I don't think our divorce laws are fair in this country.
I realize that they were probably well intended. But it makes no sense that in, say, John Cleese's divorce, his ex-wife should end up with more of his earnings and income than he is allowed to keep. Is that fair?
I place a high value on those women who stay home and keep the house and raise the children (and on the men who do that as well), and I definitely think that if a man or woman gives up their career to support their spouse, that that's worth something.
But shouldn't this be judged on a case by case basis? We don't have one-law-fits-all for any OTHER financial transactions.
Okay, say a spouse works two crappy jobs to put their wife or husband through medical school, and completely gives up their own dreams and career to make that happen. Then, the newly minted doctor becomes a serial philanderer and a drug addict and gives the spouse vd.
Now imagine a second scenario where a waitress marries an already rich celebrity, cheats on him, and then leaves him after a month.
Should the spouse in the second scenario get the same compensation as the first? Should she be entitled to half his wages for years?
I venture to say that these laws actually REWARD crappy behavior and encourage breakups.
I'm all for fairness. I believe staying at home and raising kids is a job worth something in a marriage.
But I don't believe the no-fault laws are even slightly fair.
Where am I wrong?