Church rejects divorce reform

| 31/07/2013

(CNS): The Cayman Ministers Association has filed its objections to the Law Reform Commission’s plans to modernize the divorce process, making it less complex and acrimonious and more fair, and removing a requirement of blame for the breakdown of marriages. The law reformers are currently in the second part of a review of three bills relating to family law and have revealed that the church association and just one local law firm have pressed to retain the concept of fault or blame in a divorce, as they say removing it will increase the divorce rate. However, the reformers have pointed to the need to modernize and remove unnecessary pain from an already difficult time.

“One of the principle aims of the modern divorce legislation is to ensure that when a marriage has broken down and parties have no intention of trying to fix such marriage, the process of dissolving the matrimonial partnership should be as free of acrimony as possible,” the  law reformers note in the discussion paper.

While acknowledging that that can depend on personalities and circumstance, they point to the need for legislation to make a difficult time less painful, which means moving away from fault based divorce.

The commission said that the Law Society and the Cayman Bar Association, as well as most other groups and stakeholders, were in support of the reform and just one local law firm and the ministers association were unsupportive. They claimed that in States across America the adoption of no fault divorce has escalated rates, leaving families vulnerable.

The law reformers said that they had hoped for more input and they are circulating the paper and bills in the hope of getting a wider contribution, as they seek to find a balance between removing the barriers when a marriage is over to prevent increasing bitterness and not having divorce become an easy way of dealing with marital discord. The reformers also ask whether the court and lawyers continue to be the best inquisitors and representatives when it comes to personal relationships.

The reformers are also seeking input from the wider public about wider matrimonial and family law. As well as finding ways to make the divorce process less complex, the bills, being circulated for consultation would introduce the concept of one ground divorce, such as irretrievable breakdown of the marriage after 12 months of separation, abolition of actions and damages for adultery, gender equality in maintenance proceedings, and the creation of common or de facto relationships in terms of property for unmarried couples together five years or more.

The proposed laws call for mediation in family proceedings and the recognition of pre-nuptial agreements, among other possible reforms.

Along with the discussion paper, three draft bills — a Matrimonial Clauses Bill, 2013, a Maintenance Bill, 2013 and a Family Property (Rights of Spouses) Bill, 2013 — are being circulated for input. The bills were prepared based on the comments received during the 2011 consultation on family law reform, other submissions to the commission and the recommendations in the 2012 report relating to the islands’ legislative compliance with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Members of the public are invited to submit their comments on the bills and the discussion paper. Submissions should be made no later than 11 November and should be posted to the Director, Law Reform Commission, PO Box 1999 KY1-1104, delivered by hand to the officesof the commission at 1st floor DMS House, Genesis Close, or sent by e-mail to Cheryl.Neblett@gov.ky

See discussion paper and the three bills below.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Local News

Comments (131)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    Most people need to understand that there are two aspects to divorce proceedings.

    Firstly, there is the divorce itself, that is the termination of the "marriage contract". Then there is the "ancillaries" aspect of the divorce where the court determines the ancillary matters such as division of matrimonial property and custody, care and control of any children of the marriage.

    The first aspect only requires the judge to determine whether the marriage has broken down "irretrievably" and then the court will make a finding that the marriage is over and move to settle the ancillaries. The problem with the law is that it requires someone petitioning for divorce to establish 1 of 5 very specific and onerous grounds. Incredibly, the law currently prohibits collusion or agreement between the parties to obtain a divorce. This is obviously problematic. If two competent adults can decide to get married, they should be allowed to decide to divorce.

    Ancillaries used to be determined on a "fault basis" that is to say, the party "at fault" used to be punished by the court by awarding them less than an equitable division of property and sometimes their behavior would adversely affect their entitlement to shared custody or even access to the children. Because of this, many nasty, protracted contested divorces have been fought in the past, all the way up to the highest appellate court, and when the matter was finally determined, everyone, except the lawyers, suffered massive loss.

    Fortunately, we have moved away from that concept, although some lawyers (including a certain dissenter to this bill) seem to have not gotten that memo yet. Even judges sometimes seem confused about this. However,common sense alone dictates that property should be divided based on equitable principles and the children's welfare is what is of paramount importance, so we should not continue to try to destroy a man or a woman simply because they have decided that they are no longer interested in spending their lives with their spouse.

    I'm sick of hearing people quote archaic biblical principle in defending their position, the Bible documents very well that  "God's chosen people" were instructed by him to, among other atrocities, commit mass genocide and to destroy anyone who opposed them in doing so, so God help us (pardon the pun) if we follow the Bible blindly.

    However, quite amazingly, what seems to be the controvesial part of this bill is the proposed amendments that simply seek to reduce or eliminate the acrimony from the first aspect of the divorce proceedings. This cannot be a bad thing. It is bad enough to have to put your children through a divorce, but I can tell you that it is a horrible and unconscionable thing to put them through an acrimonious divorce. I'm speaking from both personal and professional experience. It is only an idiot that think that it makes sense to contest a divorce. Marriage, no matter whether you're Christian or not, requires one fundamental thing towork – two willing parties. Just like any contract, if one party decides that it cannot work, the best thing is to try to settle and move on rather than litigate, because only the lawyers benefit then. I am one, so I know what I'm talking about.

