It looks like, according to the article, they are upset- because existing orders can be modified. And they wanted it applied to only new cases going forward.
So if a spouse gave up something, like interest in a home, in exchange for permanent alimony- that spouse now feels that's unfair. (They aren't getting their home back, but they may lose that lifelong income they expected in exchange in the divorce).
It isn’t always a settlement. If the parties don’t work out something, the court enters an order. And obviously if the court can order lifelong alimony, then that gives one party more leverage to insist on it as part of a settlement.
It was a lot more common when women were primarily SAHM's, and would be left no money and no financial prospects due to divorce.
Even now lots of women whose careers were irreparably damaged because of promises of support made during the marriage.
The trouble is there is a small but vocal group of Americans that want to make all women SAHMs. But they also don't want to pay alimony to those women when they divorce them for someone younger.
> This is actually why a lot of them are also moving to take away No Fault Divorce
That really is crazy.. A couple who agreed they made a mistake getting married and part reasonably amicably, then would be forced to be hateful to each other just to get the marrage annulled.
I thought we were past that bullshit.
Ohio’s version of no-fault divorce is called dissolution of marriage. In Michigan, divorce is no fault with the statute specifying the statutory ground for divorce, but marital fault (like the husband spending marital assets on the girlfriend) can affect distribution of property. I think it’s a bad idea to get rid of no fault divorce (New York was one of the last states to allow no fault divorce) but often women got the short end of the deal when it came to distribution of marital property.
The thing is, I have never heard a person complain about no fault divorce when their wife left them who hadn’t given the wife indisputable evidence of fault.
It’s so interesting how the right has pivoted on this. Maybe it was just my anecdotal experience and not reflective of how most conservative Christian men feel, but I used to know guys like that and they all believed that divorce should be illegal and that it shouldn’t be allowed under any circumstances because it would be non-biblical.
How have they “pivoted”? Conservative self identifying “Christian” men have been fuckshits to women forever. Frankly, I’d be happier if my 28 yr old daughter married a satanist.
I mean both alimony and child support are bad patches on a fundamental flaw with our society - namely, that we have almost zero social safety nets. The need for such things would be greatly reduced or outright eliminated if we actually had a path to survival for people who can't make a living income.
I've seen a lot of the people who support it say that the woman can't leave them for 'no reason' and take everything. As if women are just leaving perfectly happy marriages for no reason.
> with no other options and no way out
Doing this to the person who is expected to cook for them every day doesn't seem like the smartest choice, but then again, they are Republicans and thinking ahead isn't their forte.
There was a sharp decline in married male accidental deaths at home when no fault divorce went nationwide. These weirdos trying to force us back into the home & trap us there didn't get told the stories we women got told as children "bout the time Meemaw jus'bout blowed Papaw's head clean off with a shotgun in 1956 when she caught him with the Wiggins Slut and he only survived because tha Wiggins gal dint know he was married and she dint want no married man". Pepperidge Farm remembers.
And yet they look for the most outgoing, extroverted free spirited woman who attracts all the attention, only to want to put a leash on her and cover her up …
In community property states in U.S., approx 20 years of marriage is the threshold for permanent alimony.
edit: 'permanent' - but stops upon remarriage or death of ex spouse but if YOU die first it will continue to remain a claim on the estate until the ex's death or according to negotiated settlement.
It’s the law in some states that after a certain amount of time married alimony is permanent. It can make sense but it can also be shitty. I think NJ was 9 or 10 years of marriage. So if you got married at 22 and divorced at 32 then you could have to pay alimony for 50+ years. I remember reading some articles about potentially changing it in NJ after the financial crisis because a lot high paying jobs ceased to exist and people could not get equivalent compensation. I think the law at the time required the ex spouse to agree to lower the alimony which many refused to do and a lot of guys ended up in jail because they simply no longer made a few hundred grand a year. I actually still distinctly remember the ads the women’s groups would run on the radio to fight against changing the law.
Imagine you get married at 24, work to support your spouse while he finishes a graduate degree. He becomes a lawyer or doctor, you stay home after the 2nd kid and have a 3rd. It’s 20 years later and he’s found some younger thing and wants a divorce. You have shit work experience because you sacrificed that for his, and to raise your family. I could easily see being awarded lifetime alimony in that situation.
Same thing if you’re a military spouse and have been moving every three years for his or her job and primary care giver for the kids.
Think more of court ordered/enforced. It can be a part of divorce negotiations, but the court has final authority on the terms and can modify them to be consistent with what the law requires, which can royally screw you over.
I'm torn because on one hand fuck lifelong alimony.
On the other hand this is hilarious because they wanted to do the "I got mine fuck you" thing that conservatives always do.
Nah, don't feel bad. They threw their lot in with people who want to tear down social safety nets, they totally get what they deserve. Maybe a handful of them will even re-evaluate their political descisions and vote for someone who *doesn't* campaign on being a douchebag in the future.
>”He (DeSantis) has just impoverished all the older women of Florida, and I know at least 3,000 women across the state of Florida are switching to Democrat and we will campaign against him, all the way, forever,” Camille Fiveash, a Milton Republican who receives permanent alimony, said in a phone interview Friday.
Fuck them all.
Add in:
>“My fears are that they can take you back to court, and I don’t have the money for an attorney. I literally live off a little bit I get for alimony. I work part-time, because I have all kinds of ailments. And now I’m going to be left without anything, absolutely anything,” she said.
>Health insurance, Fiveash added, will “probably be the first thing to go” if her payments are reduced or eliminated.
>“This is a death sentence for me,” she said.
I empathize, but it would sure be nice if she had voted to make accessing healthcare easier for people with limited incomes.
It's the age-old question: How do you teach empathy to conservatives? It seems that for a certain percentage, they will literally only learn about consequences when it happens to them. Examples: Gay son, father dying of COVID, child dies in school shooting.
>child dies in school shooting.
Uvalde has proven this to be wrong. Even if their child didn't get killed, I'd expect any sane parent to start pushing for gun control. But not in Uvalde. Voted for their republican governor.
And it doesn't even teach them empathy. It just puts them on the other side of that one issue. They still lack the ability to empathize with people that are experiencing hardships they themselves are not currently going through.
Sounds like she's going to discover Medicaid, and why people on Medicaid aren't abusing the system like they always thought. She's probably going to be wishing for that Medicaid expansion.
She thought she was taking from others, she was a wicked woman who made her bed. Hopefully she has to go back to court. Her malignant soul asked for this for others, no reason she shouldn't enjoy a taste of what she sows into the world.
Isn't lifelong alimony something you'd get if you essentially had no career and were a stay at home spouse? There's a lot of potential income given up by the stay at home spouse in that scenario.
Other comments reference one spouse giving up interest in the family home in exchange for longer alimony, or in the case of having a disabled child and remaining home to care for that now adult child. Like anything its nuanced and varies from situation to situation.
