What Happened to the Sanctity of Marriage, Mr. Rove?

Holy horrors Mr. Rove! The gays destroyed your marriage? Again? For the second time? How?

Oh, I'll bet it was your gay affairs, right? I know gay men can be so irresistible. Because, it certainly couldn't have been the no-fault divorce laws that allow married couples to destroy their marriage on a whim...with a mere stroke of the pen. No, of course not. The no-fault divorce laws have nothing to do with the destruction of marriage in this country.

Nevertheless, what about the Defense of Marriage Act? Why didn't that kick in and defend your marriage?

"Rove obtained his divorce under Texas' "no-fault" divorce law, one of the most permissive in the nation. That law basically allows any married couple to simply end their marriage because they feel like it. Texas, needless to say, is one of the states which has constitutionally barred same-sex marriages." -- Glen Greenwald

Wedge politics...

What's that Mr. Rove? Oh, you don't really care about preserving, what you pretended to believe, are Christian concepts of "traditional marriage". You were just using that as a means to mobilize support and galvanize voters during the last presidential campaign and barring gay marriage was crucial to your "3G" mantra (Gays, Guns and God) for the win.

So, you mean all your efforts to ban gay citizens from getting married was a ruse? A tactic to focus we the people's hatred toward one group of people, and to provide a big red herring to distract from the real issues?

Karl Rove, the master of dirty tricks, who will lie, cheat, steal, smear, destroy...do just about anything to win, is once again, getting what he wants.

Read more...

Divorce Saudi Arabian Style

A Saudi Arabian woman, after 30 years of marriage, wants a divorce.

Why?

Her husband, slightly curious, tried to lift her veil as she slept to take a look at her face. Something tells me if her husband had succeeded and unveiled his bride, he would be the one demanding a divorce.

Just a hunch.

After 30 years of marriage, cynics might say most husbands and wives would have seen quite enough of each other, thank you very much.

But not in the case of one Saudi Arabian man who managed to live with his wife for three decades without setting eyes on her face.

Not that he had much choice about it. His 50-year-old wife followed the tradition of her native village near the south-western city of Khamis Mushayt and kept her features veiled at all times.

Until one night last month, that is, when the husband was finally overcome by curiosity and tried to lift his wife's veil as she slept to take a look at her face.

Scroll down for more ...

Tradition: In the village in South West Saudia Arabia, women keep their features veiled at all times (file picture)

It was an error he is unlikely to be given a chance to repeat for his outraged wife woke up during his sneak peek and is now demanding a divorce.

'After all these years, he tries to commit such a big mistake,' she told Saudi newspaper Al-Riyadh after leaving the house in disbelief.

She said her husband apologised and promised never to do it again, but she insisted she wanted a divorce. It is not the first example of Saudi husbands with wives forever shrouded in mystery.

There was the case of Ali al-Qahtani whose wife had been wearing a face veil for the entire ten years of their marriage. When he tried to take it off she threatened to leave and only decided to stay after he swore never to try again.

And neither the husband or children of Om Rabea al-Gahdaray, 70, have ever seen her face. It was a family tradition, also followed by her mother and sisters, which her husband accepted and never tried to change, she said. When asked how she could have children without her husband ever seeing her face, she replied: "Marriage is about love, not faces."

Many Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran require women to cover their faces in public but in the privacy of their homes there is no such compulsion.

But always remaining veiled - even in front of your husband - is not an Islamic practice, but a very old tradition practised by a tiny minority of women in remote areas of Gulf countries.

Most examples of it are in Saudi, one of the most conservative of countries.

Read more...

"Liberty and Equal Justice for For Wealthy, Powerful, Law School Grads"

"We build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures. But, we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens by our efforts; we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state." -- Chesterfield Smith

Could anyone guess the above quotation describes the law profession if they didn't already know? I doubt it.

The legal profession is supposed to "guarantees liberty and equal justice for all" however the tremendous imbalance of power between consumers and lawyers leave the majority of "we the people" at the mercy of lawyers and in need of a second lawyer to protect the consumer from his lawyer and a third...well, you get my point.

Liberated from the workings of the free market the courts are far from consumer friendly and they are designed so that the weakest consumer, with the least amount of financial power or status, are in the weakest position and many times end up victims of our "system of justice". The monopoly lawyers have over our courts, make it impossible for the average person to pursue justice without paying astronomical hourly fees.

