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feelings" and suggested that the current system, in which partners must demonstrate bad behaviour by their spouse, was out of date.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

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't understand why people are so against this man. Why are you all so cavalier about marriage vows?

I'll also say that it's good to see judges actually upholding the law rather than agreeing to divorce on demand against the wishes of one party.

Im not against him, but I think its sad that he is determined to hang on to a woman who clearly doesnt want him or love him anymore...she doesnt seem to even like him.

You cant force someone to want you or stay with you,, and it seems that's what he is trying to do.

He's saying he won't agree to a divorce, he's not trying to force her to live with him.

But they are forcing her to be his wife. How can you support that?

Can you take these chains off now please..baby?

eddie wrote:

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't understand why people are so against this man. Why are you all so cavalier about marriage vows?

I'll also say that it's good to see judges actually upholding the law rather than agreeing to divorce on demand against the wishes of one party.

Im not against him, but I think its sad that he is determined to hang on to a woman who clearly doesnt want him or love him anymore...she doesnt seem to even like him.

You cant force someone to want you or stay with you,, and it seems that's what he is trying to do.

He's saying he won't agree to a divorce, he's not trying to force her to live with him.

But they are forcing her to be his wife. How can you support that?

Can you take these chains off now please..baby?

No.

Ben Mothafuckin' Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She is free, she's just not free to marry anyone else yet.

Freedom doesn't come with restrictions, or it's not freedom.

Tough. She married him knowing that it was a legal contract, and she knew the divorce laws. She tried to get a divorce against his wishes by accusing him of unreasonable behaviour, and it backfired.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
They have been married 40 years, I believe they both put in the hard work, not just him.

He clearly worked harder at the business, otherwise she wouldn't be moaning about him prioritising it over holidays and family events. Anyway, after 40 years, surely she can wait another two years.

The article states that THEY built up a multi million pound business. They also had children and four homes, presumably she took care of them too, so  when the divorce does go through she has earned her share of the marital asetts.

Yes she will have to wait another 2 years if he doesnt change his mind and agree,, she first applied for a divorce in 2015...its a farce really.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He clearly worked harder at the business, otherwise she wouldn't be moaning about him prioritising it over holidays and family events. Anyway, after 40 years, surely she can wait another two years.

The article states that THEY built up a multi million pound business. They also had children and four homes, presumably she took care of them too, so  when the divorce does go through she has earned her share of the marital asetts.

Yes she will have to wait another 2 years if he doesnt change his mind and agree,, she first applied for a divorce in 2015...its a farce really.

Yes, but she's complaining that he worked too much and it pissed her off. If he hadn't there probably wouldn't be so much money, right?

It's not a farce - the law has been clear for a very long time. I don't know why people are surprised when it's upheld.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
The article states that THEY built up a multi million pound business. They also had children and four homes, presumably she took care of them too, so  when the divorce does go through she has earned her share of the marital asetts.

Yes she will have to wait another 2 years if he doesnt change his mind and agree,, she first applied for a divorce in 2015...its a farce really.

Yes, but she's complaining that he worked too much and it pissed her off. If he hadn't there probably wouldn't be so much money, right?

It's not a farce - the law has been clear for a very long time. I don't know why people are surprised when it's upheld.

Its time it was changed.
Many marriages end and no one is to blame, the law should recognise this.
I wonder how much the solicitors and lawyers have made out of this?

It is a farce.

I agree with you Syl. It’s just entirely stupid, all round.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:

Is becoming bored with someone not a reason to divorce? When you get bored it’s due to many, many, reasons.
Besides, why would he want someone, who doesn’t want him? He sounds like a twat.

No, it's not a reason for divorce. People who get married should take it seriously, or not bother to get married in the first place. She tried to divorce him on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour. Why should he just accept that if he hasn't behaved in an unreasonable manner?

Right there I think you give the answer for why young people no longer value marriage. Why bother to get married?

Huh. You gotta point there, judge.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but she's complaining that he worked too much and it pissed her off. If he hadn't there probably wouldn't be so much money, right?

It's not a farce - the law has been clear for a very long time. I don't know why people are surprised when it's upheld.

Its time it was changed.
Many marriages end and no one is to blame, the law should recognise this.
I wonder how much the solicitors and lawyers have made out of this?

