On 08/11/2023 10:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2023 at 18:43:54 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08/11/2023 12:53 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kr1cehFfvncU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 07/11/2023 07:24 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kquuekF37vlU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question, now snipped, I see, can be paraphrased along the lines of
>>>>>> "If
>>>>>> the non-applicant spouse disputes that the marriage has broken down ,
>>>>>> does
>>>>>> the statement of the applicant to the contrary trump that of the
>>>>>> non-applicant?".
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it does ! ( Formerly known as "how can it ?")
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it take two to tango, or does it not ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people would agree that it takes two to tango.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to insist that it doesn't take two to tango,
>>>>> then clearly there is an "irretereivable breakdown" between
>>>>> yourself and most other people on this matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or are you going to deny that, as well ?
>>>>>
>>>>> The very fact that the two parties are disgreeing about
>>>>> something so fundamnatal, simply proves the very point at
>>>>> issue surely ?.
>>>>
>>>> Has marriage now been reduced to the level of importance of an invitation
>>>> for the next dance (a tango, preferably)?
>>>>
>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>
>>> Precisely the opposite.
>>>
>>> Unless you think its a good idea for children to witness their parents
>>> arguing all the time ?
>>
>> Oh yes... the old "It's better for the children to have divorced
>> parents" argument.
>
> Because it nearly always is.

Is there the slightest sliver of proof for that?

I can see that is a useful alibi, easily asserted and apparently having
no need of any evidence.
>

On 08/11/2023 08:34 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kr239cFjhhoU2@mid.individual.net...
>> On 08/11/2023 01:08 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kr1cehFfvncU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
>>> use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
>>> relationships,
>>>
>>> "If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
>>> and lose custody of the children"
>>>
>>> For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
>>> prospect is it ?
>>
>> So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion and
>> divorce the most palatable option?
>
> In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced, or
> possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do you
> suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
> their "contract" ?

There is no law against separation. There never has been.

On 08/11/2023 20:34, billy bookcase wrote:
> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kr239cFjhhoU2@mid.individual.net...
>> On 08/11/2023 01:08 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kr1cehFfvncU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
>>> use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
>>> relationships,
>>>
>>> "If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
>>> and lose custody of the children"
>>>
>>> For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
>>> prospect is it ?
>>
>> So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion and
>> divorce the most palatable option?
>
> In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced, or
> possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do you
> suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
> their "contract" ?

"Coercive control" is all the rage. I wonder whether it applies to a
woman controlling a man? Perhaps that doesn't correspond to the
preferred narrative.

I not sure an entirely equal relationship is possible or desirable.

--
Max Demian

On 9 Nov 2023 at 12:04:19 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:

> On 08/11/2023 20:34, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kr239cFjhhoU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 08/11/2023 01:08 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:kr1cehFfvncU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
>>>> use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
>>>> relationships,
>>>>
>>>> "If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
>>>> and lose custody of the children"
>>>>
>>>> For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
>>>> prospect is it ?
>>>
>>> So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion and
>>> divorce the most palatable option?
>>
>> In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced, or
>> possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do you
>> suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
>> their "contract" ?
>
> "Coercive control" is all the rage. I wonder whether it applies to a
> woman controlling a man? Perhaps that doesn't correspond to the
> preferred narrative.

There are several recorded cases which have resulted in criminal or civil
action.

>
> I not sure an entirely equal relationship is possible or desirable.

Equality of agency is entirely possible. Two identical personalities less so.

--
Roger Hayter

"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:uiihs2$26f84$1@dont-email.me...
> On 08/11/2023 20:34, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kr239cFjhhoU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 08/11/2023 01:08 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:kr1cehFfvncU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
>>>> use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
>>>> relationships,
>>>>
>>>> "If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
>>>> and lose custody of the children"
>>>>
>>>> For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
>>>> prospect is it ?
>>>
>>> So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion and
>>> divorce the most palatable option?
>>
>> In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced, or
>> possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do you
>> suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
>> their "contract" ?
>
> "Coercive control" is all the rage. I wonder whether it applies to a woman
> controlling a man? Perhaps that doesn't correspond to the preferred
> narrative.

Wherever has it been implied, that that might not be the case ?

This "preferred narrative" of yours, would appear to be entirely of your own
making.

bb

On Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 08:21:04 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> On 08/11/2023 10:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
> > On 8 Nov 2023 at 18:43:54 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 08/11/2023 12:53 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
> >>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:kr1ceh...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>> On 07/11/2023 07:24 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
> >>>>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:kquuek...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My question, now snipped, I see, can be paraphrased along the lines of
> >>>>>> "If
> >>>>>> the non-applicant spouse disputes that the marriage has broken down ,
> >>>>>> does
> >>>>>> the statement of the applicant to the contrary trump that of the
> >>>>>> non-applicant?".
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course it does ! ( Formerly known as "how can it ?")
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does it take two to tango, or does it not ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Most people would agree that it takes two to tango.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you want to insist that it doesn't take two to tango,
> >>>>> then clearly there is an "irretereivable breakdown" between
> >>>>> yourself and most other people on this matter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Or are you going to deny that, as well ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The very fact that the two parties are disgreeing about
> >>>>> something so fundamnatal, simply proves the very point at
> >>>>> issue surely ?.
> >>>>
> >>>> Has marriage now been reduced to the level of importance of an invitation
> >>>> for the next dance (a tango, preferably)?
> >>>>
> >>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
> >>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
> >>>
> >>> Precisely the opposite.
> >>>
> >>> Unless you think its a good idea for children to witness their parents
> >>> arguing all the time ?
> >>
> >> Oh yes... the old "It's better for the children to have divorced
> >> parents" argument.
> >
> > Because it nearly always is.
> Is there the slightest sliver of proof for that?
>
> I can see that is a useful alibi, easily asserted and apparently having
> no need of any evidence.

