Did you read that Florida just passed a law ending permanent alimony?

[msc545]

‘This is a death sentence for me’: Florida Republican women say they will switch parties after DeSantis approves alimony law.

Instead of "dying" these women can get a job, cut expenses, or both. You know, like men do.

This is the only time I have ever approved of anything DeSantis did. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Sounds fair and right to me

Unfair and not right

[whirled_up_girl]

If I could just add that legally in Florida alimony could be granted to either spouse, according to the current statute. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0000-0099/0061/Sections/0061.08.html

It says so in the first line, that tends to be the case in quite a few states actually, so saying only men have to pay alimony wouldn't be accurate. Also the supreme court ruled in 1979 that that states could not require only husbands to pay alimony https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/440/268/#:~:text=Orr%2C%20440%20U.S.%20268%20(1979)&text=Equal%20protection%20does%20not%20permit,that%20only%20husbands%20pay%20alimony.&text=In%20order%20to%20help%20women,to%20pay%20alimony%20upon%20divorce.

However, I have read statistics that only 3 percent of men receive alimony from their spouse despite the fact that 40 percent of households have the wife as the higher breadwinner. https://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/spousal-support/should-men-receive-alimony-payments-35479/

So anyway, I just wanted to clarify that the law in Florida and other states is gender neutral when it comes to who has to pay the other spouse. Now, that's not to say that the law is being applied fairly in most cases. I have no doubt that it probably is not being applied fairly in many cases if only 3 percent of men are receiving alimony from their spouse.

[whirled_up_girl]

This is actually a reply to your comment that's it's only imposed on men and not women, you mentioned that in the comments but not your post. As far as fairness, I actually don't think it should be permanent either as most people incomes will changed and eventually become fixed. I forgot to add that into my first comment.

[msc545]

@whirled_up_girl laws that are applied unfairly are ultimately illegal in themselves as they are violations of the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution.

[whirled_up_girl]

@msc545 Right, well in some of you replies to comments you said the law is only imposed on men, however that's not because of the way the law is written it's because of how it's being applied. The link I posted also suggests that some men aren't asking for spousal support even when they are entitled to it and indicated that some men might be embarrassed to ask for spousal support. I would guess there other instances where it is denied unfairly but I have would to find articles to speak to that.

[msc545]

I was incorrect in stating that it is only imposed on men and I stand corrected in that regard.
However, based on personal knowledge, at least in California failure to pay alimony and/or child support is very often ignored or slow-walked by enforcement agencies if the debtor is female, and consistently pursued vigorously by those agencies if the debtor is male. I agree that some men may not ask for alimony although the reason for this is unclear to me and not readily discovered. Embarrassment might certainly be a reason, but the known lack of activity by enforcers might be yet another reason.

[ShesRad80]

alimony never made sense to me. part ways and move on with exception of child support if there is kids

[Sweetsurprize]

It probably made more sense in the 50's when women had less job/career opportunities then they do now. Back then, they were essentially housewives and homemakers.

[ShesRad80]

@Sweetsurprize true 👍

[FunkyMonkee]

I don't understand why there has to be any at all! You agreed to get married and, most likely, agreed to share in the cost of living. (It's not like in the old days of 90-some years ago where the man goes to work and the woman, who couldn't get a job because she doesn't have the right parts between her legs, stays home, takes care of the kids, food, shopping, etc., and depends on HIS money! Today, chances are, they BOTH have a steady income or, she can easily go out and GET a job so, why does he have to give half of his to her after they break the agreement?) Okay, you've spent a number of years together and have decided it's just not going to work so, you wish to sever your ties. How is it that he's still responsible for her well-being? If I'm working for someone and they decide I'm no good for what they want anymore, they don't keep paying me for the rest of my life! They've severed their ties with me and I get nothing more from them! I, now, have to try to find more work in another place.

[DextroShade]

The lack of action on men's rights issues is one of the biggest disappointments I have with the Republicans, so this is a big step in the right direction. Hopefully he eliminates no-fault divorce next. GO DESANTIS!

[monorprise]

This isn't really a men's rights issue, this is a basic fairness issue. Women can be charged Alimony as well, if your going to accept the possibility of divorce, then Alimony becomes a half-in and half-out resolution that is very unfair to the paying party.

Frankly I can see it as justifiable only if you have fault-divorce and only if paid for by the at-fault party who initialed the divorce. But even then it is a half-in half out situation.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand how alimony is ever justifiable if your going to acknowledge the possibility of divorce. As alimony is really just a strange form of half continuation of the some of the benefits of the marriage but not others which is really very unfair to one party.

It is basically just creating an abusive situation. I can understand Child support, both parents have a life time responsibility to the child. That should have included remaining together for said child. But if they are not married to each-other they are also not personalty entitled to any of the benefits of that marriage.

[richardcory]

I think we need multiple forms of marriage with different contracts.

Some marriages are symmetric: my wife and I both have high tech jobs, if we got divorced we could each support ourselves, it would just be a case of equally dividing assets

In other marriages one person (usually but not always the woman) has given up their career to raise children. 20 years later the home-parent is in nowhere near as good a situation to get a job as the career-parent is. In that case support seems to make sense: they were both putting effort into the marriage, just in different ways

[lightbulb27]

#1 consideration should be the children. I don't understand permanent alimony, but for some period of time for sure.

