Divorce: Reform of the 15th Amendment

osarusan

The Corinthian wrote: »

Because divorce was not available for so long in Ireland, separation effectively and legally developed into a form of divorce without the right to remarry.

That doesn't answer my question though (which I asked of another poster).

My point was in response to that poster saying that a delay or cooling off period is needed to stop people rushing into another marriage.

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the sole advantage of divorce over separation is the right to remarry, I don't think we can always assume that people who choose to get divorced rather than separated are making that choice just so they can quickly rush into marriage again.

It is quite possible that they don't have any intention of getting married again any time soon, or even ever again, but just don't want to be married to that person any more. Perhaps there is a perception that a divorce is more final in this regard.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never said the government can force you to get married. I said the government can force you to do whatever you have agreed to be forced to when you get married. You signed up, you agreed to the conditions - tough.

And I already pointed out this was irrelevant. Coercion can still be employed based upon what one agreed upon getting married and that's the point. You seem to be under the delusion that you can make an agreement and then change your mind on the conditions whenever you change your mind. You can't - at least not with the government.

Because that's what they signed up to.

People change their minds all the time within marriage, vows get broken.... Same old story... Of one party breaches the contract why do both have to wait four years...

Government needs to change this. For all their equality bull**** cohabited don't have this punitive easier against them.

The Corinthian

osarusan wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question though (which I asked of another poster).

My point was in response to that poster saying that a delay or cooling off period is needed to stop people rushing into another marriage.

Well I did answer, at least from my own perspective rather than the person you were asking.

Even if we accept for the sake of argument that the sole advantage of divorce over separation is the right to remarry, I don't think we can always assume that people who choose to get divorced rather than separated are making that choice just so they can quickly rush into marriage again.

If so and it has nothing to do with the right to remarry, why are some here saying that the delay is "torturous"? I've asked, but no one's offering an answer.

It is quite possible that they don't have any intention of getting married again any time soon, or even ever again, but just don't want to be married to that person any more. Perhaps there is a perception that a divorce is more final in this regard.

Ahh, the feelz. Problem is that's what they signed up to. Maybe they don't want to pay spousal maintenance either?

zeffabelli wrote: »

People change their minds all the time within marriage, vows get broken.... Same old story... Of one party breaches the contract why do both have to wait four years...

Oh, I meant the contract with the government, not the spouses...

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually they can.

While you are right, in that they can break up and be married in name alone, people do tend to fight harder to keep a relationship when they are married and it also affords more rights to the father which is important.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

If so and it has nothing to do with the right to remarry, why are some here saying that the delay is "torturous"? I've asked, but no one's offering an answer.

..

Because even symbolically and psychologically, people don't want to be bound to them anymore.

I can't remember who said this...it was in an artist's diary..." A man loses his freedom the moment he becomes official."

The officialdom is what they want dissolved, they want the family tie gone. There is absolutely no sane reason why two people who both want this should have to wait four years....

Or in cases of abandonement, imprisonment, and other instances.

The Corinthian

Bentley Gorgeous Yachtsman wrote: »

While you are right, in that they can break up and be married in name alone, people do tend to fight harder to keep a relationship when they are married and it also affords more rights to the father which is important.

That last bit is actually a bit of a myth.

Married men are automatically guardians. They also cannot lose their guardianship. But that's pretty much it.

If a man seeks and secures guardianship (nowadays it generally given if requested by a father unless there are serious reasons not to), then there's not much difference. Even then, guardianship doesn't really afford a parent much by way of rights as few, if any, are enforced.

Either way, a father is likely to face a long and expensive legal battle over his rights in an acrimonious split, and on this basis not being married makes more sense - he'll have more money to pay solicitors given he's not paying spousal maintenance.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

The officialdom is what they want dissolved, they want the family tie gone.

Feelz - I get it.

There is absolutely no sane reason why two people who both want this should have to wait four years....

Yet that's what they signed up to. Is there anything else that they signed up to in marriage that you feel either should not have to because they feel strongly against it?

hatrickpatrick

Bentley Gorgeous Yachtsman wrote: »

Its a good thing people can't end relationships at the drop of a hat especially when children are involved.

No it isn't. If people are unhappy, they shouldn't be forced to remain unhappy. It's bad for the kids to be raised amidst an unhappy relationship as well, as is repeatedly attested to by those very kids whenever debates like these come up online.

Also there are other important things like next of kin rights and tax exemptions that simply cannot be handed out without the people involved giving a strong and official commitment to each other that they cannot simply get out of when ever they feel like it.

