Is it really fair to call divorce decrees contracts? Contracts at their core are mutually beneficial agreements arrived at freely and without coercion. Unless the divorce terms were agreed to by the parties and the court's only role was to sign off on it they're not arrived at freely and they're sure as shit not mutually beneficial.
This isn't me agreeing with Imp about the veto btw. There very may well be ex post facto issues with the law, and DeSantis is a lawyer so he would have a good idea of whether it would hold up. If he thought it would be struck down it makes sense that he would veto it to save the state litigation costs. I just don't think the typical divorce can be fairly described as a contract.
I meant that marriage is a contract. If you contract a marriage under the understanding that you are entitled to X amount of alimony if you devote your life to the marriage rather than making money for some corporation, and politicians then unilaterally abrogated that, it does not seem fair to me.
I'm not changing my story, I just chose the most hard-hitting part.
It's a lie on multiple counts. It's not even cited as an argument. Only alimony is, and the fact that it is retroactively affected by this.
No, I'm sure there are a lot of irrelevant state senates that women don't care enough about.
The state senate of one of the largest states in the US is "irrelevant" and "women" don't care about it? Fascinating.
Can't find it. I know I've seen it. I even remember the name of the woman. Barbara DeVane. She spoke with DeSantis about the bill on behalf of the NOW.
You're sure it happened, but can't produce any receipts. I'll go with you getting things wrong again then.
Yes, retroactively modifying a contract is unconstitutional. It wasn't about joint custody either, I remember.
Why are you defending a bill that WOMEN in the Florida GOP caucus voted for? You are a TRAITOR.
Is it really fair to call divorce decrees contracts? Contracts at their core are mutually beneficial agreements arrived at freely and without coercion. Unless the divorce terms were agreed to by the parties and the court's only role was to sign off on it they're not arrived at freely and they're sure as shit not mutually beneficial.
This isn't me agreeing with Imp about the veto btw. There very may well be ex post facto issues with the law, and DeSantis is a lawyer so he would have a good idea of whether it would hold up. If he thought it would be struck down it makes sense that he would veto it to save the state litigation costs. I just don't think the typical divorce can be fairly described as a contract.
I meant that marriage is a contract. If you contract a marriage under the understanding that you are entitled to X amount of alimony if you devote your life to the marriage rather than making money for some corporation, and politicians then unilaterally abrogated that, it does not seem fair to me.
So you're already changing your story.
Why did women vote for it? You are a TRAITOR.
So DeSantis' Florida is the only place in Florida not "controlled by women"?
Feel free to produce the receipts for that one.
It's a lie on multiple counts. It's not even cited as an argument. Only alimony is, and the fact that it is retroactively affected by this.
The state senate of one of the largest states in the US is "irrelevant" and "women" don't care about it? Fascinating.
You're sure it happened, but can't produce any receipts. I'll go with you getting things wrong again then.