Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Culture
»
matrimonial property bill
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/23/2008 Posts: 3,017
|
Mukiri wrote:maka wrote:quicksand wrote:Are we not equal, men and women?
I support this and I am unapologetic about it. If there is anything that turns my blood cold its the thought of being turned out to the street after a split in middle age, with your house and investments which you have worked so hard for during your youth handed to your ex-wife. I am not hitched currently, and have a few coins here and there - earned by back breaking effort, blood and sweat; parliament is right to say that whoever I marry keeps hers paws of the stuff I acquired prior- or even those I acquired after out of my own resourcefulness and capital if she didn't put in hard and countable currency.
Hakuna kucheka na watu. Men are bad but so are women. The pragmatist in me tells me that when I marry, there is also a probability of the union failing. What follows from that is cold, hard logic - and the logic is a man can't afford to build his life from scratch over again if he splits from his wife. Some of a man's assets need to be untouchable (for those who are about to tell me about love and its all conquering ways and my own flawed attitude, save your breath - people cant be fully trusted, and that is only constant worth trusting completely these days)
Read European papers. Men over there get cleaned out by gold-digging and scheming wives, especially Britain, where family courts usually strip guys bare leaving them destitute and depressed.
I have no qualms about property that was co-acquired (both names on the deed) being split up. But stuff registered in just one person's name should be theirs. It is up to women to be alert and ensure that their spouses do not con them. When they hand over money to the husband, they should demand to be cosignors in the business/property arrangement. Away with this silly ambiguity that 'husbands make wealth because women are making a stable home' Will it be a marriage or a business agreement?  Some men should (unapologetically) be married to their property. Does the bill consider her invaluable contributions, when she cuts short her sleep to make you breakfast, hustles with the kids(punishes her body to get your kids in the first place), cleans your house, comforts you in grief, encourages you, sh@gs you when not in the mood etc Id happily give my property to my wife and start from scratch. All these material things are straws. Shackles that bind us. And when we die we leave them papa hapa. I am with @Mukiri on this. People should marry people they know and understand, in most cases, people who marry gold diggers are normally warned but ignore the warnings and obvious signs. It however happens and the best the society can offer is sympathy, there is no reason to legislate this. I am married and should the inevitable happen and we have to split, I am sure we can come to a reasonable understanding on how to split our property (house furniture & utensils  ) "The purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline." James Collins
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/23/2008 Posts: 3,017
|
When the bill goes for presidential assent, I bet it will be influenced majorly by the first lady and the first mother. "The purpose of bureaucracy is to compensate for incompetence and lack of discipline." James Collins
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 9/30/2013 Posts: 659
|
The bill is fair. Circumstances such as those being pointed to by @Wendz could be solved in a case by case basis before a court of law. If you stay ready, no need to get ready.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 11/19/2010 Posts: 1,308 Location: nairobi metropolitan
|
Women and men are a social creation of the society. They do learn different roles that make them compatible in marriage. Ideally, marriage is for life and as divorce should be a lose lose process to protect the marriage. The roles granted to either parties cannot promote equality but equity, in that Every partner gains from the different but compatible roles. It's therefore uncalled for, for any party to the marriage to think their roles are superior than others. The most important thing in a marriage is the family and as such, the priority should be protect it from protracted battles on the property. I hold the view that decisions to do with marriage are exclusive to the couples involved. Venye waliongea wakasikizina kukaa pamoja, waendelee vivyo hivyo. And if God forbid, wataachana, waketi chini, wawachane kwa amani. The bill as it were promoted feuding and was not considerate of African values of life, love and marriage. The current bill has been amended to promote dialogue, discourage deception and encourage creativity of our women. It gives the 2, a free hand to decide how to live before, during and God forbid, after the marriage. I hold the view that laws should not define how we live but should rather facilitate harmonious living. I therefore concur with majority. Democracy does not belong to the dead
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/5/2010 Posts: 2,061 Location: Nairobi
|
Wendz wrote:My simple question is, there are many men who request their wives to stop working to take care of their children until a certain age. In the process, this wife does not have any income and any investments done therefore will not have her direct contribution. So what happens in that case.
The woman loses
There are men who, by bad luck, loose their employment and during that period, only their wives are the bread winners, during this period, this man is not in a position to contribute directly for any investments in the family, what happens in future if they split?
