FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Should divorce be easier?

Should divorce be easier?

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"A woman who wants to divorce her husband of 40 years because she says their marriage is unhappy has lost her case. Supreme court judges “reluctantly” told her she must remain his wife, because a joyless marriage is not adequate grounds for a divorce if one spouse refuses to agree.

Five judges at the UK’s highest court unanimously upheld rulings by a family court and the court of appeal that Tini Owens, 68, must stay married to Hugh Owens, 80, despite her complaint that the marriage was loveless and had broken down."

'Ant McPartlin wants a divorce but reports say his wife Lisa Armstrong doesnt.'

Should divorce be easier? Why should people have to wait 5 years to be able to get a divorce if their partner disagrees to it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan over a year ago

here

“Look before you leap”

“Measure twice, cut once”

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ara JTV/TS over a year ago

Bristol East

Two with agreement, five without?

is that the rule for dissolving a marriage?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *V-AliceTV/TS over a year ago

Ayr

It is in Scotland.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yeah it should. My friend was with her partner 9 years before they married but split 10 months after the wedding. He won't divorce her and it's been 2 years since their wedding.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

""A woman who wants to divorce her husband of 40 years because she says their marriage is unhappy has lost her case. Supreme court judges “reluctantly” told her she must remain his wife, because a joyless marriage is not adequate grounds for a divorce if one spouse refuses to agree.

'Ant McPartlin wants a divorce but reports say his wife Lisa Armstrong doesnt.'

Should divorce be easier? Why should people have to wait 5 years to be able to get a divorce if their partner disagrees to it?

I suspect the law will change now. You can only get divorced without the other party's consent if you live apart for five years, or can prove adultery or unreasonable behaviour. In this case she tried to argue that he had behaved unreasonably, he said he hadn't and the judges found she hadn't proved it.

The law dates from the sixties when social mores were a bit different. In the current more individualistic age, the vast majority of people are now probably of the view that divorce should be available more or less on demand.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elma and ShaggyCouple over a year ago

Bedworth

Hubby and I were discussing that case earlier today. My view is that it may go belly up on him and actually be a blessing for her in the end. Male life expectancy is significantly less than female and with him being 80 now there’s a possibility that he may snuff it before she can divorce him. If that happens she’s legally his spouse so is entitled to his entire estate

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes it should be made a whole lot easier. So easy to get married but a nightmare to get out of.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nowwhitexxx1Woman over a year ago

Hull

Divorce is a bloody nightmare and totally back in the dark ages!!! I’m having to wait for TWO years because before that you have to apportion blame and neither of us want that... and this case don’t even get me started grrrrrr haha

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan over a year ago

here

"Hubby and I were discussing that case earlier today. My view is that it may go belly up on him and actually be a blessing for her in the end. Male life expectancy is significantly less than female and with him being 80 now there’s a possibility that he may snuff it before she can divorce him. If that happens she’s legally his spouse so is entitled to his entire estate

Unless his last will and testament says otherwise.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *elma and ShaggyCouple over a year ago

Bedworth

Unless his last will and testament says otherwise.

Not strictly true I’m afraid. A spouse still has legal rights and it’s not uncommon for a will to be successfully challenged in the courts

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ink Panther.Woman over a year ago

Preston

Yes, one of the many reasons I’ve never been married

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

Unless his last will and testament says otherwise.

Not strictly true I’m afraid. A spouse still has legal rights and it’s not uncommon for a will to be successfully challenged in the courts"

If he's made a will giving her nothing, I doubt her position will be any different whether she is divorced or merely separated.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes definitely should be easier and the expense is horrendous

I actually think it would cause less emotional stress also

Been through a divorce and it wasn't pretty

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue."

Why would they want to force someone to stay with them when the other person doesn't want to? Is it along the same lines as forced arranged marriages?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

"Two with agreement, five without?

is that the rule for dissolving a marriage?"

Yes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue."

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

'Ant McPartlin wants a divorce but reports say his wife Lisa Armstrong doesnt.'

Should divorce be easier? Why should people have to wait 5 years to be able to get a divorce if their partner disagrees to it?

It's a contract. Like any other contract both sides have to be in agreement to change it. Currently it's five years without joint consent...too long? I had to wait five years but my divorce cost less than £400.

I think these two old codgers deserve each other: she had the affair, has moved next door...odd couple.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Here in Ireland divorce is no fault, but you have to live separately for five years before divorcing. The upshot of this is that most couples simply move on in all but name and have established new families by the time they divorce. Ridiculous.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty? "

The only reason that I can possibly think for not wanting to divorce someone despite the other party’s wishes is financial. If the unwilling partner is the breadwinner or has more to lose from a financial split then that would possibly explain their reticence

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

The only reason that I can possibly think for not wanting to divorce someone despite the other party’s wishes is financial "

Then you've got a very limited imagination.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By * and M lookingCouple over a year ago

Worcester

Like everything today.

No commitment.

Every marriage is seen as a throw away commodity.

Can't understand why people who have only known each other for a couple of years decide to tie the knot.

You don't know someone until you have lived with them.

Different in this case but maybe there should be a 5 year together before you Wed policy

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Like everything today.

No commitment.

Every marriage is seen as a throw away commodity.

Can't understand why people who have only known each other for a couple of years decide to tie the knot.

You don't know someone until you have lived with them.

Different in this case but maybe there should be a 5 year together before you Wed policy

The trouble with that is that children will arrive anyway.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lceeWoman over a year ago

Leeds

Jesus...I’ve heard bits about this but it just seems cruel.

The poor woman. She can’t leave as she won’t have access to funds to live but the courts won’t allow her half of what she’s worked bloody hard to help build.

I personally think you should be able to divorce for any reason. If you don’t want to be legally bound to someone any more, you should be able to say so and be done with it. Especially given the impact in abusive relationships.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By * and M lookingCouple over a year ago

Worcester

"Like everything today.

No commitment.

Every marriage is seen as a throw away commodity.

Can't understand why people who have only known each other for a couple of years decide to tie the knot.

You don't know someone until you have lived with them.

Different in this case but maybe there should be a 5 year together before you Wed policy

The trouble with that is that children will arrive anyway."

Maybe a ban on having kids for 5 years too then.

It's always them that lose out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Like everything today.

No commitment.

Every marriage is seen as a throw away commodity.

Can't understand why people who have only known each other for a couple of years decide to tie the knot.

You don't know someone until you have lived with them.

Different in this case but maybe there should be a 5 year together before you Wed policy

The trouble with that is that children will arrive anyway.

Maybe a ban on having kids for 5 years too then.

It's always them that lose out."

Yeah, that's really going to be workable.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue."

Because what is the point in making the process difficult? It isn't going to save the marriage and it just makes it harder on both people in the end. A quick and easy finalisation would make things easier for both people involved then both people can get on putting their life back together again.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By * and M lookingCouple over a year ago

Worcester

Compulsory contraception?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Compulsory contraception?"

Uh yeah right. Totally not a violation of human rights. In fact, while we're at it, how about compulsory sterlisation of those deemed not fit to breed, or lock up those wayward women who get pregnant outside wedlock?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Facetiousness aside, no matter how long you live with someone, the dynamic changes when children arrive, it's well documented that their arrival has a negative impact on marital happiness. I would say you don't really know someone until you have to co-parent with them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Why would they want to force someone to stay with them when the other person doesn't want to? Is it along the same lines as forced arranged marriages?"

They don't need to stay together to remain married though.

