May 25, 2006



Only If there are children produced by the marraige should a financial settlement be an entitlement. This is supposedly the age of sex equality. No adult should be entitled to insist upon divorce on financial support from the ex spouse. If you no longer want the man (or woman) you should no longer be entitled to their money.


>>If you no longer want the man (or woman) <<

But maybe it's he (or she) who doesn't want you.


Same difference. Why in this day and age should an adult continue to be able to claim financial dependence from someone they are no longer living with or in a relationship with.


>>Same difference.<<

No, it's not. Women and men are...err… different!

Marriage is an undertaking, and people make decisions on the basis of that undertaking. And if one suffers loss and the other defaults, the defaulter should pay.

Generally, the man has the better-paid job and almost always the better career prospects, so the woman adapts to his life and location. She may drop out of college, change or give up her job to live nearer his.
A young married woman also has much less chance of promotion, as her employers are all too aware of the risk of future absences due to pregnancy/maternity, etc.
A woman is also generally more uprooted by marriage than the man.
She also has a much smaller timeframe for having children (less than half), so if there are no kids from the marriage, she may have lost that opportunity for a family forever.

Apart from that, I think the "fault" factor should be reintroduced. If someone ups and leaves the partner, she (or he) should also relinquish their claims, unless some aggravating circumstances can be proven.
The beneficiary should be the one who is deserted.



Your arguments would have more relevence in the 1950s but not now. We have strictly enforced laws on sex equality in the workplace and the increasing decline in traditional masculine industry and consequent feminisation of the workplace has meant that it has never been easier for women to develop independent careers. Unemployment is actually higher amongst males than females and the era of the stay at home childless housewife is over.

Remember I am only referring to childless couples. Both parties should be treated equally in the event of the marraige ending , and if they go their separate ways that should apply financially too.

Hugh Green


Your point about 'childless couples' does not take into account the fact that in many marriages, plans are made and decisions taken on the basis of having a family at some point in the future.


If both partners have continued to work throughout the marraige as was the case in one of the Law Lords rulings , why should one then be permitted to take a chunk of the other's capital on the ending of the marraige that he/she had no part in building up.

It seems to me perfectly in keeping with a society that trivialises sexuality and love, that feels no qualms about abortion on demand.A society where there is no faith nor no understanding of God, just some buck toothed buck idjet bishop in a muggers hoodie. In ther name of liberty we destroy the pillars of our society one by one, this is not Britainia, its Nero's circus.


Absolutely spot on, David.
Except that I'd like to contest the Telegraph's statement that every civilisation has taken marriage equally seriously. Christian marriage is unique to Christianity alone and the same ideal is found in today's monogamous Judaism as well, but it's difficult to compare it with marriage in other religions and certainly not with the idea of marriage in some of the greater civilisations like the Mycenaeans, the later Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians etc. Not to mention the Arabian Nights.

Divorce was just as fashionable in the Roman world as it is in today's Europe.


One point that has been overlooked is the way judges take it upon themselves to create laws. Normal people should be able to look at the laws we have, that have been made by elected bodies and modify their behaviour based on them. It should be down to parliament to decide what the divorce laws should be not unaccountable judges.


My God I agree with Cunningham!

I was at a school reunion last Saterday and I was very plesantly suprised by how few divorces there seem to have been on our crop and by the sound of the "my last pregnancy test" conversations, the marriages were not in name only. Is Fermanagh bucking the trend?


I almost choked on my own bile the day I said that society's problems are caused by the 'breakdown of the family unit.' It's the damn truth though. I just didn't like saying the thing that the blowhard politicians had been saying for years. They were right....grrrr.


Oh. I am so sorry. That's not what we're talking about is it?

Occasional Commentator

From the article: "there is no index, from educational achievement to delinquency, from drug and alcohol problems to their own relationships, in which the children of divorced parents do not fare worse than those of families that stayed together"

I haven't seen any evidence that any of the problems were caused by divorce. The problems exist before the divorce is granted.

It's like pointing out that hospitals are full of sick people, and then saying that hospitals should be shut down.

We really need a proper scientific experiment, where many couple are chosen at random and told that they aren't allowed to divorce. Then we could compare this group to the control group. But there's no chance of having such an experiment, so we'll just have to keep arguing forever.

Anyway, the blue (i.e. the Democratic states despised by DV) states in the U.S. have the lowest divorce rates.


"blowhard politicians"
Like Bill Clinton with Monica? :) (Not you, another Monica of the same name...)


Slightly OT here as there is no pretence that God has joined these two together in anything but friendship.


John has had a series of things that he considers don't happen in Garvary, which happens to me my parish back home. I have alerted the natives and one day they (we) will rise to the challange.

On the article. Surely ot was only a matter of time.

The comments to this entry are closed.