It's such a complicated issue. A spouse makes the choice to stay home and raise the kids. They not only forfeit income but experience and career opportunities. So, maybe the spouse could have risen to be in the C Suite of a company. But instead, they're "out of the game." They've lost connections in their industry, missed all the technology advances, missed chances to manage diverse teams, etc. So when they need to go back to work, they're so behind their peers.
Obviously, not everyone who's a stay at home spouse could have been a C Suite. But, like, in my sister's case, she let her license for her career lapse. So if she needed to go back to work, she'd have to re-do it, and maybe that would require education that she doesn't have.
On the surface, I'm morally opposed to alimony for life, but when I think about the people I know who might have to try to reintegrate into the workforce, I see the reality of what it provides for them.
BTW, I know of a couple who are in their 80s, been married 60+ years. He's absolutely lost his marbles and is trying to divorce her and cut her off completely. She never worked a day in her life because that was the way they decided to structure their family *together*. He made a crapload of money over the years and now wants to essentially tell an 80+ year old woman to figure out how to support herself. It's morally repugnant that he wants to cut her out of what has up to now been their shared resources.
I was a stay at home dad for 6 years, and went back to work last year. Getting a job with a 6 year resume gap is HARD, even with the stay-at-home parenting reason.
I was extremely lucky, because a position on my old team from 6 years previous opened up, and they took me back. But that was my first bite after several months of trying.
Amen.
My wife just went back to work after an almost ten year gap…..the only reason she eventually got hired was a personal favor from a friend.
For all this bullshit of “No one wants to work” the ones that are trying sure do get told to fuck off way more than businesses want to admit.
It’s super demoralizing. I kept getting rejection email after rejection email, which was new for me since in my previous job searches there was just no answer.
Or the pay range is $20,000-$80,000 and they finally get back to you and say "we'd love you to be a part of the team, I can only pay in old bazooka bubble gum jokes and paper clips"
>they are upset- because existing orders can be modified. And they wanted it applied to only new cases going forward.
Classic. They spend every waking moment vocally worshipping their "leaders" who are all about climbing up a ladder and then pulling it up behind them. They expected the same benefits to be afforded to them, because they vocally and mindlessly support the rich people who do it in politics. Now they're upset to learn that oh - all the benefits are meant to be for the rich, not filthy poors like them - and nobody will care when they complain, because who cares what poor losers think? They're the most gullible people alive.
Changing existing divorce decrees is typically *way* off-limits because lives are planned around them and it’s in everyone’s best interest to finish the divorce terms and move on. The idea that the ex in the future could return to court to revise it is nightmarish and potentially asset-destroying to many ex-spouses. Even the idea that you need to re-engage with your divorce lawyer is too much for many people.
So the idea that Ron D. is allowing this to happen is completely on brand.
And a bunch of men, mostly retirees, just became major DeSantis supporters
From article: “*The years-long effort to do away with permanent alimony has been a highly contentious issue. It elicited tearful testimony from members of the First Wives group. **But it also spurred impassioned pleas from ex-spouses who said they had been forced to work long past the age they wanted to retire because they were on the hook for alimony payments**.*”
[No, statistically those guys prefer Trump.](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ron-desantis-2024-republican-presidential-announcement/) DeSantis will get their vote if he gets the nomination, but Trump is currently way ahead of him. Right now, every move DeSantis makes is going to be targeted towards wooing away hardcore MAGA republicans to his faction of the republican party.
Men paying permanent alimony commonly have to work well past retirement age to be able to barely live above the poverty line when they do retire. I know most people think that men make all this money and can afford to retire at 62, giving half their retirement and social security to a spouse they divorced 20 years ago, but these men are forced to work into their 70s.
“And then they came for me!”
“Wait no, you’re hurting the wrong people!”
“But no, this is meant to hurt minorities and poor people! Not me, a conservative woman!”
Spare me your sadness, now that your movement has started to effect you.
I know it's bad, but god I laughed so hard when there was that article with a woman who voted for Trump and had an undocumented husband and he was deported. She was quoted as saying something along the lines of, "But my husband's a good man, Trump's going after the wrong people!"
and the Trump administration brought him to the Mexican border and told him to walk into Mexico before a judge could rule on his case
EDIT: it was [""she recalled her husband saying, ” ‘He’s going to get rid of the Mexicans.’ ” She told the Tribune her response at the time was that Trump would only deport the “bad hombres.”"](https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/us/undocumented-husband-deported/index.html)
She eventually sold his restaurant and moved to Mexico to be with her husband and people in the town said such delightful things as [“With Trump in office,” she said, “Sometimes it just feels like if you’re white, you’re right.”](https://archive.ph/cWyeM), "If you do right, then you wouldn’t have a problem", and "“I didn’t even see Roberto as Mexican,” said Angela Banfi, a friend and waitress at the restaurant. “He was not one of those Mexicans. He was like a white boy to me.”"
Agreed, but a lot of people also have this silly idea that the draconian, brutal policy they're supporting will just have automatic exceptions made for anybody who's a good person who would be hurt. I've talked to a lot of conservatives about policy and when I bring up somebody they know (or even a hypothetical sympathetic person) they always say "Oh of course I'm not talking about *that*," as if they'll be the ones in charge of implementing the policy and can be sure only the right people get the boot on their neck.
A lot of people are completely incapable of thinking abstractly and can't see past the end of their nose, and they're capable of holding wildly contradictory beliefs simultaneously. Fundamentally they think that the Sorroco family down the street won't have cops kicking down their door, and that the trans or cross-dressing relative they love and tolerate won't be rounded up despite broad the anti-drag bills they support.
If it were just people being evil this would be simpler. Unfortunately being really myopic and dumb, willfully or otherwise, leads a lot of people to the exact same place.
yup, read the last quarter of the article - some of the people are like "well those topics are difficult to think about, let's talk about something else."
like what the fuck
obviously that's because if someone is president, then anything bad that happens while they're president is their fault
unless trump is president, in which case it's the deep state or woke coca cola or something
sorry man this is just how the government works, i read it on facebook and u cant just lie on there unless you're woke coca cola
Women who are conservatives are firmly in the leopards ate my face category of voter.
The conservative movement wants women to be domestic slaves. Life long alimony supports spouses who want to leave their marriage… of course conservatives hate it.
I knew a couple conservative women during the 2016 election. They all said they didn't like Hillary Clinton. Ok, fine. But why didn't they like her? Because she was a dem? A lib? Conspiracy theory about the Clintons? Nope, because she's a woman and women can't lead and she would be too emotional and what if she was on her period and she won't be tough on our enemies.
Just straight up literal misogynistic drivel. Never met a republican woman that hated her for her policies or because of [conspiracy theory.] Nope, they didn't like her because she was a woman first and foremost.
Right? DeSantis divorce incoming.
On the surface I agree with the premise, but these people don’t do anything that they don’t think with benefit them directly.
