'My fears are that they can take you back to court, and I don’t have the money for an attorney.'

‘My fears are that they can take you back to court, and I don’t have the money for an attorney.’

  • Retix@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 years ago

    I don’t understand where the women opposed to this law are coming from. I am no fan of DeSantis, but this law makes sense to me (as it was reported). They divorced their spouse and at some point, should t they move on with their lives? Get a job instead of relying on alimony. What would their plan have been should the previous spouse die?

    • arch7878@kbin.social
      0·
      2 years ago

      I agree with the law as well as long as both of the married people are working. The problem comes in when one of those individuals is a stay at home parent for years. Trying to find a job or start a career may be damn near impossible.

      • Drusas@kbin.social
        0·
        2 years ago

        This could also impact women who have already given up certain assets in exchange for permanent alimony.

  • Hyperreality@kbin.social
    0·
    2 years ago

    The sentiment that ex post facto laws are against natural right is so strong in the United States, that few, if any, of the State constitutions have failed to proscribe them. …The federal constitution indeed interdicts them in criminal cases only; but they are equally unjust in civil as in criminal cases, and the omission of a caution which would have been right, does not justify the doing what is wrong. Nor ought it to be presumed that the legislature meant to use a phrase in an unjustifiable sense, if by rules of construction it can be ever strained to what is just.

    Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Isaac McPherson, August 13, 1813

  • CileTheSane@kbin.social
    0·
    2 years ago

    "The so-called party of ‘family values’ has just contributed to erosion of the institution of marriage in Florida,”

    Said the divorced woman…

    Also note that many of these women were in favour of the bill until it was signed and they found out it was retroactive.

    • xuxebiko@kbin.social
      0·
      2 years ago

      “They’re hurting the wrong people” - people who voted for leopard eating people’s faces party

  • Darnov@kbin.social
    0·
    2 years ago

    Something that negatively affects them and they will change just enough to make it not affect them.

  • AmberPrince@kbin.social
    0·
    2 years ago

    So I don’t really know how to feel about this.

    Permanent alimony seems silly to me. If I’m married for 10 years and get a divorce, why should I have to pay alimony for the next 40+ years?

    I’m not opposed to alimony though. My in-laws just got divorced. They were married for like 20 years and during that time my father in law owned a business and wanted his wife to stay at home and take care of the house, kids etc. Now that they are divorced she has no career or equity and is in her 50s so starting one from nothing is a huge challenge. So there are fringe cases out there where it makes sense.

    I don’t know. I don’t like DeSantis so as a reaction I want to be like “this is a dumb thing to do” but I just don’t know.

    • LeafyPasserine@kbin.social
      0·
      2 years ago

      According to the article, permanent alimony is granted only if the receiver agrees to give up other assets in exchange. So it’s more of a trade.

      • Guadin@k.fe.derate.me
        0·
        2 years ago

        Wow, than the receiving party must had one hell of a squeeze on the giving party. If you are willing to pay for the rest of your life for some asset…

      • JasSmith@kbin.social
        0·
        2 years ago

        So in effect this change means that trade will no longer be possible. At least not to the same degree. Everyone splits everything equitably and goes their separate way, plus some alimony but not lifetime. Seems reasonable to me.

          • JasSmith@kbin.social
            0·
            2 years ago

            Well at 60, she and her husband have been saving for their retirement for 40 years already, so she’ll use that to retire early. Plus she’ll have at least half of all other assets too. Probably more if she’s disabled as in your example and unable to work at all.

            Or do you believe that the husband should be unable to retire to find her lifestyle in perpetuity?

      • blanketswithsmallpox@kbin.social
        0·
        2 years ago

        I hate how our society has devolved into “team blue” vs “team red” mentality. I hate both extremes equally and prefer to vote based on policy.

        A broken clock being right twice a day still means you shouldn’t be using the clock to tell time lol.

        Even when it does happen to be right… You should be taking it with a huuuuuuge… Huuuuuuuuuuge grain of salt and probably look for another clock lol.

        It wasn’t right through logic. It was right because of luck and entropy lol.

  • SpaceMonk@kbin.social
    0·
    2 years ago

    This is literally policy being written out of Ocala and The Villages. Basically every dirtbag Catholic moved there and they run political activism, the white religious super racist kind, out of there and a few other places along the I-10 corridor stretching all the way out to Orange County California. I call it the dumb belt.

  • needmorepto@kbin.social
    0·
    2 years ago

    Good to see they are catching up with the other common sense states, just a handfull remain with this shitty law.