Marriage is considered by many to be a sacred and holy matrimony, where sworn vows bind the two participating individuals. Many have defined marriage on religious basis and according to them, it is very inappropriate and impossible to severe this holy union that makes the individuals into spouses. However, there are those too who believe that it is just the pairing of two love birds and in the event any one of the two feels uncomfortable or worse still, feels neglected or has any other excuse that has legal providence, then they can file for a divorce to terminate the union. Divorce cases are addressed in a court of law.
If the case succeeds, then the judge proceeds to grant either of the two (in most cases, it is the woman), a workable solution to their accumulated wealth, to cater for financial needs. If the woman or the couple in the duration they were together were blessed with children, the responsibility of their upbringing is left entirely to the man. All the wealth accumulated by either of the two (mostly the man), is split into equal shares in a fashion that has come to be known widely as the fifty-fifty share policy. This essay therefore seeks to highlight, how unfair divorce cases are to men as opposed to women.
Weaknesses in the Argument
It is very disturbing to know that there are people out there who are in every way, supportive of this type of ruling. It is not surprising therefore that if a research was to be done on the supporters of this ruling, women will emerge with the highest percentage. Many of those that are against this ruling and provision argue that this particular law has resulted in the institution of marriage being violated and degraded by greedy and worldly individuals. In particular, the church clergy have condemned its very existence by taking a strong stand against all elements of divorce.
The argument thus has no moral basis as individuals enter into marriage unions only for the sake of the money which either of the two partners possesses. Questions are arising as to the ˜extent divorce affects the children in those particular families˜ (Hughes, 2009). According to religious provisions, marriage is supposed to be a life long union, which can only be terminated following the death of one of the partners.
Another weakness which is very sensitive even to the safety of the woman in the divorce case is the issue of equality. How can one in his right senses, give enormous responsibilities to one party and completely overlook the other? This to many and especially the men folk is the height of unfairness in divorce cases. For example we will analyze a simple divorce case. The woman files a divorce case against the man on grounds that she is being sexually neglected. The judge in his right state of mind ascertains through the evidence provided, that it is very true.
Hoe grants the woman a divorce but in the settlement, grants fifty percent share of the man’s estate to the woman too. Let me be very clear the woman was a house wife and did not at any time, take part in the accumulation of the man’s estate but after the divorce, she ends up pocketing fifty percent of that particular estate. As if this is not enough, the man is supposed to provide money on a monthly basis that will cater for his child’s upbringing. Surely this is such an overstatement of the term equality don’t you think?
If at all it is al, about equality and fairness in the dividing of tie estate, then it must account for certain known factors. For instance, if the woman was a house wife and did not in any way take a job, the there is no income on her part so she cannot get fifty-fifty on that basis. The case of the child too is very aggravating because the two partners partook in its creation. Why then should one of the partners suffer the pain of catering for it individually while the other partner is exempted? This only goes to show that there is no equality in the division of wealth in divorce cases. The woman always stands to gain and that is why they are the most troublesome and the first to call a marriage off.
The problem with this particular law is that it has the capacity of completely diminishing the man thereby forcing him into illegal activities such as drug abuse and trafficking. This is in light of the fact that the man has been reduced to nothing as every thing he ever worked for has been taken. This means that he has to start all over again from almost nothing. It is therefore very possible for one as a man finding himself in this kind of situation, to rethink the worthiness of living at all. It is a no wonder that cases of suicide are always on the increase and no remedy to this problem has yet been devised. If this is to be addressed, the issue of equality in divorce settlements should be thoroughly looked into.