I don't agree, but that's just my own opinion.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Feelz - I get it.

Yet that's what they signed up to. Is there anything else that they signed up to in marriage that you feel either should not have to because they feel strongly against it?

Feelz...what is that?

Yeah they signed up to it but now its time to change the terms and conditions because frankly, they are stupid.

Isnt this four year wait also feelz? Isn't to make the farmers happy about something? Because it sure makes no sense.

hatrickpatrick

Bentley Gorgeous Yachtsman wrote: »

While you are right, in that they can break up and be married in name alone, people do tend to fight harder to keep a relationship when they are married and it also affords more rights to the father which is important.

Personally I believe the opposite. Security breeds contempt, but when that contempt arises, people are less likely to leave because of the heavy financial penalties involved. So in my view, state backed marriage encourages relationships to disintegrate, while simultaneously encouraging people not to leave when they do.

You're right about the fathers' rights thing, but the proper solution to that IMO is to automatically afford father the same rights as mothers upon the birth of their child, regardless of relationship status.

osarusan

It is quite possible that they don't have any intention of getting married again any time soon, or even ever again, but just don't want to be married to that person any more. Perhaps there is a perception that a divorce is more final in this regard.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahh, the feelz. Problem is that's what they signed up to.

Pople who would rather get divorced than separated, even if they don't intend to getting married again, have this preference because of 'feelz'?

That doesn't even attempt to be a logical answer, just throws out a soundbite. What is it even supposed to mean? Yes, they both signed up to it. Now they both want to break the contract.

They should have to wait 4 years to avoid 'feelz'?

Apart from 'well they signed up to it', is there another reason to make them wait for 4 years, as opposed to say 2?

kidneyfan

osarusan wrote: »

Pople who would rather get divorced than separated, even if they don't intend to getting married again, have this preference because of 'feelz'?

That doesn't even attempt to be a logical answer, just throws out a soundbite. What is it even supposed to mean? Yes, they both signed up to it. Now they both want to break the contract.

They should have to wait 4 years to avoid 'feelz'?

Apart from 'well they signed up to it', is there another reason to make them wait for 4 years, as opposed to say 2?

because they might work things out. Many's the family in Ireland that's together because of that delay.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

Feelz...what is that?

osarusan wrote: »

That doesn't even attempt to be a logical answer, just throws out a soundbite. What is it even supposed to mean? Yes, they both signed up to it. Now they both want to break the contract.

So essentially it's OK to break an agreement, not to follow through on one's freely chosen commitment, if one feels like it?

My point is that what you gave is not a logical answer and could be used to revoke any responsibility unilaterally. Don't feel like paying maintenance? Don't. Don't feel like handing half of your assets over? Don't.

Apart from 'well they signed up to it', is there another reason to make them wait for 4 years, as opposed to say 2?

Deterrent. Something to dissuade people from marrying unless they are certain of it. A questionable reason, given that no matter how much warning you give, every couple, who either carefully enter or foolishly rush into marriage, is convinced that their own relationship is special, but it is still more solid a reason that "because I feel like it". And ultimately that's all you've offered.

TBH, I've no doubt that this waiting period will be shortened before long and all marriages will become convenient and ultimately meaningless within the next few decades. Except to the government, who want to save money, and the lawyers, who want to make money.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

So essentially it's OK to break an agreement, not to follow through on one's freely chosen commitment, if one feels like it?

My point is that what you gave is not a logical answer and could be used to revoke any responsibility unilaterally. Don't feel like paying maintenance? Don't. Don't feel like handing half of your assets over? Don't.

Deterrent. Something to dissuade people from marrying unless they are certain of it. A questionable reason, given that no matter how much warning you give, every couple, who either carefully enter or foolishly rush into marriage, is convinced that their own relationship is special, but it is still more solid a reason that "because I feel like it". And ultimately that's all you've offered.

TBH, I've no doubt that this waiting period will be shortened before long and all marriages will become convenient and ultimately meaningless within the next few decades. Except to the government, who want to save money, and the lawyers, who want to make money.

What is the purpose of this four year wait...its certainly not a deterrant to setting up new families...all it has done is set up polygamy...

So what is the reason other than feelz...still not sure what feelz is...because the government feelz like it....

Not a NSA agent

We could always let people get married and divorced as they please and make their own mistakes. I doubt many people getting married assume they will be getting a divorce. If you want people to be sure about marriage then it should be 4 years before.

zeffabelli

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

We could always let people get married and divorced as they please and make their own mistakes. I doubt many people getting married assume they will be getting a divorce. If you want people to be sure about marriage then it should be 4 years before.

