(no subject)

[deelaundry]

This clear example of why we should just go ahead and make gay marriage legal on the federal level (from AP) made me think of Wilson:

Man must pay partnered ex-wife alimony
LOS ANGELES - A judge has ordered a man to continue paying alimony to his ex-wife — even though she's in a registered domestic partnership with another woman and even uses the other woman's last name.

California marriage laws say alimony ends when a former spouse remarries, and Ron Garber thought that meant he was off the hook when he learned his ex-wife had registered her new relationship under the state's domestic partnership law.

An Orange County judge didn't see it that way.

The judge ruled that a registered partnership is cohabitation, not marriage, and that Garber must keep writing the checks, $1,250 a month, to his ex-wife, Melinda Kirkwood. Gerber plans to appeal.

The case highlights questions about the legal status of domestic partnerships, an issue the California Supreme Court is weighing as it considers whether same-sex marriage is legal. An appeals court upheld the state's ban on same-sex marriage last year, citing the state's domestic partners law and ruling that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether gays could wed.

Lawyers arguing in favor of same-sex marriage say they will cite the June ruling in the Orange County case as a reason to unite gay and heterosexual couples under one system: marriage.

In legal briefs due in August to the California Supreme Court, Therese Stewart, chief deputy city attorney for San Francisco, intends to argue that same sex couples should have access to marriage and that domestic partnership doesn't provide the same reverence and respect as marriage.

The alimony ruling shows "the irrationality of having a separate, unequal scheme" for same-sex partners, Stewart said.

Garber knew his former wife was living with another woman when he agreed to the alimony, but he said he didn't know the two women had registered with the state as domestic partners under a law that was intended to mirror marriage.

"This is not about gay or lesbian," Garber said. "This is about the law being fair."

Kirkwood's attorney, Edwin Fahlen, said the agreement was binding regardless of whether his client was registered as a domestic partner or even married. He said both sides agreed the pact could not be modified and Garber waived his right to investigate the nature of Kirkwood's relationship.

Garber's attorney, William M. Hulsy, disagreed.

"If he had signed that agreement under the same factual scenario except marriage, not domestic partnership, his agreement to pay spousal support would be null and void," Hulsy said.

Comments

[asynca.livejournal.com]

I will just point out that while I'm not aware of the laws in Orange County - in Australia, married people get tax breaks and extra benefits that domestic partners don't. So it actually wouldn't be so unfair for the husband to keep paying alimony here - because the female partners wouldn't be better off as a result of living together. In fact, they'd pay MORE tax.

[deelaundry.livejournal.com]

In the US, a dual income couple usually pays more in federal income taxes if married than if single, because of the progressive nature of the tax. But yes, domestic partnership carries fewer benefits than marriage.

I don't even know who I think is right in this particular case -- only that it's an example of a problem that would be avoided if we just legalized gay marriage. So fricking lame that we haven't.

[poeia.livejournal.com]

In the U.S. there has traditionally been a marriage penalty -- the personal deduction for a married couple is less than twice the deduction for a single person.

And he is no longer a married person. He's single so, even in Australia, he wouldn't get married tax breaks.

Plus, in California, if there were no prenup and they were married for 10 years or longer, she got half of everything (in addition to the alimony.)

And all that is besides the point. Why should he support her and her new partner?

[hry2007.livejournal.com]

Okay, this probably makes me a bitch, but my first thought was HA! If such a fucked-up system and society works in our favor on a rare occasion, so be it. I don't condone the ex continuing to accept alimony, but it's a bit amusing, and depending on what caused the divorce, I can't say I'd be above it.

That being said, the whole concept of alimony baffles me. I wouldn't let myself become financially dependent on a partner while we were together, let alone after we'd split. Finances should be settled at the time of the divorce. You're your own responsibility.

