The Australian government has just committed to spending $17 million on programs to help traumatized children from divorced families, and it's about time.

This new initiative is part of a divorce related spending spree, and the government has agreed to spend nearly $40 million over the next four years. Money will go to programs for the children themselves, as well as programs to teach divorced spouses how to parent after the split.

I'm cautiously optimistic about this. The commitment to spend this kind of money is clearly an indication that the government of Australia is concerned about the welfare of the children involved.

On the other hand, while that's a lot of money, there are a lot of children being affected, and one wonders how far the money's going to go. A parenting class here and there certainly won't hurt, but I hope the money won't be spent for nothing.

The good news is that Australia has had the biggest single year drop in divorce rates this year, down six percent from 2007. Marriages are also on the rise, spurring some commentators to say that the country is experiencing a "marriage renaissance".

Hopefully, between an influx of funding to help children of the divorced and the rates of separation on the way down, the money will end up helping the kids who need it most.

I have a secret. My name is Naomi, I am a journalist, and I don’t watch the news. I used to try and hide this fact, sort of skimming the headlines so I could fake my way through conversations involving current events. But I got a news alert today that tells me exactly why I am completely in the right. I am vindicated and I never have to watch the news again.

Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is a preacher. I’m not totally sure where “preacher” ends and “cult leader” begins, but that’s neither here nor there. In the beginning of his illustrious career, Miranda got famous because he convinced everybody that he was the second coming of Jesus.

Then he changed his mind and proclaimed he was no longer Jesus. He was the Antichrist.

His wife filed for divorce, although I can’t imagine why.

Since nobody knows exactly how much money the second coming of Christ has stuffed under the holy mattress, Miranda was ordered to pay interim alimony to the tune of $15,000 a month and he’s five months behind. He figured that instead of paying, he’d just disappear and go out on the lam. But what would you expect from the Antichrist? Post-dated checks delivered by courier?

The good news is that the preacher — and you know he’s a preacher because he has “666” tattooed on himself, as do his constituents — never physically abused his wife. She is, however, seeking compensatory damages from the emotional turmoil caused by his repeated threats that he’d send the “angels of destruction” on her and the kiddies.

And they ask me why I don’t watch the news.

Imagine being a refugee from a war-torn country and being told that in order to stay in safety, you had to get divorced. I’m pretty sure we can all say that would be tragic and a travesty of justice.

Now imagine you had two spouses, and the country you were living in said you had to obey the law and pick one. Not such a travesty of justice anymore, is it?

An unidentified Iraqi man has recently decided that he would rather go back to Iraq than stay in Denmark and give up one of his wives. Man, even writing the words “one of his wives” freaks me out. It seems like many of the men I know have a hard enough time being married to one woman, let alone two.

The lawyer handling his case explains the situation like this: “Most of all his wives are saddened by this affair; they don't feel welcome in Denmark.” When I read that the first time, it sounded like they were saying most of his wives were saddened. As in, most of them are saddened, but the rest are handling it like troopers. How many wives does this guy have? But no, he’s only got two — and they’re both bummed.

The crazy thing about this whole situation is that if he did divorce one of his wives, no one in the family would face deportation. They’d all get to stay. The wife who got the axe could still stay in the same house. Let’s face it, they’re in Denmark — nobody’s going to stone him for having two baby mamas. But he likes his family the way it is, so he’s packing up the wives and kids and heading back home. “Now they have left to see how things are in Basra,” says his lawyer.

Well, I think we all know how things are in Basra, but the best of luck to him. I hope to God nothing happens to his children when he gets there or he will be regretting his decision for the rest of his days.

Click here for more.

Good news for would-be adulterers in South Korea!

The country’s Supreme Court ruled this week that people who are in the process of a mutually agreed upon divorce won’t get arrested for having sex outside of marriage.

Previously, those who had sex with someone other than their spouse before their divorce was finalized were considered to have committed adultery. Adultery is kind of a big deal in Korea. Like, criminal act with two years of jail time big deal.

