January 25, 2012, - 4:45 pm

OUTRAGE: Alzheimer’s Stricken, Bankrupt Men Must Pay Alimony to Working Ex-Wives For Life – “Feminism”

By Debbie Schlussel

This is really outrageous. And it’s something you’ll never hear in a State of the Union address. While Barack Obama, last night, was spouting BS about “equal pay for equal work” for women in the workplace–something they already get (and more) if they don’t take leave from work for children and a million other excuses–you’ll never hear him or even a Republican President tell the Congress that our nation’s alimony laws need to change, that they are unfair to men, to the point that a 72-year-old bed-ridden man with Alzheimer’s must continue to pay sizable alimony to a working woman to whom he hasn’t been married for almost two decades!

Aside from the fact that they look like (and/or are) butch lesbians and are just plain uuuuugly, feminists don’t want “equal” treatment, as they claim.  They want special treatment. And while they claim they want the equal right to be miserable in the workplace–a setting they now dominate–they simply don’t want to be equal, working participants in society when it comes to the chance to mooch off a long-divorced ex-husband, instead. It’s time alimony laws caught up with our feminist-dominated culture. There is NO reason why a 72-year-old Alzheimer’s-stricken husband who can barely move is forced to continue to pay $25K per year to an ex-wife who is working. Yes, feminists like the recently-facelifted, always annoying Wendy Murphy continue to defend this crap. Read this, and it will disgust you, as it did me:

Michael Morgan only groans as his wife bathes his body, shaves his face and gently kisses his lips.

A retired physician diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease 14 years ago, Morgan, 72, no longer walks or talks. His wife and full-time caregiver, Linda Morgan, makes sure he’s fed and clothed, and that $25,200 in annual alimony is handed over to his ex-wife, a college professor he divorced in 1997.

“What’s sad is that this man who can’t get out of bed is paying a woman who is working,” says Linda Morgan, 61, of Lehigh Acres, Fla.


Linda Morgan is part of a growing movement pushing for changes to alimony laws in several states. . . . In targeted states, alimony laws are decades old. They were written when divorce was rare, and when most women did not work outside the home and faced possible impoverishment after divorce. . . .

“There need to be limits to the duration of alimony and caps on the amount you pay,” says Tom Leustek, 53, president of New Jersey Alimony Reform. “You could be married at 25, divorced at 35 and spend the next 50 years paying alimony. There should be consistent treatment across the board where you can predict what’s going to happen based on law, not a judge’s arbitrary decision.” . . .

Linda Morgan says her husband has been paying alimony since he and his first wife separated in 1992. . . . From 2002 to 2006, as his Alzheimer’s worsened, he and his new wife went to court five times in attempts to lower or end the alimony, but judges have ruled that he must continue paying, court papers show. Judge James Thompson also has ordered Michael Morgan to pay attorney’s fees, citing the difference in income between him and his ex-wife.

Linda Morgan says they can make the payments, but if the alimony were suspended she could hire more help for her husband. Now, she has part-time aides that allow her to leave the house for a couple of hours a week.

Morgan’s ex-wife, Marilyn Morgan, declined to comment.

In Massachusetts, [Steve] Hitner started his group [Massachusetts Alimony Reform, which succeeded in getting Massachusetts to finally change alimony laws] after he was ordered to pay his ex-wife $45,000 a year in permanent alimony. When his printing business fell on hard times, he couldn’t afford the payments.

Hitner says he couldn’t convince judges that he needed a modification, even though he had filed for bankruptcy and is waiting to hear whether his house will go into foreclosure. . . .

Kevin Baker, 47, a contractor for the Navy in Suffolk, Va., has set up a Facebook page called Virginia Alimony Reform, exchanged e-mails with others paying alimony and contacted lawmakers in his state.

Baker was married for nine years and has been paying alimony, now $1,200 a month, for 12 years. He is bracing for a fight.

“A lot of the lawyers don’t want the laws changed,” he says. “It would take a whole lot of money from their pool.”

He’s exactly right. But this is also about feminists and feminism. They don’t really want true equality, which would mean that when they get divorced, they have to work and stand on their own two feet. They want it both ways.

And now these men are suffering. What is happening to Michael Morgan is outrageous.

Men should not be penalized because they were once married. If these laws are not reformed, they will only further discourage American men from getting married and having kids within wedlock, and the numbers of married Americans are in huge decline already, with the numbers of out-of-wedlock births soaring like never before.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

59 Responses

Alimony should work both ways… an ex who works should support a paralyzed ex-husband.

This is absolutely outrageous! Its not like she needs the money.

Men’s rights movement activists should file suit to get sexist alimony laws that favor women overturned.