    Aside from all of that, it is simply idiotic to think that there is any use in requiring competent adults in a modern society to be punished simply because they wish to exercise their right to chose who to live with, or rather who not to live with. Because if we were to take that rationale to its logical conclusion, we would end up with something akin to a Taliban-run society.

    In my view, if we cannot continue to advance our legislation so as to recognize and keep in step with what is required of a free democratic society, we will all lose, as the failure to advance is the same as moving backwards. 

  2. Anonymous says:

    There should be stronger rules, or indeed kept as they are, certainly when children are involved.

    The staggering numbers of adulterers on this Island is awful, and worse still becomming involved in extra marital affairs when you are a wed parent, or equally awful when you are fooling around with a marriage involving children, and casuing the children incredible heart-ache – should be so ashamed of themselves!

    Why not have heavy fines and the removal from the Island for the harlets and players that get involved with peoples marriages that are none of their business – whats wrong with public flogging for these people before they are thrown out?

    Marriage is a moral obligation, and I for one would vote for anything that strengthens that union and I do not agree with these new proposed rules.

    • Anonymous says:

      Are we going to remove the "harlets and players that get involved with peoples marriages" that are native born Caymanians?  If so where are we going to send them?

    • Anonymous says:

      Agree.  Adultery should be a criminal offence (like it is in some countries…and they are not backward countries in any sense), or at least punishable, more so when children are involved in the said marriage who are old enough to understand what is going on, which has psychological effects on them.

      Majority of the Cayman people are god fearing and have strong family values.  There are more churches here per capita than there are in most other countries.  Everything is closed on Sunday here, so that people can go to the church and spend the day with their family. When making amendments to laws, the religiousness of the islands should be kept in mind.  And if the adulterous spouse is seeking divorce, he/should instead be punished rather than being granted divorce, to deter others from doing the same.

      The amendments proposed seem to be more in favour of the expat population, most of whom are not church goers.

       

  3. Libertarian says:

    I think the Courts should only get involved in people's personal lives in cases of matrimonial property, assets, domestic abuse, and children. The Courts should be able to postpone a divorce until settlements are made regarding the property, assets, abuse, and the children. If it takes more than two years lets say, then so be it!  You got yourself intwined with somebody's life, and to get yourself untangled is not a matter of months situation. You are responsible for who you conjoin yourself with during the years of your marraige. There is no such thing as a quick fix. No one should be able to divorce someone and take what they can like matrimonial property, land, children without an unbiased Judge weighing the matters on a fair and balanced scale. The Courts and long delayed processes are necessary for the cause of justice.

    • Anonymous says:

      Not very libertarian of Libertarian to fetter individual's property rights with the concept of joint property in a marriage.

  4. Anonymous says:

    I understand that it suits the Churches to try to keep everyone in the dark ages, as that was when the Church flourished and the advancement of civilization floundered and stagnated for centuries, whilst millions were murdered in the name of God.

    However, I find it hard to comprehend how a law firm could object to legislative advancement, especially one that will have an obvious benefit to society in general. Could it be that a significant part of this firm's income is derived from the acrimonious and consequently protracted matrimonial proceedings that we have now?? For those of you who are not already involved in the legal profession (who would already know the answer to this question), perhaps you can visit the Legal and Judicial website and scan through the Grand Court lists that are posted on there. I think that exercise would be very revealing.

  5. Anonymous says:

    And what about those of us who did not get married in church and who instead chose to have a civil ceremony overseen by a registrar?  What right have ministers got to determine whether and when we should be allowed to divorce?

    • Anonymous says:

      None. The CMA does not recognize these so called civil unions as legitimate marriages so divorce in this case is not of any concern to the CMA (they are concerned about any children that might be negatively impacted). While they are working to bring everyone into the church they understand that there is very little that they can do for the heathens.

    • Anonymous says:

      The ministers are not "determining" anything. They are giving their views as interested stakeholders as they are entitled to do. 

  6. Anonymous says:

    People should take note that living together for five years means that on separation all property, including the common residence may be split evenly by the courts. Basically, this is imposing marriage property division on all relationships.

    • Anonymous says:

      This also needs to change. The sign on the door needs to state…. " Enter at your own risk!".

  7. Gandalf says:

    Five Year Cohabitation is same as Marriage!

    After five years of living together, all property including the family home is to be split evenly.

    No-one has raised this issue, but this is a huge change from the status quo, and very different to the law in the UK. This basically means that by living with a person for five years, one suddenly has all the obligations of a married couple when separating. In other words, the "family home" is split, and all other property as well. This is going to affect a lot of people, and seems ridiculous.

     

    • Anonymous says:

      I know one damn thing, living with someone without a marriage commitment does not and will not mean I will hand over half of everything i accomplished through hard work – unna mussa crazy !! looks like I might have to put her out soon, she can rent next door and drop in when I say she can – lol !!