Ha ha...require a four year cohbaitation BEFORE you get hitched....

Ah yeah...that's treating your citizens like adults.

osarusan

The Corinthian wrote: »

So essentially it's OK to break an agreement, not to follow through on one's freely chosen commitment, if one feels like it?

Irish divorce law already allows this. It already possible to legally break the agreement - that is what divorce is. In many cases, both partners want to renege on, rather than follow through on, their earlier commitment, and the state already allows them to do so.

What is at issue is how long they have to wait before the state allows them to do so.

The Corinthian wrote: »

My point is that what you gave is not a logical answer and could be used to revoke any responsibility unilaterally. Don't feel like paying maintenance? Don't. Don't feel like handing half of your assets over? Don't.

Hopeless comparison with completely different scenarios which are not permissible under the law.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Deterrent. Something to dissuade people from marrying unless they are certain of it. A questionable reason, given that no matter how much warning you give, every couple, who either carefully enter or foolishly rush into marriage, is convinced that their own relationship is special, but it is still more solid a reason that "because I feel like it". And ultimately that's all you've offered.

If it acts as a deterrent to somebody getting married again, it only does so in those cases where somebody actually wants to get married again. It is not fair to assume that everybody getting a divorce does. If you accept that there are cases where a person has no interest in getting married again, what purpose does the 4 year wait have?

Or are you are talking about deterring people from getting married foolishly/carelessly in the first place? Do you think that, if the waiting period was halved, we would see a corresponding increase in the number of what you see as foolish or rushed marriages?

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

What is the purpose of this four year wait...its certainly not a deterrant to setting up new families...all it has done is set up polygamy...

Not sure what this has to do with anything I've argued.

So what is the reason other than feelz...still not sure what feelz is...because the government feelz like it....

Look, I've explained it about three times. I don't think a fourth will help if you have failed to comprehend the first three.

osarusan wrote: »

Irish divorce law already allows this. It already possible to legally break the agreement - that is what divorce is. In many cases, both partners want to renege on, rather than follow through on, their earlier commitment, and the state already allows them to do so.

Now, that's not true. All agreements can be terminated and generally there are consequences for doing so, which is oddly what we're discussing. So your comparison falls flat.

Hopeless comparison with completely different scenarios which are not permissible under the law.

Divorcing before 4 or 5 years of separation is also not permissible under the law. Cherry picking which laws you want to recognize and which you don't there?

So why don't you respond to the question, can we ignore the consequences of marriage when we don't feel like it or not? Please try not to sidestep the it again.

If it acts as a deterrent to somebody getting married again, it only does so in those cases where somebody actually wants to get married again. It is not fair to assume that everybody getting a divorce does. If you accept that there are cases where a person has no interest in getting married again, what purpose does the 4 year wait have?

Well if it's not such a big issue for such people, what exactly are we arguing about?

zeffabelli

^
@corinthian.

You have not explained what feelz means.

You have used "feelz" to undercut the reasoning that four years is ridiculous wait yet still won't explain what "feelz" means.

If it's some emotional impulse then explain how a four year wait IS NOT an emotional impulse driving family policy.

Thanks.

_Kaiser_

Ah the Catholic Church.. still casting a shadow over Irish society in 2015, despite all the damage it's done to that society.

Relationships break down. that's unfortunate and sad and all that, but it's a fact of life. All that needs to happen is to ensure that any children involved are provided for/access is agreed, and a fair division of the marital assets (legal pre-nup's are probably a good optional extra here too). After that, both sides should be free to move on with their lives as quickly and cleanly as possible.

That co-habitation bill (as I understand it - open to correction though) is madness, especially if there's no kids involved (and which is provided for separately anyway under Maintenance requirements). Under those rules if I was renting with an ex who was long term unemployed, I'd somehow be responsible for carrying her afterwards too? Feck that.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

You have not explained what feelz means.

You have used "feelz" to undercut the reasoning that four years is ridiculous wait yet still won't explain what "feelz" means.

Here you go again.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So essentially it's OK to break an agreement, not to follow through on one's freely chosen commitment, if one feels like it?

That is feelz.

If it's some emotional impulse then explain how a four year wait IS NOT an emotional impulse driving family policy.

Because one can point to sociological reasons, regardless of effectiveness, for it, unlike the arguments for reducing it.