I don't feel it's at all like forced arranged marriage. Its not being able to get out of a contract you entered in to willingly, unless it was a forced marriage.

I absolutely wouldn't want to stay married to someone who didn't want to be married to me. I also think that getting divorced should be easier. I just wondered why the views of the person who wants the divorce are counted as more important than those of the person who doesn't. Its not as if you can get married if only one of you wants to.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty? "

Is it? In every case? What if it's downright cruelty to the person being unwillingly divorced, not every marriage breakdown is the same.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Maybe there should be better measures in place to ensure people understand marriage is a life long commitment and to ensure the person they want to marry is right for them. That marriage is about the bad times as well as the good..

Just a thought

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *BWandhusbandCouple over a year ago

Midlands

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Why would they want to force someone to stay with them when the other person doesn't want to? Is it along the same lines as forced arranged marriages?"

I agree.

My ex husband was the one who ended our relationship. After a week or so of trying my best to talk him into staying together, it was obvious he felt nothing towards me anymore. There's not a chance I was going to try and lengthen the divorce process. He didn't want me, so why would I force him to stay married to me?

My dad, on the other hand, made my mum wait 5 years for their divorce. All it caused was resentment and arguments and as a child in the middle of it all, it wasn't nice for me. He did it out of control and I have a low opinion of him because of it.

Katie.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

I was asking a rhetorical question really. The assumption seems to be that divorce should be at the behest of one partner but marriage at the behest of both. A further assumption is that allowing the person who wants the divorce the final say will make it easier for both. Why? The unwilling divorcee might have their life destroyed.

I suppprt easier divorce and wouldn't wish to see people in a marriage they don't want. However I think it needs acknowledging that divorce where someone doesn't actually want it won't be easier on that person necessarily.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Maybe there should be better measures in place to ensure people understand marriage is a life long commitment and to ensure the person they want to marry is right for them. That marriage is about the bad times as well as the good..

Just a thought "

I think a move away from the romanticised ideal would be a good thing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

Is it? In every case? What if it's downright cruelty to the person being unwillingly divorced, not every marriage breakdown is the same."

Forcing one person to remain in a situation they hate in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't make it right in any circumstance I can see.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Divorce isn't "easy" on either party.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Why would they want to force someone to stay with them when the other person doesn't want to? Is it along the same lines as forced arranged marriages?

They don't need to stay together to remain married though.

I don't feel it's at all like forced arranged marriage. Its not being able to get out of a contract you entered in to willingly, unless it was a forced marriage.

Why are the views of someone who doesn't want to have sex more important than those of of the person who does want to have sex?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Divorce here in Ireland takes up to 5 years.

First they send you to counselling have to prove the marriage has failed.

It shouldn't take this long.

2 years is more than enough.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

Is it? In every case? What if it's downright cruelty to the person being unwillingly divorced, not every marriage breakdown is the same.

Forcing one person to remain in a situation they hate in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't make it right in any circumstance I can see."

No, I agree. However forcing someone who doesn't want to to get divorced in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't seem right either.

I divorced my first husband, he didn't want to get divorced. I don't feel anything about the situation was fair or right on either of us. It's an unfair situation and I'm not arguing for one persons rights over another, just pondering on why we all think a certain way.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Divorce isn't "easy" on either party."

No I agree, however the point I was answering said it would make it easier on both parties.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why wouldn't you agree?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

Is it? In every case? What if it's downright cruelty to the person being unwillingly divorced, not every marriage breakdown is the same.

Forcing one person to remain in a situation they hate in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't make it right in any circumstance I can see.

No, I agree. However forcing someone who doesn't want to to get divorced in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't seem right either.

As per my rhetorical question above, it's wrong for an individual to force someone to do something with you that they don't want to do.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don't think someone should live a miserable existence because the other person doesn't want to let go.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

Is it? In every case? What if it's downright cruelty to the person being unwillingly divorced, not every marriage breakdown is the same.

Forcing one person to remain in a situation they hate in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't make it right in any circumstance I can see.

No, I agree. However forcing someone who doesn't want to to get divorced in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't seem right either.

As per my rhetorical question above, it's wrong for an individual to force someone to do something with you that they don't want to do. "

Like stay married to them when they have no interest in you; don't make any effort except being there, and only want to stay together to have company.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hatYorkLadMan over a year ago

York

Another reason I never want to get married, if someone isn't happy and they've tried to make it work then they should be able to walk away easily. Being forced to stay with someone you've grown to despise sounds like torture for both parties!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I don't think someone should live a miserable existence because the other person doesn't want to let go."

Nor do I, I think that either both wish to stay married or there is no marriage. Individual circumstances are unique and impossible to legislate for, therefore to force anyone to remain in a marriage they wish to leave is not something that should be possible under the law. Who knows what goes on behind closed doors, psychological torture can be very subtle.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Karma .. .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Just a thought

I think a move away from the romanticised ideal would be a good thing. "

It's almost like they should make vows and have a ceremony where people promise to stay married for life?

People need to get a grip. You're not forced to get married and if you have a problem making estimations about the future and are generally a poor judge of character, it's probably best you don't. It's already very easy to get divorced and it's also well documented that children do not emerge from divorce unscathed, despite people wishing this wasn't the case.

Divorce is already easy enough, some people should just remain single since until they develop the relationship skills to avoid getting into toxic relationships.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

Is it? In every case? What if it's downright cruelty to the person being unwillingly divorced, not every marriage breakdown is the same.

Forcing one person to remain in a situation they hate in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't make it right in any circumstance I can see.

No, I agree. However forcing someone who doesn't want to to get divorced in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't seem right either.

As per my rhetorical question above, it's wrong for an individual to force someone to do something with you that they don't want to do. "

Why? Most things aren't just things you want to do or don't want to do. That's a spectrum with the vast majority of things falling near the middle.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

Just a thought

I think a move away from the romanticised ideal would be a good thing.

It's almost like they should make vows and have a ceremony where people promise to stay married for life?

Divorce is already easy enough, some people should just remain single since until they develop the relationship skills to avoid getting into toxic relationships. "

I am not quite sure how you would enforce that. A state appointed Marriage Approver General who decides if a marriage is appropriate?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Just a thought

I think a move away from the romanticised ideal would be a good thing.

It's almost like they should make vows and have a ceremony where people promise to stay married for life?

Divorce is already easy enough, some people should just remain single since until they develop the relationship skills to avoid getting into toxic relationships. "

When I met my husband he showed no signs of being an abuser; of being overtly jealous or capable of torture and physical, mental and emotional abuse.

Not all toxic personalities are evident at the beginning.

People can change over a period of a few years.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

Is it? In every case? What if it's downright cruelty to the person being unwillingly divorced, not every marriage breakdown is the same.

Forcing one person to remain in a situation they hate in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't make it right in any circumstance I can see.

No, I agree. However forcing someone who doesn't want to to get divorced in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't seem right either.

As per my rhetorical question above, it's wrong for an individual to force someone to do something with you that they don't want to do.

Why? Most things aren't just things you want to do or don't want to do. That's a spectrum with the vast majority of things falling near the middle."

But the point is its ultimately the individuals choice. If I agree to go for a drink with you and then on balance decide I'd rather not isn't it up to me to decide if I want to or not?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hatYorkLadMan over a year ago

York

A lot of people get married very young or they rush into it whilst still in the loved up honeymoon period of the relationship, then when they really get to know the person over the years that follow they find they have very little common ground or interests and become unhappy. Then of course are the people male and female who completely let themselves go once married and lose their appeal to their partner...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *izzy RascallMan over a year ago

Cardiff

Thankfully this country still take it serious so no.