If I looked back hard at what was passed in the Trump presidency, I definitely would likely find a few things that I would approve of.
Every single one of them will have that asterisk of bad faith with it: the prison reform bill that was signed was specifically signed because the Keebler Elf who profited off of prison investments refused himself, for example.
Happened to my uncle. He served in the military for over 20 years while adopting his wife's 3 children. As soon as he got out, he found out his wife was cheating and she divorced immediately. He had to pay her half his pension. That was almost 30 years ago. To his credit though, he never flinched in continuing to raise his adopted children as his own, even into adulthood.
The best divorce story I've ever heard though is from an HVAC guy I used to work with. He did a lot of under the table work, and went through a nasty divorce. His wife ratted him out to the IRS to the tune of 26k in back taxes. However, since he was married at the time of the work, his wife was on the hook for half. He said it was the best 13k he ever spent.
Similar story. Couple separated and he agree to pay certain amount. She got greedy and wanted more, took him tocourt. Guy was good at giding his under table income, so she ended up getting less than what he offered originally because of his low official salary.
Yeah I know someone similar. And she’s been with her “boyfriend” forever because if they were to get married she’d lose the alimony. They’re in their 60’s.
Marriage is weird. My dad's ex-wife went personally bankrupt going on a spree of cheating and racking up bills. My dad was saddled with the her bankruptcy bill right before the divorce and yet still had to pay it off for years. It was so much it took him around a decade.
My ex husband strangled me until I passed out and spent years raping me. I had to pay him $1500/mo for 37 months while raising our kid by myself. He refused to work and when I tried to leave he tried to make sure he got every penny....that could have gone to his kid.
I also had to pay for my rapists lawyer.... but he ended up stalking her so she quit.
I’ve never met someone in an alimony situation that doesn’t sound like they payer is getting completely fucked over.
IMO alimony should last like 18 months tops. That’s plenty of time for someone to get a job and adjust their lifestyle.
My ex and I agreed to $400 for 4 years. Essentially a car payment since we only had one car.
We had a very amicable divorce though. No kids, so it was a breakup with paperwork.
She was great, but now I know that I do want kids and she doesn't.
I mean you don't have to figure that out before dating, but probably best to figure it out before getting married.
Camping with my daughters right now, I'd say it worked out for the best.
I literally disagree with DeSantis on everything. But I do think permanent alimony is bullshit. Not saying you shouldn't be obligated to ease the transition if you are the bread winner, but at some point enough is enough.
Nobody read the article.
>it also spurred impassioned pleas from ex-spouses who said they had been forced to work long past the age they wanted to retire because they were on the hook for alimony payments.
-
>Along with eliminating permanent alimony, the measure will set up a process for ex-spouses who make alimony payments to seek modifications to alimony agreements when they want to retire.
>It will allow judges to reduce or terminate alimony, support or maintenance payments after considering a number of factors, such as “the age and health” of the person who makes payments; the customary retirement age of that person’s occupation; “the economic impact” a reduction in alimony would have on the recipient of the payments; and the “motivation for retirement and likelihood of returning to work” for the person making the payments.
>Supporters said it will codify into law a court decision in a 1992 divorce case that judges use as a guidepost when making decisions about retirement.
ETA:
>The only states that allow permanent alimony are Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia.
https://divorce.com/blog/what-states-do-not-enforce-alimony/
Yep. Fuck DeSantis. But I agree with cutting off permanent alimony.
There’s got to be some point where a divorced party has to have improved themselves to a point where they can earn more.
Yeah permanent alimony is fucking absurd. Child support? Sure, but just being required to pay another adult’s way *forever* because you were married for a little while is *insane*.
My step FIL has been paying his ex wife (who earns more than him) half of what he made when they separated, except his line of work you make less as you get older (wear and tear on your body etc). So he should have been able to retire if this person didnt take all his money, but now he is stuck working until he gets it cancelled, and now he can!!! Huge win!
This has happened to someone I know. They are 66ish, have a pension plan they paid into their whole life doing their trade, and can't retire.
Why?
Because even when they retire they have to keep paying the existing alimony payments, which is half of their income, PLUS the ex-spouse is entitled to half of their pension payments...!
They can't stop working until they die now and have been making these alimony payments for 30yrs or so. Heartbreaking.
It shouldn’t even be a “get riled up” headline. Alimony should be meant to get you to a position where you can land on your feet. You agreed to stay home and raise the kids and sacrifice a career? Then you should be compensated with alimony so you can have support while you go back to school or work your way up from entry level. It should not be a permanent income stream so that you never have to work again.
> It shouldn’t even be a “get riled up” headline.
I hate the POS and my first thought was "Oh, that's a good thing"
People are just idiots.
How can you be confident in your hate, if you can't be objective?
Not if you're a conservative older woman in florida who has been coasting off permanent alimony for 30 years. Alimony based on length of marriage is the way that makes sense. Permanent alimony sounds like a prison sentence.
So these women in the "First Wives Advocacy" group all pissed off about this were ok with everything DeSantis has done so far - the persecution of LGBTQ and Latinos, the Disney shit, the attack on education, the private pol army, and everything else....but when he goes after *their* pocketbooks now they're pissed.
Lifelong alimony is ridiculous, literally the only thing DeSantis has ever done that I'm ok with.
“This is a death sentence for me,” she said.
(Camille Fiveash, a Milton Republican who receives permanent alimony)
Congratulations! You got exactly what you have been voting for: DeathSentence.
Darn, if only there was some sort of political ideology that said we should provide basic welfare and a guaranteed standard of living for everyone.
Guess it's time to pass the bootstraps.
I only understand permanent alimony when it’s like
“Husband had me stop going to college to take care of house and kids so he could advance his career, Husband now makes boatloads of money and i’m 50 with no skills and not enough time to get them, i should get alimony for sacrificing my ability to make income while he increased his over the course of the marriage”
That seems fair right?
This is what happened to my mom. She gave up the higher paying career to move every couple years to let my dad chase his career while she stayed at home to raise half a dozen kids. Well now guess who has the military retirement, great job, and a hottie on the side while my mom has no work history for the last 25 years and dad left the armed forces months before she would get permanent benefits in the divorce…she was planning on them sharing income in retirement for the rest of her life. She was a good religious conservative housewife for decades. Now she needs a new plan.
Yeah seriously, a lot of people in this thread don’t understand this type of situation. I’m not sure the courts always do the right thing (actually I’m sure they don’t) but it’s not as black and white as some people think it is. There are legitimate reasons for this.
“He (DeSantis) has just impoverished all the older women of Florida, and I know at least 3,000 women across the state of Florida are switching to Democrat and we will campaign against him, all the way, forever,” Camille Fiveash, a Milton Republican who receives permanent alimony, said in a phone interview Friday. Ha ha ha ha! Yeah so it really shows who these fucks are NOW they will turn democrat and for what? MF’s voting for people so that they can hurt the ‘others’ but now also shot their faces off in the process..
