In my experiences here in TX, women get awarded much LESS than 50%. If she is abused and leaves the house, the court awards the house to the husband because she abandoned the house... the 50% divides the assests since the marriage began. It has nothing to do with the children.
TX is probably a fairer state to men, than let's say the Northeast or West Coast. TX is probably more libertarian than most states, whose laws are repressive and suffocating.
Regarding the children... If she is the primary caretaker of the children, and she earns less than the father (which is usually the case) she most certainly SHOULD get child support from the father. She should not have to support their children alone. It is his moral duty to support his children. It is not an option for him to choose.
Many times, she's the primary caretaker because she STOLE the children from the husband when she destroyed the marriage by leaving. Again, you falsely and rashly assume the man is going to leave them destitute. Deep down, you don't trust men.
It IS the courts business only because there are so many men who don't fulfill their moral obligation to their children. It is the result of a godless society.
Again, back to reminding everyone of the "moral obligation" of the man to support his family, while the "moral obligation" of the woman to obey her husband and not kill the marriage and steal the children is pushed to the background. "I'm sure she had a good reason to leave." "He wasn't a good husband, so she had to leave to give a better life to her children."
You act as though the child support from the husband is more than enough to pay for everything for his children with some left over for the mother to spend how she chooses.
Your above comments are MISSING THE POINT. This whole debate covers many topics, but a large one in my mind is politics. The encroachment of the state, the growing big brother state/federal govts, the freemasonic influence in our lives - all of this is a political problem. I look at all of this through a libertarian viewpoint. The state has no business being involved, and even if they did (in the case of violence), their involvement should be minimized, purely from a politics standpoint. I want as limited govt as possible, everywhere, in all aspects of life.
Secondly, of course child support isn't enough from 1 person. No one ever said it was. If the woman left for non-church-approved reasons, her life should be rough. She should feel the pain of her sin and violation of her vows and the mockery she made of her promise before God. ...But the topic all of you feminist-supporters concentrate on, is what the husband owes the wife so that she can steal the children, raise them on her own and be satisfied with her decision.
I've said this at least 10x already, but i'll say it again - if a wife were to leave for church approved reasons, the husband owes whatever the courts say. If she leaves for non-church-approved reasons, she should get ADEQUATE help from her husband (as he decides, just as he decided before the divorce), and the courts should be involved minimally, because SHE INITITATED THIS CRISIS. Therefore, she should feel SOME consequences for her actions in this life, even though most of her consequences will be felt in eternity.
If the husband decides to give most of his $ to her and his children, then he can. BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE OBLIGATED BY THE COURTS, because THE HUSBAND IS THE PARTY WHO WAS INJURED. Most of you have failed to admit this, even though both real-life examples from Ladislaus showed clearly that the wife's leaving of the marriage was her fault and for selfish reasons only.
It's sad so many of you hate and distrust men. The media and hollywood have brainwashed you for sure. You should pray for God to remove your deep mistrust.
Poll
