In Canada, a man has been ordered to pay $175,000 Canadian dollars (177,757 US$) every month to his ex-wife.
A $175,000 reward, renewed every month, just for divorcing your husband — what an incentive for divorce. Why do our leaders allow laws that bring about the destruction of families? Of course, many feminists would define “family” to include female-lead homes that are without a father, so I suppose they see this as simply replacing one family with another. Surely at least a small number of feminists would be honest enough to admit that children are better off with their father however. And if a child is better off with their father, then giving an incentive to divorce is obviously bad for society. Fortunately, in this case the children were already grown; the youngest is now 17. There is therefore no legitimate need for child support, especially given the ex-wife is now “earning” $175,000 per month. But that did not stop her from asking. How many females have seared their conscience by greed to such an extent that they can show this complete lack of shame? To be fair, perhaps she asked for child support before knowing how much alimony she could take.
What makes this situation even worse however is that they had an agreement regarding alimony, signed 15 years ago. The female judge chose to ignore it, thus encouraging other females to consider divorcing their husbands too. According to the article linked to above, the judge said:
while the agreement may have seemed fair to Michael McCain when it was signed in 1997, over time it had become “unconscionable.”
Funny, I thought the whole point of a written contract was to guarantee certain conditions and payments, regardless of future events. If I buy a car with a contract that says I will pay $500 per month for five years, then I must pay that amount. If I smash up the car and can no longer drive it, I still have to pay. If the car is stolen, and I therefore no longer have the benefit of the car, I still have to pay. I signed a contract. But, I believe in personal accountability for one’s actions and decisions. The average female may lack this maturity.
The Bible certainly gives some hints in this respect, such as allowing a father or husband to cancel a promise or agreement a woman has given (Numbers 30:1-16). Since females are abandoning their husbands for the state (through welfare, affirmative action, etc.), from one perspective it makes sense that the new “husband”, the state, would think they have the right to cancel her agreements. Of course, the Bible makes no allowance for this perversion; only a father or husband were to have this authority to cancel her agreements.
Insisting upon treating females as equals in all ways, but then also allowing females to be treated as foolish children who need to be protected by the state from the consequences of their agreements provides a foolishness encouragement to females to divorce. If she were treated only as an equal, she would be required to fulfill her obligations as wife and be punished (e.g. loss of the children and the use of the ex-husband’s wealth) if she violated the marriage agreement or abandoned the family. If she were treated only as an immature person, she would not have the ability to decide to leave her husband while also taking her children away from the only mature parent they have. If she were treated only as an immature person, she also would not be able to take the husband’s resources away, to be spent according to her immature decisions. Perhaps it is no coincidence that the Bible required that the family’s wealth be given to the sons; the wife or ex-wife was to receive nothing on the death of the father. (And yes, children were to care for their parents. But the wealth was under the control of the sons, not the mother.)
Daughters also were to receive nothing on the father’s death, unless the man had no sons. Even then however, the wealth was not permanently hers; as soon as she married, it was treated as her husband’s property, to be given to his sons on his death.
When choosing to ignore the agreement, the judge also considered the excuse that the now-ex-wife may have been compelled to sign the contract; i.e. under duress. This is one point I can agree with, at least in principle. Unfortunately, the judge also mentioned that some experiences of the marriage “must have been very hurtful”. So what? If I feel hurt that I have to pay $500 per month, should my feelings therefore invalidate the contract? Including this nonsense in her ruling may have the effect of adding that as a valid reason to case law that will be considered for future cases. A lawyer would know better than myself the consequences of including this in the ruling. It seems to me that this encourages divorce by allowing females to claim “hurt feelings” as a way to expedite the divorce and get more money as a reward for divorce.
And by the way, this “unconscionable” contract provided that the ex-wife would be paid seven million dollars, plus be given the former family home. I am not sure too many mature people would see that as cause for distress.
Sometimes it is necessary to push a principle to an extreme before a person will see the foolishness in the principle. Surely alimony in the amount of $175,000 per month is sufficient to demonstrate the foolishness of our laws that give an incentive for divorce.
It seems to me that the best way to have strong marriages is to abandon our feminist laws, and submit to the unchanging family laws we find from God in the Bible. Given our “individual rights” culture however, the humility and submission this would require will be difficult for many. But do we really think that our way is better?
On a personal note, I wonder if the agreement between the man and his now-ex-wife would have had a better chance to be honoured if it had been signed before marriage (prenuptial). Should I be considering marriage even with a prenuptial agreement? And exactly how hopeful / unwise does a man have to be, to allow him to be aware of these laws that encourage divorce without cause, and yet marry without a prenuptial agreement anyway? And yes, when I was in my 20s I was willing, even eager, to do exactly that. So consider me as part of the problem, at least in the past.
Sometimes I just want to scream… or at least give up on the idea of marriage.