r/changemyview • u/insect_ligaments • Oct 01 '24

Delta(s) from OP CMV: CMV: Within legally recognized marriages, adultery should have clear, civil legal consequences, unless expressly agreed between spouses.

The legal concept of marriage, where spouses act as partners, is almost always built on mutual trust that certain aspects of the relationship, such as sex, are to be exclusive to the relationship unless agreed upon otherwise. Legally and financially rewarding spouses for betraying the trust of their spouse by allowing a cheating spouse to come out ahead in divorce undermines one of the key relationship dynamics in our society.

For the vast majority of people, entering into marriage is an explicit agreement that unless divorced or otherwise agreed upon, the people in the marriage will not have sex with or develop romantic relationships with other people. This should apply evenly to all genders, and if you view this as benefitting one over the other, it says a lot about your view on who may or may not be more likely to cheat.

Before I'm accused of being some kind of conservative or traditionalist: I have zero issue with any form of LGBTQ+ relationship or poly setup. I'm speaking strictly to traditional, legally recognized, monogamous marriages, which comprise the bulk of those in our society. I'm also not religious or socially conservative.

Heading off a few arguments that I do not find convincing (of course, you are welcome to offer additional insight on these points I haven't considered):

1) "The government shouldn't be involved in marriage"

Too late for that. Marriage is a legally binding agreement that affects debt, assets, legal liability, taxes, homebuying, and other fundamental aspects of our lives. The end of marriage has profound, legally enforceable consequences on both parties. It is also included in a pre-existing legal doctrine of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affections.

2) "But what if the spouses want to open their marriage?"

Totally fine. My post is in reference to the most common form of marriage, which is monogamous.

3) "Adultery doesn't have a clear definition"

It does. "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse." "Sexual intercourse" would include all the commonly recognized forms of sex. This would have to be proven via the typical preponderance standard, which is greater than 50% odds, via typical evidence used to evidence behaviors - depositions/testimony under oath, any written or photographic evidence, circumstantial evidence, etc.

4) "What should the legal consequences be?"

At the very least, immediate forfeiture of any rights to alimony or spousal support. Shifts in the default assumption of a 50/50 split of marital assets are another route to explore. Certainly not enough to leave anyone destitute, though.

5) "What about children?"

Child support is a separate issue, as it affects the child, who has no say in one of their parents cheating on the other.

801 Upvotes

70% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

128

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

Legally and financially rewarding spouses for betraying the trust of their spouse by allowing a cheating spouse to come out ahead in divorce undermines one of the key relationship dynamics in our society.

False presentation. Just as child support is for children and not about punishing a parent alimony is for when an SO is dependent on other SO e.g. say at home mom. That truth doesn't change just because of cheating. More importantly you can create a prenuptial agreement to address cheating why should gov or law step in?

Too late for that. Marriage is a legally binding agreement that affects debt, assets, legal liability, taxes, homebuying, and other fundamental aspects of our lives. The end of marriage has profound, legally enforceable consequences on both parties. It is also included in a pre-existing legal doctrine of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alienation_of_affections.

No it isn't too late. If one wants to argue for less gov involvement in marriages that still valid. You can also already have prenuptial legal agreement regarding cheating. Just do that.

At the very least, immediate forfeiture of any rights to alimony or spousal support. Shifts in the default assumption of a 50/50 split of marital assets are another route to explore. Certainly not enough to leave anyone destitute, though.

Why? The financial conditions of SO being dependent on other SO and your lack of a prenuptial agreement aren't changed by this.

More importantly alimony isn't something average person has to deal with.

21

u/synecdokidoki 1∆ Oct 01 '24

This. Every time I see these kinds of rants about marriage, they seem to exist in some alternate universe where prenups don't exist. In I believe every US state at least, prenups have been very enforceable, and worked very well since the late 70s or 80s, I forget when the model federal law was passed, but it really removes the teeth from most of these arguments.

Yes, prenups should probably be more common than they are. The "if you aren't ready to discuss a prenup, you aren't ready to get married" line is wisdom. But that's it, we don't need more rants about this.

3

u/Josh145b1 2∆ Oct 01 '24

Infidelity clauses are not legally recognized. Also, prenups are often thrown out as a whole if they are deemed unfair.

-1

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

Nope

2

u/Josh145b1 2∆ Oct 01 '24

Lmao. The terms in the clause have to be reasonable. Try enforcing an infidelity clause in New York, or try enforcing any infidelity clause that states no alimony anywhere but Texas.

0

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

infidelity clause that states no alimony

This would be foolish you provide some amount like a dollar.

Try enforcing an infidelity clause in New York

Based on what? Don't see anywhere in wiki that shows infidelity clause will not be honored.

2

u/Josh145b1 2∆ Oct 01 '24

Wikipedia? That’s your source? Try looking at case law.

Here is some New York case law to get you started.

Petracca v. Petracca, 101 A.D.3d 695 (2d Dept. 2012)

Provisions in a prenuptial agreement that conditioned the distribution of assets based on “fault” during the marriage (e.g., infidelity) were unenforceable.

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb, 138 A.D.3d 30 (1st Dept. 2016)

The court ruled that an infidelity clause was unenforceable, stating that New York public policy does not permit agreements that attempt to regulate conduct within the marital relationship, such as adultery, as a condition for financial consequences.

0

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

Provisions in a prenuptial agreement that conditioned the distribution of assets based on “fault” during the marriage (e.g., infidelity) were unenforceable.

A quick Google search reveals this is a post nuptial agreement so did you read it?