If we go down the route of drive through weddings then yeah let's have drive through divorces too.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heIcebreakersCouple over a year ago

Cramlington

"
Nope, as others have pointed out, if his will leaves it all to someone else, then she will have to go to court to challenge the will should he pre-decease her.

I can't help feeling this is why the courts are sticking to a strict interpretation of the law - they suspect that the divorce is a ruse to get into the application for a financial order (which used to be called ancillary relief until the rules changed in about 2010, saving us all from students giggling about divorced woemn seeking ancillary relief from their ex...)

If you're advising the wife, of course you'd go for a divorce, and if you're advising the husband, you'd refuse. Wills and trusts aren't my speciality but my guess is that the wife has had good advice that she won't get as good a deal after hubby is dead as she would before, and that that explains this awful case.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

Is it? In every case? What if it's downright cruelty to the person being unwillingly divorced, not every marriage breakdown is the same.

Forcing one person to remain in a situation they hate in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't make it right in any circumstance I can see.

No, I agree. However forcing someone who doesn't want to to get divorced in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't seem right either.

As per my rhetorical question above, it's wrong for an individual to force someone to do something with you that they don't want to do.

Why? Most things aren't just things you want to do or don't want to do. That's a spectrum with the vast majority of things falling near the middle.

But the point is its ultimately the individuals choice. If I agree to go for a drink with you and then on balance decide I'd rather not isn't it up to me to decide if I want to or not? "

What you're doing there is conflation high investment decisions and low investment decisions, which nullifies your point. We don't (or shouldn't) decide upon marriage or divorce the way we pick our breakfast cereal in the morning.

As per your question about whether a wife who doesn't want sex having "more important" feelings than a husband who doesn't. I would say that's also a false dichotomy. Firstly, the husband is entitled to sex. Not specifically at any given time or day, but sex is part of what marriage is. Again, people who don't like that need not get married. A wife who chooses a sexless marriage isn't really choosing her own feelings, she's just pushing her husband to an alternative source of sex. Life is not full of simple choices with two outcomes, one right and one wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue."

And if the partner who refuses to consent to the divorce is controlling and abusive?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

Nope, as others have pointed out, if his will leaves it all to someone else, then she will have to go to court to challenge the will should he pre-decease her.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

Is it? In every case? What if it's downright cruelty to the person being unwillingly divorced, not every marriage breakdown is the same.

Forcing one person to remain in a situation they hate in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't make it right in any circumstance I can see.

No, I agree. However forcing someone who doesn't want to to get divorced in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't seem right either.

As per my rhetorical question above, it's wrong for an individual to force someone to do something with you that they don't want to do.

Why? Most things aren't just things you want to do or don't want to do. That's a spectrum with the vast majority of things falling near the middle.

But the point is its ultimately the individuals choice. If I agree to go for a drink with you and then on balance decide I'd rather not isn't it up to me to decide if I want to or not?

I don't believe there is any legal entitlement to sex within marriage

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hatYorkLadMan over a year ago

York

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

Is it? In every case? What if it's downright cruelty to the person being unwillingly divorced, not every marriage breakdown is the same.

Forcing one person to remain in a situation they hate in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't make it right in any circumstance I can see.

No, I agree. However forcing someone who doesn't want to to get divorced in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't seem right either.

As per my rhetorical question above, it's wrong for an individual to force someone to do something with you that they don't want to do.

Why? Most things aren't just things you want to do or don't want to do. That's a spectrum with the vast majority of things falling near the middle.

But the point is its ultimately the individuals choice. If I agree to go for a drink with you and then on balance decide I'd rather not isn't it up to me to decide if I want to or not?

Except if he's become a fat sweaty pig who she no longer finds attractive and therefore doesn't consent to this sex he's "entitled" to, then it becomes something else entirely.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

Is it? In every case? What if it's downright cruelty to the person being unwillingly divorced, not every marriage breakdown is the same.

Forcing one person to remain in a situation they hate in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't make it right in any circumstance I can see.

No, I agree. However forcing someone who doesn't want to to get divorced in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't seem right either.

As per my rhetorical question above, it's wrong for an individual to force someone to do something with you that they don't want to do.

Why? Most things aren't just things you want to do or don't want to do. That's a spectrum with the vast majority of things falling near the middle.

But the point is its ultimately the individuals choice. If I agree to go for a drink with you and then on balance decide I'd rather not isn't it up to me to decide if I want to or not?

Except if he's become a fat sweaty pig who she no longer finds attractive and therefore doesn't consent to this sex he's "entitled" to, then it becomes something else entirely. "

That's when he signs up to fab

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I don't believe there is any legal entitlement to sex within marriage"

Marriage is not a purely legal arrangement though. It's one of the promises you make when you marry. People who can't keep promises are well advised to avoid marriage.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

And if the partner who refuses to consent to the divorce is controlling and abusive? "

There are a range of reasons why one person would want a marriage to continue and the other wouldn't. In that instance I'd say it would be right for the person who wants the divorce to be granted it.

The question I'm really asking is, is it right that the pro divorce person's wishes are respected above the anti divorce persons in every case or as a matter of law?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lceeWoman over a year ago

Leeds

People change as time goes by...if you change in different directions, move apart from each other - that’s no one’s fault. So you should be allowed the chance to find love again with someone new and more compatible, and an easier divorce allows both parties to move on with their lives.

Marriage for life was all very well when a good proportion of women died in childbirth and old age was your early forties...but that’s not the case any more.

Live and let live.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

Is it? In every case? What if it's downright cruelty to the person being unwillingly divorced, not every marriage breakdown is the same.

Forcing one person to remain in a situation they hate in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't make it right in any circumstance I can see.

No, I agree. However forcing someone who doesn't want to to get divorced in order to ensure the others happiness doesn't seem right either.

As per my rhetorical question above, it's wrong for an individual to force someone to do something with you that they don't want to do.

Why? Most things aren't just things you want to do or don't want to do. That's a spectrum with the vast majority of things falling near the middle.

But the point is its ultimately the individuals choice. If I agree to go for a drink with you and then on balance decide I'd rather not isn't it up to me to decide if I want to or not?

The point is about personal autonomy. It's a basic principle that we observe virtually everywhere that the state should not force any adult to engage with any other adult if they don't want to. There may be consequences for a failure to so engage. For example, if I decide I don't want x working for me and sack him without a good reason, I will have to pay him compensation, but no one is forced to interact with someone if they don't want to, no matter how stupid or trivial the reasons for not wanting interaction are.

Thus with divorce, in general if someone has altered their life on the basis of my promise I will stay married to them and I decide I don't waht to stay married to them, I will have to pay over money to them to compensate them for losses incurred by my change of mind. Just as I would if I breached any other sort of contract.

As the judges in this case have recognised it's radically out of kilter with modern mores that someone can force someone to stay married to them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm pretty sure the rise in divorce rates correlates quite nicely with the drop in religious numbers.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lceeWoman over a year ago

Leeds

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

And if the partner who refuses to consent to the divorce is controlling and abusive?

There are a range of reasons why one person would want a marriage to continue and the other wouldn't. In that instance I'd say it would be right for the person who wants the divorce to be granted it.

The question I'm really asking is, is it right that the pro divorce person's wishes are respected above the anti divorce persons in every case or as a matter of law?"

