctrl key while clicking on the reload icon next to the address bar.

    [ssm: Ah, okay, thanks. I didn't know that trick. BTW, you have a link to my old blog in your blogroll, but I closed The Woman and the Dragon, so the link is dead. Glad the issue with your site got resolved!]

  29. Sigyn

    Why do feminists oppose it? Because they assume that the man is the one at fault in the divorce (or else she would’ve been haaaaaappy and not divorced him, amirite?). He must be punished for driving away his lovely angel wife. There’ve gotta be reparations for her life of suffering after she throws him out…

  30. 30words

    It’s amazing to me that Oklahoma has gotten anything right! The point of my post was to say that more places should do it like us. Unfortunately it hasn’t done anything for woman running off because they are unhaaaaaapy. But I do hope other states will do it more like Oklahoma and less like the more populous areas with all their high minded ideas.
    I’ve been a regular reader for awhile. I think I’ll post “moar” and lurk less.

    By the way- SSM- I’m so glad you’re back :)

  31. sestamibi

    Hmm. In Mass it was brave, forward-thinking, progressive Dems controlling the state that passed alimony limits. But definitely no good when hidebound, reactionary knuckle-dragging Republicans who control the Florida legislature try to do the same thing there. Right?

  32. Sigyn

    Yep, Sestamibi. It’s not what you do that defines you; it’s the letter that goes behind your name in the news reports.

  33. fidelbogen

    Feminism has no consistent principle except to increase the power of women in every way possible. Changing horses in mid-race is standard feminist practice. No surprises here.

  34. Uncle Silas

    I’m in the middle of a divorce. My wife, a frigid, entitled boor, served me about six weeks ago. I’m certainly thankful she still works, as I will only have to pay child support after the assets are divided. My wife is an idiot with money, and I’ll be far better off financially with her out of the picture. Thank God for my daughter, or the entire time I spent with my soon to be ex-wife would have been an entire waste.

    I wish Dalrock, Sunshine Mary, the Spearhead, GirlWritesWhat, and Chateau Heartiste had been around 10 years ago. Their wisdom certainly would have prevented me from ever marrying. The emotional misery and financial stress a man faces in a failed marriage and the subsequent divorce prove the marriage gamble isn’t worth it, not with a 40 to 50% failure rate. Now my family, overjoyed with the divorce news (they’ve hated my wife for years), are clamoring for me to get into the dating pool. Yes, my opportunities are indeed splendid–divorced harridans with three kids in tow or depressed career sluts recently thrown off the cock carousel. Faced with those choices I’d rather spend the evening with Jane Austen. And I loathe Jane Austen.

  35. Farm Boy

    I wish Dalrock, Sunshine Mary, the Spearhead, GirlWritesWhat, and Chateau Heartiste had been around 10 years ago.

    Me also. Do the chivalrous thing, spread the word.

  36. Andrey

    “women who have children are by and large not able to support themselves without some kind of financial assistance from men”
    Seriously? When I hear from western people that they can’t support themselves, I want to tell them what really means “can’t support themselves”. In Russia where I born in 1991 was economic collapse, my mother alone raised me and 2 my sisters. She earned about 100 dollars a month. And guess what? It was enough to survive. Where it’s really difficult to survive and people can’t support themselves is North Korea where people earn 2 dollars a month. But you western people cry about how to support yourselves with thousands dollars a month. Are you kidding? Every American woman can alone support not only herself but also a whole kindergarden or school. She is rich enough for that.

  37. Aremo

    Silas you have my sympathy. If patterns hold you will see your time with your daughter diminish until you are basically a stranger. This move will maximize your ex’s child support (i.e. she is paid to do this). Once that c.s. order comes in you are slave with fewer rights than were afforded black slaves in the deep South. Any need of yours, food, shelter, medical, is secondary to the payment to your ex. No amount of reason will prevail and from now on you are worse than cattle in the eyes of the law. Your very existence is only to enrich her, her lawyer (you’ll pay her fees no matter her means). If you lose your job you’ll have a choice of leaving the country, prison, or permanent homelessness.

    The only thing eliminating this alimony will do is cause judges to grossly inflate child support. While there are “guidelines” for this nothing ever keeps them from going over as all the pressure is to make sure they don’t go under them.

    Feminism never has been about equality and has always been about dominance. GOD put the woman under the headship of the man in a newly fallen world. Feminism is simply about attempting to overcome this order by mandating under threat of violence its opposite. It comes straight from hell. Of course the result is evil as anything that directly contradicts GOD’s law is so we shouldn’t be surprised to see the favorite hanger on of sin: lies. It isn’t about making men slaves for life, no, its “anti-woman” if we stop it. Ultimately what they are defending is sticking a gun in the face of someone and demanding money for someone else. That is the only thing government can do at the end of the day (other than outright murder which it also excels at).

