Woman must stay in unhappy marriage, judges rule, as they urge Parliament to change divorce law

First topic message reminder :

Supreme Court judges have "reluctantly" forced a woman to stay in an unhappy marriage as they urged Parliament to change the law on divorce.

The unanimous decision by five senior judges means Tini Owens, 68, must remain married to husband Hugh, 80, until at least 2020 because she has been unable to show sufficiently good grounds for the proposed split.

Judges said the case "generates uneasy feelings" and suggested that the current system, in which partners must demonstrate bad behaviour by their spouse, was out of date.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/25/woman-must-stay-unhappy-marriage-judges-rule-urge-parliament/

Beggars belief

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why bother having marriage at all then? Two people who want a divorce can get one - if they agree they both want to be divorced, or they can get one if the other has broken a rule of some kind .

There's a lot of people who ask that.  Truth is, even with marriage, some 50% of all unions result in break ups.

A large segment of the population today feels that marriage is necessary only for the children...to give them a stable family institution from which to rise, and such.  But, whatever...there is no longer any logical reason for restrictions or exemptions to getting a divorce.  It has solely to do with personal status, and it's nobody's business but the person him or herself.

You have not engaged the real issue here mate and you should know more than best legally

How such laws, enable some lawyers, to bleed couples dry of money and where even worse. Such a rulling will now have couples invent claims against each other. As they simple cannot seperate.

Such a rulling, is a money spinner for the unethical lawyers out there.

Now they will push divorce couples to make up crap about each other, just so they have their day in court

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They can have a relationship without being married you know. If they're not prepared to adhere to the legal rules, they shouldn't get married.

We're not talking about it being binding for life, we're talking about her having to wait another couple of years before she can get a divorce. If she had proved that he behaved unreasonably, she could have had a divorce earlier, but her complaints were all petty.

So your view is they must adhere to backward rules and that they should apply to them

Do you apply this thinking to women stonned to death for adultery, through rules and laws in certain countries?

I am asking you a simple question on divorce which you keep avoiding

Do you think, there is reasons, why a divorce can happen?

Then why should she wait for a couple of years?

How is it petty, when she no longer loves him?

Again you are forcing your views, that she should stay married, when she does not want to.

They're not backward rules at all. You keep introducing irrelevant issues like stoning.

The examples she gave of his "unreasonable behaviour" were petty, which is why the judges wouldn't allow the divorce. Did you actually read about the case?

My bet is that she asked him for a divorce on the grounds of two-years separation, and he refused, so she decided to go down the route of unreasonable behaviour instead of waiting for five years, and it backfired on her.

I'm agreeing with the judges, and I'm in agreement with the law - It's not me forcing my views on anyone.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why bother having marriage at all then? Two people who want a divorce can get one - if they agree they both want to be divorced, or they can get one if the other has broken a rule of some kind .

There's a lot of people who ask that.  Truth is, even with marriage, some 50% of all unions result in break ups.

A large segment of the population today feels that marriage is necessary only for the children...to give them a stable family institution from which to rise, and such.  But, whatever...there is no longer any logical reason for restrictions or exemptions to getting a divorce.  It has solely to do with personal status, and it's nobody's business but the person him or herself.

Why does marriage give children a stable family institution? Because it's harder to get divorced than it is to merely walk out on someone you're living with. If you make it very easy to get a divorce, that stability will no longer apply.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

To get back to the subject, I am rather amazed that, what with all the advances in domestic law worldwide over the past three decades, such punitive laws still exist in the UK.

Get with the program boys...no time for tea in the afternoon.

Because several far-reaching pecuniary and property issues are most likely to be involved...and she did, on her own admission, have an extramarital affair.

Messrs Sue, Grabbitt & Runne may always be relied upon to make the most of such peripheral matters.

Is it so different in the US?

Apparently, yes. I'm finding out here and now that the UK still has some vestiges of archaic, aristocratic, hold-over rules.

Messrs Dewey, Fookum & Howe are waiting over here for the papers to be served.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So your view is they must adhere to backward rules and that they should apply to them

Do you apply this thinking to women stonned to death for adultery, through rules and laws in certain countries?