Yes, as there is only one person left in that relationship. They need to let go, grieve for it and move on. You can dissolve any other legal or financial partnership, so why not marriage?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

How about a woman becomes seriously ill and needs care for many hours a day. The husband gets fed up and wants a divorce, she doesn't though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

And if the partner who refuses to consent to the divorce is controlling and abusive?

There are a range of reasons why one person would want a marriage to continue and the other wouldn't. In that instance I'd say it would be right for the person who wants the divorce to be granted it.

The question I'm really asking is, is it right that the pro divorce person's wishes are respected above the anti divorce persons in every case or as a matter of law?

Yes, as there is only one person left in that relationship. They need to let go, grieve for it and move on. You can dissolve any other legal or financial partnership, so why not marriage?"

Nobody is preventing the dissolution of the marriage, the time scale is what's being questioned.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"I'm pretty sure the rise in divorce rates correlates quite nicely with the drop in religious numbers."

Overall there is a correlation, but it's not that strong. It has a lot more to do with the law and how easy it is to get out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"How about a woman becomes seriously ill and needs care for many hours a day. The husband gets fed up and wants a divorce, she doesn't though."

That was the case with my mother, but my father didn't want to divorce, he just neglected and abused her instead. But of course to outside eyes, he was the devoted spouse. She should have left him decades earlier but because of social mores and Irish law at the time, she couldn't. The saddest thing was when I had her admitted to a care home and she thanked me for taking her away from him.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

I don't believe there is any legal entitlement to sex within marriage

Marriage is not a purely legal arrangement though. It's one of the promises you make when you marry. People who can't keep promises are well advised to avoid marriage. "

On the personal point that's why I have never got married. I can't make promised as to what I will be like thirty years hence.

On the general point. I think we can all agree that people shouldn't promise to be with someone for ever and have a ceremony legally sanctioning that promise unless they intend to keep the promise.

The problem is what should the state do when someone decides they no longer want to keep that promise. It seems a strange position for a libertarian to take that the state should force someone to be in a relationship they don't want to be in.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes, it really should. I (stupidly) got married very young and now have no idea where he is, we’ve been separated a long time and I’m really struggling to get a divorce - that’s the shortened version of a way more complicated story.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

As the judges in this case have recognised it's radically out of kilter with modern mores that someone can force someone to stay married to them. "

Sorry but that's pure drivel and you know better. You're taking a guiding principle and pretending it applies to every micro decision in society. The fundamental purpose of the state is to limit the autonomy of individuals.

Especially individuals who voluntarily enter legally binding contracts. Do you think a society of renegades is a better?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

'Ant McPartlin wants a divorce but reports say his wife Lisa Armstrong doesnt.'

Should divorce be easier? Why should people have to wait 5 years to be able to get a divorce if their partner disagrees to it?

no if they agree to get married and take the vows,

(unless domestic violence, r@pe etc then no problems)

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ophieslutTV/TS over a year ago

Central

I think it's worthwhile there being some checks/balances upon getting a divorce but also ultimately it should be for a person to have near full control over their life and assets etc. In this instance, I felt that the woman deserved to be granted a divorce - but the letter of the law prevents it. As such, the law needs to be amended imo.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I don't believe there is any legal entitlement to sex within marriage

Marriage is not a purely legal arrangement though. It's one of the promises you make when you marry. People who can't keep promises are well advised to avoid marriage.

On the personal point that's why I have never got married. I can't make promised as to what I will be like thirty years hence.

On the general point. I think we can all agree that people shouldn't promise to be with someone for ever and have a ceremony legally sanctioning that promise unless they intend to keep the promise.

Your point is addressed above. They have volunteered to limit their personal autonomy for the future because they want some benefit now. I'm libertarian, not anarchist. The state is there to enforce legally binding contracts, large societies don't work well without them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

As the judges in this case have recognised it's radically out of kilter with modern mores that someone can force someone to stay married to them.

Especially individuals who voluntarily enter legally binding contracts. Do you think a society of renegades is a better? "

Eh?

I explicitly said that where people breach contracts the state will force them to pay compensation but will not force them to maintain a personal relationship with someone they don't want a relationship with.

It's the same with marriage in general. The state won't force me to stay married to someone in perpetuity but it may force me to pay money over to my ex spouse to compensate them for their change in life expectations.

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

Yes, that's the agreement they made. If people don't like it then they can not get married or petition a change in the law. But don't vouluntarily sign a contract and then bitch about the terms afterwards.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don't believe there is any legal entitlement to sex within marriage

Marriage is not a purely legal arrangement though. It's one of the promises you make when you marry. People who can't keep promises are well advised to avoid marriage. "

It’s not always that simplistic, I always thought when I got married it would be for life and something I’d only do once. But I stuck it out for too many years, he was controlling and abusive mentally. Yes I withdrew sex but he didn’t care and took it when he wanted anyway, he cheated on me and had no problem with flaunting pics and texts off women in front of me. My kids also paid a heavy price as they tried to protect me, so in my case yes divorce should be easier. Luckily mine is going through no problems x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

I don't believe there is any legal entitlement to sex within marriage

Marriage is not a purely legal arrangement though. It's one of the promises you make when you marry. People who can't keep promises are well advised to avoid marriage.

I'm not getting into discussion about individual cases. In general, it's a bad idea to set the normal law around extreme circumstances. It's a far better idea to have normal law represent normal circumstances and then allow for exceptions to the law in exceptional circumstances. There are always consequences at the extremes, whether it's too easy or too hard. In my opinion, it's already too easy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don't believe there is any legal entitlement to sex within marriage

Marriage is not a purely legal arrangement though. It's one of the promises you make when you marry. People who can't keep promises are well advised to avoid marriage.

Unfortunately, abusive relationships are common.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

Unfortunately, abusive relationships are common."

No it isn't and if you think it is then simply don't get married and you won't have this problem.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ELLONS AND CREAMWoman over a year ago

stourbridge area

I think at 68 id just stay married but live separated lives ...hes 80...

They live in a very nice area of Worcestershire. ....so not short of a bob or two .

She may regret this ....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Unfortunately, abusive relationships are common.

No it isn't and if you think it is then simply don't get married and you won't have this problem."

If only life were as black and white as you think it is.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heIcebreakersCouple over a year ago

Cramlington

Nope, as others have pointed out, if his will leaves it all to someone else, then she will have to go to court to challenge the will should he pre-decease her.

It's not that. It's because the relevant act of Parliament says you can't have a divorce just because you want one. All of the judges involved have said they have come to the decision with reluctance but when an. Act of Parliament says something clearly judges can't override it. "
My point is that the judges could have taken a different view of the Matrimonial Causes Act if the motive wasn't so clearly and nakedly financial. There's a lengthy discussion in the judgement about circumstances in which the Supremem Court can change the interpretation of a statute. There's a great quote in the judgement from Lord Bingham - There is, I think, no inconsistency between the rule that statutory language retains the meaning it had when Parliament used it and the rule that a statute is always speaking. If Parliament, however long ago, passed an Act applicable to dogs, it could not properly be interpreted to apply to cats; but it could properly be held to apply to animals which were not regarded as dogs when the Act was passed but are so regarded now. The meaning of ‘cruel and unusual punishments’ has not changed over the years since 1689, but many punishments which were not then thought to fall within that category would now be held to do so.”

In technical terms the issue in this case is not the statute but whether the test under the statute is an objective test, a subjective test or, as in this case, an objective test with subjective elements.In this case the court chose not to change the test. THey were mindful (especially in Lady Hale's judgement) of the fact that this was all a bit of a nonsense - Mrs Owens rowed back from some of her claims about her husband, and she will be divorced in 2020 if her husband lives that long.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Unless his last will and testament says otherwise.