It is a farce.

He doesn't consider that his marriage has ended though, and he's entitled to refuse to agree to a divorce. She doesn't have to wait that long.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:
Its time it was changed.
Many marriages end and no one is to blame, the law should recognise this.
I wonder how much the solicitors and lawyers have made out of this?

It is a farce.

He doesn't consider that his marriage has ended though, and he's entitled to refuse to agree to a divorce. She doesn't have to wait that long.

His opinion as to her status is academic. He doesn't get to consider what color dress she will wear today, either. Tough kitty said the kitty...

Her status is her exclusive prerogative. Nor does it matter that her status makes him single...much in life is relative. If I get a raise, you earn proportionately less...tough titty said the kitty.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He doesn't consider that his marriage has ended though, and he's entitled to refuse to agree to a divorce. She doesn't have to wait that long.

His opinion as to her status is academic.  He doesn't get to consider what color dress she will wear today, either.  Tough kitty said the kitty...

Her status is her exclusive prerogative.  Nor does it matter that her status makes him single...much in life is relative.  If I get a raise, you earn proportionately less...tough titty said the kitty.  

His opinion as to his own status isn't academic though, and he wants to stay married. The court disagreed with you.

She made a contract with him when they married. If she didn't want to adhere to the terms of that contract, she shouldn't have made it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

His opinion as to her status is academic.  He doesn't get to consider what color dress she will wear today, either.  Tough kitty said the kitty...

Her status is her exclusive prerogative.  Nor does it matter that her status makes him single...much in life is relative.  If I get a raise, you earn proportionately less...tough titty said the kitty.  

His opinion as to his own status isn't academic though, and he wants to stay married.

His loss of marital status status isn't by intention, but merely by adverse echo.  Like I say: "If I get a raise, you earn proportionately less..."  Am I supposed to turn down the raise in order to make things equitable for you?  The world doesn't work that way.

Raggamuffin wrote:The court disagreed with you.

She made a contract with him when they married. If she didn't want to adhere to the terms of that contract, she shouldn't have made it.

The Court also said that the law must be changed.  Many times courts create outrageous situations in order for force a legislature to take up a question and change an outcome.  As Arthur Linton Corbin once wrote: "...hard cases make good law."

In this case, we are dealing with a hand-over of status from property contract to human rights.  Marriage--primarily the marriage of women--was once a matter of property and transfer.  Something of value changed hands and there was a real bargained-for-exchange.

Gradually marriage has grown into a highly personal matter with no bargained-for exchange except the commitment.  There is nothing involved but that which the law recognizes is inalienable to the individual ... to be determined by the individual him or herself at any given time.

That's why I say this is pure status.  This woman's husband is being deprived of nothing that he is entitled to absent his wife's on-going consent, anyway.  To hold otherwise would be to relegate women back into property.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

His opinion as to his own status isn't academic though, and he wants to stay married.

His loss of marital status status isn't by intention, but merely by adverse echo.  Like I say: "If I get a raise, you earn proportionately less..."  Am I supposed to turn down the raise in order to make things equitable for you?  The world doesn't work that way.

Raggamuffin wrote:The court disagreed with you.

She made a contract with him when they married. If she didn't want to adhere to the terms of that contract, she shouldn't have made it.

The Court also said that the law must be changed.  Many times courts create outrageous situations in order for force a legislature to take up a question and change an outcome.  As Arthur Linton Corbin once wrote: "...hard cases make good law."

In this case, we are dealing with a hand-over of status from property contract to human rights.  Marriage--primarily the marriage of women--was once a matter of property and transfer.  Something of value changed hands and there was a real bargained-for-exchange.

Gradually marriage has grown into a highly personal matter with no bargained-for exchange except the commitment.  There is nothing involved but that which the law recognizes is inalienable to the individual ... to be determined by the individual him or herself at any given time.

That's why I say this is pure status.  This woman's husband is being deprived of nothing that he is entitled to absent his wife's on-going consent, anyway.  To hold otherwise would be to relegate women back into property.

Nonsense. To say that she's his property is the same as saying that all married women are a man's property, and that's just sexist.

