These lawsuits date back to a time when women were considered property. A husband who suddenly has this damaged good could sue said demolisher of innocence for big bucks... well maybe back then a woman was worth more like a horse or a crop of maze. The way these cases are now won is by the plantiff proving that their spouse's affection (the means love) was stolen by the defendent.
Now it's not exactly a hobby of mine to pour over scientific journal after journal, but I'm pretty confident (let's say 98.99999997% sure) that love has yet to be defined as a tangible object. Heck if this type of thing will hold up, the next person to give me a dirty look or throw an unkind word my way will be slapped with a lawsuit for stealing my happiness. I'll finally be able to afford an island off the coast of Thailand and turn it into my own communist/hippie paradise that I share with pot farmers (Mom that's a movie reference to The Beach with Leonardo DiCaprio, I'm not really a stoner... or a Commie).
Now the thing that really gets my mental panties in a twist is the fact that the Supreme Court actually upholds these rulings. In one case a strapping young groom at the bright age of 45 was awarded 2.4 million dollars because some dentist seduced the bride with his friction grip drill.
A marital contract is between two people. I've been to some strange weddings but in none of them did the overseeing ordainer ever throw in a subliminal clause about a third party being included in the fault should said union fail. When looked at on a grander spectrum, what gives the government the right to control a contract made in religious ceremony? Does this mean that all those rabbis, priests, and online certified hobos need to start rewording their speeches to include more binding terms?
I've been following one ridiculous case in particular. Shackelford vs. Lundquist. This case pits an ex-lawyers wife against a dean of students. 60 year old Shackelford (who doesn't look a day over forty thanks to her weave and botox injections) plays the pity card by explaining to the jury how after Miss Lundquist seduced her husband into paying for hotel room and expensive dinner after another, the couple ended with divorce. She sobs about how she had to get a job at a retail store which barely supports her cocker spaniel and her.
I just want to offer a couple tips to Mrs. Shackelford; 1) Maybe you should think about down-grading from your 8 bedroom $3.5 million dollar home and investing time in what us middle class people call 'a budget' 2) sue your weasel of an ex-husband for not paying the $5000/month alimony payments he's been withholding instead of shelling out over ten grand in legal fees to sue some woman who never agreed to support you 'in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, til death you both shall part.'
(This lil' fella's so pissed he ate his own arm)
The jury in this case must have had more bitter, jilted lovers than any episode of Jerry Springer because they found favor with Mrs. Shackelford... a lot of favor... $9,000,000.00 worth of favor to be precise. Jurors I blame you and the republicans for why half the free nation despises our country. And Mrs. Shackelford (along with all other plantiffs in this type of case), I lump you in the same category as that buffalo of a woman who slipped in her own coffee spill and sued McDonalds for millions. Way to lay blame for your problems on everyone but yourself. Congratulations you are officially an American.
America does this sort of fiscal lawsuit really help anyone? Sure at the end of the day the jilted spouse may have a tad thicker lining to their pockets, but the love is still gone and now everyone knows it because all the dirty drawers got hung out on the judicial scales to dry for all to gawk and gander.
Next time you involve youself in this kind of situation Mrs. Shackelford, I suggest growing some theoretical balls and taking a page out of Lorena Bobbitt's book. Now that's how you teach someone a lesson.
No comments:
Post a Comment