Not strictly true I’m afraid. A spouse still has legal rights and it’s not uncommon for a will to be successfully challenged in the courts"

I think the compliance depends on if you have been of financial support to the person, in which case you can make a case that if the person was still alive it would be reasonable for them to continue to support you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

The only reason that I can possibly think for not wanting to divorce someone despite the other party’s wishes is financial

Then you've got a very limited imagination. "

Possibly, I’d rather not delve into the depths of the capacity that some have for cruelty though.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

The only reason that I can possibly think for not wanting to divorce someone despite the other party’s wishes is financial

Then you've got a very limited imagination.

Possibly, I’d rather not delve into the depths of the capacity that some have for cruelty though. "

And not wanting to live alone, or have to look for someone else to look after them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Because to do otherwise is downright cruelty?

The only reason that I can possibly think for not wanting to divorce someone despite the other party’s wishes is financial

Then you've got a very limited imagination.

Possibly, I’d rather not delve into the depths of the capacity that some have for cruelty though.

And not wanting to live alone, or have to look for someone else to look after them."

Or simply for show

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

No, getting married should be harder

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *sGivesWoodWoman over a year ago

ST. AUSTELL, CORNWALL

Just a thought

I think a move away from the romanticised ideal would be a good thing.

It's almost like they should make vows and have a ceremony where people promise to stay married for life?

Divorce is already easy enough, some people should just remain single since until they develop the relationship skills to avoid getting into toxic relationships.

When I met my husband he showed no signs of being an abuser; of being overtly jealous or capable of torture and physical, mental and emotional abuse.

Not all toxic personalities are evident at the beginning.

People can change over a period of a few years. "

Exactly this. I was drip fed these types of abuse on a daily basis for 13 years. And before anyone jumps in with the comments about why didn't I leave etc, it becomes like brainwashing after a while, you believe what you are being told etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

But thinking in practical terms, the state actually can't force anyone to have a married relationship. It can't force people to live together, it can't force people to have sex with each other, it can't force people to like each other and so on.

All it can do is force people to have a legal relationship which is, in fact, a fiction and inhibits their liberty to form a genuine married relationship with anyone else.

Unless you are of the view that divorce per se is an offence against God, I literally can't see any benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *heIcebreakersCouple over a year ago

Cramlington

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

All it can do is force people to have a legal relationship which is, in fact, a fiction and inhibits their liberty to form a genuine married relationship with anyone else.

Unless you are of the view that divorce per se is an offence against God, I literally can't see any benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality. "
Much overlooked in all the case reports is that the Supreme Court agrees with you, and believes there needs to be a review of the law.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

All it can do is force people to have a legal relationship which is, in fact, a fiction and inhibits their liberty to form a genuine married relationship with anyone else.

Unless you are of the view that divorce per se is an offence against God, I literally can't see any benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

All it can do is force people to have a legal relationship which is, in fact, a fiction and inhibits their liberty to form a genuine married relationship with anyone else.

Unless you are of the view that divorce per se is an offence against God, I literally can't see any benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality. "

I'm anti-divorce (in normal circumstances) because of the proven negative effects it has on children. Divorces tend to happen at stressful times when there are financial / health problems or because they weren't prepared for parenthood, which are scenarios envisioned in the marriage vows. Sometimes people should weather the storm. The law should not encourage people to renegade on big decisions.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

All it can do is force people to have a legal relationship which is, in fact, a fiction and inhibits their liberty to form a genuine married relationship with anyone else.

Unless you are of the view that divorce per se is an offence against God, I literally can't see any benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality.

Wouldnt kids suffer more in an environment where parents hate each other though, so no benefit to them either way?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *tirluvMan over a year ago

the right frame of mind -London

Speaking for the recently divorced, I would say that putting the romance of marriage aside, marraige is still in essence a legal contract between two parties. In my opinion it should be no harder or easier to get out of than any other legal /contractual obligation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

All it can do is force people to have a legal relationship which is, in fact, a fiction and inhibits their liberty to form a genuine married relationship with anyone else.

Unless you are of the view that divorce per se is an offence against God, I literally can't see any benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality.

But given someone can perfectly legally walk out on a spouse on a whim and never see them again, Where's the benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

All it can do is force people to have a legal relationship which is, in fact, a fiction and inhibits their liberty to form a genuine married relationship with anyone else.

Unless you are of the view that divorce per se is an offence against God, I literally can't see any benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality.

Wouldnt kids suffer more in an environment where parents hate each other though, so no benefit to them either way? "

That's the false dichotomy that people always trot out. It's an inherent problem with people who have a 'fixed mindset' of love as opposed to a 'growth mindset'. In simple terms, most problems can be fixed. Not all, but certainly nowhere near 43% of marriages have irreconcilable problems.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

All it can do is force people to have a legal relationship which is, in fact, a fiction and inhibits their liberty to form a genuine married relationship with anyone else.

Unless you are of the view that divorce per se is an offence against God, I literally can't see any benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality.

But given someone can perfectly legally walk out on a spouse on a whim and never see them again, Where's the benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality? "

To discourage it. Just because we don't legally force people to live together, doesn't mean we have to make it easier for them not to.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

All it can do is force people to have a legal relationship which is, in fact, a fiction and inhibits their liberty to form a genuine married relationship with anyone else.

Unless you are of the view that divorce per se is an offence against God, I literally can't see any benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality.

But given someone can perfectly legally walk out on a spouse on a whim and never see them again, Where's the benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality?

To discourage it. Just because we don't legally force people to live together, doesn't mean we have to make it easier for them not to. "

I am not sure how not allowing people to be legally divorced encourages them to live together.

Presumably you would have no objections to divorce on demand where there are no children?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lceeWoman over a year ago

Leeds

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

All it can do is force people to have a legal relationship which is, in fact, a fiction and inhibits their liberty to form a genuine married relationship with anyone else.

Unless you are of the view that divorce per se is an offence against God, I literally can't see any benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality.

Wouldnt kids suffer more in an environment where parents hate each other though, so no benefit to them either way?

Because it teaches children a false idea of what a healthy, loving relationship looks like. My parents finally divorced when I was fifteen. I wish they’d done it ten years earlier. Theirs was a loveless marriage, full of anger and resentment rather than intimacy and cooperation. It took me a long time to realise that I could, and should, expect more.

Please bb, just a note, can you please not be so dismissive in a debate. Calling someone’s opinion ‘pure drivel’, isn’t productive. Just put your view out there and we can all debate the points happily.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *innamon!Woman over a year ago

no matter

My sons partner is doing everything in his power to cost him as much as possible . Avoiding all contact not replying too mail moving around USA so we can’t finfd him. He owes him thousands that he borrowed and will never repay.

Made this past 5 years very difficult despite the fact he was the one at fault and has had a new partner for last 4 yrs.

Bastard !! He will be out of our lives very soon now .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

All it can do is force people to have a legal relationship which is, in fact, a fiction and inhibits their liberty to form a genuine married relationship with anyone else.

Unless you are of the view that divorce per se is an offence against God, I literally can't see any benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality.

Wouldnt kids suffer more in an environment where parents hate each other though, so no benefit to them either way?

Me and the mother of my kids never married but the last bit of our relationship was awful. But of my now grown up kids say life got so much better for them when the constant arguments ended.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Maybe it would be an idea to make getting married harder!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

But given someone can perfectly legally walk out on a spouse on a whim and never see them again, Where's the benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality?

