What would you do if you found him/her cheating?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I disagree, Rick.

Marriage is a partnership. It's based on a mutual agreement. It depends on the participation of both spouses. When one spouse feels that he or she can no longer participate, that partnership and agreement - i.e. the basis of the marriage - is lost.

And I don't think it's your right to hold someone else's assets hostage. Yes, you worked for that house, but so did your spouse. When things are divided up, you'll get your fair share, and that's all you're entitled to.

Besides, don't you want your marriage to be based on, say, love and trust, not a grudging realization that with her money tied up in your house, she couldn't afford a down payment somewhere else?


Speaking for myself, my spouse didn't cheat on me and didn't beat me up. What did happen is that our marriage got to the point where I was so miserable that I really did feel I couldn't live with her any more. After I separated, one of my best friends, who's known me since I was 9, said t me "you know, I would never have said this when you were together, but I never saw you as unhappy as you looked when you were with her."

"No fault" doesn't mean "no reason", IMO. Even if the law doesn't demand that one spouse be identified as the one to blame, people don't throw away a commitment like marriage on a whim. If it gets to the point where one spouse feels they have no choice but to leave, then this say that there are serious and probably insurmountable problems in the marriage.

I think that in this situation, the spouse who claims that he or she did nothing wrong is probably just closing their eyes to the problems.

It was like that for me: I tried for years with my wife to deal with the problems we were having, but it was like talking to brick wall. Eventually, I came to the realization that she wasn't going to address them with me, so there was no hope of fixing the marriage. Since the status quo was intolerable, I left. And I think I made the right decision, given the circumstances.

 

[Songbird]

What if a couple has been married for 40 years? What if a spouse does not agree to a divorce?

There are situations where a person has kept their vows. They have done nothing wrong. No fault divorce enables someone to divide their assets any time they like.

I'm sorry, thats not a marriage. A person who has done nothing wrong should not have to move or sell their house.

Your situation was different. I can see where no fault divorce has ruined many lives.

Too many people get married and divorced for the wrong reasons.

Please try and look at this from my standpoint for just a minute.

I built my home.

I paid for my home.

It belongs to my wife and I because of marriage.

I raised my kids, I've paid all the bills, I've been a good husband and father.

It would not be fair to me to have to move and sell my home if I did not want a divorce providing I had done nothing wrong.

If my wife wakes up one morning and decides we should sell and divide everything, how would that be fair to me?

We should make decisions together, not one or the other.

Now if I did something wrong, that would be different all together.

A person who keeps their vows and is a good spouse should not have to pack their bags at the whim of another.

If she wants to sell and I do not, she can wait till death till us part and can deal with for better or worse.

No fault divorce laws suck in my opinion.

No fault divorce definitely sucks for some people. Being surprised (to put it mildly) with divorce papers and losing assets and a life you've built together is devastating. On the other hand, prior to no-fault, divorce (or marriage) sucked for some people too, in other ways. As an aside, divorce rates for long-term marriages are still pretty low.

Taking your hypothetical at face value and not wondering why you didn't see signs that your spouse was unhappy after many years, or what kind of brain tumor may have caused her to suddenly inexplicably want a divorce one morning, that situation would be unfair to you. But the alternatives are as unfair - some of them unfair to her. If one person wants out and another doesn't, there's no way around a good deal of unfairness.

The thing is, a court often can't determine that you're telling the truth. One over-riding memory I have of typing up documents for the Human Services Department when I was 19 was that no divorcing couple (who had reason to be at this department, anyway) thought they were at fault. Everyone thought they were innocent and it was the other person's fault for the breakdown of the marriage. It was amazing to consistently see two vastly different (and convincing) stories, with both people accusing the other of lying. There was no way for the mediators or courts to prove who was right most of the time, and they didn't care. It wasn't their business.

From Wiki:
"A 2004 Stanford Business School study compared outcomes in states that adopted no-fault divorce versus those that did not. It found:
20% reduction in female suicide after 20 years, none for men.
33% reduction in domestic violence against women (after a rise in other states vs. a drop in no-fault states)
Reduction in the domestic murder rate for women, none for men."

and

"Stephanie Coontz, a professor of history at Evergreen State College, states that "in the years since no-fault divorce became well-nigh universal, the national divorce rate has fallen, from about 23 divorces per 1,000 married couples in 1979 to under 17 per 1,000 in 2005."[23] She also states that before no-fault divorce was legalized, "Expensive litigation strained court resources" and that "once you permit the courts to determine when a person’s desire to leave is legitimate, you open the way to arbitrary decisions about what is or should be tolerable in a relationship, made by people who have no stake in the actual lives being lived."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Let's say you come home from a long, hard day of work. You enter your bedroom to find your wife/husband sleeping with another guy/girl, both nude in your bed. Both happy, your mate with an evil smile.