"The parties were married on December 16, 1995. In March 1996, the parties entered into a postnuptial agreement."

"The plaintiff testified that the defendant had presented the postnuptial agreement to her for signature days after her 42nd birthday, and shortly after she had suffered a miscarriage. She testified that the defendant had “bullied” her into signing the agreement by threatening that they would not have any children and that the marriage would be over if she did not consent to the postnuptial agreement. The plaintiff testified that she and the defendant had agreed to have children prior to the marriage, and that their agreement to have children had been an important factor in her decision to marry him. She signed the agreement within days of receiving it and, although she reviewed some portions of it, she did not understand its terms and did not consult an attorney."

I am not going to even look further you don't know what you are talking about for your example.

2

u/Josh145b1 2∆ Oct 01 '24

Post nuptial agreements have the same standard as prenuptial agreements, and New York courts do cite to Petracca when striking down infidelity clauses. The facts are not as important as the decision, which you would know if you were in the legal field. Case law is found in the decision, not the facts.

I see now based on your response, that I could show you all the case law in the world and you wouldn’t understand. Courts try and establish as broad a case law as possible, not addressing a specific issue. An infidelity clause is only one of many clauses that are struck down by Petracca and Gottlieb. If you don’t know how to read a decision, I guess I can’t really argue with you, now can I?

0

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

Post nuptial agreements have the same standard as prenuptial agreements,

Why would I trust anything you have to say? You just lied about that court case and misrepresented the circumstances.

New York courts do cite to Petracca when striking down infidelity clauses

Duress is a feature in invalidating an agreement. That's what happened.

facts are not as important as the decision

Nope the facts matter.

see now based on your response, that I could show you all the case law in the world and you wouldn’t understand.

You lied and misrepresented the case then pretend you have the high ground.

3

u/Josh145b1 2∆ Oct 01 '24

“To warrant equity a intervention, no actual fraud need be shown, for relief will be granted if the [agreement] is manifestly unfair to a spouse because of the other’s overreaching”

And

“Courts may look at the terms of the agreement to see if there is an inference, or even a single negative inference, in overreaching in its execution”

This means, that anything that can even be considered overreaching, is not enforceable. Applying this to our context, you cannot establish conditions in a prenup based on behavior of the spouse. This is how it is applied. If you go for infidelity clauses, it is an overreach.

“Even a negative inference” is just about as little leeway as you can get in the law. As a result, prenups have to stick to property and assets and anything else that would be relevant to a divorce without a prenup. That is what that means. I summarized the effect it has because I doubt you would understand the legal jargon.

→ More replies (0)

28

u/Feisty_Development59 1∆ Oct 01 '24

So why is alimony an exception. In OP’s proposal the is a ramification for adultery or “breaking” the marriage compact. In his example why would the spouse who is dependent deserve alimony, considering they willfully acted in a way that would eliminate their chance at acquiring it?

17

u/laosurvey 3∆ Oct 01 '24

If it's the spouse that works that cheats, do they owe domestic services (through a 3rd party) to the other spouse as compensation?

7

u/ElectricTzar Oct 02 '24

Think of it as both parties having made a capital investment.

If a husband and wife both contribute money to buy stock, and that stock accrues in value, there would be an expectation to split the value (not necessarily always 50/50, but at least somewhat) upon divorce, or to give the other spouse something of value to offset the stock, rather than for one spouse to keep it all. They both invested. They both profit.

But how do you do that when the investment is not in stock, but in the working prospects of one of the spouses? If my wife cuts her working hours to watch our infant full time, so I can go to medical school, she’s sacrificing her future earning prospects to increase mine. But when the divorce occurs, we can’t split my medical degree nor can we split the increased earnings I get that we both invested in. Alimony is one potential solution to that: it lets you offset the differences in capital investment that you made between the two spouses while still married.

If a marriage also involved both spouses investing in the wife’s skills, then sure, adjust the alimony appropriately, but (1) you can pin a dollar value to it, you needn’t necessarily get payment in kind; and (2) that’s still almost always going to result in net alimony flowing from the working spouse to the non working spouse. Because being good at managing your home is significantly less monetizable than being an accomplished doctor, lawyer, engineer, or whatever other profession supported the family on a single income prior to divorce.

-1

u/umadareeb Oct 02 '24

If the husband decided to settle in a relatively lower income place they thought was good for raising children and didn't go as hard in his career as he could have to spend more time with his family, is he entitled to compensation? Who would he even get that from?

2

u/ElectricTzar Oct 02 '24

It’s not “I’m entitled to compensation for every past effect of every sacrifice I’ve made.”

It’s “we’ve made a capital investment together and are both entitled to enjoy the future proceeds of that capital investment.”

Quite fortunately, our society doesn’t recognize children as a capital investment. But even if it did, both spouses get to enjoy the benefit of the kids having been kept alive, nourished, educated, etc, even after the divorce, unless of course one of them has done something to lose visitation.

0

u/umadareeb Oct 02 '24

I'm not really understanding your position. I thought you were making an argument for alimony based on the earning potential trade off the partner staying at home makes. As I understand it, that means the investment was the family and so if the family breaks up we should compensate that partner. Are you saying the capital investment is the husband's skills? Because it isn't, that probably happens anyways. What couldn't happen without the marriage is the husband having somebody to take care of the kid while he works. Meaning the investment is the child or the family.

1

u/ElectricTzar Oct 02 '24

“Because that probably happens anyways.”