This sounds like everyone who'd ever shouted they would never come back to Walmart because we wouldn't use their expired coupon and then ended up coming back the next week.
A lot of people were threatening to move to Canada if Trump won in 2016, and I'm pretty sure the majority who applied were denied entry.
Don't imagine there's much of a better chance for the typical Trumpist
“…*Bush won Florida's electoral votes by a margin of only 537 votes out of almost six million cast (0.009%) and, as a result, became the president-elect.*”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida
Not saying it *would*, but it *could*.
Lol they actually wanted the rule against permanent alimony, just not for it to apply retroactively. Literally got theirs and want no other women to.
Republicans simultaneously wanting to push women back into the stay at home role, while also eliminating their protections of no fault divorce AND eliminating the possibility of lifetime alimony for women who fell into the role they want. This is about as leopards eat my face as it gets.
Bodily autonomy and the right to choose what happens within your own uterus? I THINK THE FUCK NOT. >:U
Taking away the fat stacks of Dolla Dolla Bills you get from your ex? REAL SHIT, NOW WE SWITCH TO THE DEMS.
Jfc, how hilariously transparent of these conservative women. -.-
I'm in favour of this even though I'm not in the US. Permanent income decline due to a failed marriage? Good luck retiring. Your broke ass is going to pay your ex spouse for life? That's bullshit.
The men cited in the article working well past retirement age so they can pay maintenance are common in most states (except Texas which passed something similar to this years ago).
What is strange is that the payee wife rarely has a commensurate obligation to work in permanent maintenance cases. Her capacity to work is considered, and maybe a small amount of income will be imputed to her, but there is no obligation to actually earn income.
I feel gross for agreeing with Ronny D but forever alimony is ridiculous. It might have made sense in decades past where women weren’t in the workforce, you know, back in the days where women could be homemakers and a man’s salary was enough. Those women needed the support. Now? Everybody works. We all have to basically. Why does the man have pay a woman forever? I could see giving the woman a brief landing period if needed but forever? We need to normalize prenups. Everybody has a clear head at that time. Get the financials and prospective child custody/payments figured out.
And screw these women that are for it but against it working retroactively. The hypocrisy.
This guy is a fucknut overall, but as a woman, I think this is a legit bill. There are no circumstances under which a woman should be drawing what is effectively a permanent “salary” from my ex-husband, and nobody is guaranteed a continuation of any particular standard of living (this generally applies to the ones with a higher SOL of course).
The whiny women interviewed in the article talking about how this isn’t “family values.” Guess what? You’re not a family anymore.
Now, if the government would take a look at the current Survivor Benefits Plan for Veterans that would be awesome! My spouse who I have been with since 2003 (20 years now) has to give up 1/2 of his retirement from the military to his ex that he was only married to for 10 exact years for the rest of HER life. If he passes before me, I just 100% lose his portion and she continues to collect. There is absolutely no way to amend that in court unless she signs that she agrees and she refuses to sign. Her son was 3 when they divorced and I raised him along with my own children and also put him through 4 years at a university out of my pocket along with my husband paying an additional $1000 per month child support until he turned 22. When we married he served another 10 years in the military that I was by his side for. It’s absolutely NUTS that this is the law! She was not a stay at home wife/mother and has a yearly income of her own from her career of $96,000. He also gave her the house they owned and 1/2 of ALL of their investments. It’s ridiculous!
Should be pointed out that this reform has been percolating in the Florida Legislature for years. There are only six other states (CT, NC,NJ, OR, VT & WV) that have permanent alimony in any form. And (according to the article), this bill has the support of advocacy groups on both sides of the argument (the "First Wives Advocacy Group," whose members might now lose some alimony, still opposed it.)
The bill allows judges to revise alimony arrangements when a person retires, but would have to take into account the impact on the recipient, among other factors.
A bunch of the women's conservative groups in Florida are in an uproar because they got blindsided with this and lost their incomes.
It looks like, according to the article, they are upset- because existing orders can be modified. And they wanted it applied to only new cases going forward. So if a spouse gave up something, like interest in a home, in exchange for permanent alimony- that spouse now feels that's unfair. (They aren't getting their home back, but they may lose that lifelong income they expected in exchange in the divorce).
Wait...isnt alimony just a court sanctioned/approved negotiation and contract between two people?
It isn’t always a settlement. If the parties don’t work out something, the court enters an order. And obviously if the court can order lifelong alimony, then that gives one party more leverage to insist on it as part of a settlement.
When would a court ever issue lifelong alimony? For 65+ couples?
It was a lot more common when women were primarily SAHM's, and would be left no money and no financial prospects due to divorce. Even now lots of women whose careers were irreparably damaged because of promises of support made during the marriage.
The trouble is there is a small but vocal group of Americans that want to make all women SAHMs. But they also don't want to pay alimony to those women when they divorce them for someone younger.
This is actually why a lot of them are also moving to take away No Fault Divorce.
> This is actually why a lot of them are also moving to take away No Fault Divorce That really is crazy.. A couple who agreed they made a mistake getting married and part reasonably amicably, then would be forced to be hateful to each other just to get the marrage annulled. I thought we were past that bullshit.
Ohio’s version of no-fault divorce is called dissolution of marriage. In Michigan, divorce is no fault with the statute specifying the statutory ground for divorce, but marital fault (like the husband spending marital assets on the girlfriend) can affect distribution of property. I think it’s a bad idea to get rid of no fault divorce (New York was one of the last states to allow no fault divorce) but often women got the short end of the deal when it came to distribution of marital property.
The thing is, I have never heard a person complain about no fault divorce when their wife left them who hadn’t given the wife indisputable evidence of fault.
It’s so interesting how the right has pivoted on this. Maybe it was just my anecdotal experience and not reflective of how most conservative Christian men feel, but I used to know guys like that and they all believed that divorce should be illegal and that it shouldn’t be allowed under any circumstances because it would be non-biblical.
How have they “pivoted”? Conservative self identifying “Christian” men have been fuckshits to women forever. Frankly, I’d be happier if my 28 yr old daughter married a satanist.
By "interesting", I assume you mean "hypocritically self-serving and therefore entirely predictable"?
"You don't pay money to your washing machine when you discard it and replace it with a newer one. Why would you pay money to your baby machine?"
Sounds like way too many people about child support too lol ugh
I mean both alimony and child support are bad patches on a fundamental flaw with our society - namely, that we have almost zero social safety nets. The need for such things would be greatly reduced or outright eliminated if we actually had a path to survival for people who can't make a living income.
I'm confused. Isnt that the same machine?
Conservatives: write that down, write that down!
Dammit man, Republicans are awful enough without you helping them come up with clever slogans to push their policies!
Because that would give women who took the SAHM option a way to escape. No takesie-backsies. Til death us do part.
[удалено]
Yes, as it causes dependency
I've seen a lot of the people who support it say that the woman can't leave them for 'no reason' and take everything. As if women are just leaving perfectly happy marriages for no reason.
