Delaware Courts Rule That Ex-Wife’s Alimony Cost Can Be Calculated by Reducing Tithe

I’m a little confused about alimony. I understand child support, but former spouse support? If two people get divorced, is one required to support the other for life? Why is he entitled to payments from her at all? His disability isn’t connected to the marriage. Presumably he would have been disabled just the same if he’d stayed single. Why does he get part of her income simply because they were once married?

Well, actually, I don’t see the reverse situation as normal. I don’t think the man should have to support the woman for the rest of his life, simply because she chose not to get an education or work. If she’s able-bodied, she should get a job and pay her own way. Same for a man who didn’t get an education and stayed home for the duration of his marriage.

Now this situation is complicated because there’s a disability involved. I’m not clear when the disability happened, but I don’t know why she should have to support him for the rest of her life. If the man hadn’t gotten married, who would be paying his bills? I imagine he would be on social security/disability. Why is that not an option? Why is she responsible for him forever?

Some people– and courts– actually value child raising as valid work deserving of respect and compensation, regardless of which parent made the sacrifice to stay at home.

Of course, and I’m fully in favor of child support. Maybe I’m mistaken about alimony, but I was under the impression it came into play regardless of the reason the spouse stayed at home. If a woman (or man) didn’t get an education and chose not to work, then they would still get alimony from their former partner even if they weren’t raising children, or weren’t raising them for the entire duration of the marriage.

 We’re assuming she had a choice, or they didn’t make a choice together on the assumption that they would still be married once the children had grown and a reasonable expectation that her husband would still take care of her, i.e. having made a “choice” with a certain future in mind. If you plan to get divorced someday, you might make a different choice. As far as a disability goes, you do.. usually make promises when you get married to love each other in sickness and health. Not sure whether that’s a binding part of a legal agreement or just ritual mumbo-jumbo, since a lot of people can’t handle being married to a sick person and it does test relationships, and I don’t know if that’s (that he couldn’t earn a living) why she divorced him. But I think getting married to someone is supposed to be a legal protection against not being married, that someone else is partially responsible for your well-being and vice versa. That’s why when people get divorced, it has more provisions and settlements than just parting ways and carrying on by yourself.

 Parents, siblings and children don’t sign contracts linking their futures, then divide up household responsibilities such that one person is wholly reliant on the other. The homemaking half of many, many divorced couples would end up destitute. And keep in mind that the homemaking half is almost always the half with primary responsibility for and knowledge of the needs of any children.

While overstated, the “Libertarian” comment is based on your apparent assumption that those wrecked by their employed spouse suddenly dumping them can pull themselves up by their magic bootstraps and not have to spend the next decade trying, and often failing, to get themselves up to a level where they aren’t counting pennies every day.

 Sorry, scratch the “apparent assumption” stuff. It’s clear that you weren’t thinking that way, based on your later comments. My apologies.

In our current society, no woman should go into a marriage expecting to
be supported by her husband for the rest of her life. If he chooses to support her, that’s one thing, but I don’t see it as a right or entitlement.

The law doesn’t tell you how to be married, unless you’re gay, in most states. The law is why rich people draw up prenuptial agreements. The law is why people can choose to raise children instead of maintain career progression. Divorce is a side-effect of marriage, and I think it’s necessary to protect people who are fooled into marriage or fooled while being married or lulled into a sense of security. The only way a rich guy doesn’t lose half his stuff is making arrangements to take care of his ex-wife on reasonable but not outrageous terms, to some level at which she’s become accustomed, and it’s the law that she should get half (or whatever) so he can’t just throw her out on the street back where she came from.

Not everyone marries with eyes wide open and all your own shit together. If you’re old enough and you want to, and you’re straight, unrelated and human, you can get married. The law doesn’t tell you how long to date, how to arrange your own long-term affairs financially, or keep people from entering marriage for personal financial reasons instead of love – hey. You know that’s very popular. Here, religion can sometimes require this kind of planning, so you’re all on the same page. The law doesn’t require it, and some people can choose to make use of it, but don’t want to have such boring conversations when they’re in loooooove.

Yes, I realize these laws were put in when women were considered property and gave men some pause for thought to entering a marriage. What woman would enter marriage willingly if she could not guarantee herself taken care of? I think feminism would have arrived much sooner, but divorce was uncommon and men could treat their wives however they want. In exchange, he also took care of her financially. He may not love her or need her anymore, but he had taken her on as a responsibility.

We are still in an age where little girls want to be a princess and live in a castle. Values of dependence and wealth are still predominant, not just in religious patriarchy, but overall. However, if divorce provided nothing for anyone but their stuff, maybe knowing that, people would plan their lives accordingly and rather independently. I think people would not enter into marriage if it provided no sort of guarantees and amenities that getting divorced upsets a great deal.

If they could do it themselves, they wouldn’t have to get married, because I still think of it as an economic transaction mostly in order to provide for minor dependents, and love is… I don’t know. An illusion, sort of, to provide the kind of relationship in which two constant people provide for these minor dependents. Whether two people who never intend to care for minor dependents get married is, to me, a side effect, but the law favors two constant adults rather than one adult or several different interchangeable adults pretty much expressly for this purpose. The law doesn’t care if you love each other, it just cares that you don’t back out of a promise.

Laws against gay people getting to be those two constant adults gaining the same benefits of marriage have as much to do or more, I think, with traditional gender roles and expectations in traditional definitions and laws about marriage and divorce as it does that they can’t between themselves produce children without outside help – plenty of straight people utilize what society allows for that.

There’s a church in Arkansas that takes people’s bank account information for a 10% tithe. I’m fairly sure it’s required to be a member.

Disgusting.

That’s pretty messed up.  Although I wonder how they determine what to withdraw.  It’s not like they could set up a withdrawal for 10% of any deposit.  Perhaps they just provide an automated way for their clientele?  

When I was real young I attended a Catholic school for a few years.  My mom mentioned once that in order to get free tuition the church did require that my parents provide their 1040s or something along those lines so they could compare income vs. tithing.  I assume if my parents weren’t tithing enough, they would have had to pay tuition. 

Anna?  Libertarian?  *snort*

I don’t recall the church ever commanding us to tithe.  I have to ask  though, where in the bible does god command you to tithe?  And where does it say you must put 10% in savings?  I know when the apostles founded the christian church it was run like a cult and they demanded people give them everything to join.

9:7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

That’s a far cry from commanding to tithe and commanding to save.  You do realize that, don’t you?  And of course this is just one of the supposed writings by Paul to the Corinthians.  

Well that’s a pretty big change.  Perhaps you should read the bible a bit closer and see what else it actually says vs. what your church is claiming it says.  If you look into it a bit you’ll see that all sorts of horrible things makes your god happy throughout the bible.