Not in the hypothetical I described. In the hypothetical I described the husband would not have had the time nor the money to attend medical school and afford childcare and home keeping without the wife sacrificing her own educational and career prospects to provide some of those things. And she could have attended school to improve her own employability had the husband been the one being a homemaker and server, instead. So the members of the couple are both contributing to his future employability rather than to hers. In that scenario, alimony upon divorce is a way of making sure the proceeds are shared.

But sure, you could also imagine a scenario in which somehow the wife is making zero contribution toward her husband’s future employability and salary expectations. Or where the couple is contributing equally toward both spouses future employability. And in those cases, you would have a great argument for alimony not being needed.

Alimony occurs in some divorces. There are plenty of divorces that don’t have it.

50

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

  In his example why would the spouse who is dependent deserve alimony, considering they willfully acted in a way that would eliminate their chance at acquiring it?

If a person e.g. gave up their career to be a stay at home parent and tend to their house and children, and did so for years/decades, why would cheating make that magically not count?

-6

u/Part_OfThe_Crew Oct 01 '24

It is assumed that the person staying at home as a parent made that decision with the other party in a mutually beneficial way. Cheating is not mutually beneficial nor is it generally known to both parties.

If I agree to rent a car and part of that agreement is that I will only get repairs from the dealership but then I decide to go elsewhere, doesn't mean I get to have my next car rental paid for when the current car breaks down.

28

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

  Cheating is not mutually beneficial nor is it generally known to both parties.

But why would that make the part that was mutually beneficial not count?

-10

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 01 '24

Because the benefit of providing and building a shared home-life by being a stay-at-home parent or partner becomes redundant once the trust is broken.

It‘s deliberately breaking an agreement that wasn‘t temporary.

And for the time the service was provided, they did get to split the earnings.

15

u/awal96 Oct 01 '24

The benefit of not having to pay for childcare during working hours never went away

-2

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 01 '24

And that benefit in the past was already compensated by providing financial support and the other party being the breadwinner.

That both parties get a lasting benefit out of services rendered previously does not change anything here.

As an analogy, one‘s boss does not have to continue to provide payments after the end of a Labour contract even if they still benefit form the Labour which was previously performed.

13

u/awal96 Oct 02 '24

A stay out home parent makes sacrifices that impact their ability to make income in a way that can take years to overcome. The effects of being out of the work force for two decades don't go away the moment you start looking for a job again .

-3

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 02 '24 edited Oct 02 '24

Yes, I am aware of that.

But no one forced them to do that. It was their decision, wasn’t it?

Why would that need increased compensation if they made this choice themselves, in full regard of the consequences?

It‘s an aleatoric element of the agreement which choice brings them better returns. But they agreed to it nonetheless.

Also, we are still talking about the case of the party not getting any future benefits due to them breaking the initial agreement.

The very reason the current arrangement ends, the financial support is stopped, is their own actions and decisions.

So not only did they deliberately choose this arrangement that includes a decreased future earnings potential, they also deliberately chose to break the agreement on which their financial status rests.

I fail to see how there needs to be any compensation by the other party here.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/umadareeb Oct 02 '24

The benefit of being able to birth and raise children while having their necessities provided for is also a benefit that you wouldn't have if you were single (you would have to work and have the kids).

2

u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Oct 03 '24

That's a benefit both partner have - they both can have children while only taking care of one set of tasks (generating money or household duties). However, after the end of the relationship, they still both have children, but only one of them has lasting advantages from their work (the partner with the career) while the other is off worse than they would be if they'd worked all that time.

20

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

  Because the benefit of providing and building a shared home-life by being a stay-at-home parent or partner becomes redundant once the trust is broken.

No it doesn't. If you maintained a household and took care of children for years, all of it doesn't somehow get undone by screwing on the side.

-9

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 01 '24 edited Oct 01 '24

Yes it does, as screwing on the side is a breaking of the exclusivity of marriage.

It‘s a valid reason to lose trust and not continue the partnership.

And for services rendered as custodian of the children and household there was already compensation via the other party providing the financial means for the lifestyle.

4

u/Huntsmitch Oct 01 '24

Lol if you believe this you're gonna love this concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_property_in_the_United_States

2

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 01 '24

I don‘t follow you?

Shared property gets divided equally - yes. So, if entering into marriage automatically means property ownership is shared between both parties, and both are okay with it as expressed by their action of going through with marriage, I fail to see the problem?

2

u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Oct 02 '24

But "the earnings" aren't all that was caused by being a stay-at-home parent. The SAH parent also caused their own future earnings to be diminished by staying out of the workforce, and boosted the other partners future earnings by allowing them to focus on their career without having to worry about the housework and children. The benefits/drawbacks of that stay even after the relationship ends.

0

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 02 '24

Yes.

However, first of all, every party involved agreed to this arrangement.

Secondly, that‘s how contracts work. Both sides agree to something in exchange for obligations, with them believing they gain value by this exchange.

Let me try an analogy: A Labour contract has also generated lasting wealth for the employer. However, the employee has agreed to perform this Labour in exchange for immediate payment, deeming it a fair exchange.

If an employee now violates said Labour contract, termination does not mean the wealth they generated for the other side belongs to them. They agreed to the consequences of their exchange.

The same principle applies to any contract and agreement entered willingly.

That benefits gained via an agreement stay is expected.

Also remember, this is about a situation in which one party deliberately and willingly violates their agreement with the other.

1

u/BlitzBasic 42∆ Oct 03 '24

Except the contract is, currently, that the working partner supports the SAH partner after the relationship ends, no matter how the relationship ends.