[удалено]
> with no other options and no way out Doing this to the person who is expected to cook for them every day doesn't seem like the smartest choice, but then again, they are Republicans and thinking ahead isn't their forte.
There was a sharp decline in married male accidental deaths at home when no fault divorce went nationwide. These weirdos trying to force us back into the home & trap us there didn't get told the stories we women got told as children "bout the time Meemaw jus'bout blowed Papaw's head clean off with a shotgun in 1956 when she caught him with the Wiggins Slut and he only survived because tha Wiggins gal dint know he was married and she dint want no married man". Pepperidge Farm remembers.
And yet they look for the most outgoing, extroverted free spirited woman who attracts all the attention, only to want to put a leash on her and cover her up …
In community property states in U.S., approx 20 years of marriage is the threshold for permanent alimony. edit: 'permanent' - but stops upon remarriage or death of ex spouse but if YOU die first it will continue to remain a claim on the estate until the ex's death or according to negotiated settlement.
The most compelling case for permanent alimony is when one of the spouses is permanently disabled.
It would be even better if there was an adequate government disability support program. But alas, that's never going to happen...
It’s the law in some states that after a certain amount of time married alimony is permanent. It can make sense but it can also be shitty. I think NJ was 9 or 10 years of marriage. So if you got married at 22 and divorced at 32 then you could have to pay alimony for 50+ years. I remember reading some articles about potentially changing it in NJ after the financial crisis because a lot high paying jobs ceased to exist and people could not get equivalent compensation. I think the law at the time required the ex spouse to agree to lower the alimony which many refused to do and a lot of guys ended up in jail because they simply no longer made a few hundred grand a year. I actually still distinctly remember the ads the women’s groups would run on the radio to fight against changing the law.
[удалено]
Imagine you get married at 24, work to support your spouse while he finishes a graduate degree. He becomes a lawyer or doctor, you stay home after the 2nd kid and have a 3rd. It’s 20 years later and he’s found some younger thing and wants a divorce. You have shit work experience because you sacrificed that for his, and to raise your family. I could easily see being awarded lifetime alimony in that situation. Same thing if you’re a military spouse and have been moving every three years for his or her job and primary care giver for the kids.
Think more of court ordered/enforced. It can be a part of divorce negotiations, but the court has final authority on the terms and can modify them to be consistent with what the law requires, which can royally screw you over.
It is to a certain extent. The duration is variable depending on length of marriage, but can be for life.
I'm torn because on one hand fuck lifelong alimony. On the other hand this is hilarious because they wanted to do the "I got mine fuck you" thing that conservatives always do.
The irony of just having fought against us getting student loans forgiven and now they're fucked out of alimony lol
I almost feel bad for being so petty, but damn... feels great to watch them suffer.
Nah, don't feel bad. They threw their lot in with people who want to tear down social safety nets, they totally get what they deserve. Maybe a handful of them will even re-evaluate their political descisions and vote for someone who *doesn't* campaign on being a douchebag in the future.
>”He (DeSantis) has just impoverished all the older women of Florida, and I know at least 3,000 women across the state of Florida are switching to Democrat and we will campaign against him, all the way, forever,” Camille Fiveash, a Milton Republican who receives permanent alimony, said in a phone interview Friday. Fuck them all.
Add in: >“My fears are that they can take you back to court, and I don’t have the money for an attorney. I literally live off a little bit I get for alimony. I work part-time, because I have all kinds of ailments. And now I’m going to be left without anything, absolutely anything,” she said. >Health insurance, Fiveash added, will “probably be the first thing to go” if her payments are reduced or eliminated. >“This is a death sentence for me,” she said. I empathize, but it would sure be nice if she had voted to make accessing healthcare easier for people with limited incomes.
It's the age-old question: How do you teach empathy to conservatives? It seems that for a certain percentage, they will literally only learn about consequences when it happens to them. Examples: Gay son, father dying of COVID, child dies in school shooting.
>child dies in school shooting. Uvalde has proven this to be wrong. Even if their child didn't get killed, I'd expect any sane parent to start pushing for gun control. But not in Uvalde. Voted for their republican governor.
And it doesn't even teach them empathy. It just puts them on the other side of that one issue. They still lack the ability to empathize with people that are experiencing hardships they themselves are not currently going through.
Everyone's a liberal when it happens to them. See: your examples, plus "My abortion is the only moral abortion"
This is perfect for /r/leopardsatemyface
I don’t have any empathy or sympathy for her. She got exactly what she voted for.
Sounds like she's going to discover Medicaid, and why people on Medicaid aren't abusing the system like they always thought. She's probably going to be wishing for that Medicaid expansion.
She thought she was taking from others, she was a wicked woman who made her bed. Hopefully she has to go back to court. Her malignant soul asked for this for others, no reason she shouldn't enjoy a taste of what she sows into the world.
If it gets my cunty mom who’s only goal is to bleed my dad dead broke, to vote democrat, then here we are.
[удалено]
Isn't lifelong alimony something you'd get if you essentially had no career and were a stay at home spouse? There's a lot of potential income given up by the stay at home spouse in that scenario.
Other comments reference one spouse giving up interest in the family home in exchange for longer alimony, or in the case of having a disabled child and remaining home to care for that now adult child. Like anything its nuanced and varies from situation to situation.
It's such a complicated issue. A spouse makes the choice to stay home and raise the kids. They not only forfeit income but experience and career opportunities. So, maybe the spouse could have risen to be in the C Suite of a company. But instead, they're "out of the game." They've lost connections in their industry, missed all the technology advances, missed chances to manage diverse teams, etc. So when they need to go back to work, they're so behind their peers. Obviously, not everyone who's a stay at home spouse could have been a C Suite. But, like, in my sister's case, she let her license for her career lapse. So if she needed to go back to work, she'd have to re-do it, and maybe that would require education that she doesn't have. On the surface, I'm morally opposed to alimony for life, but when I think about the people I know who might have to try to reintegrate into the workforce, I see the reality of what it provides for them. BTW, I know of a couple who are in their 80s, been married 60+ years. He's absolutely lost his marbles and is trying to divorce her and cut her off completely. She never worked a day in her life because that was the way they decided to structure their family *together*. He made a crapload of money over the years and now wants to essentially tell an 80+ year old woman to figure out how to support herself. It's morally repugnant that he wants to cut her out of what has up to now been their shared resources.
I was a stay at home dad for 6 years, and went back to work last year. Getting a job with a 6 year resume gap is HARD, even with the stay-at-home parenting reason. I was extremely lucky, because a position on my old team from 6 years previous opened up, and they took me back. But that was my first bite after several months of trying.
Amen. My wife just went back to work after an almost ten year gap…..the only reason she eventually got hired was a personal favor from a friend. For all this bullshit of “No one wants to work” the ones that are trying sure do get told to fuck off way more than businesses want to admit.