What would you do?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

FWIW, I don't think I was innocent in my case. I see lots of little ways I could've done things better over the years.

I also think it was a huge error in judgement on my part to have let myself get swept along in the wedding process without saying "hey - let's slow down so I have a chance to think things through."

I thought the misgivings I was feeling weren't enough reason to put the brakes on everything and hurt the woman I loved (or thought I loved - I'm not sure any more). I was wrong.

But even though I wasn't entirely innocent about the untenable situation I found myself in, this didn't change the fact that it was untenable.

 

[Mathematician]

I plan to attain a house and steady career separate from a spouse. I want to be financially secure before starting a family. Thus I also plan to only marry someone who agrees to a prenup. Family courts in the US are disproportionally antagonistic towards men (I hear the UK is worse), so I'm covering all my bases. Theoretically everything attained before a marriage won't be taken in a divorce, but we don't live in an ideal world.

 

[Mathematician]

What if a couple has been married for 40 years? What if a spouse does not agree to a divorce?

There are situations where a person has kept their vows. They have done nothing wrong. No fault divorce enables someone to divide their assets any time they like.

I'm sorry, thats not a marriage. A person who has done nothing wrong should not have to move or sell their house.

Your situation was different. I can see where no fault divorce has ruined many lives.

Too many people get married and divorced for the wrong reasons.

Please try and look at this from my standpoint for just a minute.

I built my home.

I paid for my home.

It belongs to my wife and I because of marriage.

I raised my kids, I've paid all the bills, I've been a good husband and father.

It would not be fair to me to have to move and sell my home if I did not want a divorce providing I had done nothing wrong.

If my wife wakes up one morning and decides we should sell and divide everything, how would that be fair to me?

We should make decisions together, not one or the other.

Now if I did something wrong, that would be different all together.

A person who keeps their vows and is a good spouse should not have to pack their bags at the whim of another.

If she wants to sell and I do not, she can wait till death till us part and can deal with for better or worse.

No fault divorce laws suck in my opinion.

I don't think no fault divorces should be dismantled since there are a variety of issues that arise, but I think courts should have no discretion over whether they recognize a prenup or not. If it was signed by both parties and witnessed or notarized, it should hold.

But as aforementioned, even conditions like adultery or battery don't cover everything. Some marriages have ended because one partner refuses to have sex with the other for an extended period of time. I think it's justified to leave; others don't.

 

[Songbird]

I plan to attain a house and steady career separate from a spouse. I want to be financially secure before starting a family. Thus I also plan to only marry someone who agrees to a prenup. Family courts in the US are disproportionally antagonistic towards men (I hear the UK is worse), so I'm covering all my bases. Theoretically everything attained before a marriage won't be taken in a divorce, but we don't live in an ideal world.

Prenups might be a good idea. I almost mentioned that in thinking of the best ways to protect oneself from financial losses due to divorce. I've heard of post-nuptial contracts, too. Staying abreast of current state laws, obtaining a good lawyer, and of course, marrying for healthy reasons and thoroughly knowing one's mate are good.

After this thread I reminded myself that most people don't get divorced or have affairs, and most divorces are rather decent.

 

[blackout]

I built my home.

I paid for my home.

It belongs to my wife and I because of marriage.

I raised my kids, I've paid all the bills, I've been a good husband and father.

It would not be fair to me to have to move and sell my home if I did not want a divorce providing I had done nothing wrong.

If my wife wakes up one morning and decides we should sell and divide everything, how would that be fair to me?

eh.

Sounds like you're already doin' the whole thing yourself.

I rather think I would wake up one morning
and want to set out and build a life of my own too.

Good thing I'm not your wife then.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Thankfully I have a good marriage. I believe people throw in the towel too easily these days. Every marriage hits bumps. Some people work harder than others on their marriage and some folks just marry the wrong person.

People change as well. That is the scary part. What if one morning you wake up and the person you married is a completely different person?

My objection to no fault divorce is it applied to people who where married beforehand. You enter one agreement and then after making the commitment the rules get changed. I'm sorry, that is not right.

