Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by NotableAlamode 4001 days ago 

    you promised to take care of your wife
It's not an unconditional promise. The promise assumes that the partner does the same. Yet only men are being punished (via taking their children, houses, monies), a clearcut violation of their human rights that bayesianhorse is defending.
1 comments
bayesianhorse 3999 days ago
The usual wedding vows do not contain these conditions. Seems unfair, but then again, you don't need to marry, and not without a marriage contract...
link
NotableAlamode 3999 days ago
Yes they do.

   I take you, ..., to be my husband and I promise before God and all who are present here to be your loving and faithful wife, as long as our lives shall last. I will serve you with tenderness and respect, and  ...
In other words, where the love stops, the tenderness, where she is unfaithful, she has broken the 'contract'. In that case there is no reason for the other side to uphold his part. No reason other than the near certainty that he will loose his house, his money and his children, ...
link
bayesianhorse 3997 days ago
Actually, cheating is not really breaking the contract. The unconditional promise includes "bad times". It's not really "his house" and "his money" anyway, because without a marriage contract, these where already partly hers in any case.

It's a sexist standpoint to assume that all the wealth belongs to the husband, or that he earned it alone, even when the wife never got a paycheck.

link
NotableAlamode 3995 days ago
Adultery is a reason for divorve. The "bad times" refers to calamities beyond the partner's control like illness, accidents. The marriage contract is only valid as long as both parties stick to it. Adultery is a voluntary choice and automatically invalidates the (conventinal) marriage contract.

Nobody says that house etc should automatically go to the husband. It should go to those who put the work in to build/buy the property. There are cases, alas rare as of 2015, where this is the wife. In this case, the house should go to the wife. However, as you know well, in the vast majority of cases, this is the husband. Staying at home is not really work. So de facto the contemporary practise of US divorce courts massively violates husbands' rights. As simple fix would be to institute (1) no fault = no alimony, and (2) shared 50/50 custody as norm. Anything else is sexism and cannot legitimately be defended.

link