  8. Anonymous says:

    Churches like marriage and dislike divorce.

     

    Why? The answer is easy.

     

    Marriage makes money for churches while divorce does not.

    • Anonymous says:

      How do marriages make money for churches? Pray tell.

    • Anonymous says:

      I paid nothing to my church to get married there; I also received free pre marital counseling.

      Law firms have no problem with an easier divorce process, why? Divorce proceedings earn them a lot of money!

       

      • Anonymous says:

        You r 2nd sentence is not logical. The more protracted and complex the proceedings the more lawyers will earn.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hmmmm, if the ministers were smart then they would moonlight as lawyers and double end the deals. Good business, what?

    • Anonymous says:

      A lot of people turn to the church after a divorce.

  9. Anonymous says:

    If the Ministers did their pastoral job before someone decides to marry and during a marriage then their congregation would be less keen to divorce regardless of the law.  What the Ministers are really saying is that they are not very good at their job and need the law to force people to stay together.  If people are not in their congregation it is absolutely none of the Ministers' businessn – they are the leaders of a voluntary social club with odd rules and traditions, just like the Masons.

  10. Anonymous says:

    The people that don't want the church to be involved with divorce should not get married in a church or before the eyes of God.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Anyone who has had any experience with the sole dissenting law firm in a divorce matter will understand why they don't want simple straightforward and non acrimonious divorces. It simply doesn't fit their business model of aggravating what is an already painful experience for all parties (and any children of the marriage) just for the sake of enhancing their fees.

     

  12. Anonymous says:

    once upon a time many years ago i got married and the marriage broke down in a few weeks, there should be law for annulment.  i had to go through the blame thing, lawyers overcharging me for unneccessary time spent, what should have been an annulment after 6 weeks of marriage ended up being a very painful 10 month lengthy expensive divorce of the blame game thing, it was horrific!  we need annulment to be legal here.  simple.  

     

    • Anonymous says:

      Damn, I had a new car once, also broke down after 5 weeks. Church didn't help then either.

    • Genius says:

      What made you think it was a wise idea to marry this person to begin with? Don't blame lawyers for the fees you suffered, there is something called dating, a period of time when you get to know your partner before deciding to get married. If marriage is a life time commitment, how did you not see a short future between you and your spouse? Honestly? Honestly 6 weeks dude? Thats pitiful… YOU my friend are a perfect example of what the church SHOULD be involved in, premarital counseling, to weed out doomed couples and to stop them from making stupid decisions like you made.

  13. Anonymous says:

    If pastors and churches would be true ambassadors of Christ instead of judging others(even Jesus has yet to judge us) and help those in need then they would be too busy doing the work of the Lord to make unnecessary comments to interfere with legislation.  My opinion is that if a woman shows signs of abuse the divorce should be given immediately-at not charge.  In cases of no abuse that two adults decide they no longer want to be married then they should simply present themselves to have the marriage dissolved.  Churches and other holier than though people 'counsel' individuals who NEED to get a divorce to stay married through adultery, addictions and other hellish conditions.  Divorce should be taken on a case by case bases and take no longer than a week-for the good of all involved. People should not be subjected to months on end of wasted time and suffering and health risks -in the case of adultery simply by an antiquated law.  Why can't Cayman be cutting edge for once? Quick divorces!  We could have divorce tourism!   By the way Pastors and religious zealots-Jesus came to give us life and life more abundantly, and whom the SON sets free is free indeed!  In my opinion he was all for divorce if it sets the suffering free and gives them a better life.  Read your bibles!

    • Anonymous says:

      Divorce should not be made easy for anyone involved in adultery.  They may purposely be using this means to get divorce. 

      Again as said above, it should be judged on a case by case basis and if necessary, where one of the parties wants to work out the marriage, there should be laws in place to support that as well.

      • Anonymous says:

        21.15 have to disagree, it is the other way around, adultery should be made easier for those that wish to divorce. It all about which end of the pipe or tunnel you are looking down….

      • Cheese Face says:

        So what about the innocent party? They should be made to suffer whilst the other party is out banging half of their church congregation?

        Good thinkin buddy.

      • Anonymous says:

        So the one that hasn't committed adultery in the relationship has to suffer, cos the one that has committed the adultery doesn't care anyway!

    • Anonymous says:

      What section of the bible are you talking about at the end of your comment? Also, what part of the "antiquated law" is responsible for the "health risks" that you mention in your comment?

    • Yeshua says:

      Actually, if YOU read your bible: Mark 10:2-12… But in the Q'uran God says it is better for one to be married and divorced than to have sex outside of marriage. So if Cayman persists on keeping religious instituions within marriage, maybe it is time the have a more open religious insight to calm  these clerical woes

      • Anonymous says:

        Who cares what Allah says in the Qu'ran. You are in Cayman, not Saudi Arabia. 