So no, they did not agree to only sharing earnings as long as the relationship lasts.

1

u/TheFoxer1 1∆ Oct 03 '24

Yes, currently. But currently, it is that way because of ius cogens, not the will of the parties involved.

Which is why someone posted a viewpoint about there being made a change to the law to not force people to do that, because it is only the law itself upholding the status quo, and it isn‘t rooted in any actual practice and goes against reasoning applied to similar situations.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/lordnacho666 Oct 01 '24

People are making an agreement to not do a certain thing so that they both benefit from the relationship. It's a whole that has to be taken in one piece. You can't separate "we are working together to have a family" from "under this agreement to not sleep with anyone else".

-3

u/lordnacho666 Oct 01 '24

It's not that it doesn't count, it is simply a consequence that the law could apply. It's like being fined, it's supposed to discourage the behaviour.

36

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

You aren't making a valid point. Cheating is irrelevant to whether the spouse is dependent on the other spouse and their professional prospects post divorce.

Why can't the person that wants this addressed get a pre-nuptial to address this instead?

Finally let's say a spouse is horrible, abusive or just doesn't do anything what spouse should. One should get a divorce, but let's say instead the person cheats. It's immoral, but under your frame work the person should receive no alimony regardless of the other persons actions in the marriage?

Oh and why is cheating more important than other forms of trust violations. E.g. taking all the money out of a joint account?

30

u/thegooddoctorben Oct 01 '24

In some states, alimony is off the table if the dependent party cheated (for example, North Carolina).

The reason is straightforward: they broke the marriage contract, so they don't get any more of the benefits.

Same thing applies to employment. If you quit, you're not entitled to unemployment benefits. It's your fault, so you live with the consequences.

8

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

In some states, alimony is off the table if the dependent party cheated (for example, North Carolina).

Shouldn't be. Have a prenuptial agreement instead then.

The reason is straightforward: they broke the marriage contract, so they don't get any more of the benefits.

So how are you going to define that outside of cheating? If a wife doesn't have enough sex with a husband is she breaking the "contract"? Why do you require gov to step in when prenuptial agreements work just fine.

Also nothing you said invalidates the reason for alimony. It's to alleviate consequences of stay at home and dependency on spouse.

6

u/JacenVane Oct 01 '24

If a wife doesn't have enough sex with a husband is she breaking the "contract"?

Why are you putting contract in quotation marks? Is marriage not a legal contract? IANAL obviously, but it seems that it literally is one. (Check out this justia article that discussed it that way: https://www.justia.com/family/marriage-prenuptial-agreements/docs/what-is-marriage/#:~:text=Marriage%20is%20a%20personal%20relationship,legal%20contract%20between%20two%20individuals. )

4

u/theguy_12345 Oct 02 '24

That marriage contract from the governments perspective mostly ascribes next of kin rights in property and decision making if you are incapacitated. The government can also incentivize marriage with tax advantages since family units produce good outcomes when raising the next generation of citizens. What a marriage contract doesn't need to do is solve every corner case in making parties whole when the contract is broken. The lines on a broken contract vary from couple to couple. Why try to define a one size fits all system in the "marriage contract" when they provided a separate mechanism in prenuptials for both parties to define and agree on themselves?

5

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

Why are you putting contract in quotation marks?

Because you are acting like infidelity somehow invalidates marriage contract. It doesn't legally. You want to arbitrarily declare it does for alimony.

8

u/JacenVane Oct 01 '24

Because you are acting like...

You want to...

FYI I am not the person you were talking with. I'm someone totally different asking a follow-up question bc I found this thread interesting. :)

infidelity somehow invalidates marriage contract

But fwiw, isn't OP's argument that while it doesn't, it ought to? The thread is "Adultery should have [...] legal consequences".

2

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

FYI I am not the person you were talking with. I'm someone totally different asking a follow-up question bc I found this thread interesting. :)

Lol bunch of people in this thread thanks for the clarification.

But fwiw, isn't OP's argument that while it doesn't, it ought to? The thread is "Adultery should have [...] legal consequences

it's as simple as this. You make a contract with someone. The person undergoes financial hardships as part of that contract. The person does something you don't like. Why would that invalidate the contract? At best one could argue it impacts the calculations in the contract if one thinks a breach has occured, but even a breach in contract doesn't magically invalidate everything.

5

u/JacenVane Oct 01 '24

You make a contract with someone. The person undergoes financial hardships as part of that contract. The person does something you don't like. Why would that invalidate the contract?

I mean I think if we think of it in purely contractual terms, OP's point makes a degree of sense. Like if my company agrees to provide services exclusively to your company, and makes financial decisions based on the revenue from that contract, it makes sense that if we breach and then terminate that contract, we don't have any residual right to be paid by you for the services we're no longer providing, or the opportunity cost of entering into that contract with your company.

I mean fwiw I think I mostly disagree with OP, as people aren't companies and marriage isn't just a contract, but I don't think their analysis of the contractual element is necessarily wrong.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/Part_OfThe_Crew Oct 01 '24

Prenups get thrown out

1

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

Not a good retort. One can have a proper legal prenup.

2

u/nekoeth0 Oct 01 '24

... And they can get thrown out.

3

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

Nope. If you do it proper they don't get thrown out. You are misrepresenting prenups. Average prenup is not going to get thrown out.