To discourage it. Just because we don't legally force people to live together, doesn't mean we have to make it easier for them not to.

I am not sure how not allowing people to be legally divorced encourages them to live together.

Presumably you would have no objections to divorce on demand where there are no children? "

Not really. Only that I struggle to take them seriously in the sense that it calls into question their decision making skills so I'd see it as some kind of personal flaw. I mean one minute you've invited all your friends and family to witness a lifelong commitment and two years later you're breaking it. Not exactly the kind of person whose opinion im going to seek out when i have a big decision to make.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

But given someone can perfectly legally walk out on a spouse on a whim and never see them again, Where's the benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality?

To discourage it. Just because we don't legally force people to live together, doesn't mean we have to make it easier for them not to.

I am not sure how not allowing people to be legally divorced encourages them to live together.

Presumably you would have no objections to divorce on demand where there are no children?

But granted that people make stupid decisions, that's not really the issue is it. Why should the state force them to stay married when one or both of them realises it was a stupid decision?

And isn't a central principle of libertarianism that everyone is the best judge of their own interests? Who are you, I or a high court judge to tell someone that they would be better off staying married when they disagree?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ig1gaz1Man over a year ago

bradford

its about time the divorce rules was updated.

I dont know what many think.

but I find it unfair that you have to choose a bad reason instead of a civil reason to get a divorce.

as much as I think a 2 year is ample enough to request divorce proceedings.

this includes where both partners dont live together in that period.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lceeWoman over a year ago

Leeds

But given someone can perfectly legally walk out on a spouse on a whim and never see them again, Where's the benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality?

To discourage it. Just because we don't legally force people to live together, doesn't mean we have to make it easier for them not to.

I am not sure how not allowing people to be legally divorced encourages them to live together.

Presumably you would have no objections to divorce on demand where there are no children?

Then, you don’t have to.

There should be compassion around mistakes, unless you are perfect and never, ever make any. Mistakes are how we all learn! And mistakes in this arena are a costlier lesson than most.

It also shows a willingness to take a chance...even if that chance doesn’t work out. We should all take risks sometimes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

All it can do is force people to have a legal relationship which is, in fact, a fiction and inhibits their liberty to form a genuine married relationship with anyone else.

Unless you are of the view that divorce per se is an offence against God, I literally can't see any benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality.

Wouldnt kids suffer more in an environment where parents hate each other though, so no benefit to them either way?

It's actually a backhanded compliment to KLP because i think he is very intelligent but sometimes he lets other peoples ideas override his own better judgement.

The thing is that I'm not advocating anyone stay in a "loveless marriage, full of anger and resentment". That's a fixed mindset statement. I'm saying that most (not all) parents are capable of taking a "loveless marriage, full of anger and resentment" and working to restore it to whatever the state was that encouraged them to marry in the first place. But we live in a society that doesn't value the effort that would take and places minimal shame on people who can't be bothered.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eesideMan over a year ago

margate sumwear by the sea

'Ant McPartlin wants a divorce but reports say his wife Lisa Armstrong doesnt.'

Should divorce be easier? Why should people have to wait 5 years to be able to get a divorce if their partner disagrees to it?

Wot happened to till death do we part ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

But given someone can perfectly legally walk out on a spouse on a whim and never see them again, Where's the benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality?

To discourage it. Just because we don't legally force people to live together, doesn't mean we have to make it easier for them not to.

I am not sure how not allowing people to be legally divorced encourages them to live together.

Presumably you would have no objections to divorce on demand where there are no children?

But granted that people make stupid decisions, that's not really the issue is it. Why should the state force them to stay married when one or both of them realises it was a stupid decision?

You make a very simplistic idea of interests. Your short term interests are rarely aligned with your long term interests. The state helps correct this conflict.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

The only issue here is to whether the stare should be able to force someone to stay in a marriage for up to five years.

All it can do is force people to have a legal relationship which is, in fact, a fiction and inhibits their liberty to form a genuine married relationship with anyone else.

Unless you are of the view that divorce per se is an offence against God, I literally can't see any benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality.

Wouldnt kids suffer more in an environment where parents hate each other though, so no benefit to them either way?

It's actually a backhanded compliment to KLP because i think he is very intelligent but sometimes he lets other peoples ideas override his own better judgement.

Actually it's my own idea, thanks very much.

At the end of the day, you are telling people you know how better to conduct their relationships than they do themselves. As I say a very strange position for a self styled libertarian to take.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

But given someone can perfectly legally walk out on a spouse on a whim and never see them again, Where's the benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality?

To discourage it. Just because we don't legally force people to live together, doesn't mean we have to make it easier for them not to.

I am not sure how not allowing people to be legally divorced encourages them to live together.

Presumably you would have no objections to divorce on demand where there are no children?

But granted that people make stupid decisions, that's not really the issue is it. Why should the state force them to stay married when one or both of them realises it was a stupid decision?

You make a very simplistic idea of interests. Your short term interests are rarely aligned with your long term interests. The state helps correct this conflict. "

Yes and a central libertarian principle is that the person to judge what is in their short and long term interest is the person themselves.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Just a thought

I think a move away from the romanticised ideal would be a good thing.

It's almost like they should make vows and have a ceremony where people promise to stay married for life?

Divorce is already easy enough, some people should just remain single since until they develop the relationship skills to avoid getting into toxic relationships.

When I met my husband he showed no signs of being an abuser; of being overtly jealous or capable of torture and physical, mental and emotional abuse.

Not all toxic personalities are evident at the beginning.

People can change over a period of a few years.

Exactly that, I had 22 years of it. He was charming at first it doesn’t even happen overnight x

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

But given someone can perfectly legally walk out on a spouse on a whim and never see them again, Where's the benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality?

To discourage it. Just because we don't legally force people to live together, doesn't mean we have to make it easier for them not to.

I am not sure how not allowing people to be legally divorced encourages them to live together.

Presumably you would have no objections to divorce on demand where there are no children?

Then, you don’t have to.

There should be compassion around mistakes, unless you are perfect and never, ever make any. Mistakes are how we all learn! And mistakes in this arena are a costlier lesson than most.

It also shows a willingness to take a chance...even if that chance doesn’t work out. We should all take risks sometimes

Compassion is a defined personality trait in psychology and I am indeed extremely low in compassion. I have a job that requires truth above all else, hence that effects the ability of my brain (via neuroplasticity) to develop much in the way of compassion beyond fundamental ideas of right and wrong. In short, i really don't give a fuck about people's feelings and that's an objective criticism of my personality if you want to make it. You do make an interesting point about whether people learn from mistakes or whether we give people second chances. It is also entirely possible for someone to be brilliant in one field and completely dysfunctional in another. But that's rare.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

But given someone can perfectly legally walk out on a spouse on a whim and never see them again, Where's the benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality?

To discourage it. Just because we don't legally force people to live together, doesn't mean we have to make it easier for them not to.

I am not sure how not allowing people to be legally divorced encourages them to live together.

Presumably you would have no objections to divorce on demand where there are no children?

But granted that people make stupid decisions, that's not really the issue is it. Why should the state force them to stay married when one or both of them realises it was a stupid decision?

You make a very simplistic idea of interests. Your short term interests are rarely aligned with your long term interests. The state helps correct this conflict.