        • Anonymous says:

          and you are just as ignorant as these ministers if you are convinced that Cayman should be any one religion. Not to mention ignorant enough to assume a universal God picks and chooses what he wants you to follow depending on the country you reside in. Im a caymanian but with the ignorance leaking from internet warriors these days i am almost ashamed to be associated with you fools

          • Anonymous says:

            lol. The irony is that your post as revealed you as a fool. The point, dimwit, has nothing to do with what a universal god picks and chooses. It has to do with Islam being the majority and official religion and the norm in Saudi Arabia but it is not in Cayman. We have no interest in what Islam has to say on any subject.   

      • Anonymous says:

        Don't twist it:

        The Holy Bible also says it is better for someone to live alone, …but, it says that if one desires a companion, it is better for one to be married  than to have sex outside of marriage.

        Good advice, that (if combined with common sense when choosing a spouse) would prevent the unbridled rate of divorce and fatherless children.

        Guess how many kids here have birth certificates with NO FATHER listed in the space for a name.

      • Anonymous says:

        You are treading on thin ice if you are trying to make favourable statements for the Qu'ran by comparing it to the Bible. The historical context of Jesus's words were that in that era in Judaism a man could just decide to divorce his wife (.e.g because she had nor borne him any children, or he had found a prettier girl) and leave her destitute sometimes having to turn to prostitution to survive. Jesus's teaching therefore had the effect of elevating the status and treatment of women. So you can understand why Islam's teaching about divorce would differ.        

    • Anonymous says:

      Wow! What a fabulous reputation to have – quickie divorces! No doubt with quickie marriages to match. smh.  

  14. Anonymous says:

    I am not the poster to whom you have replied. Nevertheless, I would choose 'Google' over 'God' any day. Silly mystical beliefs always contradicting sound logic. Oh, it shouldn't be necessary to say that I am a born Caymanian. 

  15. Anonymous says:

    This reform will be bad news for lawyers who bill by the hour and stand to make more money the greater the acrimony.. Some might say, as soon as the lawyers come aboard, there is then no chance of a simple parting of ways or of reasonable dialogue.  And yes, some lawyers are more likely to whine loudly on this than others.

    And hey, how do you think we get such great movies made about real life situations?  The lawyers and church folk who hear all the dirt in confidence and confession, can pass on the situations (without names of course) and maybe even make some more money. 

    But truth be told, some lawyers and pastors no doubt get off hearing all the dirt.  Take than away, well where's the fun in that?

    CNS: Only one law firm objected to making divorce in the Cayman Islands less acrimonious. It's in the article.

    • Anonymous says:

      Thanks for pointing that out, CNS. The ignorance of some people is astounding. Does this clown understand that the Law Reform Commission is comprised of lawyers?   

    • Anonymous says:

      Remember it is only in the discussion stage yet.  The end product might be totally different.

    • Anonymous says:

      This is more in reply to CNS commend below.

      I would never expect a law firm to complain.

      If this new law makes it easier to get a divorce then it sounds as if you might have much more of them. Means more money for the lawyers as I see it.

  16. Slowpoke says:

    The good news is, that Gay people still won't be able to get divorced.

    • SSM345 says:

      And husbands and wives now won't have to explain to the courts etc that it was a gay relationship that led to the divorce!

  17. Anonymous says:

    Why doesn’t the Ministers Association keep their nose out of matters which is for the people of the Cayman Islands to decide and get back to their day job of misleading the believers.

  18. Rrp says:

    Why does it take 10 minutes to get married but years to divorce?  Don't get it. Anyone with an answer pls help me out.

    • Anonymous says:

      You didn't take that important decision in 10 minutes.  It might have taken you years, even more time than it takes to divorce, to make the decision to get married to the person you did.

    • Anonymous says:

      The answer to your question….the  greed for money.

  19. Rrp says:

    While the churches are all pi**ed off let's open Sunday trading and make gambling legal.  Let's not upset them 3 times this year! Oh yeah let's legalize ganja too.

  20. Anonymous says:

    As per the discussion paper, the easy divorce is only for the couples that are both willing to divorce, sort of mutual consent.  But when one spouse is not ready to divorce and seeks a chance at working out the marriage, then there should be no easy route to divorce.  And in that case, the reconciliation efforts should be made mandatory and counselling ordered by the court.  Quite often, one spouse has lustful attraction to someone else and hence wishes to end the marriage to the partner who he/she doesn't find attractive anymore. Divorce should not be a piece of cake in such cases.

    • Anonymous says:

      12;42

       

      You left out the greed for one's possessions

    • Anonymous says:

      So let me get this staight…you want both of these people to be unhappy…this is how murders happen.  If someone no longer wants to be with the other forcing them isnt going to solve anything.  Then the children get to listen and see the hatred in thier parents eyes …you have a very healthy idea…NOT.

      • Anonymous says:

        Have you studied the murder figures in Cayman?  How many murders happened because a person could not get divorce?  Probably none!!  

