Comments on: No Right to Retire? http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/no-right-to-retire.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 11:44:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: David http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/no-right-to-retire.html/comment-page-1#comment-66220 David Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:30:57 +0000 http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=22028#comment-66220 Brett - So true! No married woman ever has the power to have her husband arrested just because he loses his job at the local factory. A divorced woman (with alimony) on the other hand does holds just that kind of governmental power of her ex. Thanks to the half-baked divorce law reforms of the 1970's, marriage has been legislated into a real scam. Avoid marriage at all cost. Brett – So true! No married woman ever has the power to have her husband arrested just because he loses his job at the local factory. A divorced woman (with alimony) on the other hand does holds just that kind of governmental power of her ex.

Thanks to the half-baked divorce law reforms of the 1970′s, marriage has been legislated into a real scam. Avoid marriage at all cost.

]]> By: Brett Bellmore http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/no-right-to-retire.html/comment-page-1#comment-66217 Brett Bellmore Thu, 12 Nov 2009 17:54:19 +0000 http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=22028#comment-66217 The obvious problem is that this gives a divorced spouse more control over the behavior of the other party to the former marraige <i>than they had while they were still married</i>. If the Pierces were still a married couple, is there any legal principle which would have permitted Mrs. Pierce to force Mr. Pierce to remain employeed? Not to my knowledge. The obvious problem is that this gives a divorced spouse more control over the behavior of the other party to the former marraige than they had while they were still married. If the Pierces were still a married couple, is there any legal principle which would have permitted Mrs. Pierce to force Mr. Pierce to remain employeed? Not to my knowledge.

]]>