I can't point you to any evidence, as it is completely outside my field of expertise. However, in fairness, to what extent have you looked to see if there is any evidence?

On Wednesday, 8 November 2023 at 22:12:32 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 8 Nov 2023 at 19:34:28 GMT, "Brian W" <brianwh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 8 November 2023 at 12:22:07 UTC, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 07/11/2023 07:24 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
> >>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:kquuek...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>
> >>>> My question, now snipped, I see, can be paraphrased along the lines of "If
> >>>> the non-applicant spouse disputes that the marriage has broken down , does
> >>>> the statement of the applicant to the contrary trump that of the
> >>>> non-applicant?".
> >>>
> >>> Of course it does ! ( Formerly known as "how can it ?")
> >>>
> >>> Does it take two to tango, or does it not ?
> >>>
> >>> Most people would agree that it takes two to tango.
> >>>
> >>> If you want to insist that it doesn't take two to tango,
> >>> then clearly there is an "irretereivable breakdown" between
> >>> yourself and most other people on this matter.
> >>>
> >>> Or are you going to deny that, as well ?
> >>>
> >>> The very fact that the two parties are disgreeing about
> >>> something so fundamnatal, simply proves the very point at
> >>> issue surely ?.
> >> Has marriage now been reduced to the level of importance of an
> >> invitation for the next dance (a tango, preferably)?
> >>
> >> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
> >> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
> >
> > As it happens, I agree with you, albeit possibly for different reasons.
> >
> > For me, the starting point is to ask why we have the system of civil marriages
> > (i.e. as opposed to religious marriages, which are controlled by the relevant
> > religions, each of which imposes its own rules as to how (if at all) a
> > marriage can be ended) in the first place. It seems to me that the reason is
> > that the state considers it desirable to encourage stability in peoples'
> > relationships and living arrangements. So there's a quid pro quo - if people
> > voluntarily enter into an arrangement which makes it harder (to some degree)
> > to walk out of a relationship, the state rewards that by offering favourable
> > tax treatment etc.
> >
> > That's fine, but if the state then varies the rules to make it easier to end a
> > marriage, the underlying rationale - encouraging stability - is eroded. I
> > recall that after the Owen v Owen decision, some campaigners sought a change
> > in the law which would enable people simply to end a marriage at any time. I
> > don't think the changes in the law were quite that extreme, but I really
> > couldn't (and still can't) see the point of a marriage system which enables
> > people to end a marriage at any time. It has always been possible to structure
> > ones living arrangements in such a way - simple co-habitation - and a system
> > of marriage which replicates co-habitation would in my view be completely
> > pointless.
> >
> > For what it's worth, I thought it would have been better to reform the rules
> > by reducing the 5 year period of separation which was required (where one
> > spouse doesn't consent) down to, say, 2-3 years. However, that ship has
> > sailed.
> To my mind the most important quality of marriage, as opposed to cohabitation,
> is that it commits both parties to permanently share their assets, especially
> if one (not always a woman!) sacrifices career and personal income to care for
> children. Obviously this does not apply to all marriages, but I still think
> this is the important feature.
>
> With the exception of the feckless, and the occasional gold-digger of either
> sex, most people really want to make it work. But if it doesn't work for at
> least one party then the sooner it is dissolved the better. And better for any
> children involved too.
>
> So I strongly disagree with you that marriage is pointless if people don't
> stick to it even when they cannot be happy.

You make a fair point. I accept that marriage does serve a purpose other than encouraging stability. I continue to maintain, however, that the main purpose of civil marriage is encouraging stability, and that purpose falls away if people can simply end a marriage on a whim.

"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kr2iruFlth5U2@mid.individual.net...
> On 08/11/2023 08:34 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kr239cFjhhoU2@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 08/11/2023 01:08 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:kr1cehFfvncU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
>>>> use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
>>>> relationships,
>>>>
>>>> "If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
>>>> and lose custody of the children"
>>>>
>>>> For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
>>>> prospect is it ?
>>>
>>> So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion and
>>> divorce the most palatable option?
>>
>> In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced, or
>> possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do you
>> suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
>> their "contract" ?
>
> There is no law against separation. There never has been

Indeed.

There had never been any law preventing the aggrieveed party from being
forced to leave the matrimonial home. Possibly as a result of oppression,
coercion, or physical violence, real or threatened. And due to lack of
resources being forced to leave their children at the mercy of a
coercive and quite possibly sociopathic parent.

You're right. There never *has* been a law against that !

Hence the perceived need for a change.

What a lot of people simply wont admit (unless they're trolling
at least ) is that marriage, far being a contract cementing a
fruitful and loving relationship between two equals, both of whom
who are fully committed to making it work, is instead very often
a contract exploited indeed welcomed by the strong minded and
dominant individuals possibly bordering on the sociopathic as
representing a lifetimes opportunity to dominate coerce and
manipulate and possibly assault the other party; with the full
blessing of the law and indeed, possibly society behind them.