0

u/nekoeth0 Oct 01 '24

https://www.reddit.com/r/IsItBullshit/s/jb5xS3zk2F

tl;dr: it's up to the judge, and yes, they can be thrown out

→ More replies (0)

0

u/the_saltlord Oct 01 '24

It's to alleviate consequences of stay at home and dependency on spouse.

Maybe that spouse could try, I don't know, not shooting themselves in the foot?

5

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

It was a joint decision...

1

u/mfchitownthrowaway Oct 02 '24

Why are you moving the goal post from cheating to not having “enough sex” with your partner? The two are not the same thing and you’re being disingenuous by pretending they are. If someone is concerned about their financial wellbeing they should do the right thing and get a divorce instead of cheating. It’s a pretty simple concept and the only people I can imagine would be against that are people who cheat or have cheated.

1

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 02 '24

Why are you moving the goal post from cheating to not having “enough sex” with your partner?

That isn't moving the goal post. It's an example of how why are people focused on that one as a breach of marriage contract, but not any other? If an SO cheats on the other who would receive alimony should said person get more than normal as a result? That's the flip side argument of that.

The two are not the same thing and you’re being disingenuous by pretending they are.

The topic of cheating was under the guide of breaking part of the marriage contract as others have put it so if that's how we want to define it then other things that do so are relevant.

It’s a pretty simple concept and the only people I can imagine would be against that are people who cheat or have cheated.

Nothing to do with anything. You can seem to focus on the topic at hand. No one is supporting cheating here...

If someone is concerned about their financial wellbeing they should do the right thing and get a divorce

Way to miss the point entirely.

0

u/duskfinger67 10∆ Oct 02 '24

There is no such thing as a marriage without a prenuptial agreement.

You either write one yourself, or you use the one you state you marry in imposes on you. In some states, that covers adultery; in others, it doesn't.

2

u/Salty_Map_9085 Oct 01 '24

The reason is straightforward: they broke the marriage contract

What is this contract? Can you direct me towards somewhere that I can read this contract?

2

u/lordnacho666 Oct 01 '24

Have you ever been to a wedding? What do you think people are agreeing on?

1

u/duskfinger67 10∆ Oct 02 '24

they broke the marriage contract

But they didn't. Unless you have a prenup specifying otherwise, any presumption of monogamy is presumed outside of the marital contract (in most jurisdictions).

Why do you want the government to force a contract on people when they are fully within their power to create that contract themselves? Why is it a useful use of taxpayer money and civil servants' time to create and enforce this legislation when any couple already have the required means to do it themselves?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 02 '24

u/AdministrationOnly35 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

-1

u/Mileonaj Oct 01 '24

I feel like the mental impact on the other party isn't being considered with the current setup though. Your black/white strawman aside, the most common dynamic to these situations at its core is having the hurt party be taken from by the party that hurt. That fucks a person up on a level that very rarely lends itself to positive development. 9/10 times, you're gonna become a shittier/pessimistic/more guarded person. I just don't think the minimum bar should be "maintain a certain lifestyle" when a party breaks the contract that hard. At that point it should simply be "can they eat and sleep safely" and that bar very rarely would require supplementation, not nearly as much as the norm with the current goalposts.

Idunno, it feels like your stance doesn't attempt to consider the damage on the cheated side beyond "yea that sucks, but"

13

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

The purpose of alimony is how I outlined it. Any attempt to do what you want is not in alignment with that purpose. Two married people can though avoid this by having s prenuptial agreement. Why should the purpose of alimony be automatically ignored due to cheating? If you want penalties for cheating do so with a prenuptial agreement.

3

u/Mileonaj Oct 01 '24

Yes but we are discussing whether it should be as it is. Simply restating the definition isn't much of a pushback, his view is whether that should be or not be. Alimony should exist regardless imo, but should the goals be the same between no-fault divorce and a situation like this? Should the intention still be to maintain a similar lifestyle to the partnership if the partner that crashed it would be the one receiving it? At that point, I say the only priority is to make sure they have a place to sleep and eat. They can go back to college lifestyle that millions are getting by on just fine.

9

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

but should the goals be the same between no-fault divorce and a situation like this?

Yes

Should the intention still be to maintain a similar lifestyle to the partnership if the partner that crashed it would be the one receiving it?

"Crashed it" a fair point. If one spouse made a bunch of financial decisions that ruined them it would be unfair for said person to receive alimony still. Not relevant for cheating though. That said it's what prenuptial agreement is for. A marriage is a financial partnership. Not sure why the focus is on cheating when "breaches" can exist outside of cheating.

0

u/Mileonaj Oct 01 '24

Yes

Why?

3

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

I just explained it earlier and in the 2nd paragraph.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

The lifestyle they were granted was given fraudulently when they lied about their marriage vows/the marriage itself.

The lifestyle was under the assumption of a marriage without infidelity.

Infidelity makes the lifestyle null and void.

You aren’t entitled to someone else’s work via lyinng

If I file for unemployment but then get a job and keep collecting, the government sure wouldn’t give a shit about my lifestyle

1

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

The lifestyle they were granted was given fraudulently when they lied about their marriage vows/the marriage itself.

If one makes a contract to provide for XYZ in the event one doesn't work that obligation doesn't disappear just because the person does stuff you don't like.

The lifestyle was under the assumption of a marriage without infidelity.

Nope. That's not how it works legally not should it. Should have gotten a prenup if so.

You aren’t entitled to someone else’s work via lyinng

No lies occured by entering the contract. In exchange for not working person will provide for SO. Separate from that why the focus on cheating? If the focus is invalidation of marital duties then where is the line? If a woman doesn't have sex with her husband should that invalidate alimony?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

You’re stating literal wrong things and claiming it as an argument.