NormanF on January 25, 2012 at 5:05 pm

and these women are mean and nasty — many of them are man-haters

Little Al on January 25, 2012 at 5:16 pm

    nevertheless the law is on their side and lawyers play on them to increase their desire to get even…more money in everones pocket at the expense of the man.

    chuck on January 25, 2012 at 7:56 pm

Here is a situation even more outstanding. Men are required to pay child support, even after it is determined that their ex-wife’s child is not his!!!!!!!!!

Maybe men should go on strike, not volunteer, give money to charities, or serve in the military. Only then will this nation stop kicking men, particularly white men, in the ass.

Jonathan E. Grant on January 25, 2012 at 5:38 pm

    States now grant a certain amount of time to discover rebuttable facts about paternity. Its easy enough to confirm with tests administered before or after the child’s birth. They can eliminate anyone who isn’t the likely father. But if you help to raise a child in a marriage with no objections, in the eyes of the law and society, its legally yours even if the biological facts state otherwise. The reason for that is the child should not be punished for the circumstances of its birth, something over which the child had no control.

    NormanF on January 25, 2012 at 8:00 pm

      So why punish the cockuld husband? Let the whorish mother get off her ass and get a job.

      Jonathan E. Grant on January 25, 2012 at 9:04 pm

    Jon, and you probably know this, the states enforce non-biological fathers paying child support simply because if the states did not they themselves would have to pay some kind of assistance to many, many single mothers.

    Richard on January 25, 2012 at 9:19 pm

Well, it certainly doesn’t work to hold families together. Of course, you can be unfair the other way, too. Russell Brand is going to gut his ex-wife in a big way…

Occam's Tool on January 25, 2012 at 5:48 pm

Note—he divorced the ex in 1997—roughly 15 years ago, and was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s one year later. Where was the guy’s goshdarned divorce attorney!?

Occam's Tool on January 25, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Occam, as I stated in another post, his ability to pay, NOT his illness is what the court would consider relevant in this or any other case dealing with whatever financial obligations he may have, including debts,lawsuits,alimony,etc.

    Scott on January 26, 2012 at 12:06 am

    Occam, that was my thought as well. Who was this guy’s attorney? Most of the women I know who have gotten divorced either got NO alimony or only got it for a few years. I remember one judge said that alimony is supposed to be rehabilitative, NOT a lifestyle. That said, we have no idea from this story how long these two were married, how many children, how much money the guy had, whether or not she got alimony in lieu of a big cash settlement, was she a stay-at-home mother or did she always work, etc. There are a ton of factors that go into this.

    The other thing I wonder about is that most women I know who WERE awarded alimony for life, had to accept the higher alimony amount changing to just getting the spousal portion of the ex-husband’s Social Security when he retired. Of course, once again, this all depends on what his financial situation was at the time of the divorce. When that changes, he can always go back to court.

    Sorry folks, I can’t feel bad for either party without knowing more of the facts of the case.

    DG in GA on January 27, 2012 at 10:28 am

I would agree. As noted in the article itself, most of the alimony statutes were put together at a time when divorce was rare and many women did not work outside of the home. The goal at the time was to prevent a husband from simply leaving an ex-wife, whom he had been married to for many years, absolutely impoverished after a divorce. That world began to disappear in the 1960′s, and is essentially a thing of the past now. Child support is necessary and appropriate. Spousal support, unless there are special circumstances, should be limited in terms time, amount, and ability to pay. The presumption should be that anything other than a relatively short transitional arrangment involving spousal support is unjust and improper.

Worry01 on January 25, 2012 at 5:56 pm

Wow. the only way the poor schmuck can get out paying his ex-wife is to die.

DS_ROCKS! on January 25, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    Yup. Permanent alimony should be abolished like when the spouse remarries or gains a new means of support.

    You shouldn’t be required to suppose your ex for the rest of their life when their circumstances change.

    Such alimony serves as a formidable disincentive to marry. If you’re going to be forced to support someone you no longer love indefinitely, why marry at all?

    Preventing a former spouse from becoming insolvent or a public charge is a worthy goal. Forcing someone to pay to support a spouse who is healthy or can support themselves serves no public interest.

    Making alimony laws more equitable balances the needs of divorcing couples and society.

    NormanF on January 25, 2012 at 7:37 pm

i’m originally from michigan and was divorced there in 2003, before i’d escaped detroit and the automotive bix for seattle and aerospace.

i lucked out — during the great divorce fiasco of ’03 — after spending a dozen years putting my bewitching ex-frau through college, right on through to her law degree at wayne state, i was promptly repaid with a divorce.

i’ll spare you all of the gruesome details except this: my newly minted attorney wife found out, in court, that michigan exempts spouses who have a medical degree, cpa or law degree from collecting spousal support. also, my attorney pete lucido, was literally poker-playing pals with our judge. needless to say, things went my way.

whew.

KIRCHE on January 25, 2012 at 6:15 pm

I bet that stupid and greedy ex-wife is as Liberal as Liberal can be. When I was a Liberal, Liberals HATED the holy-rollers and they would say because the holy rollers were hypocrites.

