The argument for alimony being awarded to the spouse who seeks a divorce on a no-fault basis is inherently unreasonable and inequitable

Note:  I am not divorced and never have been.  I do not pay alimony and never have.  I am not a misogynist, just a realist.

The argument for alimony being awarded to the spouse who seeks a divorce on a no-fault basis is inherently unreasonable and inequitable.

While it is true that men can be awarded alimony, his odds of being struck by lightning are greater than receiving alimony (ask any Utah lawyer and they will all concur).  So alimony is a question of whether a woman gets it and a whether a man pays it.

So how is it that a woman can seek a divorce in Utah on no-fault grounds and then claim she wants her faultless spouse–who is willing to stay married–to pay alimony to “maintain the lifestyle to which she has become accustomed during the marriage”?  How is that different in principle from leaving a job because you don’t find the work fulfilling, but expect the employer to continue to pay your salary because you still need (or are “accustomed to”) the income?  How is that different in principle from leaving a boyfriend because you don’t want the commitment, but still expect him to take you out to dinner and movies “to which you have become accustomed”?  How is that different in principle from dropping out of school because you don’t like studying, writing papers, and taking tests, but expect the school to issue you a report card every semester thereafter with the same grades “to which you had become accustomed”?  How is that different in principle from abandoning your farm, yet expecting the earth to yield consistent fruit without cultivation because you are accustomed to a good harvest annually?

If you want to leave your marriage, fine, leave it, but a divorce does not mean simply the dissolution of a marriage.  When you leave your spouse, you leave “the marriage,” that means you dismantle the family and the life you had as a married person.  That means that you don’t get to leave your marriage and the obligations responsibilities inherent to it, yet continue to have your ex-spouse (“ex” means he’s not your spouse any longer) take care of you financially.  You leave the man, you leave your claims to his companionship and support too.   Now surely one can think of some exceptions in special circumstances where equity may require a “faultless” spouse to pay alimony, but it is apparent to anyone with a sense of decency what the rule should be:  If you seek a divorce on no-fault grounds, the presumption should be that you leave the marriage and all claims to any of the benefits of an ongoing marriage, including, but not limited to, financial support from a non-spouse.

Be Sociable, Share!

•