From: jsw@cray.com (Jon S. Wood)
Subject: Re: Anti-Male Defenders
Reply-To: jsw@cray.com
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Date: 11 Jan 93 12:20:09 CST

> 
> >  If women seek divorce for no other reason than unreconciable differences,
> > why are they intitled to receive a disproportionate benefit of a doubt in
> > receiving custody, child support and property? 
> 
> Your point is a good one, but your wording leaves a little to be desired.
> I am wholly supportive of "no-fault" divorce. One partner, wanting out, is
> all it should take. No reasons --just "the bonds of the marital relation-
> ship are irretrievably broken." If people don't have to have a trial to
> get married, why on earth should they need one for divorce? Sure, some
> arbitration so that the assets of the MARRIAGE can be equitably divided.
> Each takes what they brought, and each takes a proportional share for the
> contribution they make. (House wife/husbands contribute!!!) But get per-
> mission from the state to separate? Give me a break.
> 

 I'll try again. Irreconciable differences mean the two can no longer get 
along and will never be able to settle things, the state is involved between
two people who don't get along, children or no children. My concern with
the 'no-fault' practice of dissolusionment is that in cases involving 
children, the state has systematically placed the burden on men. They
discourage joint physical custody, create guidelines that in principal
and practice discriminate against the NCP by placing the burden of maintaining
the childrens standard of living on the NCP (usually men) and then 
proclaim that irreconcilable differences and their consequences be shouldered
primarily by one of the parties. 

 How difficult of a "choice" is their in divorce proceedings when the
person claiming irreconcilable differences is assured of a home, the children
and a preservation in standard of living? 

 I agree the state should not be giving permission for people to seperate
and divorce. They also shouldn't be allowed to reduce me to a rich uncle
where once there was a father, they shouldn't be impoverishing me so that
my children would retain a standard of living before momma made her 
descision (with or without state's permission) to replace me. The
state shouldn't assume that all men wouldn't pay child support by 
automatically garnishing wages, unless of course the amount is so excessive,
no man would give up 70% of his income to the state and her without a
fire fight. The state should never presume that 'irreconcilable differences"
as stated by the petitioner should translate to a man losing his children, home
and income for years to come. 

 I have a moral problem with the total hands off approach to divorce by
accepting irreconcilable differences and at the same time making the burden
of accepting the consequences of divorce a court mandated by legislating
guideline ultimatums, garnishment without due-process, extreme child
support amounts, automatic child support cost of living increases. It
used to be, "I don't like you any more, I'm moving out." Now it is, I
don't like you any more so I'm going to take you for everything I can 
get". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the consequences of
those who get their cake and eat it too. You run into them at 
the grocery counter too.

 I have irreconcilable differences with people who believe in so-called
fairness. I like to point it out.

 I'll grant you and Lisa that not all CPs are winners. It's just that
the no-fault system has led to a lot of divorces and a system that
pins the financial responsibility on one of the parties. In two income
families where both parties earn equal amounts, the current law incourages
irreconcilable divorces, if you catch my drift.

Marriage does require state involvement Bob. That is why in this day
and age, males should be duly forewarned. It is much wiser to stay single
than it is to get married today. It is the wise man who gets a vasectomy
as a single young man today. These truths are illustrated by our 
law practices in the good ol' USofA.

Jon