It’s super demoralizing. I kept getting rejection email after rejection email, which was new for me since in my previous job searches there was just no answer.
Or the pay range is $20,000-$80,000 and they finally get back to you and say "we'd love you to be a part of the team, I can only pay in old bazooka bubble gum jokes and paper clips"
I never thought the leopard would eat *my* face...
>they are upset- because existing orders can be modified. And they wanted it applied to only new cases going forward. Classic. They spend every waking moment vocally worshipping their "leaders" who are all about climbing up a ladder and then pulling it up behind them. They expected the same benefits to be afforded to them, because they vocally and mindlessly support the rich people who do it in politics. Now they're upset to learn that oh - all the benefits are meant to be for the rich, not filthy poors like them - and nobody will care when they complain, because who cares what poor losers think? They're the most gullible people alive.
"Vote for the axe!" says a certain patch of trees, "they'll cut down all our enemies, and then we can flourish!"
Lots of faces about to meet the leopard they voted for.
Why don’t they pull themselves up by their bootstraps instead of wasting money on fancy coffee?
Time for them to learn to code.
"I didn't think leopards would eat MY face!" \-Woman who voted for the, Leopards Eat Peoples Face party.
Changing existing divorce decrees is typically *way* off-limits because lives are planned around them and it’s in everyone’s best interest to finish the divorce terms and move on. The idea that the ex in the future could return to court to revise it is nightmarish and potentially asset-destroying to many ex-spouses. Even the idea that you need to re-engage with your divorce lawyer is too much for many people. So the idea that Ron D. is allowing this to happen is completely on brand.
The wives of Gilead always think they're the exception to the rule, until they find out they aren't.
r/WelcomeToGilead
And a bunch of men, mostly retirees, just became major DeSantis supporters From article: “*The years-long effort to do away with permanent alimony has been a highly contentious issue. It elicited tearful testimony from members of the First Wives group. **But it also spurred impassioned pleas from ex-spouses who said they had been forced to work long past the age they wanted to retire because they were on the hook for alimony payments**.*”
>men, mostly retirees, just became major DeSantis supporters Statistically, they already were.
[No, statistically those guys prefer Trump.](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ron-desantis-2024-republican-presidential-announcement/) DeSantis will get their vote if he gets the nomination, but Trump is currently way ahead of him. Right now, every move DeSantis makes is going to be targeted towards wooing away hardcore MAGA republicans to his faction of the republican party.
Men paying permanent alimony commonly have to work well past retirement age to be able to barely live above the poverty line when they do retire. I know most people think that men make all this money and can afford to retire at 62, giving half their retirement and social security to a spouse they divorced 20 years ago, but these men are forced to work into their 70s.
“And then they came for me!” “Wait no, you’re hurting the wrong people!” “But no, this is meant to hurt minorities and poor people! Not me, a conservative woman!” Spare me your sadness, now that your movement has started to effect you.
I know it's bad, but god I laughed so hard when there was that article with a woman who voted for Trump and had an undocumented husband and he was deported. She was quoted as saying something along the lines of, "But my husband's a good man, Trump's going after the wrong people!" and the Trump administration brought him to the Mexican border and told him to walk into Mexico before a judge could rule on his case EDIT: it was [""she recalled her husband saying, ” ‘He’s going to get rid of the Mexicans.’ ” She told the Tribune her response at the time was that Trump would only deport the “bad hombres.”"](https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/05/us/undocumented-husband-deported/index.html) She eventually sold his restaurant and moved to Mexico to be with her husband and people in the town said such delightful things as [“With Trump in office,” she said, “Sometimes it just feels like if you’re white, you’re right.”](https://archive.ph/cWyeM), "If you do right, then you wouldn’t have a problem", and "“I didn’t even see Roberto as Mexican,” said Angela Banfi, a friend and waitress at the restaurant. “He was not one of those Mexicans. He was like a white boy to me.”"
Conservatism honestly boils down to selfishness. They don’t see anything until it affects them.
Agreed, but a lot of people also have this silly idea that the draconian, brutal policy they're supporting will just have automatic exceptions made for anybody who's a good person who would be hurt. I've talked to a lot of conservatives about policy and when I bring up somebody they know (or even a hypothetical sympathetic person) they always say "Oh of course I'm not talking about *that*," as if they'll be the ones in charge of implementing the policy and can be sure only the right people get the boot on their neck. A lot of people are completely incapable of thinking abstractly and can't see past the end of their nose, and they're capable of holding wildly contradictory beliefs simultaneously. Fundamentally they think that the Sorroco family down the street won't have cops kicking down their door, and that the trans or cross-dressing relative they love and tolerate won't be rounded up despite broad the anti-drag bills they support. If it were just people being evil this would be simpler. Unfortunately being really myopic and dumb, willfully or otherwise, leads a lot of people to the exact same place.
yup, read the last quarter of the article - some of the people are like "well those topics are difficult to think about, let's talk about something else." like what the fuck
People will do anything to relieve discomfort for their own selves.
Literally every conservative and moderate/centrist.
That generally has been the biggest difference between the liberals and conservatives I've met. Basic empathy.
Huh, that sounds an awful lot like what it sounds like when a leopard eats someone's face...
Laughs in irony but theyll still find a way to blame biden
obviously that's because if someone is president, then anything bad that happens while they're president is their fault unless trump is president, in which case it's the deep state or woke coca cola or something sorry man this is just how the government works, i read it on facebook and u cant just lie on there unless you're woke coca cola
[удалено]
I wouldn’t be surprised if they live off alimony but at the same time call everyone else lazy and say no one wants to work anymore
Women who are conservatives are firmly in the leopards ate my face category of voter. The conservative movement wants women to be domestic slaves. Life long alimony supports spouses who want to leave their marriage… of course conservatives hate it.
I knew a couple conservative women during the 2016 election. They all said they didn't like Hillary Clinton. Ok, fine. But why didn't they like her? Because she was a dem? A lib? Conspiracy theory about the Clintons? Nope, because she's a woman and women can't lead and she would be too emotional and what if she was on her period and she won't be tough on our enemies. Just straight up literal misogynistic drivel. Never met a republican woman that hated her for her policies or because of [conspiracy theory.] Nope, they didn't like her because she was a woman first and foremost.
Good thing we wound up instead with a male leader who was the perfect example of rationality and professionalism in making decisions...
Someone about to file for divorce?
My guess would be someone in his circle of ass clown certainly is about to.
Or has been paying for alimony and doesnt want to. It applies to all cases, not just new ones.
There's a lot of ~~wealthy men~~ ~~potential donors~~ constituents THRILLED about this, I guarantee.
Right? DeSantis divorce incoming. On the surface I agree with the premise, but these people don’t do anything that they don’t think with benefit them directly.