I am asking you a simple question on divorce which you keep avoiding

Do you think, there is reasons, why a divorce can happen?

Then why should she wait for a couple of years?

How is it petty, when she no longer loves him?

Again you are forcing your views, that she should stay married, when she does not want to.

They're not backward rules at all. You keep introducing irrelevant issues like stoning.

The examples she gave of his "unreasonable behaviour" were petty, which is why the judges wouldn't allow the divorce. Did you actually read about the case?

My bet is that she asked him for a divorce on the grounds of two-years separation, and he refused, so she decided to go down the route of unreasonable behaviour instead of waiting for five years, and it backfired on her.

I'm agreeing with the judges, and I'm in agreement with the law - It's not me forcing my views on anyone.

How is it irrelevant when such laws exist?

many women are forced into marriage, normally as young 16 year old girls. Or worse even younger with men, 2 to 3 times their age. To where they then actually find love outside this with someone else. They cannot live their marriage and then if found out. Can face the death penalty

So this is all very connected

You seem to think marriage is binding for life

So it does not matter what reason anyone gives, if they want out

Are you saying to me, if your boss, made life unreasonable for you. That you then not want out?

So it should never matter what reason some asks for a divorce

If they want out, then the law should not stop this and have no right to do so.


The judges, if you read, think also the law should be changed

Doh

So you just agreed, that you are thus wrong

They had to apply the law, but the judges believe the law needs to be changed

Opps

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They're not backward rules at all. You keep introducing irrelevant issues like stoning.

The examples she gave of his "unreasonable behaviour" were petty, which is why the judges wouldn't allow the divorce. Did you actually read about the case?

My bet is that she asked him for a divorce on the grounds of two-years separation, and he refused, so she decided to go down the route of unreasonable behaviour instead of waiting for five years, and it backfired on her.

I'm agreeing with the judges, and I'm in agreement with the law - It's not me forcing my views on anyone.

How is it irrelevant when such laws exist?

many women are forced into marriage, normally as young 16 year old girls, with men in 2 to 3 times their age. To where they then actually find love. They cannot live their marriage and then if found out. Can face the death penalty

So this is all very connected

You seem to think marriage is binding for life

So it does not matter what reason anyone gives, if they want out

Are you saying to me, if your boss, made life unreasonable for you. That you then not want out?

So it should never matter what reason some asks for a divorce

If they want out, then the law should not stop this and have no right to do so.


The judges, if you read, think also the law should be changed

Doh

So you just agreed, that you are thus wrong

They had to apllty the law, but the judges believe the law needs to be changed

Opps

None of that is anything to do with this case. I didn't say that marriage should be binding for life, I said I agreed with the current law re divorce. I can't help what the judges think - I disagree with them.

I am pleased that the judges upheld the law rather than find some loophole or decide that having a loud voice is "unreasonable behaviour".

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


How is it irrelevant when such laws exist?

many women are forced into marriage, normally as young 16 year old girls, with men in 2 to 3 times their age. To where they then actually find love. They cannot live their marriage and then if found out. Can face the death penalty

So this is all very connected

You seem to think marriage is binding for life

So it does not matter what reason anyone gives, if they want out

Are you saying to me, if your boss, made life unreasonable for you. That you then not want out?

So it should never matter what reason some asks for a divorce

If they want out, then the law should not stop this and have no right to do so.


The judges, if you read, think also the law should be changed

Doh

So you just agreed, that you are thus wrong

They had to apllty the law, but the judges believe the law needs to be changed

Opps

None of that is anything to do with this case. I didn't say that marriage should be binding for life, I said I agreed with the current law re divorce. I can't help what the judges think - I disagree with them.

It has everything to do with how the same principle applies on people wanting to leave a marriage

The law should have no say on love or when people fall out of love. Only that people are protected finnacially, no matter the gender. 

So I am going to ask again

Do you think there is grounds for a divorce in many different circumstances, eg rape, domestic violence, child abuse etc?

Raggamuffin wrote:I am pleased that the judges upheld the law rather than find some loophole or decide that having a loud voice is "unreasonable behaviour".

