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.
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.