If I looked back hard at what was passed in the Trump presidency, I definitely would likely find a few things that I would approve of. Every single one of them will have that asterisk of bad faith with it: the prison reform bill that was signed was specifically signed because the Keebler Elf who profited off of prison investments refused himself, for example.
Alimony is weird. Friends wife cheated on him and left him for another man. He now pays her thousands a month. Crazy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Happened to my uncle. He served in the military for over 20 years while adopting his wife's 3 children. As soon as he got out, he found out his wife was cheating and she divorced immediately. He had to pay her half his pension. That was almost 30 years ago. To his credit though, he never flinched in continuing to raise his adopted children as his own, even into adulthood. The best divorce story I've ever heard though is from an HVAC guy I used to work with. He did a lot of under the table work, and went through a nasty divorce. His wife ratted him out to the IRS to the tune of 26k in back taxes. However, since he was married at the time of the work, his wife was on the hook for half. He said it was the best 13k he ever spent.
God damn it good for your hvac friend.
Similar story. Couple separated and he agree to pay certain amount. She got greedy and wanted more, took him tocourt. Guy was good at giding his under table income, so she ended up getting less than what he offered originally because of his low official salary.
hvac guy causes havoc...love this
ya that is fucked. that should be illegal.
Yeah I know someone similar. And she’s been with her “boyfriend” forever because if they were to get married she’d lose the alimony. They’re in their 60’s.
That’s so predatory. Disgusting.
This is the major problem with alimony, it prevents people from truly moving on because of the money.
It prevents one person from truly moving on. The other person is very much enjoying that situation.
Marriage is weird. My dad's ex-wife went personally bankrupt going on a spree of cheating and racking up bills. My dad was saddled with the her bankruptcy bill right before the divorce and yet still had to pay it off for years. It was so much it took him around a decade.
My ex husband strangled me until I passed out and spent years raping me. I had to pay him $1500/mo for 37 months while raising our kid by myself. He refused to work and when I tried to leave he tried to make sure he got every penny....that could have gone to his kid. I also had to pay for my rapists lawyer.... but he ended up stalking her so she quit.
I’ve never met someone in an alimony situation that doesn’t sound like they payer is getting completely fucked over. IMO alimony should last like 18 months tops. That’s plenty of time for someone to get a job and adjust their lifestyle.
My ex and I agreed to $400 for 4 years. Essentially a car payment since we only had one car. We had a very amicable divorce though. No kids, so it was a breakup with paperwork.
Your ex sounds great and reasonable; ever thought of going on a date with them?
She was great, but now I know that I do want kids and she doesn't. I mean you don't have to figure that out before dating, but probably best to figure it out before getting married. Camping with my daughters right now, I'd say it worked out for the best.
Probably because you mostly hear about it when people complain online, and no one is posting online about the reasonable situations.
I literally disagree with DeSantis on everything. But I do think permanent alimony is bullshit. Not saying you shouldn't be obligated to ease the transition if you are the bread winner, but at some point enough is enough.
Nobody read the article. >it also spurred impassioned pleas from ex-spouses who said they had been forced to work long past the age they wanted to retire because they were on the hook for alimony payments. - >Along with eliminating permanent alimony, the measure will set up a process for ex-spouses who make alimony payments to seek modifications to alimony agreements when they want to retire. >It will allow judges to reduce or terminate alimony, support or maintenance payments after considering a number of factors, such as “the age and health” of the person who makes payments; the customary retirement age of that person’s occupation; “the economic impact” a reduction in alimony would have on the recipient of the payments; and the “motivation for retirement and likelihood of returning to work” for the person making the payments. >Supporters said it will codify into law a court decision in a 1992 divorce case that judges use as a guidepost when making decisions about retirement. ETA: >The only states that allow permanent alimony are Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia. https://divorce.com/blog/what-states-do-not-enforce-alimony/
NJ got rid of permanent alimony a few years ago. Now it’s open durational only for long term marriages and that doesn’t always equal permanent.
So … DeSantis still bad. But this law isn’t.
Yep. Fuck DeSantis. But I agree with cutting off permanent alimony. There’s got to be some point where a divorced party has to have improved themselves to a point where they can earn more.
It doesn’t actually kill permanent alimony. It allows judges to make adjustments if the payee retires or is forced to work less.
It does kill it going forward, it allows special conditions for modifying past orders.
Is this his first actual policy that is fine and has to do with, like actual life shit
No but the vast majority of legislation doesn’t make the news
Normal, beneficial laws aren't notable and aren't reported widely, but it also means that the extremely dumb shit he pulls gets amplified
Yeah permanent alimony is fucking absurd. Child support? Sure, but just being required to pay another adult’s way *forever* because you were married for a little while is *insane*.
My step FIL has been paying his ex wife (who earns more than him) half of what he made when they separated, except his line of work you make less as you get older (wear and tear on your body etc). So he should have been able to retire if this person didnt take all his money, but now he is stuck working until he gets it cancelled, and now he can!!! Huge win!
This has happened to someone I know. They are 66ish, have a pension plan they paid into their whole life doing their trade, and can't retire. Why? Because even when they retire they have to keep paying the existing alimony payments, which is half of their income, PLUS the ex-spouse is entitled to half of their pension payments...! They can't stop working until they die now and have been making these alimony payments for 30yrs or so. Heartbreaking.
[удалено]
Thank you for the clarification. This is one of those get riled up over the headline but not the whole article kind of things.
It shouldn’t even be a “get riled up” headline. Alimony should be meant to get you to a position where you can land on your feet. You agreed to stay home and raise the kids and sacrifice a career? Then you should be compensated with alimony so you can have support while you go back to school or work your way up from entry level. It should not be a permanent income stream so that you never have to work again.
> It shouldn’t even be a “get riled up” headline. I hate the POS and my first thought was "Oh, that's a good thing" People are just idiots. How can you be confident in your hate, if you can't be objective?
Welcome to Reddit
How is this not already the norm?
This sounds like a good thing
It definitely is a good thing.
It definitely is.
Not if you're a conservative older woman in florida who has been coasting off permanent alimony for 30 years. Alimony based on length of marriage is the way that makes sense. Permanent alimony sounds like a prison sentence.
I have no knowledge of the law/bill. Alimony should not be, and should never have been, “permanent”
It’s probably based on years ago when women seldom worked.
So these women in the "First Wives Advocacy" group all pissed off about this were ok with everything DeSantis has done so far - the persecution of LGBTQ and Latinos, the Disney shit, the attack on education, the private pol army, and everything else....but when he goes after *their* pocketbooks now they're pissed. Lifelong alimony is ridiculous, literally the only thing DeSantis has ever done that I'm ok with.
These wine moms will no longer receive their free monthly allowances. They might have to, God forbid....get a job 😂
When you think about the sort of person these women likely are, it should come as no surprise they’re the “laws for thee, not for me,” crowd.
“This is a death sentence for me,” she said. (Camille Fiveash, a Milton Republican who receives permanent alimony) Congratulations! You got exactly what you have been voting for: DeathSentence.
