There oughta be a law!

[Esav Benyamin]

I had to highlight the judge's remarks. I know English is a second language for some people, but I always thought I understood it myself. Now I'm not so sure.

Just for fun, could someone explain what grounds for divorce in this case would be

Judge denies divorce: Adultery not enough

Says husband’s admission of affair is not sufficient to end 17-year marriage because wife resumed sexual relationship with him

Gail Ozkan's husband admitted he'd had an extramarital affair but a State Supreme Court justice in Suffolk recently ruled that was not enough to end the couple's 17-year marriage and refused to grant her a divorce.

"How could this be?," Ozkan, 43, of Mount Sinai, said Wednesday. "I was stunned, actually."

But even if Ozkan had other proof that her husband, Okan Ozkan, also 43, had committed adultery, the fact that she resumed a sexual relationship with him after learning about his affair is tantamount to "forgiveness," Justice William J. Kent said in his Aug. 2 decision.

"Adultery cannot be established solely by the admission or confession of the defendant. Rather, there must be additional corroborating evidence which supports the finding of adultery," Kent said in his four-page decision, denying Gail Ozkan's request for divorce. "Moreover, merely the general admission by the defendant, that he had an affair with someone other than his wife is not, by itself, an admission that he engaged in adultery within the statutory definition."

Like it or not, that's the law in New York State, said Pia Riverso, a matrimonial lawyer in Uniondale. "It's unfortunate for the parties involved but it's not a bizarre decision," Riverso said Wednesday. ((snip))

In a phone interview, Gail Ozkan said that after she confronted her husband about the affair, he promised to break it off and work to keep their marriage together. But several months later she said she learned through friends that her husband was still involved in the affair. ((snip))

(The entire article can be found at the link above.)

 

[jsmatos]

Yeah Esav I really don't know what to say about these matters. I just had a debate with my husband about this the other day. In Florida, we have what you call "No fault divorce." This means that the party seeking divorce does not have to prove wrongdoing by the other party. He/she can merely assert that the marriage is "irretrievably broken." As I see it, this was the only way that our legislators could go. The alternative (pre-no fault) left many divorce seekers in a position where they had to drudge up "reasons" to obtain their desired divorce. This obviously lead to a great deal of unnecessary acrimony. Imagine thinking that you're happily married for 20 years to someone when one day your spouse decides she wants out. So in order to obtain that divorce, she concocts a story that you had an illicit affair. Now not only are you left with a broken heart and economic concerns, but you're left to defend your honor too. Thus, "no fault" divorce. No need to make anything up just come on in and say it's unfixable. And look at the strange result in the article without the "no fault divorce," the jerk who committed adultry is holding all of the cards. I wouldn't give in, I'd just have someone sitting around his door with a video camera. Obviously the jerk is hot to trot so he won't be able to hold out for too long.

My husband thinks that the "no fault" divorce makes it too easy to get a divorce these days. I understand where he's coming from (and I agree with his concern) but the alternative left children in the middle of unmitigated turmoil. My husband thinks that it should be really difficult to get a divorce, and if you reach that point that it should be nasty. Of course, he's never experienced divorce in his lifetime so he doesn't know the heartbreak involved in it. Hopefully, he'll never have to know.

Before anyone asks, "no fault divorce" does not mean that a person who commited adultry will not be held accountable in a divorce situation. "No fault" only applies to the right of the party to the divorce itself. The adultry will certainly be an issue in matters involving moral fitness in child custody situations, distribution of assets and liabilities, and alimony matters.

Of course, Florida also has what is referred to as "equitable distribution" which most people mistake for "equal" distribution. This isn't necessarily the case. Family law is one area where there really aren't any hard and fast rules that you can rely upon. It's chock full of idealisms like "in the best interest of the child" and all that it entails. You'd be amazed at the dilemmas associated with such matters. For example, child support is a big issue. If you have a deadbeat parent who refuses to pay his/her share how do you punish him/her? If you put him/her in jail it won't resolve the problem because he/she won't be making any money in there. Garnishment works only when you can track the money. It amazes me how many losers there are out there. Punishing their ex-spouse takes precedence over taking care of their children. What really amazes me is how many people are willing to date such deadbeats. If I were single, I'd kick any man to the curb if I found out that he wasn't a good father. There's not much worse than a bad parent. :barf:

 

[Esav Benyamin]

As I see it, the rationale behind no fault divorce is clear and compelling. No one has to get married unless they want to. No one should have to remain married unless they want to. As it requires no legal compulsion to get people to marry, there should be no legal compulsion to keep them married when one or both decide they've had enough.

Of course, care of the children and distribution of the family's property will require an unbiased third party if the former spouses cannot agree. As each such situation is unique, the law will have to be flexible.

You know the saying about the law being an ass. The real problem is how many people are asses, or we wouldn't find ourselves saddled with so many assinine laws.

 

[Grover_Cephas]

The main opposition to no-fault divorces seem to come from people who think that the _institution_ of marriage is larger than the individual people involved, and needs to be protected. The same belief seems to motivate a lot of anti-gay-marriage opinions. I know where _I_ stand, but I'm not about to say that anybody else is "just plain wrong".

 

[Esav Benyamin]

"Marriage" exists in two distinct forms, which most societies seem unable to disentangle. In a monocultural society, it might not matter that religion and the state intertwine, because it's going to be the same religion anyway. In a complex society, I think it's time to recognize the distinction.

Each religion prescribes rules and traditions for marriage. Who can, who can't, how the community celebrates it. Even today, many people insist on a religiously sanctioned ceremony and generally include family and friends as a necessary component of the festivities.