I am sure you are, just as judges uphold the law in countries that stone women to death

You again want to force your beliefs onto others and force a person to remain married, to someone, they no longer love

So it has nothing to do with what you called behaviour.

All that matters, is that if someone wants out, then the law should never stand in their way to do so.

You believe the state should

That is barbaric and means you think people cannot decide who they love and want to be with. The state should decide to you

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

None of that is anything to do with this case. I didn't say that marriage should be binding for life, I said I agreed with the current law re divorce. I can't help what the judges think - I disagree with them.

It has everything to do with how the same principle applies on people wanting to leave a marriage

The law should have no say on love or when people fall out of love. Only that people are protected finnacially, no matter the gender. 

So I am going to ask again

Do you think there is grounds for a divorce in many different circumstances, eg rape, domestic violence, child abuse etc?

So you want people to use the law to get married, or to get a financial settlement on divorce, but have no say in the grounds for divorce then.

You don't seem to know the divorce laws. Any of those things would amount to unreasonable behaviour, in which case the person wanting a divorce wouldn't need to wait five years. This case is different.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I am pleased that the judges upheld the law rather than find some loophole or decide that having a loud voice is "unreasonable behaviour".

I am sure you are, just as judges uphold the law in countries that stone women to death

You again want to force your beliefs onto others and force a person to remain married, to someone, they no longer love

So it has nothing to do with what you called behaviour.

All that matters, is that if someone wants out, then the law should never stand in their way to do so.

You believe the state should

That is barbaric and means you think people cannot decide who they love and want to be with. The state should decide to you

It's not barbaric, it's just reminding people to take marriage seriously. You seem to be defending this woman when she's the one who had an affair.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


It has everything to do with how the same principle applies on people wanting to leave a marriage

The law should have no say on love or when people fall out of love. Only that people are protected finnacially, no matter the gender. 

So I am going to ask again

Do you think there is grounds for a divorce in many different circumstances, eg rape, domestic violence, child abuse etc?

So you want people to use the law to get married, or to get a financial settlement on divorce, but have no say in the grounds for divorce then.

You don't seem to know the divorce laws. Any of those things would amount to unreasonable behaviour, in which case the person wanting a divorce wouldn't need to wait five years. This case is different.

Cathy Newman alert

I have just argued people should be allowed to get divorced

That is then having their say.

If someone does not want to divorce, they are forcing their views, onto someone who does not want to remain married

So you favour the person that wants to force someone to remain unhappy

You do not even have to be married to get a finnacial settlement and rightly in law, thus moot argument

So now this is about the 8th time you have avoided

Do you think therte is grounds for divorce or that people should be forced together, until death do they part?

Who cares about unreasonable behaviour

She no longer loves him and forcing someone who does not love someone to remain married. Is comparable to forced marriages.

You want to challenge that principle Rags

Its 100% the same

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


I am sure you are, just as judges uphold the law in countries that stone women to death

You again want to force your beliefs onto others and force a person to remain married, to someone, they no longer love

So it has nothing to do with what you called behaviour.

All that matters, is that if someone wants out, then the law should never stand in their way to do so.

You believe the state should

That is barbaric and means you think people cannot decide who they love and want to be with. The state should decide to you

It's not barbaric, it's just reminding people to take marriage seriously. You seem to be defending this woman when she's the one who had an affair.

Its forced marriage, against the will of one party

Now either you back forced marriage or you are against forced marriage?

Take your time

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you want people to use the law to get married, or to get a financial settlement on divorce, but have no say in the grounds for divorce then.

You don't seem to know the divorce laws. Any of those things would amount to unreasonable behaviour, in which case the person wanting a divorce wouldn't need to wait five years. This case is different.

Cathy Newman alert

I have just argued people should be allowed to get divorced

That is then having their say.

If someone does not want to divorce, they are forcing their views, onto someone who does not want to remain married

So you favour the person that wants to force someone to remain unhappy

You do not even have to be married to get a finnacial settlement and rightly in law, thus moot argument

So now this is about the 8th time you have avoided

Do you think therte is grounds for divorce or that people should be forced together, until death do they part?