The Holy Rollers got NOTHING on the Liberals. I don’t like Holy Roller hypocrites but I can stomach them WAY more than Liberal hypocrites. The HRs at least TRY…the Liberals think they are better and DO want special treatment and don’t even acknowledge their hypocrisy.

Eff feminism!! The only thing I like about friggen’ feminism is that I USED to be one so I know what they are really like, and it is NOT good. I agree with DS 100% on this and I am sick of hypocritical, horrible feminists thinking they have a leg to stand on in 2012!

They DON’T. Men did not cause their downfall…the bitches in the movement (and outside) did. Feminists (and women) are NOT better than men. I am so tired of them.

Women should NOT rule the world. Women are NOT better than men.

I’m glad you mentioned alien-creature whacko Wendy Murphy. She is a total nutter and totally unsavory. I do see her eating at posh dinner establishments in her tony home-town every once in a while and one time I didn’t even recognize her because her face was so weird looking.

I want to remind those that know of her that she had a cockamamie theory that Casey Anthony had her daughter involved in a child-porn ring. Murphy said her involvement was why the kindermurder spent 30 days not telling anyone about her missing daughter. Then she said her theory would be proven TRUE once released from prison as the kindermurder would be arrested for THAT crime. Of course she wasn’t. Kook Murphy believes that the prosecutors had the goods on her regarding the child-porn ring but that they decided the murder was slam-dunk, so they prosecuted her on that charge. We know how that all turned out.

(Did Anthony have her daughter involved in a child-porn ring? I do NOT think so but there may be a small possibility because when she would bed-surf with her many ephemeral boyfriends, she would get calls in the middle of the night, get her kid up and then take her kid somewhere, return without kid and go back to bed. But if that had sufficent credibility, she would have been re-arrested. Who knows with the kindermurder, when you have freaky talking-heads like Keith Ablow and Wendy Murphy believing things that are not true about her and ignoring the big, fat elephant everyone sane sees?)

Skunky on January 25, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    Skunky, the fact the guy is bedridden or has Alzheimers has no bearing in of itself on his alimony or any other financial obligation he may have.

    Let’s suppose for argument’s sake he has a net worth of 50 billion dollars? How many people would care about his illness if that was the case?

    You don’t seem to be a scumbag, yet that’s how you portray feminists. So if you’re not a scumbag now, and you weren’t a scumbag back when you were a lefty feminist, then there must have been and still are other feminists who also are not scumbags despite your assertions to the contrary.

    Scott on January 25, 2012 at 11:58 pm

      Scott, you have a feminist jones that is sad. Especially if you are a man.

      I WAS a feminist (and militant, too!) but I was a feminist at a very young age and at a time where some of it (more than now) had legitimacy. ALSO, I was a feminist at a time where the women were actually achieving things that seemed great to me as a feminist. Doing men things (rock and roll, riding motorcycles). Fighting against porn.

      THEN came the 90s and feminism was a dirty word (but NOT to me at the time) and I saw women at their most *supposed* free revert or act like the feminist movement never happened or never mattered. It opened my eyes (men were not the problem) that women were insane and just liked to complain and bitch to get attention they didn’t deserve.

      I’m not a scum-bag because I figured out I was being snowed. It was all over by the time I was 24 (I am DS’ age). I was able to see and actually RESEARCH on my own and see I was fed a bill of goods.

      Bill Clinton’s presidentcy helped, too. And how N.O.W. reacted (or failed to…).

      Real life is a better professor than any FAKE and FRAUDULENT movement. I got out as soon as I realized I was being snowed. Sorta like Liberalism!

      Skunky on January 26, 2012 at 12:29 pm

I was married 30 years to a womanizing, cheating, lying alcoholic man. I worked part-time. I raised children with little support from him. I did all the house work. I think marriage vows are sacred. Marriage is a blood covenant between a husband and wife. I did everything I knew how to keep my marriage together. If he had been supportive of me and my work instead of sleeping around during our marriage, I could have pursued my career and would now be able to support myself. My opinion is that he should pay the rest of his working life. He plead guilty to adultery and should pay for it.

JD: You raise some important points from the other perspective, and I feel for you. Your husband sounds like a lout and it sounds like you contributed a lot in your role maintaining the home and the family. However, I do not believe that in many of the cases involved in this post, there was a cheating husband, etc. In the main case in this post, the woman is working and the husband is dying and cannot get out of bed. He should not be paying for her. Your case is different. There is something to be said for a wife who is a stay-at-home mom and does all of the housework and child-rearing, while the husband works. Sadly, that is few of the households, today, thanks to feminism. And our alimony laws and the judges who apply them need to catch up to the dark times we live in. In your case, I think things are a little different. In Michigan, adultery is figured into a number of matters of family law, including divorce, alimony, and child custody. In states like Wisconsin, it sadly is not. DS

JD on January 25, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    I don’t agree any one should pay for their sins for a lifetime. Your ex should pay child support and pay you also to help you take care of the children. But when you remarry or you get more income, he should no longer be liable for alimony.