  21. Knot S Smart says:

    The churches are not allowed to have an opinion on this – until all of them repent and return all of the tax payers money that was dispensed to them by Mac…

  22. Anonymous says:

    I got a divorce in 2002.  The first question from my attorney was "When did the beatings begin?" when I replied in shock that there had been no physical abuse and that the divorce was based on the fact I did not love my husband anymore he replied that a divorce was going to be difficult.  Our first petition was ineed rejected by the courts and I had to put in an affidavit, basically blaming my ex-husband for all the wrong in our marrige, stating he was cold & loveless.  It was terribly hurtful and not a true representation at all to why our marriage ended- which had actually been my fault.  I was not able to take ownership for our breakdown at all, as I was told the petition would best come from me and had to be sided with my argument.  Our petition was eventually granted, but the process i found very sexist (for both sexes!), archaic and completely inefficient.  

     

    • Anonymous says:

      And did you ended up staying with that man  you left your  husband for?? or you went chasing more tails??

      Not everyone is married material. These type should never get married in the first place. Marriage is a moral obligation. Should one lacken that,  then dont start a marriage, just for gain and conviences.

      • Anonymous says:

        05.15…don't try writing too early in the morning…it just comes out as bad tempered judgements..however in your defense I can be a real bitch at that time of the morning.

    • Anonymous says:

      I wish I could "unlike" your comment ten thousand times!  You should never have gotten married!! You obviously did not take your vows seriously. 

  23. Anonymous says:

    The Cayman Ministers Association may live in the past, but politicians who are responsible for the present should not allow the Ministers myopic viewpoint to deter them from what is right. If ever there was a law that needed updating, this is it, so MLA's, act according to YOUR conscience, not the Ministers!

  24. Anonymous says:

    Yes, Cayman should impose Biblical standards and ethics on the institution of marriage. Let’s start with those sound, traditional guidelines found on the Bible for selling our daughters as property and beating disobedient wives. And, of course, we’ll have to kill a few adulterous wives.

    Only two kinds of people cite the Bible as a framework for a just and decent society: Mean people who like the idea of bullying others, and those who never read it but pretend to know what’s in it.

    The Bible is a horrible book that displays the worst of humanity. If you don’t believe me, read it.

  25. Libertarian says:

    Just curious. Are these ministers and/or priest married?  Dothey know what it is like to have a divorce?  If not, how in the world can they make decisions for the public good?  They should be silent.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Who the hell cares what the Ministers Association has to say about any piece of legislation. This is why we need to have full separation of church and state. If you want to believe in your fantasies and fairy tales that is fine but your believe system shouldn't have any effect on legislation.

    • Anonymous says:

      Where are you from?

    • Anonymous says:

      The issue has nothing to do with separation of church and state. Pastors are entitled to express their views as much as the next person. 

  27. Anonymous says:

    What needs to be reformed or at least taken into the most consideration is that the children are given a say in who they wish to live after the divorce.  Unless a mother is proven unfit such as is an alcoholic or is on drugs or has some mental incapacitation, children who are of an age to speak for themsleves are a true indicator of who they have a better realtionship with and should have some say in the matter of who they live with.  More difficult than the divorce itself is the affect on children who are often times "forced" by the court to spend equal time or most time with a parent who has rarely been a part of their life other than to provide a roof over their heads or to one parent is given more benefots over the other depening on who has the most earning power which is sometimes NOT the most beneficial to the child.  It apppears that in Cayman the person with the most money (typically the father) gets the most benefits in a divorce including the say-so regarding the children even if it is the mother who would be better suited to raise the children and is the parent that the children want to live with.  The laws also need to be changed which makes it possible for the courts to hold fathers acountable for child support who skip the island to avoid it leaving the mothers straned here on their own to raise the children and with no recourse as to what the courts have ordered.  I know of cases where this has happened and the father has been permitted to operate a business here from overseas, is in breach of court orders requiring him to pay child support and was permitted to continue to earn a living here and come and go at his leisure while contributing nothing to the childrens welfare and the courts did nothing.  Meanwhile Cayman men who live here face jail time if they did the same.  There are many reforms needed here regarding divorce, not just a bandaid over one part of it while the other issues that go with it are ignored and neglected.  This place is truly backwards in many regards and if our social issues are not adressed and kept up to date we face many civil collapses 

    • anonymous says:

      sorry but you can't have a child determine what is best for him or her self … besides the child could be intimidated to side with one of the parents – the court has to decide that

  28. Anonymous says:

    So, the members of Cayman Ministers Assoc are ok with accepting money from questionable politicians for questionable deeds, and they stay quiet about it (well, until some are shamed into doing the right thing and give the money back).

     

    But when it comes to divorce, they are all out in FULL FORCE, bull-horns blaring, standards flying, thumping on pulpits. Ask them how many divorced people are in their congregations? And do they want them to continue coming to their church? Answers: All churches have divorced people in them, and Yes, they want them to keep coming coz we need that offering money.

     

    They have lost all credibility in my eyes.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Why do we still care what the church says about anything? Don't they still think everything is controlled by a wizard that lives in the sky?

    • Chris says:

      I am not a Christian, but that socalled "wizard that lives in the sky" that you make a mockery of, is God, and can never be compared to mere fiction. Please we don't need religious bigots as well as atheist bigots in Cayman!

      • Anonymous says:

        The wizard who lives in the sky, or God to some people, is a work of fiction in my view.
         