Who cares about unreasonable behaviour

She no longer loves him and forcing someone who does not love someone to remain married. Is comparable to forced marriages.

You want to challenge that principle Rags

Its 100% the same

There's no reason for this woman to be unhappy. It's not as if she's forced to actually live with her husband. Of course she can't get her share of the assets until the divorce, but she can go on with her life whilst still being married.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not barbaric, it's just reminding people to take marriage seriously. You seem to be defending this woman when she's the one who had an affair.

Its forced marriage, against the will of one party

Now either you back forced marriage or you are against forced marriage?

Take your time

Nobody forced her into marriage, she entered into it freely. If she didn't read the divorce rules before she got married, that's her own fault.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Cathy Newman alert

I have just argued people should be allowed to get divorced

That is then having their say.

If someone does not want to divorce, they are forcing their views, onto someone who does not want to remain married

So you favour the person that wants to force someone to remain unhappy

You do not even have to be married to get a finnacial settlement and rightly in law, thus moot argument

So now this is about the 8th time you have avoided

Do you think therte is grounds for divorce or that people should be forced together, until death do they part?

Who cares about unreasonable behaviour

She no longer loves him and forcing someone who does not love someone to remain married. Is comparable to forced marriages.

You want to challenge that principle Rags

Its 100% the same

There's no reason for this woman to be unhappy. It's not as if she's forced to actually live with her husband. Of course she can't get her share of the assets until the divorce, but she can go on with her life whilst still being married.

Really?

You say there is no reason and now you say like many family members also to people forced into marriage.The exact same thing

This shows to me, you have no understanding of love

It does not matter if she is forced to live or not, she is being forced to remain married, to someone she does not

That is the same as forced marriage which are country has laws actually against

So again, do you back forced marriage or are you against?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

There's a lot of people who ask that.  Truth is, even with marriage, some 50% of all unions result in break ups.

A large segment of the population today feels that marriage is necessary only for the children...to give them a stable family institution from which to rise, and such.  But, whatever...there is no longer any logical reason for restrictions or exemptions to getting a divorce.  It has solely to do with personal status, and it's nobody's business but the person him or herself.

Why does marriage give children a stable family institution? Because it's harder to get  divorced than it is to merely walk out on someone you're living with.

I don't know if there is any validity to the 'stable family marriage' idea. Many kids grow up just fine with a split family situation. And some people have no qualms about abandoning a marriage over a live-in situation. Legal fees are about the same.

Raggamuffin wrote:If you make it very easy to get a divorce, that stability will no longer apply.

While I still lament the societal loss or diminution of marriage as an institution, I find it a bit patronizing and insulting--indeed, authoritarian--for the government, church, or whomever, to pass down a judgment that grown, independent adults need external bars to the way they craft their own lifestyle. It's just not consistent with freedom. While it is a decision affecting more than one, each participant should have a veto, not just a decision, on the matter.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Its forced marriage, against the will of one party

Now either you back forced marriage or you are against forced marriage?

Take your time

Nobody forced her into marriage, she entered into it freely. If she didn't read the divorce rules before she got married, that's her own fault.

But they are forcing her to remain married

Same principle

The state has no right to deny her a divorce

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's no reason for this woman to be unhappy. It's not as if she's forced to actually live with her husband. Of course she can't get her share of the assets until the divorce, but she can go on with her life whilst still being married.

Really?

You say there is no reason and now you say like many family members also to people forced into marriage.The exact same thing

This shows to me, you have no understanding of love

It does not matter if she is forced to live or not, she is being forced to remain married, to someone she does not

That is the same as forced marriage which are country has laws actually against

So again, do you back forced marriage or are you against?

She doesn't have to be with him, she's just still legally married to him. She should get on with her life and just wait until she can divorce him without his permission. It's nothing like forced marriage.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nobody forced her into marriage, she entered into it freely. If she didn't read the divorce rules before she got married, that's her own fault.

But they are forcing her to remain married

Same principle

The state has no right to deny her a divorce

Yes it does - she hasn't any grounds for a divorce.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Really?