The good attorneys, who really want to right wrongs, and place ethics above profit will find it hard to hang in, as greed, which trumped ethics long ago, continues to spread like a fungus throughout the profession we are forced to depend upon to "protect" our rights. Just as fungus, given the right conditions, feeds on organic matter in order to reproduce itself, the legal industry, regulated by their own tribunal and lacking independent oversight, provides the perfect climate for avarice and self-interest to feed on our system of justice, as it is composed of almost nothing but lawyers. This sad state of affairs makes those lawyers who stay true to their ethical duty and professional obligation invaluable or at least worth the hourly rate.

A few posts ago I brought up a friend who is going through a bitter divorce in relation to our welfare laws. Regarding that same case I'm also learning what a racket the legal industry is. This woman who struggled along with her husband to achieve the "American Dream" and raise their three children for almost two decades is a perfect example of someone who, through no choice of her own, was thrown into this lion's den of "justice". One day, her husband, thoroughly convinced of Ayn Rand's genius, after listening to a follower of Objectivism, spout on and on about Rand's selfish philosophy, and although he never read a single sentence she wrote, he decided it was time to live only for himself. He hired an attorney, withdrew his 401K and filed for divorce before she or the children even knew what hit them. Overnight, she plunged from a "soccer mom" standard of living to being trapped in a home with her children, unable to pay the bills, let alone an attorney who charges $300/hour.

Unless she has a rich friend who wants to open his bank account to her, there is not much she can do as she is not entitled to an attorney by law. If you are accused in a criminal case and run the risk of serving time, whether it be ten days or ten years, you have the right to an attorney. Losing your children, your home, your life savings, job etc. does not warrant representation...in other words, there is no right to counsel in a civil case, no matter how disastrous the outcome of the case could be to your life.

Legal does not always mean ethical or that something is right as we have learned over and over again throughout history. The law can be so complicated in and of itself, not to mention the legalese it's written in and spoken, making it impossible to comprehend that common folk don't stand a chance against someone who can afford an attorney. Attorneys and judges can interpret the law in so many different directions it could make a seasoned attorney's head spin let alone someone who barely graduated high school.

These immense gray areas in the way laws are written already allow lawyers and judges to evade ethics and morality for the sake of their client, however when lawyers take that a few steps further and circumvent the law, not for the sake of their client, but for greed, self-interest and cronyism, the law becomes meaningless. Lawyers focus so much on the technicalities of the law, that right and wrong, fair and unfair, many times do not factor in the decisions they make.

For example - in another case I learned about through the case I'm currently observing - a divorce lawyer, knowing that the lack of alimony in his client's case would make her destitute, nevertheless, told the woman the only way he would continue to represent her was if she would agree not to ask for any alimony. This woman, knowing she didn't have a leg to stand on as she had no more money and the attorney fees she already owed were coming out of her portion of the house when it sold, agreed.

Not only did every single penny earned from the sale of her assets go to her lawyer, her wealthy husband earned back any attorney fees he had to pay quickly, continued to receive pay increases, continued to build up his retirement, including 401K match and overall continued to prosper. The woman and her children received very little child support because her ex husband, holding an executive position in his company, was able to hide his true income from the court, knowing his wife did not have the attorney power to investigate, and therefore his child support was calculated on what he chose to submit to the court. This woman, only making minimum wage, ended up in public housing on food stamps, with all her earnings going to pay for her health insurance.

When a prospective client whose legal claim to $600 meant impoverishing a widow and her six children, Abraham Lincoln said, refusing to take the case,

"Some things that are right legally are not right morally, I advise a sprightly, energetic man like you to try your hand at making six hundred dollars in some other way."

“Equal Justice Under Law” sits above the doors of the Supreme Court, however it should read "Equal Justice For Those Who Can Afford to Pay Outrageous Attorney Fees, are Well-Versed in the Law and Powerful Enough to Make Their Lawyer Truly Represent Them" That may sound a bit awkward and wordy but it comes much closer to the truth than the few words that currently welcome people into the Supreme Court.

Read more...