        Back on topic, church ministers have no role to play in defining legislation.  End of.

        • Anonymous says:

          When the churches can and do play an important role in marriage, why can't they interfere with the divorce legislation?

          • Anonymous says:

            What "important role" do they play in marriages, exactly?   For most wedding ceremonies, there is little meaningful involvement from the church.  Sometimes there is a little counselling beforehand, but mostly not.  Generally they provide an officiant, who may or may not know the couple getting hitched, and a venue for the service.  As they are paid for all three services, the transaction endeth there, as far as I can see.

             

             

      • SSM345 says:

        I thought it was the Sun?

        Doesn't it control ALL life on Earth by producing ALL the energy needed for everything to survive?

    • Anonymous says:

      ohhh the lovely Holy church goers of these Islands (eyes rolling) – pleeeeassssssseeeee – just sit in the pew or on the choir and allow people to live their life, you cannot control everything and everyone!!! a bunch of hypocrites who meet at church just to gossip !

    • And another Ting says:

      THe "Wizard that lives in teh Sky" is the one to whom you should kneel to and ask fro forgiveness ya heathern you.  Back in ole meery England they use to say and "off with His Head" and here we still say " put the sucka ona the plane out a ya".

      • Anonymous says:

        I think you need a dictionary more than a bible.

      • Anonymous says:

        Funnily enough people who refer to "god" as the "wizard that lives in the sky" generally do not believe that there is a wizard living in the sky.

        • Anonymous says:

          You do understand the purpose of quotation marks, right? It means you are quoting what someone else said.  

    • Anonymous says:

      Upon this rock I will build my church: and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.

      If you belong to the world, it would love you as its own.As it is, you do not belong to the world, but i have chosen you out of the world, this is why the world hates you.

      They will hand you over to suffer and kill you, and you will be hated by all Nations because of my name.

       

      Now tell me if the above is a wizard story. Isn't this happening right now at this moment?? read the blogs!

  30. church lobby strikes again says:

    And another example of how this powerful "church" lobby seeks to keep the people of these islands in the dark ages…  And for what good reason? I read the law reform document and can see no reason why they would want to object if not only to keep elements of this archaic and often humiliating law in play…  I encourage everyone to read the report (which is online) before posting a comment… Inform yourself before you post some mindless statement about God'swill. And by the way I'm a generational Caymanian who comes from a church going family.

  31. Anonymous says:

    The adoption of no fault divorce does not leave families vulnerable. Forcing two adults to remain tied to each other indefinitely when they clearly would rather be elsewhere or when they have simply grown apart leaves families vulnerable! In case anyone is unclear, under the current regime, one person has to do something extremely offensive to "qualify" for a divorce – they have to commit adultery, physically or mentally abuse their spouse/child(ren) or abandon their family (otherwise known in polite company as "separation"). Forcing people to do these things in order to qualify for a divorce and forcing them to list every wrong that one spouse has committed against the other over the course of their marriage in the divorce petition is what further destroys the relationship and hurts families. Think about it!

    Rather than making it near impossible to divorce on "good terms", why don't we make it harder to get married in the first place? Why don't more churches invest in real pre-marital counseling rather than signing off on a clearly doomed union so that people will stop fornicating?

    Let me make this very plain. I am a Christian and as much as humanly possible, I embrace God's plan for my life but I do NOT feel the need to impose my belief system or standards on those who have not yet chosen to follow Christ. To do so would be wretchedly hypocritical. My life and the way I live it is my most compelling evangelistic tool.

    Forcing people to live according to Christian standards (whatever those are) does not make them Christian and it does not make them run to Christ or the church.

    Lord forgive me but this just makes me ANGRY.

    • UH UH UH says:

      Well Put  08:58. No need to ask for forgiveness. The Good Book plainly says  " Be Angry and Sin Not".  This indicates to me that "Anger " in and of itself is not a sin. It becomes sinful only  when and / if you let it take control of your emotions, to a point  where you may hit, curse, slander  or abuse someone in any way!

    • Anonymous says:

      Anyone who cannot make a decision without counselling from the church should not be getting married…anyone who cannot make a decision full stop should not be getting married. Its not your time. One day the right answer will come.

       

      • Anonymous says:

        There is nothing wrong with having pre-marital counselling. You don't know everything and often you are too blinded by the hot romance to see the practical pitfalls ahead. Too busy planning for the wedding to plan the marriage.

  32. Anonymous says:

    I support anything the Ministers oppose.

  33. Caymanian.. says:

    CNS:  "The ministers association were unsupportive. They claimed that in States across America the adoption of no fault divorce has escalated rates, leaving families vulnerable…"  But why?  Why should naming who is at fault be any business of the state???  Marriage is between two people and God solo!  If a marriage fails, both parties contributed!  No matter if the one party contributed 99 percent; the other one is still at fault for marrying the wrong person. The more I see it, this minister association front is beginning to sound more like Taliban – wanting to shape our laws to their religious beliefs and impose it on everyone!  I hope that is not the case, because it was Jesus himself who said, "Render unto Ceasar the things that are Ceasars, and unto God the things that are Gods…" In other words, state should not be meddling in family affairs like marraige, nor church matters.