I would not have a valid objection if no fault divorce was the law of the land the day I got married.

I have no issue that everything I own is joint property. I have no issue with making any large decisions together.

My problem is when someone can make a decision for the both of us when no one did anything wrong.

Of course if I did something I promised not to, there should be consequences, but if I honored, loved, cherished and treated my wife like a queen and she just decided out of the blue to serve me papers, I would be mad as hell.

Honestly, if there was such a thing as no fault divorce, I never would have gotten married in the first place.

I'm just glad I am married to a good woman and have a great relationship.

IMO, the current marriage laws give you no protection and much responsibility and are contractually illegal. In every contract, you must get something and give something in return.

Changing these contracts for people that where married before no fault divorce laws is unconstitutional.

I have a great wife and a good marriage, but I would have never agreed to current marriage terms and in my opinion, only a fool would.

Imagine buying a car and agreeing to make payments but could bring the damn thing back any time you like and all deals are off.

I don't like this car any more, here, take it back. I will not make any futher payments.

You think any banks would loan on those terms?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Marriage is a partnership. It's based on a mutual agreement. It depends on the participation of both spouses. When one spouse feels that he or she can no longer participate, that partnership and agreement - i.e. the basis of the marriage - is lost.

Any time an agreement can be cancelled by one party for no reason is not really a binding contract.

And I don't think it's your right to hold someone else's assets hostage. Yes, you worked for that house, but so did your spouse. When things are divided up, you'll get your fair share, and that's all you're entitled to.

It depends on what you agreed to when you entered the contract.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Rick,

Laws change all the time. Sometimes these changes affect existing agreements. That's not unique to marriage.

And I don't think your analogy of the car really fits. A spouse is a person, not a piece of property.
For a more fitting analogy, imagine you and a business partner buy a restaurant together. Years later, the partner wants out of the restaurant business but you don't. What happens?

If you really want to keep the restaurant going, you buy out your partner's share and he goes on his way. If you can't or won't buy him out, though, he can force a sale of the restaurant to get his half back. It's called "partition and sale", and even though it's a possibility in any business partnership, partnerships get loans all the time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Any time an agreement can be cancelled by one party for no reason is not really a binding contract.

A marriage isn't a normal contract. Normally, contracts have to have specificity of terms and can only obligate a person for a set length of time. In any other context, any contract that said "you agree to abide by these terms until the day you die" would be unenforceable and non-binding.

But like I touched on before, would you really want to force your spouse to stay in a loveless, unhappy marriage? Because that's what we're talking about here. If you need the law to get a person to stay, it's because other things like love and the emotional support of marriage aren't there to a sufficient degree to get the person to stay for those reasons.

Speaking for myself, I want my (next) spouse to stay with me because she loves me and wants to be with me, not because she's contractually obligated to be with me.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Been there.

I walked out of the living room and didn't talk with my SO for a few days. I was devastated and just let myself go through the grief of losing that trust.

After the grief, I came back ready to talk about what should happen next. I'm glad I did that. For me, it was the healthiest approach personally I could do.

 

[Songbird]

It's a moot point by now, but from the OP's wording it looks like the scenario is that your mate plans to have you walk in on her/him. The evil smile, the fact that you came home from work, presumably like you usually do, at that time of day. Clearly your mate expects you to arrive, which is an in-your-face stick-it-to-you thing. A little different from the usual accidentally getting caught. It would either make me ask what I did to inspire a vicious revenge like that, or wonder if my partner were a tad psycho.

If it were the accidentally getting caught version, I think I'd have a reaction similar to Mystic or Kathryn - just walk out and get some time to think. I don't know how I'd react to the evil version. I think I'd be a little scared of someone who wanted to do that.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Rick,

Laws change all the time. Sometimes these changes affect existing agreements. That's not unique to marriage.

And I don't think your analogy of the car really fits. A spouse is a person, not a piece of property.

Horse crap Jeff! I never compared a spouse to a piece of property and resent you implying I did. The car anaolgy one partner would have been the bank and the other the account holder. I compared a relationship between the banker and the customer which are two people entering a contract with each other. The car represented the marriage not one of the spouses.

For a more fitting analogy, imagine you and a business partner buy a restaurant together. Years later, the partner wants out of the restaurant business but you don't. What happens?

You can't just wake up one morning and decide to sell your half of the business either. Perhaps after a certain period of time there is an exit clause with requirements of notification. Business partners are not expected to have the capital to buy each other out at a moments notice.