The man loses
There are situations where, the man gets a good job out of the country. Requests the wife, for the sake of the family unity to leave employment and join him in the new work station, at this period, this partner has no income she can directly contribute for investment. what happens if they split later?
A wife is working in bank and hence entitled to a favourable mortgage rate. the couple decides that the woman takes up the mortgage while the man takes up all other duties at home - understandably, the woman would be left with barely nothing after deductions. Since the contract is between her and the employer, there is no evidence that the man contributed into the purchase of the "matrimonial" home, which would be in the wife's name. What happens in case they later split?
The man loses
Jibu tunalo hatuna?
I guess what I am trying to say is ...it is black and white. But then again so was the 50/50 rule If it is not in your name, it is not yours. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. This is a secular finding as we live in a secular society, and all adults that can marry are invited to think of what could happen in case of separation and take appropriate steps. Because people marry in Christendom, Hindu and other religions that say the union is for life and then run to the courts to end the union as a matter of law. So in law, there are 3 entities, the man, the woman, the couple ...all separate and hence ownership may be attributed to any three. The law is not interested in nuances of individual arrangements (just like in the previous case of 50/50 split...you divorced, she got half, even you were married for 30 days). Its just that women are finding this new version of absoluteness unpalatable. If you make sacrifices, you have no recourse to the law and chips may fall where they may. I like this. No ambiguity. People will have to adapt. It doesn't discriminate against women -You have assets, you protect them.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 1/22/2007 Posts: 337
|
I feel that this is the best treat to men since the Beijing issues .after all "we are equal" Advice is like snow.The softer it lands the harder is sticks.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 11/19/2010 Posts: 1,308 Location: nairobi metropolitan
|
rryyzz wrote:[quote=Wendz]My simple question is, there are many men who request their wives to stop working to take care of their children until a certain age. In the process, this wife does not have any income and any investments done therefore will not have her direct contribution. So what happens in that case.
There are men who, by bad luck, loose their employment and during that period, only their wives are the bread winners, during this period, this man is not in a position to contribute directly for any investments in the family, what happens in future if they split?
There are situations where, the man gets a good job out of the country. Requests the wife, for the sake of the family unity to leave employment and join him in the new work station, at this period, this partner has no income she can directly contribute for investment. what happens if they split later?
A wife is working in bank and hence entitled to a favourable mortgage rate. the couple decides that the woman takes up the mortgage while the man takes up all other duties at home - understandably, the woman would be left with barely nothing after deductions. Since the contract is between her and the employer, there is no evidence that the man contributed into the purchase of the "matrimonial" home, which would be in the wife's name. What happens in case they later split?
Jibu tunalo hatuna?
 The obvious answer ni Jibu hatuna. When you decide to legislate on matrimonial issues you tend to cause more confusion than provide answers. Agree, let couples have the final say on how to run their lives, government intervention should be minimal if any. Kitamu kwangu, pengine pilipili kwa Mukiri. Democracy does not belong to the dead
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/17/2008 Posts: 23,365 Location: Nairobi
|
githundi wrote:Women and men are a social creation of the society.
They do learn different roles that make them compatible in marriage.
Ideally, marriage is for life and as divorce should be a lose lose process to protect the marriage.
The roles granted to either parties cannot promote equality but equity, in that
Every partner gains from the different but compatible roles.
It's therefore uncalled for, for any party to the marriage to think their roles are superior than others.
The most important thing in a marriage is the family and as such, the priority should be protect it from protracted battles on the property.
I hold the view that decisions to do with marriage are exclusive to the couples involved.
Venye waliongea wakasikizina kukaa pamoja, waendelee vivyo hivyo. And if God forbid, wataachana, waketi chini, wawachane kwa amani.
The bill as it were promoted feuding and was not considerate of African values of life, love and marriage.
The current bill has been amended to promote dialogue, discourage deception and encourage creativity of our women.
It gives the 2, a free hand to decide how to live before, during and God forbid, after the marriage.
I hold the view that laws should not define how we live but should rather facilitate harmonious living.
I therefore concur with majority. Very well put, this obssession with how much we can make when we divorce is uncalled for, infact giving divorce too much thoughts is one reason which can lead to failure of a marriage even before inception!!!! ..."Wewe ni mtu mdogo sana....na mwenye amekuandika pia ni mtu mdogo sana!".