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

That co-habitation bill (as I understand it - open to correction though) is madness, especially if there's no kids involved (and which is provided for separately anyway under Maintenance requirements). Under those rules if I was renting with an ex who was long term unemployed, I'd somehow be responsible for carrying her afterwards too? Feck that.

Saves the government a fortune though...

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Here you go again.

That is feelz.

Because one can point to sociological reasons, regardless of effectiveness, for it, unlike the arguments for reducing it.

Saves the government a fortune though...

So feelz is breaking an agreement when you feel like it.

They made the agreement on the first place cuz dey feelz like it, yo.

Ok. Well if both want to then who are you or I to stop them?

Or if they made a mistake that is bringing destruction to their lives isn't it better to break the agreement rather than carrying on with one that is no good?

People renegotiate agreements all the time. It's a regular part of life.

What are these sociological reasons you speak of for justifying a four year wait?

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

So feelz is breaking an agreement when you feel like it.

It is the application of irrational cheap emotion as a rational in argument. An appeal to emotion.

They made the agreement on the first place cuz dey feelz like it, yo.

Agreeing to enter an agreement because you feel like it and breaking that agreement because you feel like it are not the same thing, you know. The former has no restrictions or obligations, the latter does.

Ok. Well if both want to then who are you or I to stop them?

It's not really you or I, it's the government, because such agreements are overseen by the government for the greater good of society. Marriage is not alone in this regard; two parties can sign an agreement that violates the statuary rights of one and the government will overrule their mutual wishes there too.

Or if they made a mistake that is bringing destruction to their lives isn't it better to break the agreement rather than carrying on with one that is no good?

Perhaps it acts as a warning to others. That's bringing some good.

People renegotiate agreements all the time. It's a regular part of life.

People try to renegotiate all the time.

What are these sociological reasons you speak of for justifying a four year wait?

Please keep up with the thread. And before you start arguing the effectiveness of such reasons, this is the government rational, not necessarily mine, so take it up with them.

osarusan

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now, that's not true. All agreements can be terminated and generally there are consequences for doing so, which is oddly what we're discussing. So your comparison falls flat.

What comparison are you talking about?

What is not true? That a couple can break a marriage contract by getting a divorce, and this is legal under Irish law? That is all I said in the piece you quoted.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Divorcing before 4 or 5 years of separation is also not permissible under the law. Cherry picking which laws you want to recognize and which you don't there?

'Cherry picking which laws you recognise' Jesus, talk about a piss-poor strawman. I've never suggested somebody should break the law, I'm saying I would support a change from the waiting time of 4-5 years.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So why don't you respond to the question, can we ignore the consequences of marriage when we don't feel like it or not? Please try not to sidestep the it again.

No we can't ignore the consequences of marriage. But we can discuss that those consequences should be - one of which is the wait of 4 years should a person want a divorce. I think that is one consequence which could be legally changed. I'd support that.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well if it's not such a big issue for such people, what exactly are we arguing about?

So why don't you respond to the question - is it effective as a deterrent for people who are thinking about getting married, and how is it justified regarding those who have no intention of getting married again? Please try not to sidestep it again.

osarusan

The Corinthian wrote: »

Please keep up with the thread. And before you start arguing the effectiveness of such reasons, this is the government rational, not necessarily mine, so take it up with them.

Can you provide a link to a source for your claim that the function of the 4 year (minimum) wait for a divorce is to provide a deterrent to those who are considering getting married?

I would be very interested to see that 'rational' in writing.

The Corinthian

osarusan wrote: »

What comparison are you talking about?

What is not true? That a couple can break a marriage contract by getting a divorce, and this is legal under Irish law? That is all I said in the piece you quoted.

No, you tried to equate the fact that any contract can be terminated, according to the terms of the contract with breaking a contract unilaterally against those terms.

'Cherry picking which laws you recognise' Jesus, talk about a piss-poor strawman. I've never suggested somebody should break the law, I'm saying I would support a change from the waiting time of 4-5 years.

Then why did you start attacking what I'd posted on the basis that they were "completely different scenarios which are not permissible under the law"? Is it I can't use an example that is not permissible under the law, but when you do, it's because the law simply has not been changed?

No we can't ignore the consequences of marriage. But we can discuss that those consequences should be - in this case, the wait of 4 years should a person want a divorce. I think that is one consequence which could be legally changed. I'd support that.

I understand where you're coming from, you've just not given enough reason to change it.

So why don't you respond to the question - is it effective as a deterrent for people who are thinking about getting married, and how is it justified regarding those who have no intention of getting married again? Please try not to sidestep it again.

