The Shotgun Blog
Friday, May 29, 2009
Debating & delving into costs of divorce
The country watches silently as divorce continues to take its devastating toll on children. A recent study out of Alberta shows one dramatic, negative impact and provides the jumping off point for my most recent Face to Face debate in the Tri-City News. Here's my take, and here's that of my temporary sparring partner, Jim Nelson.
Meantime, the Institute of Family and Marriage Canada is getting ready to release an ambitious report on June 3, adding up the financial costs to the public of divorce.
yeah, well... that's what we get when the state recognises and controls the marriage agenda, instead of staying out of it and keeping it a private matter between contracted individuals. the costs of divorce are pretty much guaranteed to skyrocket, at public expense.
Posted by: shel | 2009-05-29 3:16:13 PM
Divorce is a lawyers bread and butter. Government sides completely with the woman and will squeeze whatever funds required out of the men to eliminate the need to pay welfare.
The standards of responsibility we once had have been replaced by instant gratifycation, throw away morals and disposable relationships. Woman smart and good. Man dumb and bad.
We really should band together and complain to our government dept. for the "Status of Men".
Really??...don't have one ??. Wow.
Divorce is simply the screwing you get for the screwing you got. Maybe we should complain to our esteemed HRC.Mostly Ball busting feminists you say ?? No kidding. No wonder there are so many men going for this Trans gender thing. Probably the only way men can hang on to their kids after a divorce.
Posted by: peterj | 2009-05-29 11:28:25 PM
The government has no business in the marriage business. That should also be true of the divorce business.
Posted by: TM | 2009-05-30 9:06:13 AM
Maybe we should do what the Vikings did--when a woman divorced her husband, she took with her every child under the age of eight, but she was then required to provide solely for them until she found a new husband. The man, on the other hand, kept all children nine or older, for which he, too, was solely obligated.
Assuming that our modern society is incapable of accepting such a simple and bulletproof system as that, the matter should be left to full-time arbitrators--no courts, no divorce lawyers. Unless mommy and daddy can draw up a perfectly amicable split and act like grownups, then the terms should be dictated to them. No dog-and-pony shows. No crying on the stand. No endless affidavits from character witnesses. No child support. No alimony. You leave what you came in with and your share of whatever you contributed to jointly during the union. Children to be divided equally.
The great majority of divorces do not include abuse. Of course, "domestic abuse" is a whole nother can of worms in which the feminists have their hands, predicated once again on the view that women are equal, yet special--it's OK for a woman to hit, but not a man; it's OK for a woman to snuff the kids, but not a man; and so forth. We need a rehash in that area too.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-30 9:26:00 AM
Flying pots and pans. Occasionally screaming, hysterical wife. Four kids. Little money. Close to if not in poverty. No telephone. No car. Kids work from nine or ten years old doing what they can to pay dentists, etc. Both parents working for minimum wage. House with one floor, one bedroom, one living room (also serving as a bedroom, one kitchen, one hallway (used for storage and two beds), cellar with bathtub and toilet (coal-fired jacket heater in the cellar for heating water for the tub), Franklin stove in the living room to provide heat for the house. And so on.... The parents never divorced and the kids grew up and did very well, also with no divorces. These days people are so bloody spoiled they think everyone else owes them a living.
Posted by: dewp | 2009-05-30 11:52:49 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.