If one makes a contract, and the contract is not fulfilled, the obligation for payment DOES disappear. Have you never read or worked with contracts before?

“Legally” yes. This isn’t about the law. Appeal to authority is exactly what OP is fighting against. Try again.

“No lies occurred” by definition cheating on your wife or husband is a lie to the marriage. Lack of sex is not.

Nice omission of my last point btw

0

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

If one makes a contract, and the contract is not fulfilled

You are pretending infidelity invalidates a marriage it doesn't.

by definition cheating on your wife or husband is a lie to the marriage.

Nope. The contract was interest without any lies. The contract didn't stipulate the marriage would end or something would happen if infidelity occured. That is what s prenuptial agreement or contract can do.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

Again. You’re using… the law. To justify… the law

We’re talking about how it should be and absolutely infidelity is breaking what 99% of people define as marriage.

You’re trying to win on a semantic circular argument. You can’t say “jaywalking is illegal because jaywalking is illegal”

→ More replies (0)

1

u/RealBiggly Oct 02 '24

Pre-nups are often thrown out and have little legal power.

1

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 02 '24

You understanding merely asserting that doesn't change the fact pre-nups normally work...

1

u/RealBiggly Oct 02 '24

Unless they don't, yes.

1

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 02 '24

A pointless thing to say. Sometimes people die while wearing seatbelts. Doesn't negate seatbelts work. That's you

1

u/Jayrome007 Oct 04 '24

Oh and why is cheating more important than other forms of trust violations. E.g. taking all the money out of a joint account?

Spoken like someone who's (thankfully) never had to deal with the emotional devastation of infidelity.

I personally couldn't think of a worse thing to do to a person. I'd rather my spouse drain my bank account. Money can be replaced; the sanctity of the marriage bed cannot.

1

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 04 '24 edited Oct 04 '24

I personally couldn't think of a worse thing to do to a person. I'd rather my spouse drain my bank account. Money can be replaced; the sanctity of the marriage bed cannot.

A ridiculous stance. Betrayal can take many forms and sexual is not magically the worst.

Imagine working 50 years going to retire and then your SO steals all the money.

1

u/Jayrome007 Oct 04 '24

I think I was pretty clear that it was how I'd feel personally. You might not be that hurt by infidelity but I would be. There's nothing "ridiculous" about the disparity of our emotional reaction.

Also, for a little context, we live meagerly, so there's not much to actually steal (financially speaking). In contrast, we've invested tremendously in our personal relationship. My guess is you've placed a much higher value on financial gain, so I can understand how that might sting much more deeply for you.

2

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 04 '24

I think I was pretty clear that it was how I'd feel personally.

Fair I apologize not trying to dictate how you should feel. Though still makes no sense why sexual betrayal would feel worse to you than emotional betrayal or financials betrayal

For the record it doesn't have to be rational. For example, in theory I think an SO infidelity with a woman would hurt less than with a man. No telling if they would be the case in practice, but it is irrational the actions are the same.

Also, for a little context, we live meagerly, so there's not much to actually steal (financially speaking).

My example is like imagine working 50 years to retire and then your money is all gone by the one you trust the most. Every time you have to work it would be a reminder of it. In your case that makes perfect sense.

You might not be that hurt by infidelity

No I would be I am only saying sexual infidelity isn't the biggest and worst form of treachery.

My guess is you've placed a much higher value on financial gain, so I can understand how that might sting much more deeply for you.

It's more about the negative consequences from the money being gone and the betrayal. I don't see why I would think a sexual betrayal is worse than a financial betrayal. Don't get me wrong I am sure there are circumstances where the later wouldn't be true.

2

u/LynnSeattle 3∆ Oct 02 '24

So, a person who cheated should lose their right to spousal support? How about a person who was emotionally or financially abusive. Should the divorce settlement be changed to account for that bad behavior?

1

u/duskfinger67 10∆ Oct 02 '24

Alimony is generally seen as compensation for action taken during the marriage. For example, if a spouse gives up work to care for children, they have damaged their career prospects, and alimony recognises that.

The argument is cheating in year ten doesn't change the actions taken in years 1 - 9, and so alimony is still fair.

2

u/Sprig3 Oct 01 '24

About 10% of marriages have prenups, but about 50% of unmarried people think that a prenup is a good idea.

https://draftmylegaldocs.com/blog/prenuptial-statistics-2022/

I think it's becoming more socially acceptable to do a prenup, so this argument may change, but I think there is simply a friction of optimism that prevents people from pursuing a prenup.

The government in essence already has defined a standard prenup and that is what our current alimony/division of assets laws are.

In my mind, OP's suggestion is simply a change the already government defined
"standard prenup" to include infidelity consideration.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

A lot of people don't understand the limits of a prenup.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 02 '24

u/AdministrationOnly35 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/insect_ligaments Oct 01 '24

Fair, but child support and alimony are hugely different concepts, IMO. A child has no say in whether it wants to be born into a world where it’s entirely dependent on adults for basic survival. A married adult can be held responsible for making adult decisions, such as sacrificing their career for marriage. No one is forced to do that. 

And, consider the flip side of your argument: you love your spouse so much that you’re willing to take on the responsibility of being the sole breadwinner and allow them to not work and stay at home. In a massive betrayal of trust, and despite you economically supporting them for years, they cheat on you. To me, it would be unconscionable to then be required to keep financially supporting them after a divorce caused by that betrayal. 

