According to a Wall Street Journal article, increasing efforts from lawmakers and lobbyists in several states are placing new pressures on these old alimony laws.

With the cultural changes in gender roles in the workplace and the nature of marriage, lawmakers are challenging the idea that a spouse should provide financial support for an indeterminate period of time.

The Wall Street Journal reported that in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Oklahoma, there are efforts by lawmakers underway to update alimony laws to meet the demands of modern society.

Update efforts support new time limits on alimony payments, bans on alimony when spouses are of similar professional standing, or eliminating or reducing alimony if a spouse commits a crime or becomes involved in a romantic relationship. Similar campaigns from activists and lobbyists are taking place in states like Florida, Ohio, Arizona and North Carolina.

In Massachusetts, several pieces of legislation are working their way through the system. One, a bill called “Reform Massachusetts Alimony Laws Now!,” would limit alimony payments to a reasonable time and require that a spouse at least attempt to become self-sufficient. This bill essentially establishes alimony as a temporary payment.

Another Massachusetts bill would, according to the Wall Street Journal, “end the currently common practice of using the assets of a second spouse to determine the ability of a person to pay alimony.”  Also, alimony payments would end with the retirement of the payer.

Alimony laws were originally meant to safeguard spouses who didn’t work outside of the home during a marriage, particularly those who’ve sacrificed careers in order to raise families. A number of states allow alimony payments for life.

Proponents of alimony law amendments argue that times have changed, and that alimony law should change with them. Opponents argue that times haven’t changed enough, as women still average only 75% as much in salary in the workplace as men do.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the core of the debate over updated alimony laws stems around the question of whether alimony should be viewed as a transitional exchange, meant only to allow time for another spouse to establish financial independence, or whether alimony is a guarantee that a spouse has earned by sacrificing a career for the sake of the family.

As the economic recession continues, there has been an increase in alimony payers requesting modifications of their alimony agreements due to financial pressures. And with powerful individuals impacted by divorce and alimony, the movement toward more protections for the payer seems to be gathering momentum.

In a case out of Florida, an appeals court ruled that a judge was no longer obligated to pay his ex-wife over $3,000 per month in alimony, because she had, for more than 20 years, been living with another man.  A group in the state has enlisted a lobbyist to work for legislation that would limit the years a spouse is required to pay alimony.

The Ohio bar association is gathering legislative sponsors for a bill that would attempt achieve the same goal. In Pennsylvania, the Senate is looking at a bill that would cut alimony payments for spouses who live in a romantic relationship with someone else.

Divorces and alimony settlements can be complicated, and can vary from one to the next. The true cost of marriage might never be resolved. But there is a movement underway to change the view of alimony.

According to a CBS report, Frank McCourt owns the L.A. Dodgers, while Jamie is the CEO for the ball club – at least until she was fired last week after an alleged affair with her bodyguard.

The McCourts have been married for 30 years – and there are several assets, including four homes across the U.S., at stake. Based on other news reports, there does not appear to be a way to end this union in a friendly fashion.

Although Jamie allegedly committed adultery against her husband, she is still seeking to own the baseball team and all four houses, as well as collect a monthly alimony of nearly $500,000.

Jamie McCourt’s divorce lawyer stated that the couple lived a lavish lifestyle while they were together, and she should be entitled to continue such a lifestyle.

Frank McCourt says the Dodgers are not for sale. No other details are currently available about the McCourts’ potential divorce.

However, according to a report from Rediff Business News, the recession that is causing the world to tighten its belt may also be causing feuding couples to wait it out and not file for that divorce just yet.

Employment rates have fallen, salaries have gotten cut and it’s having an effect on more than just our pocketbooks. It seems that since money isn’t flowing as freely as it was a few years ago, couples are thinking twice before putting lots of dollars into a divorce.

Divorce lawyers have reported a decrease in the number of divorce cases they see each month. Though it may be unpleasant for separated or estranged couples to remain connected via a marriage license, it seems like a financially responsible thing to do.

Kate claims Jon took $230, 000 from the account and Jon claims Kate took a total of $60,000. They recently went to court for the matter, but the hearing lasted only an hour long.

A second hearing has been scheduled for October 26^thas it appears there was no conclusion.

With all these disagreements and divorce battles being so public- Jon and Kate might be causing more harm than good to all the parties involved. This happens in many celebrity divorce cases.