The burgeoning of divorce figures with the progressive loosening
of the law far from being evidence of growing irresponsibility
simply shows how many people were stuck in unhappy marriages,
possibly for the whole of their lives, about which they could do
absolutely nothing,

bb

On 09/11/2023 09:33 am, Brian W wrote:
> On Thursday, 9 November 2023 at 08:21:04 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>> On 08/11/2023 10:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 8 Nov 2023 at 18:43:54 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08/11/2023 12:53 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kr1ceh...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> On 07/11/2023 07:24 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>>>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:kquuek...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My question, now snipped, I see, can be paraphrased along the lines of
>>>>>>>> "If
>>>>>>>> the non-applicant spouse disputes that the marriage has broken down ,
>>>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>> the statement of the applicant to the contrary trump that of the
>>>>>>>> non-applicant?".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course it does ! ( Formerly known as "how can it ?")
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does it take two to tango, or does it not ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most people would agree that it takes two to tango.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you want to insist that it doesn't take two to tango,
>>>>>>> then clearly there is an "irretereivable breakdown" between
>>>>>>> yourself and most other people on this matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or are you going to deny that, as well ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The very fact that the two parties are disgreeing about
>>>>>>> something so fundamnatal, simply proves the very point at
>>>>>>> issue surely ?.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has marriage now been reduced to the level of importance of an invitation
>>>>>> for the next dance (a tango, preferably)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>>
>>>>> Precisely the opposite.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless you think its a good idea for children to witness their parents
>>>>> arguing all the time ?
>>>>
>>>> Oh yes... the old "It's better for the children to have divorced
>>>> parents" argument.
>>>
>>> Because it nearly always is.
>> Is there the slightest sliver of proof for that?
>>
>> I can see that is a useful alibi, easily asserted and apparently having
>> no need of any evidence.
>
> I can't point you to any evidence, as it is completely outside my field of expertise. However, in fairness, to what extent have you looked to see if there is any evidence?

I have never encountered any. Perhaps some will be cited.

Plenty of unsupported assertions, though, as well as a certain amount of
evidence for the damage done to children *by* divorce (not by its absence).

Examples:

<https://www.kabirfamilylaw.co.uk/effects-of-divorce-on-children/>

<https://www.healthline.com/health/parenting/effects-of-divorce-on-children#academic-struggles>

I think it would be hard to find evidence that divorce or permanent /
indefinite separation is *good* for chlidren. A relevant case would be
unusual, probably involving something like sexual abuse. Even that
wouldn't be good, only less bad.

On 09/11/2023 09:50 am, billy bookcase wrote:
> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kr2iruFlth5U2@mid.individual.net...
>> On 08/11/2023 08:34 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kr239cFjhhoU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 08/11/2023 01:08 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kr1cehFfvncU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
>>>>> use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
>>>>> relationships,
>>>>>
>>>>> "If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
>>>>> and lose custody of the children"
>>>>>
>>>>> For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
>>>>> prospect is it ?
>>>>
>>>> So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion and
>>>> divorce the most palatable option?
>>>
>>> In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced, or
>>> possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do you
>>> suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
>>> their "contract" ?
>>
>> There is no law against separation. There never has been
>
> Indeed.
>
> There had never been any law preventing the aggrieveed party from being
> forced to leave the matrimonial home. Possibly as a result of oppression,
> coercion, or physical violence, real or threatened.

Yes, there had.

Assault has been an offence for a very long time.

> And due to lack of
> resources being forced to leave their children at the mercy of a
> coercive and quite possibly sociopathic parent.
>
> You're right. There never *has* been a law against that !
>
> Hence the perceived need for a change.
>
> What a lot of people simply wont admit (unless they're trolling
> at least ) is that marriage, far being a contract cementing a
> fruitful and loving relationship between two equals, both of whom
> who are fully committed to making it work, is instead very often
> a contract exploited indeed welcomed by the strong minded and
> dominant individuals possibly bordering on the sociopathic as
> representing a lifetimes opportunity to dominate coerce and
> manipulate and possibly assault the other party; with the full
> blessing of the law and indeed, possibly society behind them.

Dear me.... I didn't know that Spare Rib was still being published.
>
> The burgeoning of divorce figures with the progressive loosening
> of the law far from being evidence of growing irresponsibility
> simply shows how many people were stuck in unhappy marriages,
> possibly for the whole of their lives, about which they could do
> absolutely nothing,

The rule was quite simple and quite clear following a set of changes
made (IIRC) in the second half of the 1960s). A divorce could be
available after five years' separation without the consent of the
non-applying party.

Only in a small proportion of cases could that be claimed to be "...the
whole of ... [life]...".

On 09/11/2023 09:35, Brian W wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 November 2023 at 22:12:32 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> On 8 Nov 2023 at 19:34:28 GMT, "Brian W" <brianwh...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, 8 November 2023 at 12:22:07 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 07/11/2023 07:24 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kquuek...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My question, now snipped, I see, can be paraphrased along
>>>>>> the lines of "If the non-applicant spouse disputes that the
>>>>>> marriage has broken down , does the statement of the
>>>>>> applicant to the contrary trump that of the
>>>>>> non-applicant?".
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it does ! ( Formerly known as "how can it ?")
>>>>>
>>>>> Does it take two to tango, or does it not ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Most people would agree that it takes two to tango.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you want to insist that it doesn't take two to tango, then
>>>>> clearly there is an "irretereivable breakdown" between
>>>>> yourself and most other people on this matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or are you going to deny that, as well ?
>>>>>
>>>>> The very fact that the two parties are disgreeing about
>>>>> something so fundamnatal, simply proves the very point at
>>>>> issue surely ?.
>>>> Has marriage now been reduced to the level of importance of an
>>>> invitation for the next dance (a tango, preferably)?
>>>>
>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to
>>>> be regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>
>>> As it happens, I agree with you, albeit possibly for different
>>> reasons.
>>>
>>> For me, the starting point is to ask why we have the system of
>>> civil marriages (i.e. as opposed to religious marriages, which
>>> are controlled by the relevant religions, each of which imposes
>>> its own rules as to how (if at all) a marriage can be ended) in
>>> the first place. It seems to me that the reason is that the state
>>> considers it desirable to encourage stability in peoples'
>>> relationships and living arrangements. So there's a quid pro quo
>>> - if people voluntarily enter into an arrangement which makes it
>>> harder (to some degree) to walk out of a relationship, the state
>>> rewards that by offering favourable tax treatment etc.
>>>
>>> That's fine, but if the state then varies the rules to make it
>>> easier to end a marriage, the underlying rationale - encouraging
>>> stability - is eroded. I recall that after the Owen v Owen
>>> decision, some campaigners sought a change in the law which would
>>> enable people simply to end a marriage at any time. I don't think
>>> the changes in the law were quite that extreme, but I really
>>> couldn't (and still can't) see the point of a marriage system
>>> which enables people to end a marriage at any time. It has always
>>> been possible to structure ones living arrangements in such a way
>>> - simple co-habitation - and a system of marriage which
>>> replicates co-habitation would in my view be completely
>>> pointless.
>>>
>>> For what it's worth, I thought it would have been better to
>>> reform the rules by reducing the 5 year period of separation
>>> which was required (where one spouse doesn't consent) down to,
>>> say, 2-3 years. However, that ship has sailed.
>> To my mind the most important quality of marriage, as opposed to
>> cohabitation, is that it commits both parties to permanently share
>> their assets, especially if one (not always a woman!) sacrifices
>> career and personal income to care for children.