You are going to see men flock to Florida. I'd wonder if it applies to marriages performed outside of Florida.

[msc545]

Why should any women get any alimony for any period of time? Men get it for exactly 0% of time.

[lightbulb27]

In my view if someone sacraficed their career to care for the children... thus losing their skills and such, then they should receive support for some time to get back into workforce. As well if a PhD Dr married a HS dropout, she's going to need support, for the purpose of supporting the children.
But that be about it. I wouldn't understand alimony beyond that.
Id have to hear arguments as to its value beyond that. I'd think it could go the other way sometimes.
it's probbly not as simple as I like to make it.
I generally have no idea what I'm talking about, never been involved in it.. seen some divorices but never saw alimony. maybe it is a state specific issue with roots into history for those states and cultures?

[msc545]

Very few women sacrifice their careers if they even had one to begin with. They live life on easy mode while men work their asses off.

[lightbulb27]

I'm not seeing that in most of the scenarios I've been around. It's possible you've been "Californicated"?
I have seen women doing that, but it's on welfare... and it's bad.
This Q is beyond my pay grade
Sorry if you got caught in that, it's a mess as it is to divorce... add children addictional pain, to lose the children... and lose your money? Is that reality? WTF?
My default sense is psycho liberals, but I could be wrong.

[msc545]

Why should I or any man work to support a woman they are no longer married to and who provides them with nothing but grief? What makes her special?

[lightbulb27]

I thought I answered that. It would be exception to me, not the rule. The inverse would be true as well... woman support man... I'd think that be rare.
I suspect this comes from historical... the woman didn't have much the men had the assets. That would be solved by dividing assets clenly. When there are minimal assets, then what?
Again, the goal should be care of the children or possibly as a payment plan rather than cash division. It's hard to divide some assets... like a Dental business. Come to think of it the one scenario I recall, never saw completed, involved a physician. I would think some of the issue is "spite" not just $.
Beyond that, they shouldn't. The only tie should be care of the children... these days.
It has to be requested and approved...
I saw a movie star and x wife requested alimony of $250,000 (Costner). I thought... why? Just divide the assets.
I'd wonder how the alimony laws stack up to left/right control in the states? This is all emotional stuff, not just logical. I wouldn't want a liberal judge on that.

The divorces I've seen... were done reasonably on each side, if not biased to the man. All mid -west.

[jshm2]

Whatever the fuck was it ever suppose to be? The whole point of alimony is for the kids. But obviously when they are no longer kids, then there needs be no more alimony.

So it was probably a scam law by some two bit lawyer to begin with.

[msc545]

Alimony and child support are separate things. You are confusing. The two. That said, child support is also an affair since at least where I live in california, it is only imposed on men.

[Drewtate]

Alimony is from a time when women could not work. It was meant to protect them from say their husband deciding to divorce them and leave them destitute. Alimony is no longer relevant and you've got situations where ex wives are making good money with decent careers getting alimony because that's what the divorce court decided. Even a percentage of the man's pension.
Child support is bullshit in this country too. The ex wife makes sure she gets maximum custody for maximum child support rather than 50%50 and both parents equally support the child financially. There's fathers paying child support even though they have majority or even full custody. There's father's doing jail because they lost their job and couldn’t pay what the court ordered. Its messy.

[Drewtate]

I agree 100% with this. Its not right or fair that the ex husband you cheated on and divorced has to spend the rest of his working life supporting you.

I would also like to see him tackle child support and child custody laws.

[inhua]

good. now every other state should follow suit and abolish this scam

I don't know how feminists can fight for "equality", claim that alimony is due to the patriarchy but justify its necessary existence at the same time

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

It sounds fair to me, I knew this late friend of the family, that was my late moms friend, she told us stories that her daughter-in-law would always take her son to court to always milk him for more alimony, so Pennsylvania should make this a law. Lol

[OfMiceandMen]

Sounds like an outdated law that didn't take equality into account. Things have changed and our laws should be updated to reflect these changes.

[BootsLover94]

The whole Republican party will cease to exist if they keep whining about the cultural wars instead fixing the actual issues

[John_Doesnt]

DeSantis is a wannabe Donald and he's doing everything he can to appeal to the far right, but he's just alienating his supporters and might even lose being governor.

[AviatorTom]

When I got divorced, I only paid alimony for a fixed number of years, it wasn't permanent. What's the issue?

[msc545]

Well maybe you got lucky. It turns out there is such a thing as permanent alimony for some women and additionally alimony is only imposed on men and never on women.

[RealMarek]

I wish the jurisdiction I got divorced in would make the change, but it is very feminist and won’t get rid of permanent alimony.

[msc545]

No, of course they won't get rid of permanent alimony since it benefits women tremendously and penalizes men equally tremendously if not more so.

[KrakenAttackin]

Bravo! I'm sure there is a period of alimony, in Georgia it's no more than 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Alimony sounds like a wildly out of date concept that deserved to die. Not sure we have that in the UK. How wide spread is it in the us.

[msc545]

Too widespread. Men pay it, and women collect it, as usual.

[OddBeMe]

I don’t know the details. I’d have to look into it. I mean, I hate DeSantis but even child support ends at 18.

These bitches should learn to fckin type.

[Snakeyes7]

Good. As long as no fault divorce exists, alimony would rarely be applied fairly anyway.

[Sweetsurprize]

Awesome. Good to know.