Am I a selfish git?

Speaking of weddings, what do you think of today’s decision in the Parlour case? The general principle established appears to be that post–divorce income is a matrimonial asset to be split in the same way as other matrimonial assets, to reflect the vital input of the other partner to the marriage. Well, if that is not another big disincentive to getting married, I don’t know what is. Without wishing to be unduly negative…

I mean, I know you shouldn’t get married if you don’t think it’s going to be forever, but it’s a fact that a lot of marriages don’t work out, for whatever reason. And now you’re telling me that on divorce, my spouse potentially gets to garnishee half my income, irrespective of her reasonable needs or those of any kids? Maybe I’ve got the wrong attitude here, but I baulk at conceptualising my present income, never mind future post–divorce income, as a “matrimonial asset”. It was me who took the decision to work my ass off in school, who went to university, went to law school, got a job in a decent law firm. It’s me who has to show up at work every day and sacrifice what I might otherwise want to do to the demands of a job that pays well and that will support me and my partner to a certain level. And while I’d be happy to continue to use my income to support a future wife as part of our family, I’d be pretty reluctant to enter into a contract that apparently declares my entire income, present and future, a joint matrimonial asset, even if my future wife decides to run off with the postman. Maybe I’m just not ready to get married yet.