I would call that a life-style choice rather than a sacrifice. Children
vs career is a choice.

I am also aware of a couple that didn't initially intend to have
children but when the wife was passed over for promotion that was the
catalyst to start a family.

>> Obviously this
>> does not apply to all marriages, but I still think this is the
>> important feature.
>>
>> With the exception of the feckless, and the occasional gold-digger
>> of either sex, most people really want to make it work. But if it
>> doesn't work for at least one party then the sooner it is dissolved
>> the better. And better for any children involved too.
>>
>> So I strongly disagree with you that marriage is pointless if
>> people don't stick to it even when they cannot be happy.
>
> You make a fair point. I accept that marriage does serve a purpose
> other than encouraging stability. I continue to maintain, however,
> that the main purpose of civil marriage is encouraging stability, and
> that purpose falls away if people can simply end a marriage on a
> whim.

Unfortunately marriage can also encourage abuse. I have spoken to many
where one party has changed after marriage with various expectations
being amplified.

"JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kr5bhoF7dvqU1@mid.individual.net...
> On 09/11/2023 09:50 am, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kr2iruFlth5U2@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 08/11/2023 08:34 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:kr239cFjhhoU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 08/11/2023 01:08 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:kr1cehFfvncU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
>>>>>> use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
>>>>>> relationships,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
>>>>>> and lose custody of the children"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
>>>>>> prospect is it ?
>>>>>
>>>>> So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion
>>>>> and
>>>>> divorce the most palatable option?
>>>>
>>>> In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced,
>>>> or
>>>> possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do
>>>> you
>>>> suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
>>>> their "contract" ?
>>>
>>> There is no law against separation. There never has been
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> There had never been any law preventing the aggrieveed party from being
>> forced to leave the matrimonial home. Possibly as a result of oppression,
>> coercion, or physical violence, real or threatened.
>
> Yes, there had.
>
> Assault has been an offence for a very long time.

So that all anyone living with a violent partner had to do, was
report them to the police, give evidence against them in Court
and they'd immmediately stop being violent or making threats.
And would possibly even stop drinking. And then everyone
would then live happily ever after.

I see.

>> s being forced to leave their children at the mercy of a
>> coercive and quite possibly sociopathic parent.
>>
>> You're right. There never *has* been a law against that !
>>
>> Hence the perceived need for a change.
>>
>> What a lot of people simply wont admit (unless they're trolling
>> at least ) is that marriage, far being a contract cementing a
>> fruitful and loving relationship between two equals, both of whom
>> who are fully committed to making it work, is instead very often
>> a contract exploited indeed welcomed by the strong minded and
>> dominant individuals possibly bordering on the sociopathic as
>> representing a lifetimes opportunity to dominate coerce and
>> manipulate and possibly assault the other party; with the full
>> blessing of the law and indeed, possibly society behind them.
>
> Dear me.... I didn't know that Spare Rib was still being published.

What makes you think anything I've written specifically applies to
either sex ? Are you suggesting there can't possibly be any strong
minded and dominant women out there. who marry weak minded
men so as to simply manipulate them, possibly using violence ?
Or simply humiliate them in front of others.

Who as things stand, it could be said, are at an even bigger
disadvantage than women; first because many people would simply
laugh at them; or secondly, as in your case apparently overlook
their very existence.

>>
>> The burgeoning of divorce figures with the progressive loosening
>> of the law far from being evidence of growing irresponsibility
>> simply shows how many people were stuck in unhappy marriages,
>> possibly for the whole of their lives, about which they could do
>> absolutely nothing,
>
> The rule was quite simple and quite clear following a set of changes made
> (IIRC) in the second half of the 1960s). A divorce could be available
> after five years' separation without the consent of the non-applying
> party.

I can't quite see how five years of bickering really solves anything.

All it did was put the aggrieved party at a severe financial disadvantage,
given that a legal separation of any kind, still requires the consent of
*both* parties in respect of any *financial* arrangements

Which isn't to say there might role for outside intervention in any of
this, by way of reports mediation sessions etc. But this is a matter of
weeks or at least months. Not five whole years.

While speaking of children, the very fact that there may be children
involved is surely testament to the fact that the aggrieved party
cannot be said to be treating the matter in any way lightly.or
frivolously.

