🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Feb9.184231.12947@oakhill.sps.mot.com> amym@oakhill.sps.mot.com (Amy Moseley Rupp) writes:
>My $0.02....
>
>First, Texas (my state) does not have alimony; it DOES have community
>property.
>
>The basis for alimony, in terms of the marriage vows?  Well, in a
>marriage, both partners agree to care for each other for life.  Just
>because one partner breaks this promise does not relieve the other
>of breaking it.  This is strictly from a 'moral' perspective.

At least from a legal point of view I think a marriage is type of contract
and if one party breaks some (maybe not all) terms of that contract may
constitute grounds for dissolving the contract, in effect releasing the
other party from his/her obligations under the contract.

Are you trying to say that from a moral perspective, a party should be
bound to a contract even if the other party breaks it or does not adhere
to his/her obligations under the terms of that contract? If so can you
explain further?

To me the word 'moral' implies a sense of right and wrong. It seems clearly
wrong to me to hold one person to a contract that the other has seriously
broken so I can't possibly agree with this.

-kelvin