I don't believe it's hugely effective deterrent, but it is a deterrent and there is no real argument against it, other than some touchy-feely "I don't want to wait!" BS.

The Corinthian

osarusan wrote: »

Can you provide a link to a source for your claim that the function of the 4 year (minimum) wait for a divorce is to provide a deterrent to those who are considering getting married?

I would be very interested to see that 'rational' in writing.

How about you supply a reason for changing that period that does not rely upon an appeal to emotion and then maybe I'll spend time on your request?

osarusan

The Corinthian wrote: »

How about you supply a reason for changing that period that does not rely upon an appeal to emotion and then maybe I'll spend time on your request?

Such spoofery.


It's the government 'rational' of deterrent.

Can I see a link to that?

Maybe I will show it to you, if you earn it.


Such nonsense. A joke of a post, and a position.

Chemical Byrne

Junglewoman wrote: »

You can occupy the same home and live separate lives. This doesn't impact on the waiting period. You just need an approximate date when the marriage broke down. This is what happened in my case.

That being the case, is it possible to back date the separate living arrangements. Ie - I and Mrs Chemical Byrne want to divorce quickly, we could just say we're living separate lives in the same dwelling since 2011. Would that work?

Or does the separate living period only start from the date of application for divorce?

The Corinthian

osarusan wrote: »

Such spoofery.

No. So far you've offered nothing but an appeal to emotion. In short, horseshìt. Until you can offer something cogent and rational to change something, there is no reason to change it and you're just wasting my time.

osarusan

The Corinthian wrote: »

No. So far you've offered nothing but an appeal to emotion. In short, horseshìt. Until you can offer something cogent and rational to change something, there is no reason to change it and you're just wasting my time.

Do you think links to claims you have made are to be meted out to people only when they meet your posting standards?

Chemical Byrne

Would ye not take the bickering to PM like? My eyes hurt trying to read the thread.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

How about you supply a reason for changing that period that does not rely upon an appeal to emotion and then maybe I'll spend time on your request?

I'll supply a reason.

There is no reason behind it in the first place.

It's stupid.

FishOnABike

Chemical Byrne wrote: »

That being the case, is it possible to back date the separate living arrangements. Ie - I and Mrs Chemical Byrne want to divorce quickly, we could just say we're living separate lives in the same dwelling since 2011. Would that work?

Or does the separate living period only start from the date of application for divorce?

No they have to be living separately for four of the previous five years before one or other or both can apply for a divorce. It is possible to live separately while under the one roof.

Both parties could agree they had been living separate lives under the one roof since 2011 but I'm not sure how much scrutiny this claim might be put under. Would things like a joint bank account be looked at - both parties would have to lodge affidavits of means so a joint bank account might be a bit of an elephant in the room.

It might take some pre-planning to make sure there was nothing to show they were in fact living together.

I'd prefer to do things by the book and ensure the divorce was beyond question rather than have the risk (however small) that its validity might be challenged at a later date if circumstances changed.

Junglewoman

FishOnABike wrote: »

No they have to be living separately for four of the previous five years before one or other or both can apply for a divorce. It is possible to live separately while under the one roof.

Both parties could agree they had been living separate lives under the one roof since 2011 but I'm not sure how much scrutiny this claim might be put under. Would things like a joint bank account be looked at - both parties would have to lodge affidavits of means so a joint bank account might be a bit of an elephant in the room.

It might take some pre-planning to make sure there was nothing to show they were in fact living together.

I'd prefer to do things by the book and ensure the divorce was beyond question rather than have the risk (however small) that its validity might be challenged at a later date if circumstances changed.

My affidavit of means was supported by documentation that time-lined the 'separate lives' condition and the approximate dates. As a matter of interest, I was very glad of the 4 year stipulation as it provided me with time to protect my interests during an emotionally draining experience.

MadsL

Junglewoman wrote: »

My affidavit of means was supported by documentation that time-lined the 'separate lives' condition and the approximate dates. As a matter of interest, I was very glad of the 4 year stipulation as it provided me with time to protect my interests during an emotionally draining experience.

What interests took four years to protect that could not have been protected in one?

Junglewoman

MadsL wrote: »

What interests took four years to protect that could not have been protected in one?

In my case plenty. it all depends who you are dealing with as divorce can be very messy. It also gave me time to save so that I could buy my ex out of the family home. I am only commenting that the 4 year stipulation was of benefit to me, not advocating it for all.