And sure children from "broken homes" may suffer in various ways.
Certainly as compared with the children of lifelong sweethearts

But that rather conveniently overlooks the fact that broken homes
are themselves are often the result of dysfunctional
parents/adults and that the children of dysfunctional parents/adults
are going to suffer by comparison in any case. Whether inside a
marriage where they are subject to constant bickering or
outside.

bb

>
> Only in a small proportion of cases could that be claimed to be "...the
> whole of ... [life]...".
>

On 10 Nov 2023 at 11:03:56 GMT, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:

> On 09/11/2023 09:35, Brian W wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 8 November 2023 at 22:12:32 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 8 Nov 2023 at 19:34:28 GMT, "Brian W" <brianwh...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, 8 November 2023 at 12:22:07 UTC, JNugent wrote:
>>>>> On 07/11/2023 07:24 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:kquuek...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My question, now snipped, I see, can be paraphrased along
>>>>>>> the lines of "If the non-applicant spouse disputes that the
>>>>>>> marriage has broken down , does the statement of the
>>>>>>> applicant to the contrary trump that of the
>>>>>>> non-applicant?".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it does ! ( Formerly known as "how can it ?")
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does it take two to tango, or does it not ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Most people would agree that it takes two to tango.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to insist that it doesn't take two to tango, then
>>>>>> clearly there is an "irretereivable breakdown" between
>>>>>> yourself and most other people on this matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or are you going to deny that, as well ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The very fact that the two parties are disgreeing about
>>>>>> something so fundamnatal, simply proves the very point at
>>>>>> issue surely ?.
>>>>> Has marriage now been reduced to the level of importance of an
>>>>> invitation for the next dance (a tango, preferably)?
>>>>>
>>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to
>>>>> be regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>
>>>> As it happens, I agree with you, albeit possibly for different
>>>> reasons.
>>>>
>>>> For me, the starting point is to ask why we have the system of
>>>> civil marriages (i.e. as opposed to religious marriages, which
>>>> are controlled by the relevant religions, each of which imposes
>>>> its own rules as to how (if at all) a marriage can be ended) in
>>>> the first place. It seems to me that the reason is that the state
>>>> considers it desirable to encourage stability in peoples'
>>>> relationships and living arrangements. So there's a quid pro quo
>>>> - if people voluntarily enter into an arrangement which makes it
>>>> harder (to some degree) to walk out of a relationship, the state
>>>> rewards that by offering favourable tax treatment etc.
>>>>
>>>> That's fine, but if the state then varies the rules to make it
>>>> easier to end a marriage, the underlying rationale - encouraging
>>>> stability - is eroded. I recall that after the Owen v Owen
>>>> decision, some campaigners sought a change in the law which would
>>>> enable people simply to end a marriage at any time. I don't think
>>>> the changes in the law were quite that extreme, but I really
>>>> couldn't (and still can't) see the point of a marriage system
>>>> which enables people to end a marriage at any time. It has always
>>>> been possible to structure ones living arrangements in such a way
>>>> - simple co-habitation - and a system of marriage which
>>>> replicates co-habitation would in my view be completely
>>>> pointless.
>>>>
>>>> For what it's worth, I thought it would have been better to
>>>> reform the rules by reducing the 5 year period of separation
>>>> which was required (where one spouse doesn't consent) down to,
>>>> say, 2-3 years. However, that ship has sailed.
>>> To my mind the most important quality of marriage, as opposed to
>>> cohabitation, is that it commits both parties to permanently share
>>> their assets, especially if one (not always a woman!) sacrifices
>>> career and personal income to care for children.
>
> I would call that a life-style choice rather than a sacrifice. Children
> vs career is a choice.
>

Indeed you could say that. But part of the bargain that is marriage is that
the choice can be made without inevitably committing oneself to poverty in
later life.

> I am also aware of a couple that didn't initially intend to have
> children but when the wife was passed over for promotion that was the
> catalyst to start a family.
>
>>> Obviously this
>>> does not apply to all marriages, but I still think this is the
>>> important feature.
>>>
>>> With the exception of the feckless, and the occasional gold-digger
>>> of either sex, most people really want to make it work. But if it
>>> doesn't work for at least one party then the sooner it is dissolved
>>> the better. And better for any children involved too.
>>>
>>> So I strongly disagree with you that marriage is pointless if
>>> people don't stick to it even when they cannot be happy.
>>
>> You make a fair point. I accept that marriage does serve a purpose
>> other than encouraging stability. I continue to maintain, however,
>> that the main purpose of civil marriage is encouraging stability, and
>> that purpose falls away if people can simply end a marriage on a
>> whim.
>
> Unfortunately marriage can also encourage abuse. I have spoken to many
> where one party has changed after marriage with various expectations
> being amplified.

--
Roger Hayter

On 10/11/2023 10:33 am, billy bookcase wrote:
> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:kr5bhoF7dvqU1@mid.individual.net...
>> On 09/11/2023 09:50 am, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kr2iruFlth5U2@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 08/11/2023 08:34 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kr239cFjhhoU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> On 08/11/2023 01:08 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:kr1cehFfvncU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>>>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
>>>>>>> use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
>>>>>>> relationships,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
>>>>>>> and lose custody of the children"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
>>>>>>> prospect is it ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> divorce the most palatable option?
>>>>>
>>>>> In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced,
>>>>> or
>>>>> possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do
>>>>> you
>>>>> suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
>>>>> their "contract" ?
>>>>
>>>> There is no law against separation. There never has been
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>>
>>> There had never been any law preventing the aggrieveed party from being
>>> forced to leave the matrimonial home. Possibly as a result of oppression,
>>> coercion, or physical violence, real or threatened.
>>
>> Yes, there had.
>>
>> Assault has been an offence for a very long time.
>
>
> So that all anyone living with a violent partner had to do, was
> report them to the police, give evidence against them in Court
> and they'd immmediately stop being violent or making threats.
> And would possibly even stop drinking. And then everyone
> would then live happily ever after.
>
> I see.

