A Brief History of Divorce
The Times - From this day forward . . . for half the money. Past Notes by Graham Stewart
This week’s rulings suggest that it is income earned during marriage that counts as one. On this basis, it may be possible for a person to walk away from a short marriage with half of what his or her spouse earned during that period. Child-rearing and home-making can be filed under loss of earnings, for which financial restitution must be made.
In 1972 the International Wages for Housework campaign was launched. It called for those who worked at home to be compensated. The proceeds were to be raised by “dismantling the military-industrial complex”. Smart Alecs laughed at the time. They’re not laughing now.
Hmmmmm.
Update:
The Times - Tame that termagant: get a prenup, by Janice Turner
I’m skipping rather a lot of interesting arguments here to get straight to the end.
So what effect will this case have on how we conduct our marriages? Will it make men reluctant to let wives give up careers to look after children in case they get shafted later for loss of earnings? Maybe. Working wives are less costly to divorce. But then I see many bored, aimless yet highly skilled women who yearn to earn again now that their children are older and would be happier partners if they had a loving nudge back into work.
In The Times letters page yesterday a Lincolnshire vicar said he would refuse to conduct a wedding with any couple he knew to have a prenup because it showed a lack of trust and revealed that they regarded marriage as a contract, not a holy vow. But marriage has always been a deal, or rather a series of unique and subtle deals throughout two joint lives. The McFarlane ruling teaches us that we should think harder and talk more about our choices, not slip into them unthinkingly. It is not cold and cynical, but honest and responsible to foresee possible endings from the very start.
Update II:
Simon Heffner in the Telegraph:
A gold-diggers’ charter posing as law
I’m all in favour of wives being financially compensated in a proper fashion by vile husbands who break up their marriages. However, the rulings by the Law Lords this week in two multi-million-pound divorce cases do not fall into this category. What their lordships have done is construct a gold-diggers’ charter, where anyone embarking on wedlock - whether man or woman - can view it as a business arrangement, and one to be quite cynically and readily terminated whenever it might be financially propitious. Life is not always a bed of roses, and for some people divorce is a regrettably necessary option, only countenanced as a last resort.
This ruling threatens to change all that. It degrades marriage and makes a mockery of the whole concept of the institution as the basis of family life.
Our divorce laws, since their inception in 1857, have gone from the unduly restrictive to the casual. This week’s ruling makes one wonder why the Government doesn’t just go the whole hog and abolish marriage altogether.
May 28th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Praise Gawd for Southron Wymmins,,,,
Our little boy is four years old and quite a little man So we spell out the words we don’t want him to understand Like T-O-Y or maybe S-U-R-P-R-I-S-E But the words we’re hiding from him now Tear the heart right out of me.
Our D-I-V-O-R-C-E becomes final today Me and little J-O-E will be goin’ away I love you both and it will be pure H-E double L for me Oh, I wish that we could stop this D-I-V-O-R-C-E.
Watch him smile, he thinks it Christmas Or his 5th Birthday And he thinks C-U-S-T-O-D-Y spells fun or play I spell out all the hurtin’ words And turn my head when I speak ‘Cause I can’t spell away this hurt That’s drippin’ down my cheek.
Our D-I-V-O-R-C-E becomes final today Me and little J-O-E will be goin’ away I love you both and it will be pure H-E double L for me Oh, I wish that we could stop this D-I-V-O-R-C-E.
May 28th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Jeebus, that’s not funny is it?
May 28th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Well, it is insofar as one envisions someone singing that in cowboy boots and a bad perm in some bar somewhere in northwest Texas…
May 29th, 2006 at 3:13 am
This is how the Galswegian comic Billy Connolly adapted that song:
Our little dog is six years old And he’s smart as any damned kid But when you mention the V.E.T. He damned near flips his lid Words like S.H.O.T shot Or W.O.R.M worm These are words that make him S.Q.U.I.R.M squirm
His Q.U.A.R.A.N.T.I.N.E. starts today Coz he bit the V.E.T. And then he ran away He caused me and my wife To have a big fight And then both of them bit me And that’s why I am Gonna get a D.I.V.O.R.C.E.
She shouted “Get him Rover!” And he jumped over And bit my L.E.G. She sank her teeth in my B.U.M. And called me a ?*? Well I’m telling you That was my cue To get O.F.F.-ski And I’m going down to the town tonight To get a new B.I.R.D.
Oh yes His Q.U.A.R.A.N.T.I.N.E. starts today Both my wife and my wee scabby dog Will soon be hauled away That’s why I spell out all of these words So as my dog can’t hear Oh I must admit that dog is actin’ Q.U.E.R. queer Oh yes I must admit my dog is actin’ Q.U.E.R. queer
May 29th, 2006 at 3:14 am
I of course could never ever leave Mrs Red, for health reasons.
She’d kill me.
May 29th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Ha ha ha ha hee hee hee hee, ho ha ha ha ha hee! cough, cough, hum ha, Funny, I’m copying that down, ha! heeee hee hee
May 29th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Eh, so, that song is well known then, eh?
Billy Connolly was on The Daily Show last week. I guess he’s doing a stint in New York for a month or so. Seemed like a funny chap.
May 29th, 2006 at 10:01 am
A bit potty-mouthed when he reckons he can get away with it.
The song was Tammy Wynette’s follow-up to “Stand By Your Man”. There’ll be an internal logic to that, one imagines.