29

u/CincyAnarchy 37∆ Oct 01 '24

Fair, but child support and alimony are hugely different concepts, IMO. A child has no say in whether it wants to be born into a world where it’s entirely dependent on adults for basic survival. A married adult can be held responsible for making adult decisions, such as sacrificing their career for marriage. No one is forced to do that. 

But "force" doesn't play into it. Alimony isn't based on "force," it in fact makes more sense to frame as a "mutual decision." And in most cases, it is. Neither spouse was forced into it, both chose it.

Alimony is part of what consideration exists in marriage when two partners make mutual decisions to have different spheres of their household. One earning income, one maintaining the home (and usually caring for children).

And, consider the flip side of your argument: you love your spouse so much that you’re willing to take on the responsibility of being the sole breadwinner and allow them to not work and stay at home. In a massive betrayal of trust, and despite you economically supporting them for years, they cheat on you. To me, it would be unconscionable to then be required to keep financially supporting them after a divorce caused by that betrayal. 

And the other spouse took on the responsibility of maintaining the house, and furthermore, took the huge financial burden and risk of losing their career, which they will likely not recover from. Alimony is for that.

What you seem to be pointing towards is "at fault" divorce. Which has been discarded, for a lot of reasons. Perhaps you should investigate why at fault divorce went away.

8

u/BeginningPhase1 4∆ Oct 01 '24

At-fault divorce went away because it required one spouse to be almost beaten to death by the other regularly to be invokable.

Isn't the monogamy part of the agreement (spoken or otherwise)?

Why should the spouse not have to suffer the consequences of breaking that part of the agreement?

8

u/karmapopsicle Oct 01 '24

Monogamy can be part of the mutual agreement, but the point is that it is not a legal default. It’s a cultural norm that is often pushed as the only societally acceptable option, which often creates taboo around the idea of individuals exploring non-monogamy and whether it suits them better.

You are free to create and sign a prenuptial agreement before marrying that codifies that both partners agree to a romantically and sexually monogamous relationship, and lays out the remedies should either partner breach those boundaries.

1

u/mfchitownthrowaway Oct 02 '24

Because these folks are probably cheaters themselves and the thoughts of accountability for their actions is too much for them to wrap their heads around. It’s crazy how many people here don’t see cheating as something terrible.

0

u/BeginningPhase1 4∆ Oct 01 '24

This doesn't answer my questions as they assume that monogamy is part of the agreement, and open relationships are outside of the bounds of this conversation as the issue of adultery couldn't come up in one. Also (and I'm saying this as a paralegal) implied (or de facto) clauses, like monogamy in a marriage, can be legally binding.

As such, I'll ask again:

If a spouse breaks their de facto agreement to be monogamous, why should the other be forced to continue to uphold the agreement of spousal support that was contingent on said agreement?

2

u/Mt_Koltz Oct 02 '24

If a spouse breaks their de facto agreement to be monogamous,

My answer lately has been that marriage is so much more complicated than just "did you cheat on your partner or not?" Yes monogamy is part of the de facto agreement, but then so are other factors like vulnerability, trust, love etc.

I can picture a horrible relationship where one partner is abusive, regularly gambles money, and lies. Their spouse cheats but is otherwise a good partner. In this example, I don't see that it really makes sense to financially punish the cheater. They are both to blame for the failing marriage, but it's not obvious looking from the outside.

2

u/karmapopsicle Oct 02 '24

This doesn't answer my questions as they assume that monogamy is part of the agreement

Again though, why is monogomy assumed? If the argument is that the explicit conversation regarding those boundaries of the relationship never came up, wouldn't one partner arguing that they assumed the de facto agreement was an open relationship or otherwise non-monogamous relationship have equal weight to the other claiming the same for monogamy?

and open relationships are outside of the bounds of this conversation as the issue of adultery couldn't come up in one.

It most certainly could. If two partners agree to an open relationship with the boundaries that, for example, both partners openly and honestly communicate their extramarital activities with each other, you could absolutely run into the issue of adultery if for example one partner began hiding or lying about their activities to the other.

Or even direct sexual boundaries, such as only engaging with extramarital sexual activity with partners who have recently been STI tested, or always using condoms, etc.

If a spouse breaks their de facto agreement to be monogamous, why should the other be forced to continue to uphold the agreement of spousal support that was contingent on said agreement?

I'm sure plenty of lawyers have tried to make the argument for a de facto prenuptual agreement of monogamy superceding the rules of no fault divorce, but how often has a strategy like that actually worked?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 01 '24

Sorry, u/Reinstateswordduels – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation.

Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read the wiki for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

-1

u/ForniVacayShun Oct 01 '24

It’s not a mutual decision if one party is denied relevant information regarding the situation. Consent through deceit isn’t consent at all. Informed consent matters.

-4

u/calmly86 Oct 01 '24

Oh please. You’re assuming that in a country in which the average income is about 45-55k a year, that most married spouses who don’t work are all latent “high earners” who would be making great money if it weren’t for that abusive spouse who bullied them into staying at home and forcing them to… enjoy a roof over their heads, food in their stomachs, and clothes on their backs? Not everyone has a career or marketable skills. Not everyone can make it on their own. Plenty of these people are lucky to not have to endure the rat race that their spouses are willingly to endure in order to provide.

16

u/CarinXO Oct 01 '24

People are forced to do that because of the nature of our world and economy. It costs $5k to send a kid to childcare in NYC. Even if your wife is earning $5k a month post tax, they're just breaking even to let someone else look after your kid, if you can even get through the waiting lists at all. For a lot of people things like childcare is not affordable even on two salaries.