There were other measures available in addition, or instead of.
>
>>> s being forced to leave their children at the mercy of a
>>> coercive and quite possibly sociopathic parent.
>
>>> You're right. There never *has* been a law against that !
>
>>> Hence the perceived need for a change.

How did a law change achieve that?

There is no law against a parent leaving and taking the children with
them. But one must remember that "it takes two to tango" and that one
person's view of the position may or may not be justified.
>
>>> What a lot of people simply wont admit (unless they're trolling
>>> at least ) is that marriage, far being a contract cementing a
>>> fruitful and loving relationship between two equals, both of whom
>>> who are fully committed to making it work, is instead very often
>>> a contract exploited indeed welcomed by the strong minded and
>>> dominant individuals possibly bordering on the sociopathic as
>>> representing a lifetimes opportunity to dominate coerce and
>>> manipulate and possibly assault the other party; with the full
>>> blessing of the law and indeed, possibly society behind them.
>
>> Dear me.... I didn't know that Spare Rib was still being published.
>
> What makes you think anything I've written specifically applies to
> either sex ? Are you suggesting there can't possibly be any strong
> minded and dominant women out there. who marry weak minded
> men so as to simply manipulate them, possibly using violence ?
> Or simply humiliate them in front of others.

Now you mention it, I too remember "The Larkins" on TV and the Andy Capp
strip cartoons.
>
> Who as things stand, it could be said, are at an even bigger
> disadvantage than women; first because many people would simply
> laugh at them; or secondly, as in your case apparently overlook
> their very existence.
>
>>> The burgeoning of divorce figures with the progressive loosening
>>> of the law far from being evidence of growing irresponsibility
>>> simply shows how many people were stuck in unhappy marriages,
>>> possibly for the whole of their lives, about which they could do
>>> absolutely nothing,
>
>> The rule was quite simple and quite clear following a set of changes made
>> (IIRC) in the second half of the 1960s). A divorce could be available
>> after five years' separation without the consent of the non-applying
>> party.
>
> I can't quite see how five years of bickering really solves anything.

The law was framed in that way in order to prevent "instant divorce". No
part of it obliged a married couple to live together if that could no
longer be tolerated
>
> All it did was put the aggrieved party at a severe financial disadvantage,
> given that a legal separation of any kind, still requires the consent of
> *both* parties in respect of any *financial* arrangements

Almost every separation puts a (former) household into financial
difficulties.

Two households, whether or not both alike in dignity, cannot live as
cheaply as one.

It goes with the territory, except for those with very significant
resources.

> Which isn't to say there might role for outside intervention in any of
> this, by way of reports mediation sessions etc. But this is a matter of
> weeks or at least months. Not five whole years.

> While speaking of children, the very fact that there may be children
> involved is surely testament to the fact that the aggrieved party
> cannot be said to be treating the matter in any way lightly.or
> frivolously.

*Really*?
>
> And sure children from "broken homes" may suffer in various ways.
> Certainly as compared with the children of lifelong sweethearts
> But that rather conveniently overlooks the fact that broken homes
> are themselves are often the result of dysfunctional
> parents/adults and that the children of dysfunctional parents/adults
> are going to suffer by comparison in any case. Whether inside a
> marriage where they are subject to constant bickering or
> outside.
>
I don't care what the root causes are.

The effects are undesirable.

>> Only in a small proportion of cases could that be claimed to be "...the
>> whole of ... [life]...".

On 12 Nov 2023 at 13:40:44 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:

> On 10/11/2023 10:33 am, billy bookcase wrote:
>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:kr5bhoF7dvqU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 09/11/2023 09:50 am, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:kr2iruFlth5U2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>> On 08/11/2023 08:34 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:kr239cFjhhoU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> On 08/11/2023 01:08 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:kr1cehFfvncU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>>>>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
>>>>>>>> use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
>>>>>>>> relationships,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
>>>>>>>> and lose custody of the children"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
>>>>>>>> prospect is it ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> divorce the most palatable option?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced,
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
>>>>>> their "contract" ?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no law against separation. There never has been
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> There had never been any law preventing the aggrieveed party from being
>>>> forced to leave the matrimonial home. Possibly as a result of oppression,
>>>> coercion, or physical violence, real or threatened.
>>>
>>> Yes, there had.
>>>
>>> Assault has been an offence for a very long time.
>>
>>
>> So that all anyone living with a violent partner had to do, was
>> report them to the police, give evidence against them in Court
>> and they'd immmediately stop being violent or making threats.
>> And would possibly even stop drinking. And then everyone
>> would then live happily ever after.
>>
>> I see.
>
> There were other measures available in addition, or instead of.
>>
>>>> s being forced to leave their children at the mercy of a
>>>> coercive and quite possibly sociopathic parent.
>>
>>>> You're right. There never *has* been a law against that !
>>
>>>> Hence the perceived need for a change.
>
> How did a law change achieve that?
>
> There is no law against a parent leaving and taking the children with
> them. But one must remember that "it takes two to tango" and that one
> person's view of the position may or may not be justified.
>>
>>>> What a lot of people simply wont admit (unless they're trolling
>>>> at least ) is that marriage, far being a contract cementing a
>>>> fruitful and loving relationship between two equals, both of whom
>>>> who are fully committed to making it work, is instead very often
>>>> a contract exploited indeed welcomed by the strong minded and
>>>> dominant individuals possibly bordering on the sociopathic as
>>>> representing a lifetimes opportunity to dominate coerce and
>>>> manipulate and possibly assault the other party; with the full
>>>> blessing of the law and indeed, possibly society behind them.
>>
>>> Dear me.... I didn't know that Spare Rib was still being published.
>>
>> What makes you think anything I've written specifically applies to
>> either sex ? Are you suggesting there can't possibly be any strong
>> minded and dominant women out there. who marry weak minded
>> men so as to simply manipulate them, possibly using violence ?
>> Or simply humiliate them in front of others.
>
> Now you mention it, I too remember "The Larkins" on TV and the Andy Capp
> strip cartoons.
>>
>> Who as things stand, it could be said, are at an even bigger
>> disadvantage than women; first because many people would simply
>> laugh at them; or secondly, as in your case apparently overlook
>> their very existence.
>>
>>>> The burgeoning of divorce figures with the progressive loosening
>>>> of the law far from being evidence of growing irresponsibility
>>>> simply shows how many people were stuck in unhappy marriages,
>>>> possibly for the whole of their lives, about which they could do
>>>> absolutely nothing,
>>
>>> The rule was quite simple and quite clear following a set of changes made
>>> (IIRC) in the second half of the 1960s). A divorce could be available
>>> after five years' separation without the consent of the non-applying
>>> party.
>>
>> I can't quite see how five years of bickering really solves anything.
>
> The law was framed in that way in order to prevent "instant divorce". No
> part of it obliged a married couple to live together if that could no
> longer be tolerated