    If a man fathers children, they are his responsibility, not society’s and the same thing is true of his marital obligations when he is married.

    NormanF on January 25, 2012 at 7:43 pm

    “I was married 30 years to a womanizing, cheating, lying alcoholic man. I worked part-time …”

    In other words, because you refused to divorce this guy early on (or you married him knowing he was an alcoholic), you now expect the state to force your ex to pay for you forever? For you, marriage is “a blood covenant between a husband and wife,” but that does not mean the State should be the enforcer of your religious view.

    skzion on January 25, 2012 at 8:06 pm

Going through divorce hell right now in the People’s Republic of New Mexico.

Almost 4 years in divorce court, no kids, got wiped out, over $25K in legal bills and throw in a democrap judge for good measure.

This state is so bad that your wife can forge your signature and commit fraud because she’s your “wife”.

Chris on January 25, 2012 at 7:32 pm

Divorce rarely leaves any one feeling good. Its physically, emotionally and financially draining.

I grant there are circumstances where divorce can be a good thing: spousal cruelty and abandonment, child abuse, drug and alcohol abuse, chronic neglect of family responsibilities, infidelity and alienation of affection. I don’t approve of divorce as a means of lifestyle change.

We have far too many divorces in this country and not only the couple suffers but the greatest harm comes to the children.

There’s a reason men and women were put on this earth and neither of them are good at it alone and they will always be half a person.

NormanF on January 25, 2012 at 7:51 pm

Allow me to take a radical approach. If a man does not want his wife/girlfriend to conceive, he should not be liable for a cent of child support, just as he has no authority whatsoever over whether this wife/girlfriend has an abortion.

If the fetus is “her body” regarding one decision, it is hers (not his) when it comes to financial support.

skzion on January 25, 2012 at 8:08 pm

    Well, that completely takes the responsibility away from the male. Is he an animal or a child, or a responsible adult? Instead, why don’t you either refrain from sex or get a vasectomy?

    Worry01 on January 25, 2012 at 8:49 pm

      I said both partners should be mutually responsible and behave like adults and not take advantage of the other.

      The larger point I made is if women have the right to control their bodies and don’t have to be responsible for their sexual behavior, men should have the same right.

      If you think as I do people should be sexually responsible, don’t have a double standard where women have the license to be sexually promiscuous while the man has to pay the bills.

      I’m not advocating men shouldn’t pay child support if they freely agreed to have kids but a woman shouldn’t get pregnant, walk out and make the man her personal ATM for the rest of his life.

      If you’re going to have a family, for Heaven’s sake, have them together! In that respect, I’m old-fashioned.

      NormanF on January 25, 2012 at 9:23 pm

    That’s the exception where I agree with you. If the woman tricks the man into having a child, it hers and he shouldn’t be obligated to support it.

    Feminists can’t have it both ways and insist women don’t have to listen to a man on abortion but if a woman wants to bear that same kid to term without the man’s input, that suddenly makes his responsibility.

    If women want respect from men, then they should stop with the hypocritical nonsense its “their body” when they freely let a man come in between their open legs.

    If they don’t want a kid, fine no one is forcing them to have sex with a man and by the same token they have no right to use feminine wiles to seduce a man into giving them a child the man doesn’t want to have.

    My point is having a family should be a decision made with the mutual consent of both the man and the woman.

    NormanF on January 25, 2012 at 9:14 pm

    skzion,
    you bring up some interesting views. I love it when someone brings up an almost obvious but easily overlooked point to the table. Not sure if I agree totally but it’s food for thought.

    Musiccgirl,
    You remind me a bit of someone I work with. She’s a young woman left with a very young child. And, like you, through education and perseverance, she took control of her life.
    I know quite a few abandoned spouses with children. Most of them are men. In one case, he was heartbroken when the baby was taken away because he wasn’t even the father.

    As for ‘A on January 25, 2012 at 8:51 pm’
    Yes, yes you are
    a BIG,
    FAT,
    WIDE,
    “A”

    theShadow on January 25, 2012 at 9:57 pm

Americans better wake up. Just because we have so many fabulous freedoms here does NOT mean you can just jump into anything you want to.

It is incumbent for every man and woman to be extremely judicious when picking a mate. Love does not conquer all. You must pay attention to the red flags and even though it sucks, if it is not a match you MUST walk away if you want to mitigate future pain and troubles.

Some carefulness in our choices CAN save us all anxiety.