A divorce attorney who handles celebrity divorce and child custody cases – Randall Kessler – said it’s hard for celebrities to keep quiet during the proceedings because they are used to the spot light and most press usually helps their celebrity status.

But in divorce cases it has the opposite effect.

Every word spoken out can be used against them and it is all recorded proof. Kessler continues to state that “they [celebrities] are so used to be being in charge of their own destiny and being able to decide what’s best for them that it is very hard for them to listen to attorneys, accountants, or anyone that is trying to advise them.”

Are Jon and Kate listening to any advice given to them?

Initially after tabloids released the story that Jon cheated on Kate, she stuck by him. But the public have seen the progression from what appeared to be an amiable friendship to a bitter divorce battle.

Every week some new fight breaks out between the estranged couple. Many wonder how this can affect their children.

Child Psychologist Joanne Pedro- Carroll stated, “Given how public the divorce is and the children’s young ages, [this] makes them very vulnerable.”

Both Kate and Jon claim they have the children’s best interests at heart. The public will have to wait to see the next battle and how this divorce will end.

Savoie and his ex-wife Noriko Savoie were married 14 years when they decided to file for divorce in January 2009 due to adulterous circumstances. He remarried the next month.

The couple lived in Japan, but moved to the United States before their divorce. Both parents are citizens of the United States and Japan. His ex-wife was initially awarded child custody providing she resided in the U.S. with the children. He had visitation rights.

About a month after the divorce, Christopher had received an e-mail from Noriko stating, “It’s very difficult to watch [the] kids becoming American and losing Japanese identity. I am at the edge of the cliff. I cannot hold it anymore if you keep bothering me.”

Christopher suspected she’d take the children and pleaded with Judge James G. Martin III to give him custody in fear he would not see his children again. The judge advised Noriko if she moved the children to Japan she would lose her alimony and education funds awarded to her in the divorce.

The judge did however allow her to travel with the children to Japan because he did not believe she was a flight risk. After the trip – she returned back home with the children.

Christopher later learned that Noriko took the children to Japan when they were supposed to start school. He then filed a suit against his ex for full child custody and won, but this did not mean it would be enforced in Japan, where the mother usually retains full custody of the children.

He then made the trip to Japan to get his children back. He took his two children – 8-year-old Isaac and 6-year-old Rebecca on Sept 28 as his ex-wife walked them to school in the rural town of Yanagawa.

He traveled with his kids to the nearest U.S. consulate in Fukuoka in attempt to obtain passports for the children. He was allegedly screaming at the guards to let him in when the Japanese police arrived and arrested him.

Now there are a few issues standing in Christopher’s way of getting back his children. Japan did not agree to a 1980’s Hague Convention law which handles international child abduction.

Also Japanese law focuses on sole custody divorces so one parent has custody of the children, which is usually the mother.

According to the US State Department, in many cases, “foreign parents have little luck in regaining custody.”

Also in Japan the couple is still considered married since they never actually got divorced in the country according to police officials.

Authorities have put the charges of child kidnapping on hold for the time being.

Many same sex couples are happy to hear the decision not because they want to get a divorce, but they hope it may be a breakthrough for allowing gay marriage, which is currently banned in the state of Texas.

Back in 2005, voters approved a constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, thus not allowing same sex couples to marry.

So if a gay couple wishes to get married, they must do so out of the state and then return back home to their lives.

The two men seeking divorce married in Cambridge, Mass. in September 2006 and later returned to Dallas. The men filed for divorce citing, “discord or conflict of personalities.” They are keeping their identities anonymous in hopes to keep their life private.

State district judge Tena Callahan ruled that the Dallas couple could file for divorce in under her jurisdiction in Texas.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott and Texas Governor Rick Perry state the judges’ ruling will be appealed as they feel it goes against the constitution. Abbott wants to appeal the ruling to uphold the ideas of marriage the Texas voters voted for and agreed upon.

But Callahan disagrees and states her decision protected the couple’s rights as human beings and that the Texas ban on marriage violates the U.S. Constitution. Callahan denied the district attorney’s involvement stating she has “jurisdiction to hear a suit for divorce filed by persons legally married in another jurisdiction.”

Abbott argues since gay marriage isn’t allowed or recognized in Texas, then no court can dissolve a marriage through divorce.

He continues to state, “The laws and the constitution of the state of Texas define marriage as an institution involving one man and one woman.”

