Do we want to talk about no-fault divorce?

I barely skimmed over this thread, but I'mma just throw this out there:

Don't make it harder to get divorced. Make it harder to get married. Eg, you need to register your intent with a court a year in advance. During the grace period, complete a course on healthy family life.

My favorite brand is For Fuck's, but For Christ's is also pretty good especially on easter and christmas.

It’s not that the stats are “inconvenient”. Stats can say anything anyone wants them to say. What it doesn’t say is “why”. And there are a hell of a lot more reasons a woman would want a divorce, than a man.

@Cheese Bro is an actual lawyer for a career FWIW

Hell, he and @Faceman attended the same law school in Sacramento and passed the hardest bar example in the entire country

They call me the White Johnny Cochran at my firm.

This is not necessarily true for the court judge. The status of the contract and responsibilities can be pretty straight forward if you disregard neglect or abuse of children which will effect custody. I am not saying the couples do not try and sling mud in order to bias the judge, but there are standards for the assets and combined incomes while married. The judge does not get to make a decision in some courts based on their own personal feelings regarding the divorce in some states.

The problem I see with finances is the couple becomes immediately responsible for the financial split of larger assets. If you have a home and you have been paying for it for a while you might not have enough money to fork over the half the other is responsible for. Also, if your family or you makes the down payment the other is entitled to half of that. If you cannot pay that half back immediately the home has to be sold. My grandparents gave my sister the down payment on her home when she was married. He got half of that while she was the major bread earner because he was frittering away on a business that was majorly underwater according to the assets. The judge said in court she would have never given him a dime considering he legally kept his business out of his hands while maintaining control. It is legal because his family paid the bills but owned his business while he sunk anything he made back into the business while my sister paid the family bills with her income. She had no claim on his business as it was held by his family. He was gifted the business after the divorce. She had his diary where he wrote down these plans, and it meant nothing. He cheated, and it meant nothing. He did not even have any income to support his child, and he got half custody.

There are laws on the dissolving of financial matters, and divorce is and should be a financial partnership with rules on how it is dissolved. If it was treated like a business then more couples would get into it with a contract like an incorporated entity. You would spell everything out for yourselves based on your own input. Marriage by the law is specifically a financial contract for a financial partnership. There should be no other bullshit attached by law. If you want to get intro a partnership you make one with people who are of the age to enter into a contract. If you want to get out of it you end it. There should be no force by the government to continue to be in a financial contract, or to not allow a consenting adult to be in one. It is nothing else to the government.

The call you dumbshit the boy at subway when they need the toilet cleaned.

Well, you're certainly not a libertarian.

My law practice is just a hobby. The real money is earning rep points here.

You mean you constantly jump straight to misogynist, MRA, MGTOW-style talking points without any past personal trauma pushing you in that direction?

I'm not sure that's an improvement.

I think the guy who clearly has issues with women and exudes toxic masculinity should not be surprised when people assume he lost big in the divorce. It is a bit of a tell, especially when he has dragged his next girlfriend in here to tell us all how he is really great and not as bad as we think he is.

Based on some bullshit terms you invent on the spot, no doubt.

What I am is not subject to your validation.

I'm not sure I fucking care. This "who hurt you" stupidity is just a transparent way of sidestepping an inconvenient concept.

Your obvious marital problems are only an inconvenient concept to you. To the rest of us they are somewhat amusing and explain a lot of your attitude.

Who hurt you?

Ask Tasvir, Ted, Ramen, and Murderface how that attitude works out in the end.

If you're threatening to ban me, quit being a dickless coward and just fucking say so.

No, seriously, track them down and ask them.

uh oh, looks like beavis is aboput to go full bungholio again. someone get him some TP for his bunghole.

However, you are subject to his consultation fee...

You're certainly not the arbiter of who is and isn't a libertarian.

I’m sure Aunt Alice appreciates you speaking for them.

Nice try, Faceman. Not again!