(no subject)
Jul. 23rd, 2007 05:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deelaundryThis 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
typo
Date: 2007-07-25 03:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-31 02:25 pm (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-07-31 02:26 pm (UTC)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.