Funny how the abortion-rights laws are modern (and have celebrity spoke-hag beasts like Maggie Gyllanhaal stumping for the cause) but these disgusting, outdated alimony laws are not. Let’s hear it for the women’s movement!!!!////

Skunky on January 25, 2012 at 8:22 pm

JD: I was married for 18 years to a lying cheating womanizing man and finally took some initiative and divorced his sorry ass. I got my MBA, raised two incredible kids mostly alone and handled my business. He is in the rears to me for $4000 in child support. Do I think I’ll ever see it? Probably not. Will I pursue him in litigation for it? Hell no. If I had a dime for all the times he called and fed me some lame excuse for NOT paying I’d be rich. Instead, I took care of ME AND MY KIDS! Take some responsibility for your actions (or lack thereof) and stop blaming men for your weakness. It is time women stopped making men the scape-goat. They are NOT all bad!

Musiccgirl on January 25, 2012 at 8:26 pm

    This is not about child support, but alimony. Those are different things. Alimony is a relic from a time where women normally lived at home and raised children. After all that was done, the woman in some rare cases was at risk of a husband dumping her and leaving her in a postion where she had no marketable skills to support herself with. Alimony was intended as way to prevent the worst from happening. However, most women do work outside of the home now, and would in most cases not need permanent spousal support in order to survive. In most cases, alimony should not be granted at all.

    Worry01 on January 25, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    Music, have some compassion. You don’t know the details of her situation. It sounds like she did her best under difficult circumstances. She’s not “scapegoating” men, she explained the situation of her good-for-nothing husband.

    Congratulations on your MBA and career success.

    Scott on January 25, 2012 at 11:35 pm

    Take some responsibility for your actions (or lack thereof) and stop blaming men for your weakness. It is time women stopped making men the scape-goat. They are NOT all bad! Musicgirl

    Debbie’s point was that we need to change our alimony laws because they are not treating men equally. That is true. My point is that the laws should not be changed so much so that women are treated unfairly. The laws need to be updated.

    (As for taking responsibility for my actions, I did. I attended Al-anon meetings, AA meetings, marriage counseling, got a full time job and went back to school. I still was unable to support myself very much above the poverty level. Careers are difficult to start at age 51. I am not “blaming men for my weakness.” I am blaming one weak man for my inability to live my life at the same standard as when we were married. The little tad of alimony I get each month has not affected his life style and I am able to live without depending on any government handouts. Nothing would give me more pleasure than to tell him to keep his money, that I am able to support myself grandly without any of his support.)

    JD on January 26, 2012 at 2:56 pm

Wow this blog and the comments on it are literally the most privileged and ignorant blog ive ever read, way to take one outstanding ridiculous case and ignorantly blame it on a giant group of people you inaccurately stereotyped. This case is in itself problematic and completely unrelated to feminism, or kicking the white man or whatever privileged first world problem you whine about

A on January 25, 2012 at 8:51 pm

    So, why should an able bodied working ex-spouse be paid alimony for life? Are rich people posting here? Many of the posters here have cited their own personal experiences. Feminists were quick to demand were very quick to push for legitimate(equal pay for equal work)and not very legitimate(comparable worth)legislation and court decisions. But, these same feminists are very silent on the issue of alimony, even though most statutes that cover it assume the existence of a society that died off decades ago. Feminists tend to be rather one-sided in their approach to issues of equality. You need need to think thirty seconds before opening your mouth. The results might favorably surprise your friends and relatives.

    Worry01 on January 25, 2012 at 9:09 pm

      I believe in equal rights and in equal responsibilities.

      The day when men made all the decisions is gone. A couple should understand who will do what and how they will resolve conflicts that come up between them.

      And hopefully, they’ll know what they want before they head to the altar.

      NormanF on January 25, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    Another Liberal know-nothing stymied by their own PC noose. You are so far behind and drowning in Liberalism with your anti-white bias.

    A, you are too stupid to be here. Please just get lost!

    Skunky on January 25, 2012 at 9:13 pm

This is really a sad case Debbie. The feminization of America has led 85 percent of American women unable to boil a pot of water, make a can of soup, empty the trash, make sure there is toilet paper in the restroom, do laundry, do dishes, or clean house. Almost 90 percent of American teen aged girls 15 years ago, miserably failed the Betty Crocker Home Economics tests in High School. I am told that their best subject was sex.
It is no cause for wander that McDonald’s and the restaurant chains are earning record profits because American women cannot and will not cook.
I have heard that a Home Economics major graduating from Purdue University can earn upwards of 100,000.00 per year because of the vast shortage of women who do not know a damn thing about Home Economics.
Basically, American men will be getting shafted in the Courts and any home life that they might accidentally have.

Confederate South on January 25, 2012 at 8:53 pm

    Marry a foreign woman. They’re not afflicted by feminist notions of independence and equality and they want to love and take care of a man.

    Not politically correct but I suspect a lot of American men would be happier with a woman who really wants to be a wife and mother than pursue a career first.