Yes and a central libertarian principle is that the person to judge what is in their short and long term interest is the person themselves. "

Maybe that's a pure libertarian ideal but one key difference between you and me is that i feel no conflict to follow ~70% of an ideology. Especially when we have facts that contradict parts of it. I also don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *loswingersCouple over a year ago

Gloucester

In this specific case I think the husband has had a gut full of his wife , and has written her out of his will . He’s 80 and probably thinks he will die before the five years is up .

She is no doubt wise to this , and wants what she considers to be hers now before it’s too late .

It’s an interesting case , and will no doubt the law will be changed as a result of it .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"In this specific case I think the husband has had a gut full of his wife , and has written her out of his will . He’s 80 and probably thinks he will die before the five years is up .

She is no doubt wise to this , and wants what she considers to be hers now before it’s too late .

It’s an interesting case , and will no doubt the law will be changed as a result of it ."

I noticed the reporting was very vauge of their personal reasons for wanting to stay / leave the marriage. That lead me to speculate that there's probably a politically incorrect motive to this case that the BBC doesn't want to go into.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *inkyLondonpairCouple over a year ago

London

But given someone can perfectly legally walk out on a spouse on a whim and never see them again, Where's the benefit in maintaining a legal fiction that doesn't reflect reality?

To discourage it. Just because we don't legally force people to live together, doesn't mean we have to make it easier for them not to.

I am not sure how not allowing people to be legally divorced encourages them to live together.

Presumably you would have no objections to divorce on demand where there are no children?

But granted that people make stupid decisions, that's not really the issue is it. Why should the state force them to stay married when one or both of them realises it was a stupid decision?

You make a very simplistic idea of interests. Your short term interests are rarely aligned with your long term interests. The state helps correct this conflict.

Yes and a central libertarian principle is that the person to judge what is in their short and long term interest is the person themselves.

You said you were a libertarian not me.

And this isn't some esoteric aspect of the ideology, it's a central part of it. Saying you are a libertarian but that you think the state should decide what is in an individuals long term interests are is like saying you are a Christian but that you don't believe in God and think Jesus's was a charlatan.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *parkle1974Woman over a year ago

Leeds

It took my ex husband and I 8 years to get divorced, not because of any issues but neither of us were planning on getting married again so there was no rush.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I'm yet another person who will need to wait 2 years (1.5 now) before I can divorce my ex as I don't want to apportion blame. I just don't want to go down that negative route with her. Things didn't work out. That's all. No need to blame anyone for it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"No, getting married should be harder"

Why? It's just a ceremony where you declare, in front of your friends and family, that you want to be formally recognised as husband and wife (or husband and husband/wife and wife).

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm yet another person who will need to wait 2 years (1.5 now) before I can divorce my ex as I don't want to apportion blame. I just don't want to go down that negative route with her. Things didn't work out. That's all. No need to blame anyone for it."

There are three sides to every story.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By * and M lookingCouple over a year ago

Worcester

"No, getting married should be harder

Why? It's just a ceremony where you declare, in front of your friends and family, that you want to be formally recognised as husband and wife (or husband and husband/wife and wife). "

Yes, whilst squandering thousands of pounds in the process

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"In this specific case I think the husband has had a gut full of his wife , and has written her out of his will . He’s 80 and probably thinks he will die before the five years is up .

She is no doubt wise to this , and wants what she considers to be hers now before it’s too late .

It’s an interesting case , and will no doubt the law will be changed as a result of it .

I was under the impression she wanted the divorce and had an affair, but he didn't want to get divorced.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"In this specific case I think the husband has had a gut full of his wife , and has written her out of his will . He’s 80 and probably thinks he will die before the five years is up .

She is no doubt wise to this , and wants what she considers to be hers now before it’s too late .

It’s an interesting case , and will no doubt the law will be changed as a result of it .

I was under the impression she wanted the divorce and had an affair, but he didn't want to get divorced. "

Oh, I get it now. She could contest the will couldn't she?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Live separately for 2yrs and a divorce isn't that difficult, I think people love the drama of it all

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I'm pretty sure the rise in divorce rates correlates quite nicely with the drop in religious numbers.

Overall there is a correlation, but it's not that strong. It has a lot more to do with the law and how easy it is to get out. "

According to this thread its not that easy at all haha

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *UNKIEMan over a year ago

south east

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue."

More importantly would you really want to stay married to someone who doesn't want to be there ...think it's more selfish and controlling to deny them the chance to move on ..

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"No, getting married should be harder

Why? It's just a ceremony where you declare, in front of your friends and family, that you want to be formally recognised as husband and wife (or husband and husband/wife and wife). "

That's the reductionist view of things. Like saying that football is just 22 men kicking a ball between some sticks. It's not though is it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

More importantly would you really want to stay married to someone who doesn't want to be there ...think it's more selfish and controlling to deny them the chance to move on ..

I think in this case she is the one being selfish and it's about getting his money

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

"I don't think someone should live a miserable existence because the other person doesn't want to let go."

Can't be that bad as she's moved in next door.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

"Another reason I never want to get married, if someone isn't happy and they've tried to make it work then they should be able to walk away easily. Being forced to stay with someone you've grown to despise sounds like torture for both parties!"

No one is forced though.

You can walk away and live your life, this woman doesn't live with her husband, but marriage is a contract and like all contracts it takes all parties to break it. Doesn't mean you have to share the same roof and besides, forty years of anything can't be resolved fairly until all involved are in agreement.

My husband didn't want a divorce and I wasn't going to contribute to the build of my solicitor's house in the Bahamas.

You'd think these two old codgers would enjoy what little time they had left instead of bickering!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

" she’s legally his spouse so is entitled to his entire estate

Unless his last will and testament says otherwise.

Not strictly true I’m afraid. A spouse still has legal rights and it’s not uncommon for a will to be successfully challenged in the courts"

A marriage overrules a will and the spouse gets everything. My friend's mother was 90 with severe dementia and married a man of 68 who kept the wedding secret until after she died then he inherited everything and her children got nothing.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Why would they want to force someone to stay with them when the other person doesn't want to? Is it along the same lines as forced arranged marriages?"

This. It's not a finance arrangement you want out of, it's your life back. My ex doesn't want to divorce me. The only thing standing in the way of him dragging this out for an eternity is my dad and 4 brothers. God help

People who don't have support. People don't take divorce lightly, it's hard enough as it is

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" she’s legally his spouse so is entitled to his entire estate

Unless his last will and testament says otherwise.

Not strictly true I’m afraid. A spouse still has legal rights and it’s not uncommon for a will to be successfully challenged in the courts

Yep my mate got fucked out of 200k his mum left him that his dad looked after for him

Hed only been with her a year she got it all

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

They should have it written into your marriage contract that every 3 years you have to resign if you want to stay married.

If you don't want to, you don't sign and divorced proceedings are started.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue."

Would you really want to continue a relationship with someone who doesnt want you?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" she’s legally his spouse so is entitled to his entire estate

Unless his last will and testament says otherwise.

Not strictly true I’m afraid. A spouse still has legal rights and it’s not uncommon for a will to be successfully challenged in the courts

Yep my mate got fucked out of 200k his mum left him that his dad looked after for him

Hed only been with her a year she got it all"

Sorry but he must have been not very intelligent?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By * and M lookingCouple over a year ago

Worcester

At the end of the day the only winners are the solicitors.

They will happily let you battle it out as it's more money for them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"They should have it written into your marriage contract that every 3 years you have to resign if you want to stay married.

If you don't want to, you don't sign and divorced proceedings are started."