    • Anonymous says:

      08'49

      Then why are the state divorcing you??

      The courts and the judisury system are an integral  part of the State. For you to get a marriage license, the state has to issue it. Most marriage are done in the church….some of you on this tread, are so hypocritical.

      Is it ok then for the stae to award you all the man's money and valuables, that he bust his ass for long before he knew you….is this what you mean by Render unto Ceaser the things that are Ceaser??. Is it ok then for the State to award the woman  costody of the children?? ( You come across as a divorced woman, sorry if im wrong.) so she can demand maintinance.

      The only ammendments to the divorce laws should be, no awarding of homes and pocessions  to the women, if she wants to leave, let her go and start a new life. The children should stay with the one that can afford the bills.

      Should this be done, we would cut the divorce rate by 60%

      In the days when men had only the shirt on his back, women never wanted to divorce her man, she stood up with the times, and he put up with her shit at the same time. It was more equality back then.

      XXXX

      • SSM345 says:

        13:15, sound a tad bitter mate, would these new provisions have assisted you in any way perhaps?

        • Anonymous says:

          A tad bitter is an understatement. You try going through a divorce, and the judge gives all to your ex wife!!

  34. Anonymous says:

    I fully support divorce reform if it will abolish alimony. After all, why should anybody (man or woman) have to pay for the past use of a <Fill In The Space>?

    • Anonymous says:

      If something came out of that past use, ie kids, then you have to pay…

    • Anonymous says:

      Not only should it abolish alimony. It should also abolish the handing over of the man's pocessions to the woman.

      Woman fought for equality, then let them pay the bills. Real men have to stop sucking up to them. From the bibical days they were trouble.

      This would cut divorce cases by far. It's all about greed, XXX

       

    • Anonymous says:

      Sacred vessel?

    • Anonymous says:

      I will support any reform, where the law  let both parties walk away, with what they have brought in with them, to the union.

      Then you wouldn't have any divorces.

       

  35. Anonymous says:

    The Church has no right to interefere. If people are unhappy, they should have the means to divorce. The Church should have no say in the divorce law, especially seeing as not all Caymanians are religious.

    If someone is unhappy, let them decide. I think the partners will know more about their own relationship than the Church. Just saying….

  36. Anonymous says:

    No religious oganization should have any say in a civil/secular bill/law.  Also, does anyone else find it odd to take advice about marriage from someone who hasn't been married?

    • Anonymous says:

      The church also needs reforming. SIN IS SIN and  they do not practice what they preach. Have they ever stop to wonder why so many young people do not attend church? Why so many couples are getting married ouside of the church? Why so many couples are living together instead of Holy Matramony?  Not every Follower should be followed. They will soon have to lock thier doors when the older generation dies. There is no example set for their followers. They continue to be greedy people who look for every opportunity to rob the poor and live better than their congration.( Many of whom give their last dollar). Stop and think and pray for your own relationships and the many that have fallen appart because of the church.

  37. Bite Ya says:

    Gog forbid the government from making it easy for people to leave dysfuncitonal, bad or oppressive relationships… Oh wait – that's what the chuch IS saying god wants (did he phone that in?).  I wonder if anyone has compared divorced families "being vulnerable" versus the vulnerability of forcing people who don't like each other to live together?

  38. Anonymous says:

    Unbelievable how every time these religious freaks feel the need to determine how I shoiuld live MY life.

    So what if the divorce rate increases. Sometimes things just don't work out.

    It is all part of the permanent change the world is going through.

    The ministers don't want to change, just keep everybody dumb and stuck in time.

  39. Anonymous says:

    really?

    The Ministers Association should have no say in law reform in modern society. Religion should be a choice not a requirement.

    Maybe The Ministers Association should make reform to how 'easy' it is to get married in the first place.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Who gives a flying bible what the Cayman Ministers Association thinks about anything that has to do with real life experienced by real human beings? Their time is spent believing in spirits and angels and life after death and other preposterous nonsense and far too many of them wear truly strange clothing, some of which has a decidedly womanish look to it even though they are men called priests and bishops.

    • Anonymous says:

      08.16- Usual Church mantra- unless you do what we say you will be punished…nothing to do with the Bible or God. If you have a God, he is within you, not within the Church.  Over centuries so called Christian Crusaders tortured and killed hundreds of thousands in the name of a God that they surely did not know..and we see that same beahviour coming now from the extreme elements of the Muslim faith and even parts of the Christian chruch…when will we learn? Faith kills and tortures when it should be a force for good.

      • SSM345 says:

        Another example, the Catholics telling poor nations i.e. Africa that using contraception is against God's word……and they wonder why AIDS (and other STD's) and the worlds population is getting out of control…

        The Bible was the way the "White Man" conquered the undeveloped world and continues to do so……telling me that is "the truth" is like saying Nessie still lives in Loch Lommond.