The ruling came after a 57-year-old man in the process of divorcing his wife was arrested for having sex with, wait for it, a barmaid. (It’s always the barmaid.) After 25 years of marriage, the man who is only identified in the media as Chung, decided to pack his bags. After a bit of stewing, his wife agreed to the divorce, and they set up separate households while they figured out their finances and he got on with screwing the barmaid.

Mrs. Chung got wind of the liaison and decided to call the fuzz. Apparently, Chung got off. Get it?

With over 11,000 couples filing for divorce each year and citing infidelity as their platform, there are a lot of potential criminals hanging out in the bars of Korea. Last year alone, more than 1,200 people were indicted for sleeping around.

What I want to know is, what’s the charge for sleeping with the spouse you decided you were divorcing? Because in this writer’s opinion, sleeping with the ex leads to more problems than going home with the barmaid.

Click here for more.

Women's rights activists are in an uproar in Malaysia this week after their national court upheld Muslim Sharia law and allowed a husband to divorce his wife by text message. We've discussed divorce by text message here before, and it's still just as disgraceful as it ever was. Unfortunately there's nothing new to report there except that another country is jumping on the bandwagon.

But — and there's always a but — when I read this article, one particular thing caught my eye. The reporter mentioned that under Sharia law, a man simply needs to announce that he wants to divorce his wife and whammo, they're done.

I knew this. I also knew that a woman seeking a divorce, no matter what the provocation, has an uphill battle of red-tape and gender discrimination ahead of her.

Until today, though, I didn't know how bad it was.

"If a woman wants a divorce, she must go before a court … and she must prove her husband has an inadequacy - usually impotency or extended absence." (Emphasis mine.)

Let's play a little imagination game here. Let's imagine that a woman has decided to divorce her husband, and let's imagine she's doing it because he's impotent. Now let's imagine that her husband is Muslim as well, and he knows that proving his impotence is one of only two ways she can get out of the bonds of holy matrimony.

Exactly how can a woman prove her husband's impotence in a court of law?

Do you think hubby's going to pack up the car and head down to his local urologist and say, "Hey doc, let's see how Captain Winky's doing!"? Do you think he's going to show the gentleman of the court so they can see for themselves?

This system is set up for women to fail. Way to go, Malaysia, for doing your part to repress the rights of women. Rock on.

Click here for more.

On the subject of gay marriage, Kinky Friedman — a Texas musician and wannabe politician — said “I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.”

For one lesbian couple in California, his prediction of misery was dead on.

Adelita Guajardo and Theresa Ramirez, residents of Fresno County, California, pledged their troth on June 27th of this year. Three days later they called it quits and are now going down in pseudo-history as the first same sex couple to file for divorce in the state of California.

Although their landmark achievement is noteworthy from a novelty standpoint, area legal experts suggest that their divorce will not hold legally significant consequences. It’s a simple divorce and, let’s face it, they didn’t exactly have a lot of time to rack up joint property or get pregnant.

While in other states a three-day lesbian marriage might turn heads, let’s be honest. California is home to both San Francisco and Hollywood. In a state where Britney Spears was married and subsequently unmarried in the time it takes the average person to change their underwear, I’m surprised it even made the news.

Click here for more.

Saudi men who divorce non-Saudi women are currently allowed to force their wives to leave the country and in many cases never see their children again.

Unlike in Western countries where marriage to a citizen grants automatic citizenship in and of itself, non-Saudi women who marry Saudi men do not get citizenship and can be asked to leave the country at any time. Since the children are the property of their father, the ex-wives can't take the kids with them.

One divorced mother of six who is originally from Syria told the Saudi Gazette that since she got divorced she has not been allowed to see her kids. She is terrified of being expelled from Saudi Arabia and never seeing them again. Her oldest child is only eight years old, and they "still need the care of their mother," she said.

