I agree....take an example of a young man, recently graduated with an engineering degree, his earning potential over the years is major attraction to the ladies...
So years later a marriage breaks up, and the court rules that property, be split 50, 50....my point is that there is no consideration of the effort that the man put into his education, ...he entered the marriage, with a valuable asset, his education.....now his departed spouse, capitalizes on his education, and moves on.
The same for women. This is not a feminist point of view, it is a realistic one. Many women have money or better jobs than the men when they marry. There are men who seek provisions for their lifestyles from their wives.
The problem is that when two people get married, the property isn't the husband's anymore, or the wife's. It belongs to them both. That's not contingent on staying married, it's contingent on the marriage ceremony.
As I have said, people who don't want to change the definition of marriage to accomodate same sex marriages seem pretty keen on changing the rules for financial reasons. Makes no sense. Getting married means the other party owns an undivided 1/2 of whatever you own (and you own and undivided 1/2 of what they own). Anybody not keen with that should just not get married, and buy lots of lotion and towels.
You two think that it is only the men who can be the wealthy person coming into a marriage? Or the only one who put so much into schooling that needed to be considered?
I am the one who went to a higher learning facility...I am the one who was capable of getting the higher paying job in my last marriage. My (ex) husband worked as a trailer park maintenance man...didn't even finish school or get his GED. You two sound very bigoted against women.