If you really want to keep the restaurant going, you buy out your partner's share and he goes on his way. If you can't or won't buy him out, though, he can force a sale of the restaurant to get his half back. It's called "partition and sale", and even though it's a possibility in any business partnership, partnerships get loans all the time.

Big difference when the terms are spelled out ahead of time and you agree to them and agreeing to one thing and the law changing to another.

Legal marriage and no fault divorce is an insult to the institution of marriage.

I made a vow to my God as well as my wife to stay together till death do us part.

Now if I was to cheat, lie, mistreat or do anything contrary to what I promised to do, that is different all together.

Lets quit making this about me.

Example: A father and a mother live in this house and have alot of children and send them to private school. Just because the father decides he would like to take a younger wife should not mean the wife and children should have to move out of the house or send the kids to another school. If he wants to stray, fine. But selling the house would not happen till the kids where raised in my world.

No fault divorce is an insult to spiritual marriage. You might as well say no one ever intended to stay together for life. Divorce should be a long drawn out affair where one party would have to prove the other violated the agreement or they would both have to agree to the divorce.

I guess people forget they promised to stay together for better or worse, for richer or poorer in sickness and in health.

The damn marriage vows should read, I promise to hang out so long as it is to my advantage and will bail at the first sign of trouble or I get a woody for someone else.

I futhermore agree to give you half the stuff whether you paid for any of it or not upon demand.

 

[Reverend Rick]

But like I touched on before, would you really want to force your spouse to stay in a loveless, unhappy marriage? Because that's what we're talking about here. If you need the law to get a person to stay, it's because other things like love and the emotional support of marriage aren't there to a sufficient degree to get the person to stay for those reasons.

Speaking for myself, I want my (next) spouse to stay with me because she loves me and wants to be with me, not because she's contractually obligated to be with me.

I never said she has to stay. She can do as she likes, but if she thinks I'm selling the friggin house she should have to prove I broke my vows!

Futhermore, after I die she would get the whole house not half the house upon demand.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Rick,

Laws change all the time. Sometimes these changes affect existing agreements. That's not unique to marriage.

That does not make it right however. New laws should be for future agreements not past ones. Have you ever heard of grandfather clauses?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Sit down and watch.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That does not make it right however. New laws should be for future agreements not past ones. Have you ever heard of grandfather clauses?

Some things have grandfather clauses, some don't.

I remember when they brought in the law here that said new drivers had to have zero blood alcohol. There was no exception on that for people like me saying "anyone affected by this who already had their licence when the law changed can stil have a couple of drinks."

 

[Reverend Rick]

I disagree, Rick.

Marriage is a partnership. It's based on a mutual agreement. It depends on the participation of both spouses. When one spouse feels that he or she can no longer participate, that partnership and agreement - i.e. the basis of the marriage - is lost.

And the responsible party for the divorce should get nothing upon demand

And I don't think it's your right to hold someone else's assets hostage. Yes, you worked for that house, but so did your spouse. When things are divided up, you'll get your fair share, and that's all you're entitled to.

If you are found to have broke your vows, you should have to wait till your spouse dies to get anything unless you work something out satisfactory together. The property belongs to the marriage not the vow breaker. Your rightfull assets should be tied up till death do you part. Then you get all of the marital property

Besides, don't you want your marriage to be based on, say, love and trust, not a grudging realization that with her money tied up in your house, she couldn't afford a down payment somewhere else?

If she broke her vows, she could live under a bridge for all I care. She created her own financial hardship and should bear the responsibility of that.

Speaking for myself, my spouse didn't cheat on me and didn't beat me up. What did happen is that our marriage got to the point where I was so miserable that I really did feel I couldn't live with her any more. After I separated, one of my best friends, who's known me since I was 9, said t me "you know, I would never have said this when you were together, but I never saw you as unhappy as you looked when you were with her."

"No fault" doesn't mean "no reason", IMO. Even if the law doesn't demand that one spouse be identified as the one to blame, people don't throw away a commitment like marriage on a whim.

The no fault laws says you can. If people had to take responsibility for their actions, there would be less divorces.

Of course if the two of you worked things out between you, that would be a mutual agreement and that is fine with me.

When you get married, you give yourself to the other person. You cannot take that back, it requires your mate to give yourself back to you.

What I am saying is, one spouse could refuse to grant the divorce. If it takes two to get married, it should take two to get divorced unless you prove the other broke their vows. If you break your vows, you should be entitled to nothing.