The Saudi Arabian Foreign Ministry is in the process of examining possible solutions, including granting residence permits for women caring for their children.
While this is great in theory, I have a feeling that most Saudi ex-husbands will find a way to throw a monkey wrench into the best laid plans. The Foreign Ministry might let the women stay in the country, but the ex is under no obligation to let them anywhere near the kids.

While I sympathize with the plight of these women, there's an element of "What did you think was going to happen?" going on here. We've said it enough times before — Saudi Arabia is not exactly known for its women's rights movement, and the laws are barbaric at best. When it comes to Saudi marriage proposals, let the buyer beware.

Click here for more.

It looks like Jim and Dina McGreevey are back in court this morning dealing with alimony. Yes, again. Talks have broken down again and they have to go in and have the judge sort out their mess to figure out who owes what to whom. Raise your hand if you're surprised. It's OK, I'll wait.

Perhaps I am the only person on the planet who is infinitely sympathetic to Jim McGreevey. Britney Spears, too. Oh, and let's not forget the ever pleasant Heather Mills?

I love these fine, upstanding citizens because they keep being moronic and I keep getting paid to write about it. If they could get it together to act like civilized human beings I'd be looking for a job right now.

Last week they finally agreed on custody arrangements for their daughter. Lawyers are hanging out behind closed doors and the estranged couple meet this morning at 10 a.m. to try and hammer out the financial details of the divorce and generally make a spectacle of themselves.

I hope it takes a long time — my youngest needs new glasses and my oldest is looking into summer camps.

Click here for more.

Although it's only May of 2008, Mr. Kent Gramm is having a bad year. After 30 years of marriage and more than 20 years of teaching, Mr. Gramm is getting divorced and leaving his teaching post at the same time.

Mr. Gramm currently teaches at Wheaton College, a well known conservative Evangelical Christian school, which requires all of its employees to display behavior acceptable to the school's religious teaching.

All employees sign a "statement of faith and community covenant," which spells out exactly the kind of behavior the school will accept.

Drinking, smoking, and gambling are not on the list, and dancing was only allowed four years ago after being banned during the Civil War.

While the school acknowledges that divorce can happen, they need to know all of the details of the divorce to determine if the employee has broken his signed statement by exhibiting unacceptable behavior.

Mr. Gramm acknowledges that he signed the statement but does not believe he should have to disclose the details of his divorce. As he is aware that not disclosing the details will get him fired, he has agreed to resign and will stay only until the end of the school term.

"I think it's wrong to have to accuse your spouse and to discuss with your employer your personal life and marital situation," Gramm said. "But I don't feel badly treated. There has been an attitude of compassion here."

As the school is concerned about how the behavior of one of its teachers will affect the student body, Mr. Gramm decided to discuss his resignation and the reasons behind it with his students. "I want them to know that divorce happens," Gramm said. "That you aren't deserted by God because your life doesn't turn out the way you expect. I hope this helps them acquire a broader understanding of what Christianity is and what faithfulness means."

Women's rights activists are up in arms about a contentious divorce case in Tennessee that may result in the local marital property laws to be changed. According to an article in Tennessean.com, "a wage-earning husband gets to keep $1.7 million in stock. His homemaker wife gets nothing."

Okay, I admit, when we're talking about the rights of the stay-at-home spouse — and let's face it, while many husbands including my own are starting to stay home, it's generally the wife — and there are a few million dollars in play, I can see why people are getting concerned. Some are suggesting that if this settlement goes through as is, it could be precedent setting and go against state laws.

But, and there's a really big but, I don't think that this case has anything to do with the wife being a homemaker. The court says that the husband is being allowed to keep the stock and not share it because all he did was hold it after receiving it as a gift from his father. Her employment status is irrelevant.

In my opinion — and I know this is going to make me the bad guy — when you decide not to work, you take a risk. A gift given to one individual is just that — a gift with only one intended recipient. If Daddy had given him a cheese knife, is she entitled to half of that, too?

Click here for more.