You say there is no reason and now you say like many family members also to people forced into marriage.The exact same thing

This shows to me, you have no understanding of love

It does not matter if she is forced to live or not, she is being forced to remain married, to someone she does not

That is the same as forced marriage which are country has laws actually against

So again, do you back forced marriage or are you against?

She doesn't have to be with him, she's just still legally married to him. She should get on with her life and just wait until she can divorce him without his permission. It's nothing like forced marriage.

Again, ignoing the elephant in the room

She does not want to continue being married

She is being forced to continued being married to him

Thus the state is foring her to remain married

Thus the state contradicts its own laws on forced marriage

So what you think she should do is irrelevant. Its about what she wants, not you

So its everything like forced marriage

I see again you keep avoiding my question

Do you think there is grtounds for divorce like with domestic violence and rape ect?

How many times are you going to avoid this?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


But they are forcing her to remain married

Same principle

The state has no right to deny her a divorce

Yes it does - she hasn't any grounds for a divorce.

Based on your beliefs?

She has every right to divorce, she no longer wants to be with him.

Thus you back forcing her to remain married

You back forced marriage

Hey ho

Still waiting for an answer

Do you think there is grtounds for divorce like with domestic violence and rape ect?

How many times are you going to avoid this?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She doesn't have to be with him, she's just still legally married to him. She should get on with her life and just wait until she can divorce him without his permission. It's nothing like forced marriage.

Again, ignoing the elephant in the room

She does not want to continue being married

She is being forced to continued being married to him

Thus the state is foring her to remain married

Thus the state contradicts its own laws on forced marriage

So what you think she should do is irrelevant. Its about what she wants, not you

So its everything like forced marriage

I see again you keep avoiding my question

Do you think there is grtounds for divorce like with domestic violence and rape ect?

How many times are you going to avoid this?

Red herring.

I've already addressed the issue of domestic violence and rape, but you clearly didn't read my post.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Again, ignoing the elephant in the room

She does not want to continue being married

She is being forced to continued being married to him

Thus the state is foring her to remain married

Thus the state contradicts its own laws on forced marriage

So what you think she should do is irrelevant. Its about what she wants, not you

So its everything like forced marriage

I see again you keep avoiding my question

Do you think there is grtounds for divorce like with domestic violence and rape ect?

How many times are you going to avoid this?

Red herring.

I've already addressed the issue of domestic violence and rape, but you clearly didn't read my post.

So you believe there is grounds for divorce, yes?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Red herring.

I've already addressed the issue of domestic violence and rape, but you clearly didn't read my post.

So you believe there is grounds for divorce, yes?

I told you I agreed with the divorce laws, which would include the grounds, so why are you asking me that?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

So you believe there is grounds for divorce, yes?

I told you I agreed with the divorce laws, which would include the grounds, so why are you asking me that?

So you agree that there is grounds for divorce

Thus how can you argue that one party should remain married, when they no longer love the other?

You are thus denying them the right to marry another, who they do love, based on backwards laws

Thus you back forced marriage

Simple really, as there need not be a reason why people want to divorce

She wants to and you should never have a say in that

Nor should the state

You are simple forcing your beliefs onto her

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I told you I agreed with the divorce laws, which would include the grounds, so why are you asking me that?

So you agree that there is grounds for divorce

Thus how can you argue that one party should remain married, when they no longer love the other?

You are thus denying them the right to marry another, who they do love, based on backwards laws

Thus you back forced marriage

Simple really, as there need not be a reason why people want to divorce

She wants to and you should never have a say in that

Nor should the state

You are simple forcing your beliefs onto her

Of course there are grounds for divorce - haven't you read them? Read up on them before you comment further.

You're simply repeating yourself now, and introducing irrelevant points.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So you agree that there is grounds for divorce

Thus how can you argue that one party should remain married, when they no longer love the other?

You are thus denying them the right to marry another, who they do love, based on backwards laws

Thus you back forced marriage

Simple really, as there need not be a reason why people want to divorce

She wants to and you should never have a say in that

Nor should the state

You are simple forcing your beliefs onto her

Of course there are grounds for divorce - haven't you read them? Read up on them before you comment further.

