 Their marriage struck down, their children illegitimate |
A 49-year-old New York man says he is hopeful his marital dispute with his first wife will help reform the state’s current divorce laws.
The New York Post said Sunday Matthew Gerber and his second wife, Mari, are hopeful Gerber’s ongoing legal dispute with his first wife, Ingrid, will shed light on possible problems in New York’s divorce laws.
Gerber’s divorce from his first wife was overturned after Ingrid, 54, won a successful appeal of the divorce and effectively made the former couple legally married once again. The appeal also voided Gerber’s second marriage.
New York is currently the only U.S. state without a so-called no-fault law, meaning an individual can only be granted a divorce if they prove their spouse either had an affair, been cruel to them or withheld sex for a year.
Retired judge Sondra Miller told the Post cases like Gerber’s indicate New York needs to implement a no-fault law, which allows divorces to take place without proof of wrongdoing from either side.
No Fault divorce exists throughout the country. I hadn’t realized they still live in the 1950’s world of Father Knows Best – in New York – but, obviously they do.
Actually, I believe that States went to No Fault for efficiency sake. It gets the Courts out of the business of determining who is most at fault and instead in the business of simply deciding fairness in the division of assets and children. Further, it cuts down on appeals substantially.
There are downsides to No Fault. If one party is truly the blame for wrecking a marriage, the judgment is the same as if blame was evenly split.
Wrong.
#3, Ayatollah,
And I suppose you can justify this archaic law.
I seem to remember so many of the darker aspects in our society were justified by Christianity. I’m talking about slavery, subjection of women, “separate but equal”, hours of commerce, denial or equal rights to homosexuals, etc.
Well, I gotta say that religion in general is to blame for many of the stupidities in the world.
Take your pick: religious wars, intrusion into whether two people should be married or divorced, blue laws, prohibition, The Spanish Inquisition (Nooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition) (and the related wars between Protestants, Catholics and Muslims, and so forth.
Incidentally alfred1: Most “Christians” aren’t very Christian. If Jesus were reincarnated, he’d be pissed.
More reason government needs to get out of the business of human relationships.
Why do the conservatives, alfred1 and the rest of the loonies continue demand government to supervise our lives?
Religion is a trapping. People with agendas use whatever means works to get their way. Every faith has its loonies that are equally detestable. Getting in pissing contests over which worldview is worse is a waste of time.
#5, actually, a good chunks of the temperance movement was driven by women who were tired of having their drunk husbands come home and beat them, although there certainly was a religious element as well.
You can’t even get it right when other religions are different. Under Islamic law this guy would have just had to say “I divorce thee” and it would have been over.
I don’t see why is this law so “religious” (though as in most laws, some trace of religious inspiration is certainly there).
What I see is the law that protects parties that have signed a legal contract. If one side does not want to break the contract and has done nothing that violates the contract – that side should have right to demand contract to remain valid. No religion involved. Thinking ahead when signing contracts – very much involved.
Notice that “no fault” clause is not needed if both parties want to divorce (ex. no appeal).
#10, which makes me wonder if the whole thing could be challenged as a violation of the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution. There’s no public emergency involved, which has historically been one of the few accepted justifications for states overruling previous contracts.
Government should just get out of the business of marriage. PERIOD.
Marriage isn’t marriage if it’s no fault. It’s just a bad property contract where if the relationship fails then 2 lawyers get all your property. Except in New York there is no such thing as marriage. Marriage is a lifelong commitment.
This isn’t 100% accurate. While New York does not have no-fault divorce, a couple can divorce without declaring fault. It requires being legally separated for a year first, however.
#14 is correct. I know, because that was the basis I used for my own divorce in NY. Even the “legal separation” was simply a notarized agreement that my wife and I signed (copied out of a book). All my lawyer had to do was file the papers in court.
How do you prove you haven’t had sex in a year? “Your honor, I haven’t had any in so long I forget who gets tied up.” I get more than that and I’m a nun FFS.
I’m not often embarrassed to be a New Yorker … but … once in a while …
#16 – Sister Mary Hand Grenade of Quiet Reflection,
How do you prove you haven’t had sex in a year?
Apparently by being legally separated for a year. I doubt anyone checks to make sure you haven’t gotten any with each other during that time.
#18 – I wonder if that includes butt secks?
//inquiring minds
or withheld sex for a year
I’m in!
#23 Alfred1 you need new meds or you just had a brain fart.
The above deranged set of disjointed sentences made no sense. Were you answering questions from different topics all at once?
#5 – If Jesus were reconstituted he wouldn’t recognize any of the Christian churches either.
#21 – Alfred1,
Words have legal meaning which should never be changed…
Bzzzt!! Wrong answer. Words change meaning all the time. Language evolves over time.
This is why it is now OK to say “I feel nauseous” or even “I am nauseous”.
Correct usage of the word was “The nauseous motion of the boat made me nauseated.”