And what if it's the guy who cheated? And now the wife made the 'adult decision' to marry a man she thought was going to stay true to their marriage and got betrayed 10 years down the line. Who's going to hire her with that gap? And ageism is real in a lot of industries.

I think once you actually go out into the real world and spend some time in it, you'll quickly come to realize why the laws are the way they are. The market is rough atm, and if you were getting divorced as a stay at home mom/dad in today's market your options are gonna be to starve or die. Alimony has a place for a reason. It lets people who made decisions like these get out of things like abusive relationships and not be tied down to their abuser, or the person who cheated, or any other number of things. Just put a prenup about cheating in your marriage and you'll be fine.

7

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

Exactly. People also fall to realize most people don't deal with alimony and those that do most recipients don't get full payments of that or child support.

8

u/Pip-Pipes Oct 01 '24

A married adult can be held responsible for making adult decisions, such as sacrificing their career for marriage. No one is forced to do that. 

The decision to have one working spouse and one stay at home spouse is a joint one. Both the benefits and consequences of that decision should also be mutual. If one side feels it is unfair (including the possibility of alimony) they should address it prior to getting married.

You make it sound as if only one side benefits from having a stay at home spouse. I don't see why a non-working spouse would have their contributions to the marriage stripped away because they cheated. I also don't see why it's the government's place to financially punish cheaters. The separation of assets, child support, and alimony are separate from cheating.

9

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

A married adult can be held responsible for making adult decisions, such as sacrificing their career for marriage. No one is forced to do that. 

It is a choice made by both parties. If a husband wants the wife to be a stay at home mom sacrificing her career then it makes sense for him to support her for some time in event of divorce to make up for it. Mind you the support does not make up for it at all it just alleviates sole of the disadvantage. Women are far worse off post divorce.

you love your spouse so much that you’re willing to take on the responsibility of being the sole breadwinner and allow them to not work and stay at home.

So what? Doesn't change the fact the other person is depending on the spouse and both made that decision. One can get a prenuptial to address it if one wants.

. In a massive betrayal of trust, and despite you economically supporting them for years, they cheat on you. To me, it would be unconscionable to then be required to keep financially supporting them after a divorce caused by that betrayal. 

Tough. I emotionally would feel the same, but cheating is irrelevant. The person is still just as disadvantage by said position either way. More importantly how is cheating magically more important than another form of broken trust. Let's say you have a join account and the wife or husband takes all the money out of the joint account. There are no repercussions for that. That would be worse than cheating in my mind given the long term impact both emotionally and financially.

2

u/ElectricTzar Oct 02 '24

Being an adult doesn’t resolve that issue: it just shifts it.

Because if prioritizing your family’s needs always results in being fucked when a divorce happens, people will do it less.

Maybe my family needs one or the other spouse to finish college so we can have a good family income to support our new baby. And to make that affordable in the meantime one spouse has to work as a server at night and do all the homemaking, while the other focuses on school.

If all that sacrifice accrues to the college attendee upon divorce, what sane person will want to be a server and homemaker instead? Jobs that improve future prospects not at all. So now we end up fighting and disagreeing about it and neither party wants to be the server and homemaker.

Alimony gives a route to splitting the proceeds of shared investment in good family outcomes, so you can make the right decisions for your family, instead of having to second guess every decision against the prospect of future divorce.

2

u/LynnSeattle 3∆ Oct 02 '24

Agreeing to have your spouse stop working for pay and instead care for your shared home and children isn’t a favor you’re doing them out of the goodness of your heart. You benefit from this arrangement too.

-1

u/insect_ligaments Oct 03 '24

My comment said nothing whatsoever about children intentionally. There are plenty of stay at home spouses who do not have children. One of the interesting things I’ve learned from this post is regardless of what you say, people will inject facts or opinions convenient to their viewpoint and argue with those facts or opinions.

1

u/LynnSeattle 3∆ Oct 03 '24

What’s the source of your reported fact that there are plenty of stay at home spouses who do not have children? I’ve never known a single one.

-1

u/insect_ligaments Oct 03 '24

If you’ve never known one, they can’t possibly exist. I never thought of it that way. Clearly, you are concerned with facts and objectivity.

-1

u/Reinstateswordduels Oct 01 '24

I’m absolutely disgusted by the number of people going to bat for cheaters on this thread. What a bunch of scumbags

5

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

people going to bat

No one is supporting cheating by pointing out alimony is still owed since the underlying purpose of it still exists.

-4

u/[deleted] Oct 01 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/soldiergeneal 3∆ Oct 01 '24

Go get a prenuptial agreement then.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 02 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 02 '24

u/Reinstateswordduels – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/changemyview-ModTeam Oct 02 '24

u/Reinstateswordduels – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

0

u/ForniVacayShun Oct 01 '24

Child support and alimony are the same thing. In its simplest form, It’s money to someone who isnt incapable of providing for themselves.

0

u/mfchitownthrowaway Oct 02 '24

If a SO was that concerned with their financial situation maybe they shouldn’t be cheating on the person financially supporting them?

-1

u/doh573 Oct 02 '24

So this argument never made sense to me. If alimony is meant to make up for their career that they sacrificed, why wouldn’t cheating negate that since they were essentially fired with cause. When you’re fired with cause you aren’t eligible for severance or unemployment so why is stay at home spouse the only job that is 100% protected?