The default after marriage is to stay married, otherwise there's no point in marriage. She's the one who was at fault, but he doesn't want to divorce her for adultery. The onus is on her to prove that he's so unreasonable that she should not stay married to him, and she didn't prove that.

How come nobody has questioned this five-year rule before? It's been in force for ages.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but she's complaining that he worked too much and it pissed her off. If he hadn't there probably wouldn't be so much money, right?

It's not a farce - the law has been clear for a very long time. I don't know why people are surprised when it's upheld.

Its time it was changed.
Many marriages end and no one is to blame, the law should recognise this.
I wonder how much the solicitors and lawyers have made out of this?

It is a farce.

Lawyers will have made money because she didn't accept the first ruling - which she should have done.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, but she's complaining that he worked too much and it pissed her off. If he hadn't there probably wouldn't be so much money, right?

It's not a farce - the law has been clear for a very long time. I don't know why people are surprised when it's upheld.

Its time it was changed.
Many marriages end and no one is to blame, the law should recognise this.
I wonder how much the solicitors and lawyers have made out of this?

It is a farce.

This is why the law will change in the end, as its completely outdated

Raggamuffin wrote:Nonsense. To say that she's his property is the same as saying that all married women are a man's property, and that's just sexist.

I agree.  I think most people agree.  That is why this form of “forced marriage” must change.  It's the holdover of the sexism of a by-gone age.

Raggamuffin wrote:The default after marriage is to stay married, otherwise there's no point in marriage. She's the one who was at fault, but he doesn't want to divorce her for adultery. The onus is on her to prove that he's so unreasonable that she should not stay married to him, and she didn't prove that.

Marriage is the default, true.  But that should be changed should either party change his or her mind.  And that is what this case is all about.

No one is at fault … that’s why it’s called a ‘no-fault’ divorce.  It’s not a situation of right or wrong, but of change of mind.  If you decide to move your residence, does that make your prior choice of abode your fault?  No.  You simply changed, that’s all.

Nor is it a matter of unreasonableness.  She needn’t prove anything.  The husband may be a wonderful man, and she may still think so … but she fancies something different.  It’s her choice.  It’s her right.

Raggamuffin wrote:How come nobody has questioned this five-year rule before? It's been in force for ages.

Time’s change.  It appears the court agrees with you: this has gone on long enough.

Why all the prob s. I've known couples, the wife or husband who didn't want a divorce. They had to wait for a few years then got one, no prob.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Nonsense. To say that she's his property is the same as saying that all married women are a man's property, and that's just sexist.

I agree.  I think most people agree.  That is why this form of “forced marriage” must change.  It's the holdover of the sexism of a by-gone age.

Raggamuffin wrote:The default after marriage is to stay married, otherwise there's no point in marriage. She's the one who was at fault, but he doesn't want to divorce her for adultery. The onus is on her to prove that he's so unreasonable that she should not stay married to him, and she didn't prove that.

Marriage is the default, true.  But that should be changed should either party change his or her mind.  And that is what this case is all about.

No one is at fault … that’s why it’s called a ‘no-fault’ divorce.  It’s not a situation of right or wrong, but of change of mind.  If you decide to move your residence, does that make your prior choice of abode your fault?  No.  You simply changed, that’s all.

Nor is it a matter of unreasonableness.  She needn’t prove anything.  The husband may be a wonderful man, and she may still think so … but she fancies something different.  It’s her choice.  It’s her right.

Raggamuffin wrote:How come nobody has questioned this five-year rule before? It's been in force for ages.

Time’s change.  It appears the court agrees with you: this has gone on long enough.

What if it was a woman who was refusing a man a divorce? Would you still say that's an example of a man thinking of his wife as his property? Of course you wouldn't. Their gender is irrelevant as it applies to both sexes.

She does need to prove something. You can't get divorced on a whim, quite rightly. She has no grounds for a divorce. She tried unreasonable behaviour and failed.

magica wrote:Why all the prob s.  I've known couples, the wife or husband who didn't want a divorce. They had to wait for a few years then got one, no prob.

Exactly. She doesn't even have to wait another two years. All that waste of energy and money because of her appealing. Now her husband is all over the press, which was not his choice.

Why is this law "outdated"? Are people saying that marriage is not as serious as it used to be? Are they saying people should get married and divorced on a whim?