Nauseous used to mean that which causes nausea. So, one who said “I am nauseous” would have been implying that his/her presence caused nausea in those around him/her. Now, that is no longer the case.
Over longer time periods, the change is even greater. In middle English, nigh, ner, and next were used for comparative proximity. Nigh meant close, ner meant closer, and next meant closest.
Now, near (from ner) means close, nearer means closer, and nearest means closest. But, if words were unchanging, we’d really be saying closer, closerer, and closerest, respectively.
Next will soon change meaning as well since next Friday no longer means the one in 2 days, but the one in 9 days to many people. They’re wrong, of course, but not for long.
In short, dictionaries are descriptive not proscriptive.
Marriage license should have an expiration date.
#25, on the other hand, he does have something of a point that, where laws are concerned, the meaning of the law shouldn’t sway with the breeze as people decide they want to use words differently than their previously understood meaning was.
Contrary to Stephen Breyer’s asinine ideas of what the Constitution is, the Constitution is only living in the fact that it has a formal amendment process to accommodate unforeseen changes in society, not that the existing words can be contorted to mean whatever the prevailing fashion of the day is.
Scott: When speaking of Alfie, the correct word is not “nauseous” but “noxious.” An easy mistake. I forgive you.
The article is a good example of modern reporting. It’s told us the situation but no background or detailed information. I want to know: -How long have they been divorced and how long has he been remarried? Eidard, your caption mentions children who are now illegitimate but the article says nothing about that! -Why does wife #1 want to reclaim the marriage (I bet there’s money involved) -How did he manage to receive a decree if she was fighting it? -Have they now been apart for a year or more? Another divorce would seem imminent. -Is his second wife pissed off enough to start withholding sex, yet? -How is it possible for Alfie to walk with his knees jerking that way all the time? Oh, wait, I guess that one would not be in the UPI article.
Alfie: Divorce is too easy to get? A marriage is just as easy to get and causes a lot more heartache.
“When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part.” [G.B. Shaw]
Introducing the no-fault divorce laws was the problem. Another example of elites assuring us this change would do no harm.
#13
So, let me see if I get this straight, if two people wish to dissolve their marriage and they are able to place blame as to the person that instigated the dissolution, then it was a marriage. However, if they are not allowed to place blame, then it is not marriage?! Marriage ought to be a lifelong commitment, but when it is not, it is better and cheaper to alleviate the courts from determining who is more to blame for why it did not work.
#21
> remained constant throughout
> all recorded history, in
> every culture on earth
Not true. For most of recorded history, wives were treated like property or used as pawns in negotiations. For the greater part of human history, polygamy was the norm and not monogamy.
The only constant with respect to marriage for most of history is it was treated as a contract of sorts.
> Words have legal meaning
> which should never be changed…
How is it that there is an entire field of study called etymology?
> then create a new word
> and substitute that in
> all the legal documents
> wherever marriage appears…
Suppose we create a new term called “foo” which represents the exact equivalent of a heterosexual marriage with all rights and privileges. Why have the second term; just to appease to your sense of lexical OCD? Hey, why stop there? We could have a new term for cars driven by gays or for pencils used by gays or… It is ridiculous. Here’s an idea: let’s get rid of the term “marriage” as used by the government altogether. You can call it what you want. The gays can call it what they want and everyone is happy.
#27
Correct. Which means we must understand the law given the meaning of the words at the time they were used.
#32
I disagree. We wasted quite a bit of taxpayer dollars having the courts try to determine who was “more” to blame for a dissolution on top of determining the disposition of children and larger assets. It has nothing to do with “elites”. It has to do with practicality.
It seems to me that the divorce rate has increased with the adoption of no fault divorce laws. Not a good thing for our society. Perhaps New York has the right idea for once.
nunyac
34,
marriage, is the willingness to LIVE with a person for the rest of your life. To share your hopes and dreams and good/bad times. To help each other make it thru the night.
NOT,
Because someone GOT someone ELSE PREGNANT. OR on a whim, after high school. 60+% of kids get married RIGHT AFTER, getting out of high school.
2 kids, that have NOT discovered what the WORLD is about, dont understand the CONCEPT of “THE WORLD” or the idea of SHARING A LIFE.. Then a child is born..
WE CODDLE our children. they NEED to know the world, and we shove them in school MOSt of their lives, and are WORKING our butts off to make the bills.
#28 – Alfred1,
#25 Then it would be legitimate if a President defines life liberty and the pursuit of happiness…as relevant to him alone, not those he benefits via his beneficent reign?
Language changes by popular use, not by a vote. Supreme court justices are still supposed to interpret the original intent of the constitution.
However, how would you account for the change to “all men are created equal” (admittedly from the declaration, rather than the constitution) so that it includes women, native americans, and african americans, all of whom had no rights in our early history?
Clearly there has been a shift in morals as well as a reinterpretation of men to mean mankind or humans rather than white European men.