He thinks this ruling will destroy constitutional definition already voted on.  The Texas family code does not allow same sex marriage or civil union either. It stops the state and cities from providing legal protection or benefits for same sex marriage.

Since many heterosexual couples can get married in one jurisdiction and divorced in another, it will be interested to see if Texas State Laws allow the same for same sex couples.

In relationships men and woman view the same situations very differently from emotions running wild to always coming up with a logical solution. We don’t always see things eye to eye and in relationships this could cause some conflict.

How men and woman communicate is determined by how we view our relationships with each other.

Lisa Diamond, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Utah, is studying how couples argue. She studies the changes that in occur in their bodies as they fight. Diamond is attempting to determine the relationships between the body and the nervous system with communication and conflict.

Even the smallest gesture might aggravate or alleviate the situation with the relationship. She’s attempting to separate and/or connect emotion with certain bodily reactions such as heart rate and anger. She claims the tough part of the study is getting the couples to stop fighting after they start and she’s collected enough data.

In relationships, most couples know how to manipulate one another by pushing the right buttons stirring certain emotions.  That is the simple part.  It’s how to communicate and work through conflict that‘s the tough part.

According to Diamond, men benefit more from marriage then women since women tend to fill the role of maintaining the relationship.  Because women accept this role they feel worn down and tired. She claims this may be why men live healthier and longer lives.

Communication is important to relationships and certain body language may be able to provoke or inhibit conflict.  This could all be related to long lasting marriages or ones that end in divorce.

In a close second, Monroe County, Fla. has the second-highest proportion of divorced residents.

In a follow up article to the Census study, the Gainesville Sun reported that, “A little more than 18% of Monroe residents are divorced, second only to Indiana’s Wayne County, which had 19%.”

It seems as though both Indiana and Florida are the best, or in this case the worst, states at having divorced residents.

Florida and Indiana have three counties each in the Census study’s top 10 counties of the US: Monroe County, Putnam County and Pinellas County in Florida and Wayne, Floyd and Madison counties in Indiana.

What contributes to a couple’s marital demise? Why are people filing for divorce?

While there are numerous reasons why people may file, three of the most popular appear to be financial, religious, and cultural reasons.

But why then, would two states who don’t seem to share many similarities have the top spots of a Census study on divorce?

The answer to this question may not become clear, but from a superficial level it would seem that financial hardship is something both state’s residents share.

As of November 2nd, Jon Gosselin will no longer be a star of the program, and the program will change to “Kate Plus 8.”

“Given the recent changes in the family dynamics, it only makes sense for us to refresh and recalibrate the program to keep pace with the family,” CNN reported TLC President Eileen O’Neill as saying.

People interviewed with a source close to Jon: “Given Jon’s recent antics, there was no way the show could continue to portray him as a doting Dad, not while all this other crap was going on.”

The series first aired on April 16, 2007, portraying a happy couple coping with raising a set of twins and sextuplets.

But after 10 years of marriage, the couple announced they would be filing for divorce. Ratings soared as news leaked of the couple’s marriage trouble.

The premiere of the fifth season had 9.8 million viewers, and it was the most watched show that Monday night.

“The family has evolved, and we are attempting to evolve with it,” O’Neill said. “We feel that Kate’s journey really resonates with our viewers. Additionally, the network is in development on a Kate project for 2010.”

It appears that Kate does not want to take care of dogs after the divorce is final, even for the sake of the children.

The two German Shepherds, Shoka and Nala, will go back to their breeder Jeff Christopher who said he will care for the dogs and not give them up for adoption.

Christopher lives on a farm so the dogs will have plenty of space and will be well taken care of. He maintains that the farm will be great for the dogs because the pups have brothers and sisters on the farm that they can run around with.

The dogs might be better off on the farm then being pushed back and forth like their children in this long messy divorce.

You can add this feud to the long list of arguments between the couple since their split. And like most divorce cases each spouse needs place blame on the other.

According to The New York Daily News, John stated, “it’s not fair to the dogs to not be wanted in their own home.”

He’s not happy he has to give the dogs up and blames Kate for not taking the responsibility of caring for the dogs.

Is it really about the dogs or just a division of assets? This might just be another thing to fight about for the couple who obviously have not agreed on most things during their divorce process.  The couple makes this very well known to the public.

This long public divorce must be hard on all parties involved and hopefully the battles will end soon. The divorce is supposed to final at the end of this month, and at least at the end of it all, the dogs will be happy in their wide open space.

Sources: New York Daily News and USA Today