[aribbonofblack.livejournal.com]

I think to a point you're right: we are our own responsibility. But the reality is that within marriage, there is some natural inequity, particularly when children are involved. Even if a women does not stay at home with her children for very long after their birth (which many women do, and should if they want to), she is still making some sacrifice in terms of employment and career advancement (i.e. she is a less effective employee for the duration of her pregnancy and must be absent from work for probably at least six weeks - in the U.S. usually unpaid - after the birth). She may have to go to work at a low-paying job and stop her education due to the birth of a child (not because she needs to stay home with the child, but because the husband alone does not make sufficient money to provide while she completes her schooling - kids are expensive), or a million other possibilities. Yes, birth control can do a little bit to mitigate these possibilities, but nothing is foolproof.

Women are the ones who get pregnant. There is not a feminist movement in the world, besides one that advocates the eradication of childbearing (I'm sorry, but I'd like to have kids someday), that can fix the inherent inequity in gestation.

That's not even taking into account the fact that a man who has to pay alimony is, generally speaking, the one at fault for the divorce. This is less true since the advent of so-called "no fault divorce," but generally for alimony to be granted, one spouse has to make significantly more money than the other (often the spouse who receives alimony has been a stay-at-home parent for years and has few marketable work skills) and is probably not the party who initiated the divorce in the first place.

I think our understanding of alimony is overly simplistic because we don't live these women's realities. You say that you wouldn't let yourself become financially dependent on your partner while you were married, but that's what marriage is (or should be): total mutual dependence - emotional, physical, sexual, and yes, financial. I think it's harder to understand alimony from the perspective of a woman who would never consider staying at home with her children (or even having children), but I think women suffer economically because they carry the babies, and I don't see anything wrong with equalizing that when the two parties split.

[hry2007.livejournal.com]

Yes, it's the woman who's pregnant, but what happens after that is a by-product of gender roles in our society, gender roles that frankly, have not helped women. Many western countries have a more egalitarian approach to child-rearing, and I don't think it's a coincidence that those kids are doing better than kids in the States across the board.

Marriage requires depending on each other in a lot of ways, but financially isn't one of them. Egalitarian relationships are happier, less prone to domestic violence, and easier to get out of should a marriage fail. A balance of power causes problems, and yes, giving financial responsibility to a spouse gives them power over oneself.

typo

[hry2007.livejournal.com]

*A mis-balance of power causes problems

[aribbonofblack.livejournal.com]

I agree that an egalitarian society is ideal, but we're not living in the ideal. This is the real world. Childbearing is the responsibility of the wife on purely biological grounds, and she is penalized for it (whether she should be is of course up for discussion, but she definitely is now and we have to do something to compensate for that). All women, whether they choose to have children or not, are penalized for it - in lower wages and less respect despite higher qualifications. Yes, I wish it weren't so, but right now it IS so.

There is also a mathematically indeterminate financial sacrifice the lower-earning spouse makes when s/he and the other spouse divorce. If a man and a woman wish to exclude alimony from their future in the case of a divorce, there is always the option of a prenuptial agreement. It’s not like alimony is an unremittable requirement by the state. But it should exist, and it should be the default position in the case of extremely economically disparate spouses.

It is worth noting that the higher-earning spouse at the beginning of the marriage usually remains the higher-earning spouse, not because the man is usually the higher-earning spouse and men traditionally earn more, but because the lower-earning spouse continues to make career sacrifices to further the career of the higher-earning spouse. Marriage is a PARTNERSHIP. This is not about egalitarianism or (yuck) headship/submission or whatever – I’m all in favor of egalitarian marriage.

But most people see their marriages as unions, partnerships, not temporary arrangements likely to end in divorce. As such, a couple who do not foresee divorce – no matter how much equality there is in the marriage – will pursue avenues that will allow them to have the most total income possible. Usually, this means raising the income of the higher-earning spouse rather than raising the income of the lower-income spouse, because there is more to be gained on the higher end.

Further, day care is expensive. It is so expensive that for lower earners, it is almost not worth working by the time they pay for gas to get to work (especially if there is more than one child or a special needs child). A minimum wage earning person now (since last week) makes $234 per week before taxes. Day care in this area usually runs about $100 per week per child. Put two children in day care and you've eaten up your entire income, not to mention the gas to get to work.

Therefore, many couples choose for one spouse, usually the wife but increasingly the husband, to stay at home with the children until they are old enough to go to school. This kind of arrangement cannot usually be truly egalitarian (i.e. both spouses work part time jobs) because it is more economically efficacious for the higher earner to work full time while the lower earner stays at home since part time employment lowers one’s value on the job market).