If they are living separately and at least one of them intends that to be
permanent then no-one except a religious zealot would see any point whatever
in them remaining married. There is no rational reason to do so.

snip

--
Roger Hayter

On Sunday, 12 November 2023 at 20:14:50 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2023 at 13:40:44 GMT, "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/11/2023 10:33 am, billy bookcase wrote:
> >> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:kr5bho...@mid.individual.net...
> >>> On 09/11/2023 09:50 am, billy bookcase wrote:
> >>>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:kr2iru...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>> On 08/11/2023 08:34 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
> >>>>>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>> news:kr239c...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>>> On 08/11/2023 01:08 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
> >>>>>>>> "JNugent" <jnu...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> news:kr1ceh...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
> >>>>>>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
> >>>>>>>> use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
> >>>>>>>> relationships,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
> >>>>>>>> and lose custody of the children"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
> >>>>>>>> prospect is it ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion
> >>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>> divorce the most palatable option?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced,
> >>>>>> or
> >>>>>> possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do
> >>>>>> you
> >>>>>> suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
> >>>>>> their "contract" ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is no law against separation. There never has been
> >>>>
> >>>> Indeed.
> >>>>
> >>>> There had never been any law preventing the aggrieveed party from being
> >>>> forced to leave the matrimonial home. Possibly as a result of oppression,
> >>>> coercion, or physical violence, real or threatened.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, there had.
> >>>
> >>> Assault has been an offence for a very long time.
> >>
> >>
> >> So that all anyone living with a violent partner had to do, was
> >> report them to the police, give evidence against them in Court
> >> and they'd immmediately stop being violent or making threats.
> >> And would possibly even stop drinking. And then everyone
> >> would then live happily ever after.
> >>
> >> I see.
> >
> > There were other measures available in addition, or instead of.
> >>
> >>>> s being forced to leave their children at the mercy of a
> >>>> coercive and quite possibly sociopathic parent.
> >>
> >>>> You're right. There never *has* been a law against that !
> >>
> >>>> Hence the perceived need for a change.
> >
> > How did a law change achieve that?
> >
> > There is no law against a parent leaving and taking the children with
> > them. But one must remember that "it takes two to tango" and that one
> > person's view of the position may or may not be justified.
> >>
> >>>> What a lot of people simply wont admit (unless they're trolling
> >>>> at least ) is that marriage, far being a contract cementing a
> >>>> fruitful and loving relationship between two equals, both of whom
> >>>> who are fully committed to making it work, is instead very often
> >>>> a contract exploited indeed welcomed by the strong minded and
> >>>> dominant individuals possibly bordering on the sociopathic as
> >>>> representing a lifetimes opportunity to dominate coerce and
> >>>> manipulate and possibly assault the other party; with the full
> >>>> blessing of the law and indeed, possibly society behind them.
> >>
> >>> Dear me.... I didn't know that Spare Rib was still being published.
> >>
> >> What makes you think anything I've written specifically applies to
> >> either sex ? Are you suggesting there can't possibly be any strong
> >> minded and dominant women out there. who marry weak minded
> >> men so as to simply manipulate them, possibly using violence ?
> >> Or simply humiliate them in front of others.
> >
> > Now you mention it, I too remember "The Larkins" on TV and the Andy Capp
> > strip cartoons.
> >>
> >> Who as things stand, it could be said, are at an even bigger
> >> disadvantage than women; first because many people would simply
> >> laugh at them; or secondly, as in your case apparently overlook
> >> their very existence.
> >>
> >>>> The burgeoning of divorce figures with the progressive loosening
> >>>> of the law far from being evidence of growing irresponsibility
> >>>> simply shows how many people were stuck in unhappy marriages,
> >>>> possibly for the whole of their lives, about which they could do
> >>>> absolutely nothing,
> >>
> >>> The rule was quite simple and quite clear following a set of changes made
> >>> (IIRC) in the second half of the 1960s). A divorce could be available
> >>> after five years' separation without the consent of the non-applying
> >>> party.
> >>
> >> I can't quite see how five years of bickering really solves anything.
> >
> > The law was framed in that way in order to prevent "instant divorce". No
> > part of it obliged a married couple to live together if that could no
> > longer be tolerated
> If they are living separately and at least one of them intends that to be
> permanent then no-one except a religious zealot would see any point whatever
> in them remaining married. There is no rational reason to do so.

There's an enormous gap between "instant divorce" and "waiting five years". In my opinion, the better thing to have done would have been to reduce the 5 year period to 2-3 years. All academic now, though.