Raggamuffin wrote:Why is this law "outdated"? Are people saying that marriage is not as serious as it used to be? Are they saying people should get married and divorced on a whim?

Because marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people in love.

When one of the parties no longer loves the other, what point is there continuing a loveless contract?

If you were Muslim it's simple, just say "I divorce thee" three times and it's all over.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Why is this law "outdated"? Are people saying that marriage is not as serious as it used to be? Are they saying people should get married and divorced on a whim?

Because marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people in love.

When one of the parties no longer loves the other, what point is there continuing a loveless contract?

It's more than that. It's also a contract to stick together and look after each other. You're a a bit obsessed with people being "in love" IMO. If it's now "outdated", when was it acceptable to you then?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Because marriage is nothing more than a contract between two people in love.

When one of the parties no longer loves the other, what point is there continuing a loveless contract?

It's more than that. It's also a contract to stick together and look after each other. You're a a bit obsessed with people being "in love" IMO. If it's now "outdated", when was it acceptable to you then?

So your principle is that when one no longer loves the other. Is to force that person to be with someone to stay married, against their will.

Never claimed love was outdated, but forcing people to remain in a loveless contract marriage, certainly is

The same principle would apply in a marriage of convenience. If one no longer feels its convenient, it becomes an inconvenient contract/marriage.

So your views are outdated and fail to understand marriage is nothing more than a contract, whether verbally or written

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's more than that. It's also a contract to stick together and look after each other. You're a a bit obsessed with people being "in love" IMO. If it's now "outdated", when was it acceptable to you then?

So your principle is that when one no longer loves the other. Is to force that person to be with someone to stay married, against their will.

Never claimed love was outdated, but forcing people to remain in a loveless contract marriage, certainly is

The same principle would apply in a marriage of convenience. If one no longer feels its convenient, it becomes an inconvenient contract/marriage.

So your views are outdated and fail to understand marriage is nothing more than a contract, whether verbally or written

It is a contract, and contracts are binding. If one person wants out, it has to be on the right terms, yes? If people can't keep to that contract, or stick to the rules of ending the contract, they shouldn't get married in the first place.

So when was forcing people to remain in a loveless marriage not outdated?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


So your principle is that when one no longer loves the other. Is to force that person to be with someone to stay married, against their will.

Never claimed love was outdated, but forcing people to remain in a loveless contract marriage, certainly is

The same principle would apply in a marriage of convenience. If one no longer feels its convenient, it becomes an inconvenient contract/marriage.

So your views are outdated and fail to understand marriage is nothing more than a contract, whether verbally or written

It is a contract, and contracts are binding. If one person wants out, it has to be on the right terms, yes? If people can't keep to that contract, or stick to the rules of ending the contract, they shouldn't get married in the first place.

Are contracts binding for life, if one wants out?

If one person wants out they leave

Just as any person can do when employed

What might happen is they may lose some benefits.

So to say binding is very misleading to say the least

What we have here is a glowing example of your trying to enforce your beliefs onto others

To say people should not get married and predict the future, is by and large as stupid as it gets.

At the time people fall in love or in more cases lust. People can then fall out of love later.

It happens all the time

Of course maybe you expect someone to stay in an abusive marriage, to you its binding, yes?

You get one life, (in this body, at least), why would anyone waste it doing something, or being with someone, when you are not happy?
Isn’t your own personal happiness paramount to living the life you deserve?

eddie wrote:You get one life, (in this body, at least), why would anyone waste it doing something, or being with someone, when you are not happy?
Isn’t your own personal happiness paramount to living the life you deserve?

100% agree

Night

Didge wrote:

eddie wrote:You get one life, (in this body, at least), why would anyone waste it doing something, or being with someone, when you are not happy?
Isn’t your own personal happiness paramount to living the life you deserve?

100% agree

Night

Hi didge!
Bye didge!

Raggamuffin wrote:What if it was a woman who was refusing a man a divorce? Would you still say that's an example of a man thinking of his wife as his property? Of course you wouldn't. Their gender is irrelevant as it applies to both sexes.

She does need to prove something. You can't get divorced on a whim, quite rightly. She has no grounds for a divorce. She tried unreasonable behaviour and failed.