The state has laws regulating who can, who can't, and how they have to go about it -- blood tests, certification, tax status, joint property. Much of what the state requires does not find an exact match in every religion.

But the state determines how people will be accommodated based on how the state sees their relationship. No matter what their religion may allow.

Personally, I think that if two people want to marry and their religion has a problem with it, they can go off and find another religion. They cannot as easily find another state. So the state discriminates based on old, originally religious standards that some religions have given up.

Not good. I think that the state should have no say in marriage at all. If two people come together and want to start a joint business, the state will have laws they can use to craft a contract specifying each person's responsibilities to the business. In the same way, the state can have laws people can use to draw up a personal contract for their life together, assuring each other a fair share of joint property or career benefits, like insurance or retirement.

In either case, the contract should have clear standards for its own dissolution.

 

[johnniet]

Esav,
how do old-fashioned Jewish wedding contracts work? I understand that they could be quite individual (and did include provisions for dissolution).

 

[Esav Benyamin]

Excerpts from Judaism 101: Marriage

As part of the wedding ceremony, the husband gives the wife a ketubah. The word "Ketubah" comes from the root Kaf-Tav-Bet, meaning "writing." The ketubah is also called the marriage contract. The ketubah spells out the husband's obligations to the wife during marriage, conditions of inheritance upon his death, and obligations regarding the support of children of the marriage. It also provides for the wife's support in the event of divorce. There are standard conditions; however, additional conditions can be included by mutual agreement. Marriage agreements of this sort were commonplace in the ancient Semitic world.

The ketubah has much in common with prenuptial agreements, which are gaining popularity in the United States. In the U.S., such agreements were historically disfavored, because it was believed that planning for divorce would encourage divorce, and that people who considered the possibility of divorce shouldn't be marrying. Although one rabbi in the Talmud expresses a similar opinion, the majority maintained that a ketubah discouraged divorce, by serving as a constant reminder of the husband's substantial financial obligations if he divorced his wife.

The ketubah is often a beautiful work of calligraphy, framed and displayed in the home.

Because marriage under Jewish law is essentially a private contractual agreement between a man and a woman, it does not require the presence of a rabbi or any other religious official. It is common, however, for rabbis to officiate, partly in imitation of the Christian practice and partly because the presence of a religious or civil official is required under United States civil law.

Marriage is vitally important in Judaism. Refraining from marriage is not considered holy, as it is in some other religions. On the contrary, it is considered unnatural. The Talmud says that an unmarried man is constantly thinking of sin. The Talmud tells of a rabbi who was introduced to a young unmarried rabbi. The older rabbi told the younger one not to come into his presence again until he was married.

Marriage is not solely, or even primarily, for the purpose of procreation. Traditional sources recognize that companionship, love and intimacy are the primary purposes of marriage, noting that woman was created in Gen. 2:18 because "it is not good for man to be alone," rather than because she was necessary for procreation.

 

[Grover_Cephas]

Marriage is vitally important in Judaism. Refraining from marriage is not considered holy, as it is in some other religions. On the contrary, it is considered unnatural.

How does that work with Nazarites (like Samson {like he was supposed to be, anyway}; I hope I'm using the right word)? They seem only to be mentioned in the rarest of circumstances, but don't they represent _some_ kind of reverence for self-denial on the part of ancient Jews?

 

[shaldag]

How does that work with Nazarites (like Samson {like he was supposed to be, anyway}; I hope I'm using the right word)? They seem only to be mentioned in the rarest of circumstances, but don't they represent _some_ kind of reverence for self-denial on the part of ancient Jews?

There is an entire section of the Talmud devoted to laws concerning Nazirites. Although it was considered a sacred thing to do, the Rabbis are very ambiguous concerning such practicies, as it required a withdrawl form the community at large. Usually, the amount of time spent as a Nazir (Hebrew term) was determined by one's vow to observe this life-style for a designated period. At the end of that period, it was required for the individual to bring a sin-offering. Thus, it was not an altogether good thing to do, and was largely discouraged.
Certainly procreation was required as a positive commandment-- so if one did not have children, the term of the vow could not be too long.

Regarding marriage---Although no rabbinical authority is required for marriage, they certainly are for divorce. this is the principal reason for rabbinical involvement in the marriage ceremony today--in Orthodox Judaism, at least. It must be certain that neither party is currently married by Jewish law- and if they previously were, divorce proceedings were properly done.

 

[Trout Tamer]

"How does that work with Nazarites... don't they represent _some_ kind of reverence for self-denial on the part of ancient Jews?"

Numbers 6, verses 1 - 21 speak about Nazirites. Verse 2 states, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man or woman wants to make a special vow, a vow of separation to the LORD as a Nazirite, he must..."

The idea behind being a Nazirite is to wholly dedicate oneself to God for a time. In some instances, such as Samson, God set someone apart for himself for that person's lifetime.

Numbers 6 states the specific regulations that a Nazirite must abide by. The restrictions are: "As long as he is a Nazirite, he must not eat anything that come from the grapevine, not even the seeds or skins." (v. 4) "During the entire period of his vow of separartion no razor may be used on his head... Throughout the period of his separation to the LORD he must not go near a dead body." (vs. 5a, 6)

I looked up the conditions that God set forth for Samson, and they are the same as those given in Numbers. No mention of abstaining from marriage or the proper sexual relations therein is given in either case; therefore, being a Nazirite and being wholly consecrated to God did not entail foregoing marriage.

In my opinion, we as people need marriage; in fact, we are made to need it. While some people are fine being single, those people are few and far between!