It's an institution for raising children, not a magazine subscription

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They should have it written into your marriage contract that every 3 years you have to resign if you want to stay married.

If you don't want to, you don't sign and divorced proceedings are started.

It's an institution for raising children, not a magazine subscription

So why force people to stay together once children reach adulthood?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *loswingersCouple over a year ago

Gloucester

To clarify the will .

If a person ( male or female ) , makes a will while in a sane position to do so , they can leave what they like to who they like .

If the value is of any great value , they will seek the advice of solicitors when making the will .

The solicitors will ensure their wishes are carried out .

So if either married partner doesn’t want the other half getting anything , then they write that in , and say why to make life easier for the solicitor carrying out their wishes .

He would no doubt say she had affairs , didn’t obey the marriage vows , wasn’t giving him any , and was generally a bit of a cunt toward him . She wouldn’t win , simple .

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"They should have it written into your marriage contract that every 3 years you have to resign if you want to stay married.

If you don't want to, you don't sign and divorced proceedings are started.

It's an institution for raising children, not a magazine subscription

So why force people to stay together once children reach adulthood?"

You mean in this case or generally? Generally I wouldn't advocate that but in this case it doesn't seem the women has a legimate reason to break the contract and is just doing so for her naked financial gain. Essentially she doesn't like the contract she signed and has realised she can make more money breaking it. Hardly a case for sympathy.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They should have it written into your marriage contract that every 3 years you have to resign if you want to stay married.

If you don't want to, you don't sign and divorced proceedings are started.

It's an institution for raising children, not a magazine subscription

No one told me I had to have children when I got married. There's nothing in my marriages vows about children either.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They should have it written into your marriage contract that every 3 years you have to resign if you want to stay married.

If you don't want to, you don't sign and divorced proceedings are started.

It's an institution for raising children, not a magazine subscription

So why force people to stay together once children reach adulthood?

He's only refusing because he doesn't want his beloved wife to have his money. He's not sticking with her because he'll be devastated if they divorced.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue."

But how can you continue a marriage when one party wants out so badly? That’s a hostage situation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"They should have it written into your marriage contract that every 3 years you have to resign if you want to stay married.

If you don't want to, you don't sign and divorced proceedings are started.

It's an institution for raising children, not a magazine subscription

No one told me I had to have children when I got married. There's nothing in my marriages vows about children either.

Depends on the type of marriage you have. For example, a Catholic priest would ask if you intend to have children and refuse to marry you if you said no. That's official guidance anyway, some might make exceptions but you get the point.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *y Favorite PornstarCouple over a year ago

Basingstoke

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

But how can you continue a marriage when one party wants out so badly? That’s a hostage situation."

She's demanding a ransom from him!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"They should have it written into your marriage contract that every 3 years you have to resign if you want to stay married.

If you don't want to, you don't sign and divorced proceedings are started.

It's an institution for raising children, not a magazine subscription

No one told me I had to have children when I got married. There's nothing in my marriages vows about children either.

Is that something to do with birth control?

They don't look kindly upon people who want a divorce do they.

I'm not a Catholic anyway and wouldn't want people to be forced to have children.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

But how can you continue a marriage when one party wants out so badly? That’s a hostage situation.

She's demanding a ransom from him!!!"

If she wants out so bad she could sign away her right to his money.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Yes, it really should. I (stupidly) got married very young and now have no idea where he is, we’ve been separated a long time and I’m really struggling to get a divorce - that’s the shortened version of a way more complicated story. "

You can divorce him even if you don't know where he is, my friend did it. She just had to send the papers to the last known address she had for him. Even though he didn't respond she could still get the divorce completed.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"its about time the divorce rules was updated.

I dont know what many think.

but I find it unfair that you have to choose a bad reason instead of a civil reason to get a divorce.

as much as I think a 2 year is ample enough to request divorce proceedings.

this includes where both partners dont live together in that period. "

I agree.

But if they wanted to get divorced so badly they could just pick one of the 'bad reasons'. It's only for the paperwork.

It does seem ridiculous that one has to apply for the divorce against the other. Why can't they just do a joint application to say the marriage broke down and they want out.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Yes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why not just make marriage more difficult? Why do you have to prove stuff to get out of a marriage but nothing to get married? My ex husband was a total arsehole before and after we were married but not sure I could ever have proved it, luckily he wanted a divorce so he could marry again. I will never marry again! Although I don't get wtf any of it has to do with anyone else anyway.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

They need to make it more difficult to marry, seeing as people you can't make the right decisions.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

"Why not just make marriage more difficult? Why do you have to prove stuff to get out of a marriage but nothing to get married? My ex husband was a total arsehole before and after we were married but not sure I could ever have proved it, luckily he wanted a divorce so he could marry again. I will never marry again! Although I don't get wtf any of it has to do with anyone else anyway."

Why did you marry him if he was a total arsehole?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss_tressWoman over a year ago

London

More fool you marrying an arsehole!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

More fool you marrying an arsehole!"

Oh I know it! I was young and naive, which is why I taught my son that you don't need to be in a relationship to have self worth and you don't have to stay in one "for the sake of the children" or anyother crappy excuse people use.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why did you marry him if he was a total arsehole?"

Because I thought I loved him enough to sort things out, and we had our son...same crap as most that stay with arseholes. It wasn't that it was shit the whole time...just too much of it, in the end

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Would you really want to continue a relationship with someone who doesnt want you? "

Nobody needs to continue a personal relationship in order to stay married.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) OP over a year ago

Why did you marry him if he was a total arsehole?

Because I thought I loved him enough to sort things out, and we had our son...same crap as most that stay with arseholes. It wasn't that it was shit the whole time...just too much of it, in the end"

Hope you're happy now.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Why did you marry him if he was a total arsehole?

Because I thought I loved him enough to sort things out, and we had our son...same crap as most that stay with arseholes. It wasn't that it was shit the whole time...just too much of it, in the end

Hope you're happy now.

Tbh relationshipwise, I couldn't be happier, thank you!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eliciousladyWoman over a year ago

Sometimes U.K

Why would they want to force someone to stay with them when the other person doesn't want to? "

..out of spite and control

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Would you really want to continue a relationship with someone who doesnt want you?

Nobody needs to continue a personal relationship in order to stay married."

Then why stay married?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *lenderfoxMan over a year ago

Leeds

Yes, the law's clearly outdated

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Just think twice before you get married

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Would you really want to continue a relationship with someone who doesnt want you?

Nobody needs to continue a personal relationship in order to stay married.

Then why stay married?"

I personally wouldn't but not everyone views marriage in the same way. There isn't in my opinion one right answer to this.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Would you really want to continue a relationship with someone who doesnt want you?

Nobody needs to continue a personal relationship in order to stay married.

Then why stay married?

I personally wouldn't but not everyone views marriage in the same way. There isn't in my opinion one right answer to this. "

And if the other party doesn't want that arrangement why should they stay?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

Maybe there's a case for a different sort of contract.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *icecouple561Couple over a year ago
Forum Mod

East Sussex

"Why should it be easy for someone to end a marriage if the other person doesn't want to? Why are the wishes of the person who wants out more important than the person who wants it to continue.

Would you really want to continue a relationship with someone who doesnt want you?

Nobody needs to continue a personal relationship in order to stay married.

Then why stay married?

I personally wouldn't but not everyone views marriage in the same way. There isn't in my opinion one right answer to this.

And if the other party doesn't want that arrangement why should they stay?"

As I say, every case is different but you don't need to physically be with someone to remain married to them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)