You're simply repeating yourself now, and introducing irrelevant points.

Translation:

"I cannot respond rationally to your point Didge and thus misdirect in desperation"

I am simple showing you wish to back forced marriage

Even the Supreme Court Judges did not want to rule against here. That shows to everyone, they see the law is steeped in bullshit Christian bullshit tradition and not reality. Where even worse countless women in the past and today, have been forced to remain in loveless marriages.

And all because of people like you, that think, you can dictate their lives

wow

The reality is this

The law here is in conflict with forced marriage

As they are forcing people to remain married against their will

That is forced marriage

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Of course there are grounds for divorce - haven't you read them? Read up on them before you comment further.

You're simply repeating yourself now, and introducing irrelevant points.

Translation:

"I cannot respond rationally to your point Didge and thus misdirect in desperation"

I am simple showing you wish to back forced marriage

Even the Supreme Court Judges did not want to rule against here. That shows to everyone, they see the law is steeped in bullshit Christian bullshit tradition and not reality. Where even worse countless women in the past and today, have been forced to remain in loveless marriages.

And all because of people like you, that think, you can dictate their lives

wow

The reality is this

The law here is in conflict with forced marriage

As they are forcing people to remain married against their will

That is forced marriage

Even those who get divorced after two years via mutual consent are forced to remain married against their will unless they have additional grounds for a divorce. Do you want to scrap that as well?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Translation:

"I cannot respond rationally to your point Didge and thus misdirect in desperation"

I am simple showing you wish to back forced marriage

Even the Supreme Court Judges did not want to rule against here. That shows to everyone, they see the law is steeped in bullshit Christian bullshit tradition and not reality. Where even worse countless women in the past and today, have been forced to remain in loveless marriages.

And all because of people like you, that think, you can dictate their lives

wow

The reality is this

The law here is in conflict with forced marriage

As they are forcing people to remain married against their will

That is forced marriage

Even those who get divorced after two years via mutual consent are forced to remain married against their will unless they have additional grounds for a divorce. Do you want to scrap that as well?

Yep

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Even those who get divorced after two years via mutual consent are forced to remain married against their will unless they have additional grounds for a divorce. Do you want to scrap that as well?

Yep

So you want divorce on demand, regardless of whether both parties want one or not.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yep

So you want divorce on demand, regardless of whether both parties want one or not.

Yep, all it takes is one party to not want to be married

To say they should, is forced marriage

So to say both parties is misleading

If they both want one, why should the state make this more complicated

They should not and yet many spend a fortune and cause anger and grief doing so.

If the law allowed people to divorce, without rules, but ensured, both parties were looked after.

What is then the problem?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you want divorce on demand, regardless of whether both parties want one or not.

Yep, all it takes is one party to not want to be married

To say they should, is forced marriage

So to say both parties is misleading

If they both want one, why should the state make this more complicated

They should not and yet many spend a fortune and cause anger and grief doing so.

If the law allowed people to divorce, without rules, but ensured, both parties were looked after.

What is then the problem?

Not being divorced is not the same as forced marriage.

If you want divorce on demand, you could have just said that without all those red herrings.

A divorce costs money, but the main reason for couples spending a fortune is the issues surrounding the financial settlement and/or child access issues.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yep, all it takes is one party to not want to be married

To say they should, is forced marriage

So to say both parties is misleading

If they both want one, why should the state make this more complicated

They should not and yet many spend a fortune and cause anger and grief doing so.

If the law allowed people to divorce, without rules, but ensured, both parties were looked after.

What is then the problem?

Not being divorced is not the same as forced marriage.

If you want divorce on demand, you could have just said that without all those red herrings.

A divorce costs money, but the main reason for couples spending a fortune is the issues surrounding the financial settlement and/or child access issues.

Yes it is

People denied divorced are being forced to remain married against their will

A.K.A Forced marriage

So explain to me couples who get many of the same rights, when they seperate. Where they have lived together for more than 6 months?

