Thursday, January 24, 2013

We got a mention in US News and World Report

US News and World Report Article

Please click on the link above to read the article.  While I am disappointed in the quote used (we spoke for an hour and I made many more salient points!) I believe the press coverage helps our cause.

More tomorrow.  Time to take a break.

2 comments:

  1. Yeah, that was not the best quote. Oregon has three types of spousal support. Would they all be subject to the time limitations proposed in the reform bill? If so, I still don't think that is fair to the people who choose to stay at home to raise children and take charge of the household duties. (According to the NY Times, this number is increasing.) If alimony was originally intended to support people who make that choice, then why are we changing it for people in those situations? It should be changed for DINK couples with similar educational backgrounds and employment opportunities. It makes no sense for one doctor to pay another doctor alimony when there are no kids and there was no career-altering sacrifice that led to one spouse earning significantly less than the other.

    Also, how many people end up paying alimony? Is it really only rich people? Because the examples always seem to be ludicrous. Nobody needs $40K a month to live. But then, I don't believe the dependent spouse should be forced to settle for a job at Starbuck's, either.

    Those are my thoughts for now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Christie, thank you for your comments. I'm afraid we will probably not see eye to eye on this issue. You correctly label staying at home with the children as a "choice" and I believe people should be responsible for their choices. OAR is NOT advocating for the elimination of alimony, but we also feel that a payer should be able to break free from the bonds of supporting an ex-spouse at some point.

    You speak of the original purpose of alimony; let me comment on that. The original purpose of alimony (established by the ecclesiastical courts) was to avoid a woman ending up on the public dole should her marriage end. To look to the original purpose when discussing alimony today is simply not logical. Back then, women almost never held jobs, could not vote, and were seen as property of first their fathers, then their husbands. We've come a long way, baby.

    Your choice to stay at home is yours to make, but I do not believe that should your marriage end, your husband should have to support you forever. We are proposing a ten year maximum - that is far more than anyone should need to get an education and get into the work force.

    In traditional marriages like yours, and the number is actually decreasing all over the country and the world, I think a good alternative to planning on receiving alimony should the marriage end is this: save for divorce. You and your husband, since he clearly supports your decision not to work outside the home, should create a savings account that will support you in the event of divorce. Before you tell me your family can't afford that, remember that you are advocating to receive alimony longer than ten years. If your husband can't afford to put money aside in the event of your divorce, how can he afford to support you forever?

    I am an attorney who is out of work and strongly considering "settling" for a retail job so I can support my family. I don't think anyone is too good for any job.

    ReplyDelete