Earning the Right to Divorce

...or she does
I am not an attorney nor do I have in depth knowledge of the law, but after observing a few friends and family members going through divorce, the laws and rules of evidence and civil procedure regarding divorce confused me to say the least. After discussing this with many people, I discovered I was not the only one confused by "divorce court".

I believe my confusion stems from the establishment of no-fault grounds laws where neither party is considered at fault. I am not referring to childless couples, as I believe, in most instances; divorcing couples without children do not carry the same burden of responsibility as married couples with children. There are no innocent victims involved when a childless couple divorce.

This lack of a clearly defined "defendant" leads to what I would call a more casual atmosphere where the outcome of each case can partially result from the bond the attorneys have with the judges and/or the bond attorneys have with each other. More "off the record" discussions between attorneys and judges (I witnessed this first-hand) occur making impartiality practically impossible. In addition, the judge may be focused on adhering to the "no fault" aspect of the law, at the expense of true justice where the truly innocent (children) are protected. It's not the fault of the individual attorneys or judges, rather the "fault" of the "no fault" laws governing divorce that try so hard not to condemn either party that it overlooks the real victims, the children.

I understand the reason behind no fault divorce and agree that prior to the "divorce revolution" in the 1970s; divorce court did compromise the integrity of the American justice system by making perjury a likely occurrence. Anyone living in a marriage from hell will find a way to end their misery any way they can. The courts realized this and amended divorce legislation allowing spouses to initiate divorce proceedings without any proof of marital wrongdoing, therefore eliminating the need to fabricate situations to get out of one's commitment.

Yet, it seems this issue was solved at the peril of many other issues the most profound being the injustice to children. Children have financial and psychological advantages when both parents are married and fully supporting them. They lose these advantages when one or both parents decide to divorce because of the lack of adequate laws in place governing divorce. Therefore, unless the divorcing parents are diligent about putting the children first, the children become the victims through no fault of their own.

Non-adversarial divorce is not the problem in and of itself, rather there needs to be reform to the existing laws requiring both parents to be more responsible to their children. Currently, the children and/or the spouse without the career or the financial means usually suffer the most because "justice" is so expensive. If the parent retaining primary custody can afford to pay $300/hr to an attorney for countless hours, sometimes until that child is 18-years old, the child's rights will be protected. Most Americans do not have that kind of money, especially the parent normally left to care for the children. He or she, and the children are left at the mercy of the other spouse who makes the money and therefore wields the power.

Parents should be required to "earn" a divorce instead of having the divorce granted, just because one or both parents want it. An agreement in writing, providing specific details about how both parents intend to support their children in much the same way as when they were married, should be mandatory before the divorce decree is granted. In other words, the divorce decree comes after settlement takes place, not before, as it is now. Of course, this only applies if both spouses do not pose a danger to the children.

Marriage is a contract between two people and the government agreeing that each spouse is obliged to support the other and any offspring that should result of their marriage. The government, in return, will provide certain rights and protections -- over 1500 federal and approx. 500 state, depending on the state --to the married couple and their offspring. If the couple decides to end the contract, they should be obliged to support each other in the manner of which they grew accustomed when there are children involved, no matter what the socioeconomic status of the couple.

"We the People" end up paying for the "deadbeat dad" or mom who might make six-figures but just does not feel like living up to his or her responsibly any more. Currently, without the money and resources it's extremely difficult for the custodial parent to make the irresponsible parent face up to his or her responsibility, because the irresponsible parent has to turn into "Jack the Ripper" for the courts to aggressively pursue him or her and by the time the court finally does pin that parent down the child is usually married with kids of his or her own.

Instead of "No Fault" divorce, we should have "No Fault of the Children" divorce, putting the focus on children's rights first and taking the focus off making sure the ones truly at fault, the divorcing couple, remain faultless.

It seems another "divorce revolution" is needed to correct the injustices of the last one.

Read more...

Divorce is Not Green

Divorce causes people to go from living under one roof to living under two roofs. More households, even though smaller, with fewer people will use more energy and water, take up more space and contribute to urban sprawl...not a good thing for the environment.

"Environmental impacts of divorce and other lifestyles such as separation should be considered when making personal choices," the report says.

Staying together for the environment may be the "green" thing to do but the color "green" may soon be tinged with a deep shade of "blood red".

Read more...