Here We Go With The 14Th Amendment Again

Four gentlemen have decided to sue the state of Connecticut based on their belief that an order to pay alimony is unconstitutional and violates the 14th amendment of the United States Constitution. Below are some highlights from their suit and my responses to each. "Connecticut's alimony scheme is unconstitutionally vague, giving no notice to citizens contemplating marriage or divorce what fate may befall them in a divorce proceeding. The Legislature, by failing among other things even to identify the purpose or aim or alimony, has delegated basic policy decisions to the judiciary without any meaningful guidance." If you marry without first educating yourself what might "befall" you in case of a divorce, you should not be getting married. Seriously, alimony is old news and I for one will never be convinced that these gentlemen married with no awareness of how they would be held responsible should they decide to leave the marriage. They claim Connecticut has no statute to guide judges in ordering spousal support, so the courts are not required to "calculate alimony with mathematical prevision." It does though; Connecticut law specifically says that the "cause" of the divorce will be taken into consideration when awarding alimony. If they are upset with the court for "punishing" a spouse it feels is at fault they should not have chosen behaviors that would cause the court to view them as, "at fault." That is a better course to take than trying to change state law just because they don't want to pay for bad behavior that led to a divorce. And, in Connecticut alimony is historically awarded in less than 20% of divorces. So, these gentlemen aren't speaking for the majority. Just the few who have made choices that didn't reflect positively on them in Family Court. "It is impossible for any married person in Connecticut to know, even within a reasonable range, what financial penalties will be imposed upon him in a divorce judgment." This isn't necessarily true. If you are wealthy and leave your spouse for a younger model you are going to pay quite a bit of alimony. If you are not wealthy and leave your spouse for a younger model you will pay a little bit of alimony. I will say this, if a spouse has a chart outlining exactly what they would pay in alimony should they leave their wife/husband they could make a more informed decisions. Like, is the other woman/other man worth it or not? "In no area of law other than family relations does Connecticut give a civil litigant the ability to use penal remedies to enforce a money judgment." If the argument is that a civil court should not have the authority to use penal remedies to enforce a money judgment I'm all for moving it to a criminal court. After all, in my opinion it is criminal to refuse to follow a legal order regardless of whether it is a civil or criminal order. I've known quite a few men and women who would have responded more positively to a Family Court order if they had known they would end up in criminal court for not following it. "Alimony schemes like Connecticut's have had the opposite effect of discouraging citizens from marrying at all, whether or not they are in a committed relationship and whether or not they are raising children. The rate of births to women who are not married has increased dramatically, while the percentage of the population that is presently married or has ever been married has decreased significantly." Is Connecticut supposed to care whether someone chooses to marry or not? How does using this argument relate or uphold to their desire to not pay spousal support or the unconstitutional injustice of it? I'm not sure how the 14th amendment plays a role in whether alimony is a violation of their constitutional rights. And if it does wouldn't a stay-at-home wife of 25 or 30 years who is financially dependent on her husband be able to use the same argument? Should she be deprived of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law" just because her husband decides she no longer fits into his agenda? These gentlemen are forgetting an important aspect of the 14th amendment, their ex-wives have a right to equal protection of the law also.