Women are in that position all the time.  The point is that this rule came out of property law.  All that means is that this rule has no relevance today.  Your five-year rule is a vestige of a by-gone era and serves no purpose.

Gender, today, makes no difference whatsoever.  Do you think that women did not hold entitlements in the past?  Dowry was a common practice for transfer of property, but that too has no relevance today.

There is absolutely no reason why two, or one of the parties, who wants to dissolve the union today, may not do it. The law has no business in the marriage bedroom.

It not's so easy when children are involved though is it ?

nicko wrote:It not's so easy when children are involved though is it ?

Its never easy on any children, whether the parents are married or not and seperate.

However, parents staying for the children, can to me do more harm then good. If they are constantly at each other.

They grow up learning and seeing a loveless marriage/partnership in constant conflict between their parents.

They may then be better off raising their children apart. In order that there then is little conflict witnessed by the children.

Typical archaic British Law...

Still stuck back in the 19th century, in so many ways...

Where husbands can still legally belt their wives, (and twice on Sunday), if needed to keep her in line;

And where the wife still needs the husband's "permission" to dovorce him..

About time that Britain dragged itself into the 21st century --  and followed the lead of many other more civilised Western democracies, and introduce a "no fault" divorce arrangement  --  where a person can get a relatively straightforward divorce after a 12 month separation (as long as there aren't messy property or business settlements compounding things..)

Like Australia did back in the late 1970s/early '80s..

Wolfie, Google "weird Australian laws," before you pick on us !

nicko wrote:It not's so easy when children are involved though is it ?

Children are a separate issue.  There is a whole body of law dealing with the rights of children, and their care and welfare.  See, Uniform Child Custody and Control Act.

Courts in America always trifurcate three issues, usually dealing with child issues first, then status (ie, married or single) issues, and finally property issues.  In many cases there are even three different trials (hearings), so that there is no need for any delay in, say, status, while the property issues are resolved.  A person can get married, divorced and remarried to another person in two weeks, leaving property issues for a later day.

When Tammy Wynette sang her divorce "became final today," she was speaking only of the status part.

Has Wolfie read about Australia's "archaic" laws ? or has he just run off with egg on his face when he realised his mistake ?

nicko wrote:Has Wolfie read about Australia's "archaic" laws ?  or has he just run off with egg on his face when he realised his mistake ?

I'll bet my bottom dollar that the residents of, say, Sydney, are still not allowed to shoot a Scotsman from the city walls - but not on Sundays - when armed with a bow and arrow!

As a former resident of said city, and also being partly of Scottish heritage, I must confess to being somewhat divided on the matter...

nicko wrote:Has Wolfie read about Australia's "archaic" laws ?  or has he just run off with egg on his face when he realised his mistake ?

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.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Has Wolfie read about Australia's "archaic" laws ?  or has he just run off with egg on his face when he realised his mistake ?

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.

Maybe you want to look closer to home mate  

https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/news/g4039/crazy-state-laws/?slide=1

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It is a contract, and contracts are binding. If one person wants out, it has to be on the right terms, yes? If people can't keep to that contract, or stick to the rules of ending the contract, they shouldn't get married in the first place.

Are contracts binding for life, if one wants out?

If one person wants out they leave

Just as any person can do when employed

What might happen is they may lose some benefits.

So to say binding is very misleading to say the least

What we have here is a glowing example of your trying to enforce your beliefs onto others

To say people should not get married and predict the future, is by and large as stupid as it gets.

At the time people fall in love or in more cases lust. People can then fall out of love later.

It happens all the time

Of course maybe you expect someone to stay in an abusive marriage, to you its binding, yes?

Most contracts have terms and conditions. People are supposed to give a certain amount of notice if they leave their job. Marriage contracts have terms as well, and if people want to break that contract they need to know the terms. She should have read the small print.

If someone was being abused, they would get a divorce on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour. The point is that this chap hasn't behaved in an unreasonable manner. Besides, she doesn't have to live with him, she just has to wait for her financial settlement.

eddie wrote:You get one life, (in this body, at least), why would anyone waste it doing something, or being with someone, when you are not happy?
Isn’t your own personal happiness paramount to living the life you deserve?