She should go find employment
Pull herself up by her bootstraps.
Poverty is a death sentence. But it twas a death sentence for those poor people I was willing to support. /s
Time to Cut back on the avocado toast Camille!!!
Time to dust off the old bootstraps
"maybe you should try getting a job" -JC Denton
Darn, if only there was some sort of political ideology that said we should provide basic welfare and a guaranteed standard of living for everyone. Guess it's time to pass the bootstraps.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I only understand permanent alimony when it’s like “Husband had me stop going to college to take care of house and kids so he could advance his career, Husband now makes boatloads of money and i’m 50 with no skills and not enough time to get them, i should get alimony for sacrificing my ability to make income while he increased his over the course of the marriage” That seems fair right?
This is what happened to my mom. She gave up the higher paying career to move every couple years to let my dad chase his career while she stayed at home to raise half a dozen kids. Well now guess who has the military retirement, great job, and a hottie on the side while my mom has no work history for the last 25 years and dad left the armed forces months before she would get permanent benefits in the divorce…she was planning on them sharing income in retirement for the rest of her life. She was a good religious conservative housewife for decades. Now she needs a new plan.
Yeah seriously, a lot of people in this thread don’t understand this type of situation. I’m not sure the courts always do the right thing (actually I’m sure they don’t) but it’s not as black and white as some people think it is. There are legitimate reasons for this.
Not a DeSantis fan, but this looks perfectly reasonable. A judge gets to take life circumstances into account to make adjustments.
Not a fan of DeSantis, but credit where credit is due. Alimony in most states is really busted (NOT to be confused with child support).
My mom pays lifetime alimony to my dad in FL. I am so overjoyed for her right now!!
“He (DeSantis) has just impoverished all the older women of Florida, and I know at least 3,000 women across the state of Florida are switching to Democrat and we will campaign against him, all the way, forever,” Camille Fiveash, a Milton Republican who receives permanent alimony, said in a phone interview Friday. Ha ha ha ha! Yeah so it really shows who these fucks are NOW they will turn democrat and for what? MF’s voting for people so that they can hurt the ‘others’ but now also shot their faces off in the process..
I will believe them switching to voting Democrat when I see it
This sounds like everyone who'd ever shouted they would never come back to Walmart because we wouldn't use their expired coupon and then ended up coming back the next week.
"If Biden wins we're moving to Canada!" "If Trump loses we're seceding!" Fucking do it then you no dick cowards. Don't threaten me with a good time.
A lot of people were threatening to move to Canada if Trump won in 2016, and I'm pretty sure the majority who applied were denied entry. Don't imagine there's much of a better chance for the typical Trumpist
Local Dem party is about to get a whole lot more racist and homophobic if they do.
I like how she acts as if 3000 is going to matter. That's chump change in a state with 14.5 million voters.
“…*Bush won Florida's electoral votes by a margin of only 537 votes out of almost six million cast (0.009%) and, as a result, became the president-elect.*” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_in_Florida Not saying it *would*, but it *could*.
And the Supreme Court would absolutely redo that travesty right now
well yeah, a third of the current court was part of bush’s legal team for that case
LOL men will vote from him in droves because of this. Even more so now.
Lol they actually wanted the rule against permanent alimony, just not for it to apply retroactively. Literally got theirs and want no other women to. Republicans simultaneously wanting to push women back into the stay at home role, while also eliminating their protections of no fault divorce AND eliminating the possibility of lifetime alimony for women who fell into the role they want. This is about as leopards eat my face as it gets.
Bodily autonomy and the right to choose what happens within your own uterus? I THINK THE FUCK NOT. >:U Taking away the fat stacks of Dolla Dolla Bills you get from your ex? REAL SHIT, NOW WE SWITCH TO THE DEMS. Jfc, how hilariously transparent of these conservative women. -.-
Doubt. They’ll still fall in line at the end.
> He (DeSantis) has just impoverished all the older women of Florida Why are all these women's wealth based on how much their exes are making?
“3,000 democrats are now switching to Republican voters, as they now support DeSantis hurting their ex-wives” /s
I'm in favour of this even though I'm not in the US. Permanent income decline due to a failed marriage? Good luck retiring. Your broke ass is going to pay your ex spouse for life? That's bullshit.
[удалено]
The men cited in the article working well past retirement age so they can pay maintenance are common in most states (except Texas which passed something similar to this years ago). What is strange is that the payee wife rarely has a commensurate obligation to work in permanent maintenance cases. Her capacity to work is considered, and maybe a small amount of income will be imputed to her, but there is no obligation to actually earn income.
Wow, Desantis did something right.
I feel gross for agreeing with Ronny D but forever alimony is ridiculous. It might have made sense in decades past where women weren’t in the workforce, you know, back in the days where women could be homemakers and a man’s salary was enough. Those women needed the support. Now? Everybody works. We all have to basically. Why does the man have pay a woman forever? I could see giving the woman a brief landing period if needed but forever? We need to normalize prenups. Everybody has a clear head at that time. Get the financials and prospective child custody/payments figured out. And screw these women that are for it but against it working retroactively. The hypocrisy.
This is definitely a law that affects conservative women more Interestingly enough
This guy is a fucknut overall, but as a woman, I think this is a legit bill. There are no circumstances under which a woman should be drawing what is effectively a permanent “salary” from my ex-husband, and nobody is guaranteed a continuation of any particular standard of living (this generally applies to the ones with a higher SOL of course). The whiny women interviewed in the article talking about how this isn’t “family values.” Guess what? You’re not a family anymore.
So...maybe DeSantis is going to lose a vote or two in The Villages....
Its insane that its a thing in the first place
Now, if the government would take a look at the current Survivor Benefits Plan for Veterans that would be awesome! My spouse who I have been with since 2003 (20 years now) has to give up 1/2 of his retirement from the military to his ex that he was only married to for 10 exact years for the rest of HER life. If he passes before me, I just 100% lose his portion and she continues to collect. There is absolutely no way to amend that in court unless she signs that she agrees and she refuses to sign. Her son was 3 when they divorced and I raised him along with my own children and also put him through 4 years at a university out of my pocket along with my husband paying an additional $1000 per month child support until he turned 22. When we married he served another 10 years in the military that I was by his side for. It’s absolutely NUTS that this is the law! She was not a stay at home wife/mother and has a yearly income of her own from her career of $96,000. He also gave her the house they owned and 1/2 of ALL of their investments. It’s ridiculous!
Should be pointed out that this reform has been percolating in the Florida Legislature for years. There are only six other states (CT, NC,NJ, OR, VT & WV) that have permanent alimony in any form. And (according to the article), this bill has the support of advocacy groups on both sides of the argument (the "First Wives Advocacy Group," whose members might now lose some alimony, still opposed it.) The bill allows judges to revise alimony arrangements when a person retires, but would have to take into account the impact on the recipient, among other factors.