On 12/11/2023 05:06 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 12 Nov 2023 at 13:40:44 GMT, "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/11/2023 10:33 am, billy bookcase wrote:
>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:kr5bhoF7dvqU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 09/11/2023 09:50 am, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:kr2iruFlth5U2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>> On 08/11/2023 08:34 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:kr239cFjhhoU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>> On 08/11/2023 01:08 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "JNugent" <jnugent@mail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:kr1cehFfvncU2@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What of any children? Are the interests of him, her or those to be
>>>>>>>>>> regarded as a trivial side-issue?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In addition, it's not entirely unknown for dominant partners to
>>>>>>>>> use the children as bargaining chips, in order to sustain coercive
>>>>>>>>> relationships,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "If *you* leave then you will immediately put yourself in the wrong,
>>>>>>>>> and lose custody of the children"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For somebody without any resources, it's not a very inviting
>>>>>>>>> prospect is it ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So the law should, as a matter of policy, make separation, desertion
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> divorce the most palatable option?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In cases where one partner feels themselves to be oppressed, coerced,
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> possibly threatened, if not actually assaulted, what other remedy do
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> suggest ? Lock them up inside the house, and force them to honour
>>>>>>> their "contract" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no law against separation. There never has been
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> There had never been any law preventing the aggrieveed party from being
>>>>> forced to leave the matrimonial home. Possibly as a result of oppression,
>>>>> coercion, or physical violence, real or threatened.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there had.
>>>>
>>>> Assault has been an offence for a very long time.
>>>
>>>
>>> So that all anyone living with a violent partner had to do, was
>>> report them to the police, give evidence against them in Court
>>> and they'd immmediately stop being violent or making threats.
>>> And would possibly even stop drinking. And then everyone
>>> would then live happily ever after.
>>>
>>> I see.
>>
>> There were other measures available in addition, or instead of.
>>>
>>>>> s being forced to leave their children at the mercy of a
>>>>> coercive and quite possibly sociopathic parent.
>>>
>>>>> You're right. There never *has* been a law against that !
>>>
>>>>> Hence the perceived need for a change.
>>
>> How did a law change achieve that?
>>
>> There is no law against a parent leaving and taking the children with
>> them. But one must remember that "it takes two to tango" and that one
>> person's view of the position may or may not be justified.
>>>
>>>>> What a lot of people simply wont admit (unless they're trolling
>>>>> at least ) is that marriage, far being a contract cementing a
>>>>> fruitful and loving relationship between two equals, both of whom
>>>>> who are fully committed to making it work, is instead very often
>>>>> a contract exploited indeed welcomed by the strong minded and
>>>>> dominant individuals possibly bordering on the sociopathic as
>>>>> representing a lifetimes opportunity to dominate coerce and
>>>>> manipulate and possibly assault the other party; with the full
>>>>> blessing of the law and indeed, possibly society behind them.
>>>
>>>> Dear me.... I didn't know that Spare Rib was still being published.
>>>
>>> What makes you think anything I've written specifically applies to
>>> either sex ? Are you suggesting there can't possibly be any strong
>>> minded and dominant women out there. who marry weak minded
>>> men so as to simply manipulate them, possibly using violence ?
>>> Or simply humiliate them in front of others.
>>
>> Now you mention it, I too remember "The Larkins" on TV and the Andy Capp
>> strip cartoons.
>>>
>>> Who as things stand, it could be said, are at an even bigger
>>> disadvantage than women; first because many people would simply
>>> laugh at them; or secondly, as in your case apparently overlook
>>> their very existence.
>>>
>>>>> The burgeoning of divorce figures with the progressive loosening
>>>>> of the law far from being evidence of growing irresponsibility
>>>>> simply shows how many people were stuck in unhappy marriages,
>>>>> possibly for the whole of their lives, about which they could do
>>>>> absolutely nothing,
>>>
>>>> The rule was quite simple and quite clear following a set of changes made
>>>> (IIRC) in the second half of the 1960s). A divorce could be available
>>>> after five years' separation without the consent of the non-applying
>>>> party.
>>>
>>> I can't quite see how five years of bickering really solves anything.
>>
>> The law was framed in that way in order to prevent "instant divorce". No
>> part of it obliged a married couple to live together if that could no
>> longer be tolerated
>
>
> If they are living separately and at least one of them intends that to be
> permanent then no-one except a religious zealot would see any point whatever
> in them remaining married. There is no rational reason to do so.

How about a witnessed and legally-recorded sworn vow to remain together
until death?

Is that totally meaningless and unenforceable?

On Mon, Nov 13 2023, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:

> On 12/11/2023 05:06 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
>> If they are living separately and at least one of them intends that
>> to be
>> permanent then no-one except a religious zealot would see any point whatever
>> in them remaining married. There is no rational reason to do so.
>
> How about a witnessed and legally-recorded sworn vow to remain
> together until death?
>
> Is that totally meaningless and unenforceable?
>
>

Though it rather depends on what language was used in the original vows?

https://www.rochdale.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/choose-vows-declaration

has 2 of the options not mentioning life together until death.

Robert
--
Robert Marshall twitter: @rajm

On 13/11/2023 01:41 pm, Robert Marshall wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 13 2023, JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/11/2023 05:06 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> If they are living separately and at least one of them intends that
>>> to be
>>> permanent then no-one except a religious zealot would see any point whatever
>>> in them remaining married. There is no rational reason to do so.
>>
>> How about a witnessed and legally-recorded sworn vow to remain
>> together until death?
>>
>> Is that totally meaningless and unenforceable?
>>
>>
>
> Though it rather depends on what language was used in the original vows?
>
> https://www.rochdale.gov.uk/marriages-civil-partnerships/choose-vows-declaration
>
> has 2 of the options not mentioning life together until death.

There's nothing about that at the URL you cited.