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/19/2008 Posts: 4,268
|
quicksand wrote:Wendz wrote:My simple question is, there are many men who request their wives to stop working to take care of their children until a certain age. In the process, this wife does not have any income and any investments done therefore will not have her direct contribution. So what happens in that case.
The woman loses
There are men who, by bad luck, loose their employment and during that period, only their wives are the bread winners, during this period, this man is not in a position to contribute directly for any investments in the family, what happens in future if they split?
The man loses
There are situations where, the man gets a good job out of the country. Requests the wife, for the sake of the family unity to leave employment and join him in the new work station, at this period, this partner has no income she can directly contribute for investment. what happens if they split later?
A wife is working in bank and hence entitled to a favourable mortgage rate. the couple decides that the woman takes up the mortgage while the man takes up all other duties at home - understandably, the woman would be left with barely nothing after deductions. Since the contract is between her and the employer, there is no evidence that the man contributed into the purchase of the "matrimonial" home, which would be in the wife's name. What happens in case they later split?
The man loses
Jibu tunalo hatuna?
I guess what I am trying to say is ...it is black and white. But then again so was the 50/50 rule If it is not in your name, it is not yours. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. This is a secular finding as we live in a secular society, and all adults that can marry are invited to think of what could happen in case of separation and take appropriate steps. Because people marry in Christendom, Hindu and other religions that say the union is for life and then run to the courts to end the union as a matter of law. So in law, there are 3 entities, the man, the woman, the couple ...all separate and hence ownership may be attributed to any three. The law is not interested in nuances of individual arrangements (just like in the previous case of 50/50 split...you divorced, she got half, even you were married for 30 days). Its just that women are finding this new version of absoluteness unpalatable. If you make sacrifices, you have no recourse to the law and chips may fall where they may. I like this. No ambiguity. People will have to adapt. It doesn't discriminate against women -You have assets, you protect them. @quicksand, out of curiosity, you married?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/11/2012 Posts: 5,222
|
Wendz wrote:quicksand wrote:Wendz wrote:My simple question is, there are many men who request their wives to stop working to take care of their children until a certain age. In the process, this wife does not have any income and any investments done therefore will not have her direct contribution. So what happens in that case.
The woman loses
There are men who, by bad luck, loose their employment and during that period, only their wives are the bread winners, during this period, this man is not in a position to contribute directly for any investments in the family, what happens in future if they split?
The man loses
There are situations where, the man gets a good job out of the country. Requests the wife, for the sake of the family unity to leave employment and join him in the new work station, at this period, this partner has no income she can directly contribute for investment. what happens if they split later?
A wife is working in bank and hence entitled to a favourable mortgage rate. the couple decides that the woman takes up the mortgage while the man takes up all other duties at home - understandably, the woman would be left with barely nothing after deductions. Since the contract is between her and the employer, there is no evidence that the man contributed into the purchase of the "matrimonial" home, which would be in the wife's name. What happens in case they later split?
The man loses
Jibu tunalo hatuna?
I guess what I am trying to say is ...it is black and white. But then again so was the 50/50 rule If it is not in your name, it is not yours. Ignorance of the law is not a defence. This is a secular finding as we live in a secular society, and all adults that can marry are invited to think of what could happen in case of separation and take appropriate steps. Because people marry in Christendom, Hindu and other religions that say the union is for life and then run to the courts to end the union as a matter of law. So in law, there are 3 entities, the man, the woman, the couple ...all separate and hence ownership may be attributed to any three. The law is not interested in nuances of individual arrangements (just like in the previous case of 50/50 split...you divorced, she got half, even you were married for 30 days). Its just that women are finding this new version of absoluteness unpalatable. If you make sacrifices, you have no recourse to the law and chips may fall where they may. I like this. No ambiguity. People will have to adapt. It doesn't discriminate against women -You have assets, you protect them. @quicksand, out of curiosity, you married? Ajibu swali and the reason.. You can always tell a bachelor or one with bachelor-like tendencies (skirt chasing) from the kind of language they employ. Marriage, and a good one at that, has a way of grounding someone. @Githundi you make for valid points however the law is there for recourse. How often in your day to day activities do you flip through the constitution? Same case in marriage, we should both feel protected if, God forbid, things should go south. It is either that or instead of divorces we'll have widows. Are you willing to die for material things?
