End the scourge of divorce - what a muppet

[BrilloPad]

That's true but on the other hand if people knew marriage meant for life, barring very special circumstances, maybe they wouldn't get married at the drop of a hat.

It's sort of the opposite case to the giving benefits to families with children argument... the common suggestion is "don't reward people for breeding" and the counter-argument is "but if they have kids, they shouldn't be punished for who their parents are".

In this case, yes being stuck in a marriage has to be awful, but you shouldn't enter into marriage so lightly in the first place. I'm not talking about cases where one partner turns out to be abusive, but where people get married as the 'next step' of being together, then realise they're a bit bored a year later.

Agree strongly with all that.

BUT I was living with first wife for 7 years before we married. First 4 years were great. Then she had kidney transplant - and she went kind of mad. I then made my big mistake - I thought having kids when make it all okay.

[d000hg]

IMO it is worse for children to stay in a bad atmosphere where there is continual argument. Of course in an ideal world married couples with kids would get on. And no-one would die of hunger. And everyone on cuk would get on.

That's true but on the other hand if people knew marriage meant for life, barring very special circumstances, maybe they wouldn't get married at the drop of a hat.

It's sort of the opposite case to the giving benefits to families with children argument... the common suggestion is "don't reward people for breeding" and the counter-argument is "but if they have kids, they shouldn't be punished for who their parents are".

In this case, yes being stuck in a marriage has to be awful, but you shouldn't enter into marriage so lightly in the first place. I'm not talking about cases where one partner turns out to be abusive, but where people get married as the 'next step' of being together, then realise they're a bit bored a year later.

[AtW]

In some US states it only takes one partner to ask for a divorce and it will be granted because the courts believe you can’t for a couple to live together if one partner does not want to.

That's because on country with liberal gun laws it would be too dangerous not to allow easy divorces

[BrilloPad]

How about starting up a charity with the opposite views? The UK has one of the most medieval, repressive and contentious divorce laws that brings out the worse when couple break up. The only people who gain are the lawyers. It is time that the government and church treat adults as adults and leave matters to themselves. In some US states it only takes one partner to ask for a divorce and it will be granted because the courts believe you can’t for a couple to live together if one partner does not want to. If couple knew that any one partner could get and instant divorce; perhaps they would work better at the marriage rather than getting the maximum material benefits out of it.

I quite like the French system myself. And as I hate the French that means I am very impressed with it. Am I allowed to say I hate the French? I thought under the racism laws one is not allowed to discriminate against anyone EXCEPT the Frenc. And for them it is compulsary.

[BrilloPad]

There is no cure mate, apart from lobotomy!

Just to expand on my proposal - put tax on divorce, say 20% on both sides without children and say 50-70% with children...

errr - that is what currently happens. the money goes to the lawyers.

[AtW]

A tax on children!

Children don't own anything, the partners do though - divorce should come with a serious financial penalty to them and not just the husband!

If the wife knows that she'll lose 50-70% of what she'll get from husband in case of divorce then maybe she'll reconsider, same goes for husband.

Whoever files for divorce pays extra

[AtW]

And who would benefit from this tax?

Tax paid to the state of course.

[BigTime]

There is no cure mate, apart from lobotomy!

Just to expand on my proposal - put tax on divorce, say 20% on both sides without children and say 50-70% with children...

And who would benefit from this tax?

[AtW]

Gawd, I'm supposed to be a lefty liberal but I find myself constantly agreeing with AtW ....... Is there a help centre for this?

There is no cure mate, apart from lobotomy!

Just to expand on my proposal - put tax on divorce, say 20% on both sides without children and say 50-70% with children...

[Scoobos]

Gawd, I'm supposed to be a lefty liberal but I find myself constantly agreeing with AtW ....... Is there a help centre for this?

[AtW]

Penalise both sides in case of divorce - especially harshly if children are involved until they are under 18...

You know it makes sense...

[Paddy]

How about starting up a charity with the opposite views? The UK has one of the most medieval, repressive and contentious divorce laws that brings out the worse when couple break up. The only people who gain are the lawyers. It is time that the government and church treat adults as adults and leave matters to themselves. In some US states it only takes one partner to ask for a divorce and it will be granted because the courts believe you can’t for a couple to live together if one partner does not want to. If couple knew that any one partner could get and instant divorce; perhaps they would work better at the marriage rather than getting the maximum material benefits out of it.

[BrilloPad]

Sir Paul Coleridge: 'End the scourge of divorce' - Telegraph

Sir Paul Coleridge will formally establish the Marriage Foundation, an independent charity that will champion the institution of marriage as the "gold standard for relationships".

It is unusual for a serving judge to speak out in such a way but Sir Paul, who sits in the Family Division, has been outspoken on the issue of marriage and divorce. Last year, he suggested that people needed to re-educate themselves about the value of stable relationships for the good of society and warned that getting a divorce was easier than getting a driving licence.

IMO it is worse for children to stay in a bad atmosphere where there is continual argument. Of course in an ideal world married couples with kids would get on. And no-one would die of hunger. And everyone on cuk would get on.

What Sir Paul could do is to speak out against the adversorial family court system. The more bitter the divorce the more lawyers make. Its a bit like finding your house is on fire and call the fire brigade who turn up and pour napalm on it.