Pretty sure this exact link got redlighted yesterday, so I'll just go ahead and c/p my post from there:

I really hate this entitled rich people bullshiat. Can't live on a free 23 thousand a month handout? Go fark yourself, some people bust their asses at their jobs to make a tenth as much as that.

See gays! It aint all hospital rights and health care coverage! HAHAHAHA!!!

Hife is lard.

Judgement will ready, "Whatever, entitled bint. Get a job if you want more cash."

/it should....

Gays and lesbians can be entitled gold diggers just like straight people? I am shocked.

Welcome to Straight People Problems, gay people!

We hope you enjoy the ride.

Of course Tammy blogged about it (new window). For the TL;DR crowd, she was making a lot of money acting and Melissa asked her to give it up to be a stay-at-home mom and she made her money family money so she feels she's owed back for that.

Tammy? For someone who claims to be so smart? Rule number one: NEVER BE FINANCIALLY DEPENDENT ON ANYONE ELSE. If you really were making that kind of bank you should have kept it yourself in case the shiat hit the fan (and it did). You gave up your career by choice and it came back to bite you in the ass. That being said, as always in this situation the victims are the kids.

Reached for comment, Etheridge says she firmly believes that child support should be defined as "between one man and one woman".

GTFO and git a jerb.

Mikey1969: NeedlesslyCanadian: Pretty sure this exact link got redlighted yesterday, so I'll just go ahead and c/p my post from there:

I really hate this entitled rich people bullshiat. Can't live on a free 23 thousand a month handout? Go fark yourself, some people bust their asses at their jobs to make a tenth as much as that.

While I don't agree with it, the prevailing logic is that she is due the ability to live at the level she was when they were together. Another way to look at it is use the person whose financial value is in the news the most right now, Mitt Romney. If Mitt divorced his wife, and she had no investments in her own name, would it be fair to make her get a job at McDonald's and live in a 40-year old studio apt in the ghetto?

On the other hand, I think these people should just take what the settlement is and STFU when it's this much money... I think that's the part that bothers me, when people whine about how they can't live on a monthly stipend that is about a third of what my wife and I bring in all year, with 3 kids in the house.

The Mitt Romey example is a good one and the reason I think "martial property" states are much fairer than "communal property" states.

The laws in an MP state say that whatever you bring into the marriage, you leave with and whatever EITHER of you makes DURING the marriage is split, as opposed to a CP state where all assets are simply divided in half.

Thus under MP if Mitt splits with Anne she's gonna get about half of his vast wealth because she's been with him from the beggining and theorecticaly at least, helped him in some way acquire it. But then it Mittens takes his half and marries a 23-year old (magic) underwear model, she doesn't get half of what he has left after 18 months of marriage.

the ME case is interesting because, on the one hand if they WERE married the ex-GF would probably be entitled to what she's asking for, but of course, since they couldn't be married, they weren't and the GF has no legal claim to any of it. Of course, if a prominent Gay-rights adovcate were to stand on that technicality.....

Skarekrough: Marisyana: Of course Tammy blogged about it (new window). For the TL;DR crowd, she was making a lot of money acting and Melissa asked her to give it up to be a stay-at-home mom and she made her money family money so she feels she's owed back for that.

I rad the article. It was an interesting read. But it was also a good study in "Bad Decision-Making 101."

She had a career that was taking off which she chose to walk away from. That was her decision. She knew that. She knew that once she got out of it then getting back in was going to be tough.

That was her decision.

you could argue it was THEIR decision, and by making the request Etheridge was also making an implied promise ot care for this woman financially. Imagine a young married couple just out of college. Husband says to the wife "I just got accepted to this great law school, but there's no way we can afford it if you aren't working" so the wife takes a menial job to bring in income, and maybe even a second over time. Hubby graduates from school passes the bar and gets hired at some swanky firm that starts their associates at 150k a year with stock options and a company yacht. Hubby then says to wife "you've been great hon, but all that hard work has ruined your looks and besides I got a younger, prettier girl now who can suck the chrome off a merceedes hood ornament so, see ya!"

Did the wife just make a "bad choice" or, in your mind is she entitled to some portion of her husand's income given that she helped make it possible?