Sure, they could do it the other way around, where the higher earner stayed at home and the lower earner worked, but that would result in less income for the family overall – which, in a non-failing marriage, is illogical. The time off work to care for the kids removes the lower-earning spouse from the workforce for a time, thus further lowering his/her worth on the job market.

[aribbonofblack.livejournal.com]

So, when a couple with children split, one spouse has made significant career advances while the other has not. Though one spouse earns more money, it is the other spouse’s sacrifices that have allowed him/her to be that level of earner, and that is worth something financially. When the marriage dissolves, particularly if the higher-earning spouse initiates or otherwise causes (i.e. through adultery or abuse) the dissolution, the lower-earning spouse is left swinging. Do we want the lower-earning spouse on public assistance? No! S/he is entitled to continue in the lifestyle to which s/he has become accustomed, at least for a little while until s/he can recover the value on the job market that was lost through marital sacrifice.

This is not about women leeching on their ex-husbands (or men leeching on their ex-wives, for that matter). This is about equalizing the partners in a marriage when one of the partners has made intangible contributions that cannot be enumerated but are economically significant to the success of the other spouse.

Perhaps the only truly egalitarian marriage can be one in which there are no children and either 1. the society does not discriminate against its women by paying them less or 2. both partners are the same sex. When there are children, no matter the sexes of the spouses, there will likely be an economic differential – and the lower-earning party must be compensated for his/her contributions to increasing the earning potential of the other spouse. That's the point of alimony.

Also, in most cases (unless the marriage was very long, etc.), the alimony arrangement is temporary, not permanent, and is a way for the lower-earning spouse to begin to recover the earning potential that was lost in the process of making economic sacrifices for the higher-earning spouse.

[thinlysliced.livejournal.com]

Interesting case. You'd think Kirkwood would be embarrassed still to be demanding his money when effectively married to someone else! Though, I guess, she is arguing that she'd do the same if she were married to another man. Still, it seems rather scummy of her, to me - and kind of undermining of the idea that her same-sex relationship should be taken to be equivalent to or the same as opposite-sex marriage

Here in South Africa we (finally) got civil unions at the end of last year, which apply to everyone, regardless of their sex - and can take the form of either a marriage or civil partnership (whichever you prefer). It's a weird, partially redundant act, in that it now stands in addition to (rather than replacing) the existing marriage act - which applies only to straight people - but the rationale, I think, was to give the right-wing nutters something to hold onto until such time as they enter the modern world/die out.

It's just frustrating that it took the law such a long time to catch up with the constitution. I guess that's just the nature of the legal system.

[aribbonofblack.livejournal.com]

I think it's wrong of her to take the money, simply because it doesn't honor the partnership she has with her DP. This disgusts me as much as the rich African American kid who takes scholarship money based on affirmative action, or the adult child of wealthy parents who takes welfare simply because he can. I guess I believe in the spirit of the law more than the letter. I don't really understand why the gay rights people are not pissed off about this - because it's basically a ruling that says that homosexual partnerships aren't the same as marriage (although maybe they're glad because it points out the inequity - separate but equal just doesn't work).

I think this woman dishonors herself and her new spouse (partner?), and I guess that's all I have to say about it.

:(

Commentary from the lawyer...

[(Anonymous)]

That degree should be good for something, eh? :-) Anyway, it seems to me that this doesn't really have anything to do with gay marriage (which, by the way, I support 100%), but, rather, with interpretation of the parties' agreement. Key word here: "agreement," which the ex-husband signed, fair and square, knowing that under California law, a domestic partnership does not equal marriage. If the guy's mad at anyone, it should be his lawyer, who apparently did a lousy job of (a) negotiating this settlement, and (b) advising his client of the potential consequences.

Just my $0.02. :-)

Tammy

Re: Commentary from the lawyer...

[(Anonymous)]

By the way -- although I don't think it's mentioned in the article above, this gentleman knew when he signed the agreement that his wife was living with another woman and had taken the other woman's name! Second thoughts, much?