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 7/5/2010 Posts: 2,061 Location: Nairobi
|
@Wendz, @Mukiri.... Engaged once, been thru all the ruracio crap. She flew out for further studies. A huge chunk of that money came out of my savings, cleaned out my accounts. Has never returned. Also has never returned the cash. Am I an idiot or am I an idiot ??  ... If you have never been stabbed in the back you cant possibly know how it feels.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/11/2012 Posts: 5,222
|
quicksand wrote:@Wendz, @Mukiri.... Engaged once, been thru all the ruracio crap. She flew out for further studies. A huge chunk of that money came out of my savings, cleaned out my accounts. Has never returned. Also has never returned the cash. Am I an idiot or am I an idiot ?? ... If you have never been stabbed in the back you cant possibly know how it feels. Pole sana. I take back my words. However, you need to find peace and let go of the need to define yourself on the basis of material things. I have gained and lost millions and sometimes I'm happiest when I lose them. There is someone here with a moniker that when they get money they find a quick way of spending it, lest it finds a way into their heart. TIP: One day travel to a far off country and live like a pauper, a poor man. A month or two... you'll appreciate life over money.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/18/2011 Posts: 12,069 Location: Kianjokoma
|
Wendz wrote:[quote=kizee1]
the sword cuts both ways, the media has made it seem like women alone would be affected, but as you point out many women own property so the issue of fairness is moot
That's the thing. people are just jumping up and down and these are the questions we need to be asking.... not getting all emotional about the whole thing. Anyone can own property and women these days are clinching well paying jobs and doing massive investments. Infact, if you ask many of these real estate sellers they'll tell you there are many many women buying these houses.... I think the point is to be objective and deal with real issues.
If laws are to be passed which concern families, they need to be done by very sober people.... i don't know if our parliament is that sober. this is not a battle between men and women. it should be a battle to maintain the least disruption to the family as much as possible, before, during and even after the marriage. It shouldnt create a situation where one party takes advantage of the other. For example, we have as many Mbuguas these days as we have young gals ready to reap where they did not saw. May be what you owned before marriage is yours, 50/50 for property acquired DURING marriage if marriage lasts 10+ years.... less than that, you take home what you have invested in.... something like that. wewe toa goggles. would it have been fair for Mbugua if he had divorced Wambui after one year to have an equal share?? It cuts boh ways, YES! Especially now that we have these professional women who are all monied but are male repellant. Wakizeeka they might look for a twenty something year old.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 7/11/2008 Posts: 401
|
While quicksand is not married I do agree with most of what he has said. What is mine is mine, what is yours is yours and what is ours is ours.
I would be interested to know whether this marriage bill accommodates polygamous unions given that 50/50 may not work in this case.
To pastor Mukiri it is all well and good to say that after the divorce you will pick up and start all over again but the circumstances may not allow you. Say you become incapacitated and are unable to work and this is the reason your spouse seeks to divorce you in the first place what happens then?
In order to test this 50/50 theory, the best thing would be to do a practice run. This evening sit down with your spouse and agree to pool all your money in one joint account. All shares, log books and titles are to be transferred to be in your joint names. Once done report back here with your findings.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 11/7/2007 Posts: 2,182
|
poundfoolish wrote:That bill is perfectly fair..
I know women who have worked hard only for their men to sustain other mipango wa kandoz..
Kila mtu na jasho lake. If I acquired wealth before I met you. let mine be mine, we can share the profits and dividends and whatever else accrues from it pamoja. Same applies to you and what is yours.
equality does not mean getting what you did not work for at the stroke of a pen; either to join or annul a union kayamba Kayamba Kayamba! Kayamba Kayamba! Kayamba Kayamba! !! LOVE WHAT YOU DO, DO WHAT YOU LOVE.