    NormanF on January 25, 2012 at 9:33 pm

      Norman, you are correct! Men deserve to have a wife who wants to be a wife. And that means taking care of your man. If he is a good man, one can’t lose.

      My hope is that ALL pick wisely and treat kindly. Of course I see many disasters together (broken people seek broken people) and that is where the trouble starts.

      Women today treat their men horrible. Makes me wonder why they would mate-up to begin with. And women pick crappy men and wonder why they are so unhappy.

      Skunky on January 25, 2012 at 10:03 pm

Yep, stay away from the women’s libbers; they can turn on a dime. The trouble is that some women who don’t seem like libbers will fool you once they get their hooks into you. Too bad that men can’t give potential mates psychological tests like they do in job interviews. Then we could spot the troublemakers.

Little Al on January 25, 2012 at 10:54 pm

Child support isn’t much different than alimony. It’s based on a percentage of your income, usually 20-25%, and can get raised every time you get a pay increase, and there’s nothing you can do about it. The actual cost of raising the child isn’t even considered.

Alimony has fallen by the wayside in most states but child support has taken its place. And women win support in most divorce proceedings.

Now if you fall in arrears over a certain amount you can/will be charged with a felony, lose any professional/driver’s license, and can be locked up – the equivalent of debtor’s prison. Just being in arrears prevents you from getting a passport. The cause is irrelevant, you’re in for it.

It has gotten so out of hand many men aren’t getting married/remarried. Why should they? The wife has a child, can then promptly divorce him, and then gets a check till the child turns 18. And regardless of her employment status you have to pay 100% for the child’s medical insurance or carry them yourself.

You can’t afford to remarry anyway. After the child support is paid, it doesn’t leave much left over after all your living expenses are paid, if you live alone. So even trying to date someone else has to be a bargain-basement proposition at best – which unfortunately limits your choices. And your ex can even go after your new spouse’s assets.

Then the hapless non-custodial parent can’t even afford to see their child – unless their bi-weekly weekend visit consists of nothing but watching tv, playing video games, and running errands. So they fade away.

Marriage may be down but cuckholding is on the rise.

Fortunately I can’t have any more children, I’m a cancer survivor. But if I could I would have gotten snipped as soon as the divorce was final. I’m not falling into that trap again.

anonymous on January 26, 2012 at 9:34 am

Debbie good points.

I am about done with a divorce that my soon to be ex-wife started after being together 16 years (and having 3 kids together). Basically we were happy for 15 of those years, but in the last year she had a major mid-life crisis. She slimmed down, worked out, and started having an affair. When I found out, she denied it (but I had proof) and then gave me divorce papers that she already had drawn up !!!

My education thus began on how messed up our legal system really is. I quickly discovered that I pretty much had NO chance of getting custody of my kids, her cheating really doesn’t matter much, and at minimum I’ll be paying her most of my income for the next 10 years !!!! Oh and I have an excellent lawyer, but that is how the family courts are. It is a big business and it is designed to get maximum billable hours for the lawyers and extract as much money from the man as possible.

I have gone from living in a wonderful home with a wife and 3 kids into living in my RV barely getting by. Meanwhile the soon to be Ex quit her job last year and has no intention of going to work and is living nicely on my money. In addition her loverboy who she was cheating on me with is planning on moving into my house with MY kids and paying part of the bills. He has a good job, so they’ll be living great and are planning a cruise while I live in poverty.
They won’t marry because that will end the alimony gravy train. When the judge heard this, she said “well she has a right to move on and live her life” !!!

This is justice in America today !!!

JPx: Sadly, your unfortunate situation befalls far too many men in America. This is exactly why the alimony laws MUST BE REFORMED! DS

jimmyPx on January 26, 2012 at 10:54 am

    Jimmy, I see your example as a tragedy. Especially for your kids. Now they will be sexualized in their home due to the “shack-up” situation and the stud will NEVER love your children more than you do. He prolly is not even interested in them…and if he is that is something else to worry about. (Oy vey es mere….)

    I can only hope your wife gets wicked fat and the stud cheats on her and leaves her. Too bad we couldn’t donate yummy snacks to send to her so she will eat them and balloon up.

    Your unfortunate example is WHY people should NEVER fall for the greatness of women meme. Even when I was a feminist I always knew deep down (way down!)that women can be satanic bitches.

    And the children suffer and the chain continues…

    (There was a sad news story yesterday on how a 14 year old girl called the cops on her skank mum because her mum and stud were having sex in the home and the daughter felt disrespected. She wanted to be placed in some Christian program to get away from Mother Slut and Stud. Poor child. Has more sense than her tart mum.)

    Skunky on January 26, 2012 at 12:13 pm

      Thanks Skunky,

      Part of the problem is that even though friends and family tried to tell me how manipulative the Ex is over the years, I was in love and wouldn’t listen–well now I’m paying for my naivity.

