I’M HATIN’: Because “She Gon’ Leave With Half”... And May Not Deserve It

With Valentine’s Day right around the corner, I decided, that instead of following the masses and continuing with the incessant barrage of commercial expressions of love and spam promoting the latest, greatest gifts to get your boo (sidebar: when did we start spending Apple iPad money for Valentine’s Day? I mean, REALLY? Close to $1,000 to say, “I love you?” I guess love doesn’t know it’s a recession), I’d like to reflect on the anti-love campaigns that have been even more prevalent this year.

I have received, seen and heard more “Love is for Sucker’s”-type of sentiments and advertisements than ever before and wholeheartedly believe that this is now the new norm. With the national divorce rate at more than 45%, more than 50% of the entire female population unmarried and the marriage rate in a constant, steep decline, it’s no wonder people are starting to bank on the failure of love. It’s profitable... and, hell, love costs.

Speaking of love costing more than a “thang,” the recent celebrity dramas surrounded by whether or not, after a divorce, the not-so-famous spouse should get half of the riches, intrigues me.

Think Tiger Woods and ex-wife, Elin Nordegren, who walked away from Cheetah... I mean, Tiger, with a reported $750 Million. Or Michael and Juanita Jordan; she reportedly left their union with $168 Million and also got to keep the couple's seven acre estate in Chicago and custody of their 3 children. Even Kelsey Grammer and his soon to be ex-wife Camille are fighting over the $10 Million she demanded as settlement.

These women are setting the new standard for big divorce paydays, but with the price tag of break-ups soaring, I have to ask, how much is too much?

From the breed-winner perspective, I can see how shelling out millions of dollars to your ex is not ideal. Did your other half put in the long hours at the office? Were they shooting the baskets and winning the games, unbeknownst to you? Did your spouse experience every hi and low that was associated with your climb to fame? It’s hard to say.

But, I also see the homemaker’s side. Kids don’t raise themselves. Long hours, in one way or another, takes a toll on them too. No, he/she didn’t exactly make the shots or produce the films, but comforting you when things weren’t going right or selling first copies of your CD’s out of the trunk of their Toyota Tercell still constitutes as work.

Personally, I like to look at marriage like a business deal/transaction because that’s precisely what it is. Remove the love and religious implications and ultimately what you have is a contract between two individuals; one that states what both parties are allowed to do and not do. The way I see it, when the contract ends both individuals should split the assets acquired together, equally and leave the union with whatever they had separately, prior to marriage. In the case of either party breaking or not fulfilling the contract, i.e. infidelity, violence, deception, etc., than the party who committed the infraction is at fault and should be held liable. It’s like when you break your cell phone contract and are forced to pay a cancellation fee, maybe there should be a marriage cancellation fee, minimal not in millions.

I think lawyers and disgruntled exes have gone too far in demanding financial retribution. When we start petitioning for money to maintain or “upkeep lifestyle,” monthly child support that rivals the cost of brand new sports cars and alimony in excess, we move past ending things amicably and begin to show traits of greed and entitlement.

If we look at other countries around the globe, many cultures and societies still consider divorce taboo and rarely allow it. In Ghana, for example, if two people decide to divorce, it means that both the man and woman have failed and brought shame to their respective families. And in Bali, Indonesia, as many of us learned through the novel and movie Eat Pray Love, the woman has absolutely no rights in the divorce proceedings and receives nothing, not even the children, once the union is dissolved.

The solution to this issue of how much is too much, as I see it, falls within the creation of a simple formula to assess just how much one should be awarded in a divorce settlement.

Judges should take into consideration the following marital attributes, prior to rendering their decisions:

• Time- How long the couple was married? If anything less than 2 years, neither have a leg to stand on and each should take their own, individual bearings and go.
• Income- This includes, of course, annual household income, but also factors in what each individual makes and what they made prior to the marriage, including a measure to account for inflation. This would help in eliminating the “gold digger” complex.
• Children- How many were produced and a value of their general care.
• Reason for Divorce- This is where we factor in the terms of the marital contract that were broken, pinpointing the individual at fault, and finally,
• Future Selves- This is where we determine how well each party would live/survive without the other. If one half of the couple doesn’t work and has been out of a job for some time, consideration has to be given. And vice versa, if the divorcee is signing deals to be on the latest installment of Real Housewives of Bitter or Whatever County or already is on to the next boy/girl friend, then, obviously, their monetary settlement would decrease.

Now, I’m no mathematician, so figuring out the numerical/monetary values associated with the listed attributes and developing a Theorem of Love and Marriage is not my job, but ultimately you should arrive at a fair and decent number, in which both parties can live and be comfortable with.

Because if the roles were reversed and, let’s just say for sake of argument, your ex is now in the poor house, would we be so quick to demand half of his debt? Half of his repossessed car, truck or foreclosed home?

I don’t think so.