        • JJTA says:

          Says he who worships at the alter of the Dart Side. Nothing like a bit of truth to spice up a big fat lie to make it more acceptable. There is a universal truth in the words of Jesus Christ which transcends times, places and peoples. It is/was people, not God, who did that of which you speak, a sword in one hand and a cross in the other. The common line of vehemence towards any belief in God nowadays has been on the horizon for a while, and while the exploitation/hypocrisy from the buzzard in the bay along with the cowardice/complicity of those on the pulpit have exacerbated it to the point of critical mass (on a local scale), the truth is that the same intolerance which those of whom you speak endured is the very same intolerance which those who see truth and believe continue to endure today. As for marriage, does it not come from religion/s in the first place? If you do not believe in God then why in the hell get married in the first place? What a damn cluster flock. Divorce should be less acrimonious and lawyers should be shunned from the process. Preachers should read the part about "heal thyself doctor" and get the message therein.

    • Anonymous says:

      And you are a real man are you???

  41. Anonymous says:

    Wow – I'm not surprised that the lawyers and churches would object.

    But why drag on a caustic situation that is destroying the lives, emotions and finances of two people.. not to mention the harsh effects on their children!

    If two people cant make it, then separate – and perhaps save the lawyers' money to support the children.

    There are other issues they should be focussing upon – such as the abuses of the system, but please let these dysfunctional couples sepatrate – for their own good!

    • Anonymous says:

      You obviously don't read well. It said one law firm objected, which must mean that the rest did not and the two associations of lawyers supported it. Obviously it is not in the interests of lawyers to have quickie divorces.

      BTW this article is pretty biassed stating the arguments of one side as fact, but the arguments of the other side as "claims".

  42. Anonymous says:

    Perhaps they could just tell their congregations not to divorce each other rather than trying to interfere in my life.

    • Anonymous says:

      Counsel those perverted Pastors who seek out the "hot sexy church sistas" at every church gathering – get a real life, we live in the real world, not in the world you all live in where only bible toting idiots live.

    • Anonymous says:

      Isnt it amasing that 99.9% of the bloggers on here, are church haters, devil worshippers.You guys are so against the church that you bit off your nose to spite your face.

      You made no recomendations or commented  on the real problems with divorcing families.

      Its not about the church, its about the poor children that have to suffer through some selfish shit, that do not care for morality, and will put these innocent  children through hell, no matter what. 

      My ex stayed in the marriage for 11 years until she got 4 children…she bred like a rabbit. just as the family home was finish  built, she acted up crazy..accusing me of having a girlfried. This was far from the truth.

      She went berserk when i wouldnt fire half the staff….stubborn and wanted it her way. I stood up to her and said no.

      Her remark..im going to divorce you! of course being a man, i said go ahead. She went straight and spoke to a lawyer, greed for money… she said,  "lets file for divorce!

      long story short.

      She told our friend that all she wanted in Cayman was a house, now she has one. The Judge made his bias  judgement. Gave her the house, custody of  the children, and I was left to pay off the house mortgage immidiatly after the order was made …CI$ 85,000.00 and CI$ 2,500.00 per month for the 4 children.

      I was bankrupt at the time. Spent time in jail for not coming up with that amount of money. 

      God lifted me up and today my children are grown. I raised them and paid the bills. Ivan came and i was able to raise enough money to pay off the house mortgage. This bias decision, made by the judge was totally out of order.  

      • Whodatis says:

        Handle women and money like drinking and driving … never mix the two!

        Sorry to hear of your story, buddy.

        However, it sounds as if you have taken it all on the chin and if God was your source of strength through it all then who canargue with that?

        • Anonymous says:

          Thank you whodatis. You are a person with good understanding and not bias. Should God be in the spirit, then the spirit  worked for me. I believed in him and not man. God regretted when he made man. Enough said!!!

      • Rorschach says:

        and just who was breeding your ex like a rabbit??  and how large of a "Staff" did you have that she wanted you to fire half of them…and what does ANY of this have to do with making it easier for two people who no longer wish to be married and want an acrimonious separation have to do with your long winded diatribe??  Us 99 % church hating, devil worshipping bloggers are dying to know…

        • Anonymous says:

          To Roscharh.

           

          I was doing the grinding. they all have my resembliance….whats the pertinance?? 

          What is so hard to understand the revelance in my comment. She got what she wanted, ahouse, not a marriage, contrary to my ethics. I was in it for the long haul….to raise a family. Not for material things.

          The circus staged by her, had nothing to do with being  acrimonious, it was done  to get a divorce.

          Now guess who is living in regret…and drunk every night. Now  guess who is happy and has moved on with a great  wife…???

          You think that is long winded, you should hear the stories of the  other men, that got shafted by the court, and their wives. 

          As it is now, one can file for a divorce, and write a bunch of lies for the court. This is called manipulation.

          I stand by my experiences. No court should jump to any  quick decision to divorce and destroy a family out of  greed.  I hope this is not the case with you.

    • Anonymous says:

      Any NGO has a right to contribute its opinion about what is in the welfare of this country. That's freedom of speech. Deal with it.