Did they need a divorce, when not married?

How little you know on divorce.

The money is centred on how lawyers can create conflict further between them

Hence the ruling here, which will ensure. No other person will try such a stance

She did not want to make him look bad as many blood sucking lawyers do.

Now lawers will enurse people make up crap about their partners. To enable a divorce.

Which will mean costly battles in court

I doubt this would have even entered your intellect

Hey ho

The point is this, you back forcing people to remain married

Hence forced marriage

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not being divorced is not the same as forced marriage.

If you want divorce on demand, you could have just said that without all those red herrings.

A divorce costs money, but the main reason for couples spending a fortune is the issues surrounding the financial settlement and/or child access issues.

Yes it is

People denied divorced are being forced to remain married against their will

A.K.A Forced marriage

So explain to me couples who get many of the same rights, when they seperate. Where they have lived together for more than 6 months?

Did they need a divorce, when not married?

How little you know on divorce.

The money is centred on how lawyers can create conflict further between them

Hence the ruling here, which will ensure. No other person will try such a stance

She did not want to make him look bad as many blood sucking lawyers do.

Now lawers will enurse people make up crap about their partners. To enable a divorce.

Which will mean costly battles in court

I doubt this would have even entered your intellect

Hey ho

The point is this, you back forxing people to remain married

Hence forced marriage

They should know the grounds for divorce before they enter into marriage though, so they're not being forced to stay married if they have no grounds for divorce, they're merely having to abide by the contract they made. If they don't agree with the grounds for divorce, they shouldn't get married. As I said, they should read the small print.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not being divorced is not the same as forced marriage.

If you want divorce on demand, you could have just said that without all those red herrings.

A divorce costs money, but the main reason for couples spending a fortune is the issues surrounding the financial settlement and/or child access issues.

Yes it is

People denied divorced are being forced to remain married against their will

A.K.A Forced marriage

So explain to me couples who get many of the same rights, when they seperate. Where they have lived together for more than 6 months?

Did they need a divorce, when not married?

How little you know on divorce.

The money is centred on how lawyers can create conflict further between them

Hence the ruling here, which will ensure. No other person will try such a stance

She did not want to make him look bad as many blood sucking lawyers do.

Now lawers will enurse people make up crap about their partners. To enable a divorce.

Which will mean costly battles in court

I doubt this would have even entered your intellect

Hey ho

The point is this, you back forcing people to remain married

Hence forced marriage

Couples who are not married and split up do not have the same rights as those who are married and who split up.

Divorcing couples are perfectly free to work out their finances without a lawyer, and then have the agreement rubber stamped by a court. The trouble is that if they disagree, they need a court judgement to decide who should have what. That is what costs money.

Oh, and she did try to claim unreasonable behaviour to make him look bad so she could get a divorce. She failed though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Yes it is

People denied divorced are being forced to remain married against their will

A.K.A Forced marriage

So explain to me couples who get many of the same rights, when they seperate. Where they have lived together for more than 6 months?

Did they need a divorce, when not married?

How little you know on divorce.

The money is centred on how lawyers can create conflict further between them

Hence the ruling here, which will ensure. No other person will try such a stance

She did not want to make him look bad as many blood sucking lawyers do.

Now lawers will enurse people make up crap about their partners. To enable a divorce.

Which will mean costly battles in court

I doubt this would have even entered your intellect

Hey ho

The point is this, you back forxing people to remain married

Hence forced marriage

They should know the grounds for divorce before they enter into marriage though, so they're not being forced to stay married if they have no grounds for divorce, they're merely having to abide by the contract they made. If they don't agree with the grounds for divorce, they shouldn't get married. As I said, they should read the small print.

Holy crap on a cracker

So now, people should know this before falling in love

I doubt many would have read the red tape and quite frankly its still you backing a law to force people to remain married

It means you back a law to force people to remain married

Its hilarious your argument and also disgusting at the same time

Again couples not married that live together for 6 months or more have many of the same rights as those married

Yet you wish not to impose your beliefs on them when they seperate. Only those that marry within the law

You should stop forcing your beliefs onto others.