She's not with him though, she doesn't live with him. She's free to do whatever she wants, apart from remarry at the moment.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What if it was a woman who was refusing a man a divorce? Would you still say that's an example of a man thinking of his wife as his property? Of course you wouldn't. Their gender is irrelevant as it applies to both sexes.

She does need to prove something. You can't get divorced on a whim, quite rightly. She has no grounds for a divorce. She tried unreasonable behaviour and failed.

Women are in that position all the time.  The point is that this rule came out of property law.  All that means is that this rule has no relevance today.  Your five-year rule is a vestige of a by-gone era and serves no purpose.

Gender, today, makes no difference whatsoever.  Do you think that women did not hold entitlements in the past?  Dowry was a common practice for transfer of property, but that too has no relevance today.

There is absolutely no reason why two, or one of the parties, who wants to dissolve the union today, may not do it.  The law has no business in the marriage bedroom.

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 .

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Typical archaic British Law...

Still stuck back in the 19th century, in so many ways...

Where husbands can still legally belt their wives, (and twice on Sunday), if needed to keep her in line;

And where the wife still needs the husband's "permission" to dovorce him..

About time that Britain dragged itself into the 21st century --  and followed the lead of many other more civilised Western democracies, and introduce a "no fault" divorce arrangement  --  where a person can get a relatively straightforward divorce after a 12 month separation (as long as there aren't messy property or business settlements compounding things..)

Like Australia did back in the late 1970s/early '80s..

It works both ways - it's nothing to do with her being female. He could divorce her on the grounds of adultery, but he chose not to. She's the one who behaved badly, not him.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Women are in that position all the time.  The point is that this rule came out of property law.  All that means is that this rule has no relevance today.  Your five-year rule is a vestige of a by-gone era and serves no purpose.

Gender, today, makes no difference whatsoever.  Do you think that women did not hold entitlements in the past?  Dowry was a common practice for transfer of property, but that too has no relevance today.

There is absolutely no reason why two, or one of the parties, who wants to dissolve the union today, may not do it.  The law has no business in the marriage bedroom.

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 .

Because people have a relationship and are in love or choose to do so for convenience.

I mean, do you expect people to hold a pre poor negative view going into any relationship, it will turn sour?

Seriously?

So people get married for many reasons. From the good and positive reasons, based on love, to the worst, where people are forced

So again, do you agree that marriage should be binding for life?

Then answer how you can then champion such a cause when many women are forced into marriage?

Or suffer domestic violence?

Or are raped, which is not even recognised within some religions?

I mean based on this, you must believe that then, there is a reason to get divorced?

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:Has Wolfie read about Australia's "archaic" laws ?  or has he just run off with egg on his face when he realised his mistake ?

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?

Didge 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 .

Because people have a relationship and are in love or choose to do so for convenience.

I mean, do you expect people to hold a pre poor negative view going into any relationship, it will turn sour?

Seriously?

So people get married for many reasons. From the good and positive reasons, based on love, to the worst, where people are forced

So again, do you agree that marriage should be binding for life?

Then answer how you can then champion such a cause when many women are forced into marriage?

Or suffer domestic violence?

Or are raped, which is not even recognised within some religions?

I mean based on this, you must believe that then, there is a reason to get divorced?

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.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

Because people have a relationship and are in love or choose to do so for convenience.

I mean, do you expect people to hold a pre poor negative view going into any relationship, it will turn sour?

Seriously?

So people get married for many reasons. From the good and positive reasons, based on love, to the worst, where people are forced

So again, do you agree that marriage should be binding for life?

Then answer how you can then champion such a cause when many women are forced into marriage?

Or suffer domestic violence?

Or are raped, which is not even recognised within some religions?

I mean based on this, you must believe that then, there is a reason to get divorced?

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.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Women are in that position all the time.  The point is that this rule came out of property law.  All that means is that this rule has no relevance today.  Your five-year rule is a vestige of a by-gone era and serves no purpose.

Gender, today, makes no difference whatsoever.  Do you think that women did not hold entitlements in the past?  Dowry was a common practice for transfer of property, but that too has no relevance today.

There is absolutely no reason why two, or one of the parties, who wants to dissolve the union today, may not do it.  The law has no business in the marriage bedroom.

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.