Is Alimony an Outdated Concept?

With the exception of a spouse (note that I didn't mention the gender) that has no skills and has been married for a significant amount of time (insert your own time frame), I believe the alimony concept is way outdated. It appears to be a throwback to the pre-Women's Lib movement and the working couple in today's society.

In an age when PC reigns supreme, and we are not supposed to judge a person based on sex or race, why do men automatically get stuck with paying alimony? Especially when the wife is working and has skills of her own, perhaps exceeding her husband's? Unless you answer, "it's payback time", it makes no sense to subject the male partner with a fee that he could potentially be paying the rest of his natural life. I believe in most states, the term for payment is until "the spouse remarries or dies".

Here's the scenario: Joe Sixpack and his wife Daisy get married when they are both twenty years old. He is a factory worker and she's a legal secretary. She also makes more than he does, not including bonuses, etc. After ten years of wedded hell, she sues him for divorce. There are no children. Joe is totally emasculated by the judicial system when the judge awards alimony to Daisy until "she remarries or dies". Joe, at age 30, will be paying for his failed marriage for quite a while. All Daisy has to do is not get married and live with her new hunk and collect the alimony plus her salary. Joe is screwed.

Besides the feminazi agenda in the legal system, there are also other considerations that don't seem to be taken into account.

For instance, a man in Clearwater, Florida, agreed to pay his ex-wife alimony in the amount of $1,250 a month. Seems like a chunk of change, but Lawrence Roach must have felt he was morally obligated to do so. Then the curve ball was thrown: his ex-wife, Julia, is now a man. Her new name is Julio as a result of a sex change operation. Now Lawrence says he shouldn't have to pay this man, Julio, as his divorce decree says he's supposed to pay his ex-wife -- not this new man. They are battling in court at the present time. The only legal precedent is the State of Ohio's Appeals Court 2005 ruling that " a Montgomery County man must continue to pay alimony to his transsexual ex-wife because her sex change wasn't reason enough to violate the agreement."

I really don't care about the sex of a person in divorce proceedings, and that's the crux of the matter. Each case should stand on its own merits, without a de facto belief that the male partner automatically gets stiffed. If the traditional wife or partner stayed with the husband while he ascended the corporate throne, supporting him along the way and bearing his children, then the ruling should be in favor of the wife. She has to start over again, has minimal skills and can't possibly maintain the same standard of living.

If I was married to a highly successful business executive who made twice my salary, then she should be paying me. But only if I have no skills. If I am gainfully employed and can exist on my own, no alimony should be assessed in this case. The only mitigating factors should be each partner's occupation, salary and whether there are children involved.

It's time to get rid of this antiquated law, particularly since the gender lines are getting blurrier by the year. Or at least approach it in a rational manner devoid of ideologies.