Its makes you comparable to those who foce teen girls to marry

As I guess they never read the small print either

When many are denied the chance to read or write

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They should know the grounds for divorce before they enter into marriage though, so they're not being forced to stay married if they have no grounds for divorce, they're merely having to abide by the contract they made. If they don't agree with the grounds for divorce, they shouldn't get married. As I said, they should read the small print.

Holy crap on a cracker

So now, people should know this before falling in love

I doubt many would have read the red tape and quite frankly its still you backing a law to force people to remain married

It means you back a law to force people to remain married

Its hilarious your argument

Again couples not married that live together for 6 months or more have many of the same rights as those married

Yet you wish not to impose your beliefs on them when they seperate. Only those that marry within the law

You should stop forcing your beliefs onto others.

Its makes you comparable to those who foce teen girls to marry

As I guess they never read the small print either

Of course people who enter into a legal contract should know what happens if they want to break the contract. Don't you check that kind of thing?

What rights do those who live together for more than six months have? Be specific please.

Didge wrote:

Its makes you comparable to those who foce teen girls to marry

As I guess they never read the small print either

When many are denied the chance to read or write

You really are clutching at straws now.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Holy crap on a cracker

So now, people should know this before falling in love

I doubt many would have read the red tape and quite frankly its still you backing a law to force people to remain married

It means you back a law to force people to remain married

Its hilarious your argument

Again couples not married that live together for 6 months or more have many of the same rights as those married

Yet you wish not to impose your beliefs on them when they seperate. Only those that marry within the law

You should stop forcing your beliefs onto others.

Its makes you comparable to those who foce teen girls to marry

As I guess they never read the small print either

Of course people who enter into a legal contract should know what happens if they want to break the contract. Don't you check that kind of thing?

What rights do those who live together for more than six months have? Be specific please.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

So again back to legal

So you back lagel laws that are barbaric

Forcing views onto others

Maintaining a loveless marriage

All because you think so

Hence why the Supreme judges believ e the law should be changed

So explain to me, what right does a state have to force and maintain a marriage on someone?

Come on Rags, lets at least have a sensible rational argument and not something you were brainwashed religiously?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Its makes you comparable to those who foce teen girls to marry

As I guess they never read the small print either

When many are denied the chance to read or write

You really are clutching at straws now.

Have you asked girls in Afghanistan?

Or many places in Africa

And you think its a joke

I think its a joke, how blatantly ignorant you are, to the world you actually live in

So what are these rights which those who live together for more than six months have Didge? You didn't answer that.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You really are clutching at straws now.

Have you asked girls in Afghanistan?

Or many places in Africa

And you think its a joke

I think its a joke, how blatantly ignorant you are, to the world you actually live in

Afghanistan is not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about the law here.

I suppose you think that having to wait more than five minutes for a divorce constitutes "forced marriage".

Raggamuffin wrote:So what are these rights which those who live together for more than six months have Didge? You didn't answer that.

I gave you a link Rags and I guess based on how quickly you replied, you never read this

Opps

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Have you asked girls in Afghanistan?

Or many places in Africa

And you think its a joke

I think its a joke, how blatantly ignorant you are, to the world you actually live in

Afghanistan is not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about the law here.

You said about people understanding laws

I just proved that is not the case is it?

Raggamuffin wrote:I suppose you think that having to wait more than five minutes for a divorce constitutes "forced marriage".

How is that forced marriage, if once the papers are signed, they are thus free?

Opps

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:So what are these rights which those who live together for more than six months have Didge? You didn't answer that.

I gave you a link Rags and I guess based on how quickly you replied, you never read this

Opps

I have read it, and it's not relevant. Do you actually think that people who live together who split up have a financial claim on each other's assets?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I suppose you think that having to wait more than five minutes for a divorce constitutes "forced marriage".

How is that forced marriage, if once the papers are signed, they are thus free?

Opps

They have to wait for the papers don't they? They have to wait for the divorce court to look at them. In the meantime, I guess you think they are in a "forced marriage".

Marriage is voluntary - nobody is forced to sign the register or forced to make vows.