      Years ago, shacking up with a guy with your kids living there could get you declared an unfit mother. NOT ANYMORE !! Like I said, when the judge (a feminist man hater if I ever saw one) heard my lawyer bring this up—she cut him off and said “well she has a right to move on and live her life”.

      I’m telling my story publicly as a warning to others. I swear I thought that we would be married forever–I never thought that this would happen to me, but it did. Debbie is so right that the laws should be changed. If you have worked (and can work) that should be taken into consideration. As of two years ago, she made $60,000 a year and our youngest is in school (she’s 8). But that had no bearing in court. In fact when my lawyer brought it up, her lawyer objected due to relevance and the judge sustained it. In addition, if she goes back to work, that has no bearing on the money I have to pay.

      The laws were written with a Victorian Age mentality and yet it is now the 21st century and society is totally different. Personally I don’t think that I will ever get married again and honestly if it wasn’t for what it would do to my kids & family (and my faith in the Lord), I would probably have committed suicide over this.

      Basically I didn’t do anything wrong (never cheated, always worked and supported my family, don’t drink, take drugs, or gamble) yet I’m the one who was punished !!!

      jimmyPx on January 26, 2012 at 12:57 pm

I have a comment about faithfulness between a married couple. That faithfulness goes way beyond sex and takes on many forms and goes both ways. A woman or man can be unfaithful without having a relationship with another person. I’ll give you an example. Let’s say a woman has her friends over during the day with their babies while her conservative hubby works all day. He has a book shelf in the family room where these stay home mommies congregate to do what they do. Displayed on this book shelf are many conservative authors with the jacket covers prominently displayed. One night hubby comes home to find that all of the books from conservative authors had been turned around so that no one could see who wrote them, but all other books are untouched. Hubby asks wife why, and she replies that she would be embarrassed and humiliated if her friends knew what he read and thought. Is this woman being failthful to her husband or not?

Jarhead on January 26, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Be careful Jarhead, you have problems in your marriage and don’t realize it.

    Read my post above about what happened to me. It all started I think when she met a new bunch of friends who were ALL divorcees. I blame them for filling my now Ex’s head with how great it would be to screw me over and get her a younger guy and “have fun”. She listened and here we are. She honestly threw a great marriage away (even my Ex admits that our marriage was great for most of our time together).

    This is a direct result of the “ME” generation. Your husband of many years doesn’t “meet your needs” or spend enough time with you because he is working himself to death providing for you and your kids—but that just isn’t good enough.

    Regarding your situation, be careful–she is embarrassed about your ideas and whose books you read. Remember that liberalism’s main tenant is “if it feels good do it”. If she keeps down that path, you’ll probably end up in divorce court too.

    jimmyPx on January 26, 2012 at 11:11 am

      jimmyPx – I read your comments and I feel for you. Thanks for the input. I’ve had to watch my back for too many years because of what I call the “Commie Mommies” liberalizing a once semi-conservative woman.

      Jarhead on January 26, 2012 at 3:26 pm

    No Jarhead, she is disrespecting her man in the house he works hard to pay for.

    Whoever it is picked wrong. That is why love does NOT conquer all and every divorce court tells the tale.

    Be nice and pick wisely. Know someone for two years before one considers marriage. Dating is actually for to see if one is a match but in 2012 it is acceptable to just be an unpaid whore and then take it to Judge Judy when it all goes to pot (and I am just speaking of the dating dopes here….)

    Skunky on January 26, 2012 at 12:18 pm

jimmyPX,

I read your post and also want to say how sorry I am that your soon-to-be ex-wife has betrayed you and that you are being screwed by the current laws. I hope that your telling your sad story will warn others to watch their backs to avoid going through what you’re going through.

Jarhead,

I hope that your situation that you revealed in your post on January 26, 2012 at 10:57 am combined with what jimmyPX said said of his own sad situation and his giving you a heads-up will help you to prevent what happened to him from also happening to you.

Excellent post Debbie and excellent thread. Sorry that I have nothing new to add as everything that needs to be said here has already been said.

JeffE on January 26, 2012 at 10:29 pm

Wow, this is the most backward-thinking bunch of neanderthals it has been my misfortune to encounter in a while. I’d like to know in what universe women are making equal pay (and more) as men are, cos I would like to move there!
And Skunky, nice job trying to pretend you used to be a feminist. No one with an ounce of egalitarianism in his/her body would spout the nonsense and hate speech that you have exhibited.
You should go back to your cave where your “man” can club you over the head whenever he feels like it. You’re sick!
I’m off to scrub my brain out with bleach. Yecchhhh

caroj on January 27, 2012 at 12:22 pm

I forgot to mention previously, the amazing difference between the incredible woman he’s married to now who’s stayed with him through thick and thin, and the piece of crap X that would take a sick man to the cleaners. No heart or soul, no humanity.
That lib judge is a piece of work too. Many men are evil, true, but women ain’t all sugar and spice either. Some are downright vile.

theShadow on January 28, 2012 at 10:22 pm

The alimony laws are outdated unfair and unconstitutional. These laws need to be changed to rehabilitative temporary alimony only its ridiculous. People need to stop expecting to be taken care of for life it is not fair to us hardworking Americans. There are to many people abusing these laws. We do not live in a leave it to Beaver world were women don’t work. People need to take responsibility for themselves and stop promoting dependency.