  38. Pingback: Maybe feminists have a secret money tree in Abilene. | Sunshine Mary

  39. William Heino Sr.

    DISABLED VETERANS DISABLED IN ALIMONY REFORM
    =
    Much talked about alimony reform, such are the dreams of the disabled veteran. When is that going to happen? However, any proposed legislation is discriminatory which does not include alimony reform for disabled veterans. As made obvious, both in states where attempts where made, and where passage was successful. Proposed and passed into law without thought or consideration for the disabled veteran wanting, under similar circumstances. However, actions by state courts are not as thoughtless when it involves veteran’s disability compensation.
    =
    “It is well established that disability benefits are a protected property interest and may not be discontinued without due process of law. See Atkins v. Parker, 472 U.S. 115, 128 (1985); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976)”
    =
    38 USC 5301 Nonassignability and exempt status of benefits. “Payments of benefits due or to become due under any law administered by the Secretary shall not be assignable except to the extent specifically authorized by law,.. a beneficiary shall be exempt from taxation, shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.
    =
    The question being, how is it, that state court judges can arbitrarily and capriciously award as alimony, with the mere wave of a hand, waive away a portion of a veteran’s VA disability rated compensation? Moneys in the form of disability compensation, the disability rights of a veteran, whose disability rating that maybe determined and factored in as critical? Judgment as if all disabilities are exactly the same. A disabled veteran’s plead to the judge, “I have a severe serious back injury, I need all of my VA disability compensation.” The judge would reply, “Are you a doctor?”
    =
    But yet, state court judges, are in reality playing doctor, without medical license or knowledge .. a practice forbidden, providing penalties by law, and border on medical negligence. All without any input, or approval from the Veterans Administration. Overstepping those whose authority it belongs, the dedicated VA medical professionals, in the practice of medicine, re-evaluation, and rehabilitation of the veteran. While at the same time violating federal law, 38 USC 5301, 42 USC 1408, and the 14th Amendment.
    =
    Ninth Circuit Says Congress, Not Courts, Have Say Over VA Health Care.
    VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE v. SHINSEKI December 13, 2011
    =
    Continually, State court judges disregard the law, as reduction in disability compensation cannot be “reduced unless an improvement in the veteran’s disability is shown to have occurred.” USC 1155 Authority for schedule for rating disabilities.
    =
    How are judges allowed the non-life threatening discretion to award as alimony disability compensation based on ‘statutory’ awards? Which are not predicated directly on the average reduction in earning capacity, but primarily upon consideration of noneconomic factors, quality of life, such as personal inconvenience, social inadaptability, or the profound nature of the disability. The purpose of the statutory award for loss or loss of use of a creative organ is to account for psychological factors.
    =
    “Clear and substantial” major damage to federal interests occurs when state court judges make lasting decisions, that seriously impact disabled veterans’ rated compensation and complicate Veterans Administration goals, and responsibilities. Upsetting, and overruling VA medical compensation decisions, which involve many hours of work that VA medical professionals have invested in the medical care, control, follow-up, and rehabilitation of disabled veterans. All this happens with VA complicity, when a state court, arbitrarily is allowed to take away a veterans VA disability compensation in third party alimony awards in violation of….. 38 USC 5301. 42 USC § 407 – Assignment of benefits, carries similar language.
    =
    Where is it written, the VA authority, when a state judge can overrule the VA, the VA medical doctors and other medical professionals’ that determine a veterans’ medical rating compensation? His future now without the compensation that was by law assured? Tax payer monies mandated by Congress purposely, as veterans service compensation for injuries received, life altering as they are, now being diverted purposely by state courts to healthy third parties in many cases, in a determined and engaging violation of the law. To allow what has been happening, arbitrary exercise of government power, was it the intent of Congress that state court judges substitute their judgment for the judgment of VA doctors and medical professionals? I don’t think so!
    =
    Perhaps, state legislators will or have proposed alimony reform legislation such as Massachusetts, West Virginia, California, as well as other states, due to the changing realities of family life, either proposed or passed that ‘permanent current alimony’ obligations be eliminated in alimony reform legislation? Legislation having broad appeal, proposed, and as happened, passed into law without thought or consideration of the disabled veteran wanting, under similar circumstances.
    =
    To this day, there is no eagerness of state legislators to extend this, or any proposal to eliminate veterans disability compensation awards from alimony, despite the law, or any reform measures. The laws protecting disability compensation are very clear. What is needed is reform in the court system, and legislative re-thinking, that for whatever reason, due process and property rights do not apply to disabled veterans? This is something disabled veterans’, despite all efforts at law, over many years have tried to accomplish. Passing alimony reform legislation without disabled veterans would be just another insult. Brushed aside for more important things.
    =
    The law is clear as to a veteran’s rights and a state court judge’s improper judicial authority in denying protections that are guaranteed, if not for the unjust rulings and hostility experienced by disabled veteran’s for wanting equal justice. Under the circumstances of law as described, it is now up to state courts, state court judges, to uphold their sworn obedience and respect for the law.
    =
    Disabled veteran’s have had the exact same alimony issue as everybody else. However, correcting clearly improper and illegal court rulings imposed on disabled veteran‘s is the issue, as much as it is any reform proposal.
    =
    It is up to State legislators to honor them, with court clarifying legislation supporting the property rights of the disabled veteran. Thereby, setting an example for the rest of the nation.
    =
    Oh, my goodness! Disabled veterans asking, wanting alimony reform? Will this kill any chance of alimony reform in general?
    =

  40. Ekai

    I am a woman with a good career and I think alimony as an antique practice that should be abolished completely! For the case where a spouse took care of kids instead of career we have child support. I a spouse (male or female) chose to work less it is his or her responsibility only. Any type of alimony as a payment to a spouse who is making less money should be abolished!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s