The comments to Mr. Sensitive’s recent “Reese Witherspoon Rules” post caused me to think about the power balance in a marriage. If a marriage becomes sufficiently unpleasant to either person, that person can file for divorce. The problem occurs when the law makes divorce more advantageous for one person.
This varies from state to state, because divorce law is a function of state law. It also varies to some extent even from county to county in the same state. I am reliably informed that it varies quite a bit even within the same county, depending on which judge is assigned to hear the case. But there are lots of state statutes that try to impose some uniformity in how such things as alimony and property settlements are dealt with.
Here is one such statute, from California. Alimony should be based on:
“The extent to which the earning capacity of each party is sufficient to maintain the standard of living established during the marriage…
… The needs of each party based on the standard of living established during the marriage.”
The link below indicates this is from Cal. Family Code, Sec. 4320. (I haven’t independently checked this).
This statute is frightening for the spouse who earns more money. And even more frightening for the husband who worked to allow his wife to stay at home while the children were very young. It seems to obligate the husband to keep his ex-wife up in the style to which she became accustomed during the marriage (this is usually, although not always, the husband; for a rare exception see the Joan Lunden divorce, in which she was forced to pay millions in alimony to her layabout ex-husband).
That’s an astounding bit of social engineering. It’s one thing for a husband to decide to work hard so that his wife can stay home for a few years with the couple’s small children. But it’s far different for a court to later penalize him for this by ordering him to keep supporting his ex-wife.
As a stand-up comic once joked, “The court ordered me to pay my ex-wife alimony to keep her living in the style to which I had accustomed her. But I don’t get to go over to her house to get sex on the grounds that I had gotten used to regular sex during the marriage.”
I want to direct one more comment to guys who may be considering marriage. Almost every one of you thinks you and your future wife won’t get divorced, and if you did then she wouldn’t be a vile, money-grubber who tried to extract every dime that her lawyer could get a judge to take. Do yourself a favor. Take a look at the post linked to below. It’s from a divorce bulletin board. The woman who posted was married for four and a half years. His income was $45,000/year and hers was $38,000. She wanted alimony. And she wanted the court to base it not on this guy’s income, but on the $85,000 he had earned a year or two before.
If a court ordered alimony based on an $85,000 income when the guy currently made only $45,000, it would impoverish him. And this does happen in divorce courts. It’s called “imputed income.” The guy doesn’t have to pay a percentage of his actual income, but a percentage of the higher income that he once made, or that a judge thinks he could have the potential to make.
Because the law hugely resdistributes income from the husband to the wife, it makes it more appealing for the wife to get a divorce. This transfers power in the marriage from the husband to the wife. That’s one of the reasons the poor guys just have to take whatever abuse their wives dole out.