Amy Dougherty on January 29, 2012 at 11:23 pm

Could not agree more with this article. Permanent alimony is equivalent to permanent welfare which has been abolished. Permanent alimony leads to bitterness which makes co-parenting impossible and is antifamily. No one gets remarried, ever. The recipient doesn’t so they don’t lose their permanent gravy train. The payer doesn’t because they’re either too bitter or their significant other doesn’t want to marry them and risk having their assets and income factored into the ex’s alimony. These laws are very old fashioned, and do not represent today’s society. All I can say to these women who feel entitled is get a friggin job.

Debbie Israel on February 2, 2012 at 6:23 pm

Women now have more than equality.

50-50 child custody.
No alimony for either sex.
Equal time in prison for women.

The retirement age for women should be raised because they live longer.

Young guys, don’t ever get married in America. Your wife can divorce you when she wants and you can lose your children and you can financially ruined and thrown in jail for child support.

DONT GET MARRIED IN AMERICA

bill on May 19, 2012 at 7:24 pm

@jimmyPx on January 26, 2012 at 12:57 pm

I feel for you. I have not seen my son in seven years. My ex took him 500 miles away blessed the move. The courts are so man-hating, that you as a man are punished because of your gender.

Tell all young men to never, ever have children in America and never, ever get married.

bill on May 19, 2012 at 7:28 pm

Florida is the state know for Alimony whores. No-fault means the wife can leave for another man and the husband will pay permanent alimony even with no children involved. The one with a job will be ordered to pay all fees or face jail. Attorneys love it.

helpMe on December 14, 2012 at 1:20 pm

State court violation DISABLED VETERANS
=
Disabled veterans experiencing the same alimony problems were left out of any proposed legislation at alimony reform. Just another missed opportunity for disabled veteran’s to correct a wrong had the legislators given disabled veterans a second thought. Alimony reform, such are the dreams of disabled veteran. When was that suppose to happen?
=
As had happened any proposed alimony legislation is discriminatory which completely ignores alimony reform for disabled veterans. There are laws in place which favors, and protects the disabled veteran. However, actions by state court judges are not as unintentional when it involves veteran’s disability compensation. There are laws in place to protect veteran’s disability compensation, which are summarily dismissed by activist state court judges awarded as alimony, in violation of the many laws you find as you read on.
=
Many State legislators due to the changing realities of family life, either proposed or passed legislation that ‘permanent current alimony’ obligations be eliminated. 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 is 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.
=
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.
=
INFORMATIONAL COMMENT STATE COURT JUDGES
=
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.
=
“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)”
=
“Due process”. 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.
=
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 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 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, by 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 arbitrarily 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, 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!
=
We trust you, that those that served you, you will honor our disabled veterans with supporting clarifying alimony legislation of the disabled veteran’s property rights.
=

William Heino Sr. on June 6, 2013 at 9:52 am

State court violation Separation of Powers DISABLED VETERANS

When in the course of business, if, and when the question is a disabled veteran’s VA disability compensation as alimony/support, something to consider first
=
The “separation of powers” doctrine is completely ignored by Virginia and most state court judges, acting like doctors, holding themselves as qualified, as a provider of health care, policy making outside their jurisdiction. Substituting their judgment for the judgment of VA doctors and medical professionals awarding as alimony a disabled veteran’s VA disability compensation. To allow what has been happening, was this the intent of Congress?
=
Constitution of Virginia
ARTICLE III Division of Powers
Section 1. Departments to be distinct.

“The legislative, executive, and judicial departments shall be separate and distinct, so that none exercise the powers properly belonging to the others, nor any person exercise the power of more than one of them at the same time; provided, however, administrative agencies may be created by the General Assembly with such authority and duties as the General Assembly may prescribe. Provisions may be made for judicial review of any finding, order, or judgment of such administrative agencies.”
=
If the United State court of appeals, in VETERANS FOR COMMON SENSE, VETERANS UNITED FOR TRUTH, INC., v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, December 13, 2011, ruled, “As much as we may wish for expeditious improvement in the way the VA handles mental health care and service-related disability compensation, we cannot exceed our jurisdiction to accomplish it,..” As well , Virginia courts are in no legal position to do so. Despite the law, it continues.
=
“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)”
=
14th Amendment. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, with due process of law, ..”

William Heino Sr. on October 8, 2013 at 10:53 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field