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 9/19/2011 Posts: 1,694
|
nesta wrote:Sansa wrote:This woman goes to work, or (if she is lucky or unlucky depending on how you look at it) to the biashara you have opened for her, works her butt off all day, comes home to deal with the kids and then when you finally get home she treats you like a small god (because she knows you expect it) and you want her to walk away with only what she contributed? How do you even start calculating that? This argument doesn't fly....what if you have a househelp who treats you like a small god? And a shopkeeper whom you have employed? If that's the case the the woman should demand the salary of a househelp and that of a shopkeeper. I think the best way to get accurate information on such matters is looking for the bill itself. After yesterdays half information the newspapers today tell a different story ----> BIG WIN FOR STAY AT HOME SPOUSESIf the media had done proper research they would have noticed the definition of "contribution" to mean monetary and non-monetary contribution
“People will believe a big lie sooner than a little one, and if you repeat it frequently enough, people will sooner or later believe it.” ― Walter C. Langer
|
|
|
Rank: Veteran Joined: 10/8/2008 Posts: 1,575
|
Kratos wrote:nesta wrote:Sansa wrote:This woman goes to work, or (if she is lucky or unlucky depending on how you look at it) to the biashara you have opened for her, works her butt off all day, comes home to deal with the kids and then when you finally get home she treats you like a small god (because she knows you expect it) and you want her to walk away with only what she contributed? How do you even start calculating that? This argument doesn't fly....what if you have a househelp who treats you like a small god? And a shopkeeper whom you have employed? If that's the case the the woman should demand the salary of a househelp and that of a shopkeeper. I think the best way to get accurate information on such matters is looking for the bill itself. After yesterdays half information the newspapers today tell a different story ----> BIG WIN FOR STAY AT HOME SPOUSESIf the media had done proper research they would have noticed the definition of "contribution" to mean monetary and non-monetary contribution It is the same jono who reported yesterday! www.nation.co.ke/news/Bi...4/-/117mwfr/-/index.htmlI care!
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/2/2009 Posts: 26,328 Location: Masada
|
Obi 1 Kanobi wrote:Mukiri wrote:maka wrote:quicksand wrote:Are we not equal, men and women?
I support this and I am unapologetic about it. If there is anything that turns my blood cold its the thought of being turned out to the street after a split in middle age, with your house and investments which you have worked so hard for during your youth handed to your ex-wife. I am not hitched currently, and have a few coins here and there - earned by back breaking effort, blood and sweat; parliament is right to say that whoever I marry keeps hers paws of the stuff I acquired prior- or even those I acquired after out of my own resourcefulness and capital if she didn't put in hard and countable currency.
Hakuna kucheka na watu. Men are bad but so are women. The pragmatist in me tells me that when I marry, there is also a probability of the union failing. What follows from that is cold, hard logic - and the logic is a man can't afford to build his life from scratch over again if he splits from his wife. Some of a man's assets need to be untouchable (for those who are about to tell me about love and its all conquering ways and my own flawed attitude, save your breath - people cant be fully trusted, and that is only constant worth trusting completely these days)
Read European papers. Men over there get cleaned out by gold-digging and scheming wives, especially Britain, where family courts usually strip guys bare leaving them destitute and depressed.
I have no qualms about property that was co-acquired (both names on the deed) being split up. But stuff registered in just one person's name should be theirs. It is up to women to be alert and ensure that their spouses do not con them. When they hand over money to the husband, they should demand to be cosignors in the business/property arrangement. Away with this silly ambiguity that 'husbands make wealth because women are making a stable home' Will it be a marriage or a business agreement? Some men should (unapologetically) be married to their property. Does the bill consider her invaluable contributions, when she cuts short her sleep to make you breakfast, hustles with the kids(punishes her body to get your kids in the first place), cleans your house, comforts you in grief, encourages you, sh@gs you when not in the mood etc Id happily give my property to my wife and start from scratch. All these material things are straws. Shackles that bind us. And when we die we leave them papa hapa. I am with @Mukiri on this. People should marry people they know and understand, in most cases, people who marry gold diggers are normally warned but ignore the warnings and obvious signs. It however happens and the best the society can offer is sympathy, there is no reason to legislate this. I am married and should the inevitable happen and we have to split, I am sure we can come to a reasonable understanding on how to split our property (house furniture & utensils ) At that point of separation usually there is no REASON!  Portfolio: Sold
You know you've made it when you get a parking space for your yatcht.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 6/19/2008 Posts: 4,268
|
Lolest! wrote:Wendz wrote:[quote=kizee1]
the sword cuts both ways, the media has made it seem like women alone would be affected, but as you point out many women own property so the issue of fairness is moot
That's the thing. people are just jumping up and down and these are the questions we need to be asking.... not getting all emotional about the whole thing. Anyone can own property and women these days are clinching well paying jobs and doing massive investments. Infact, if you ask many of these real estate sellers they'll tell you there are many many women buying these houses.... I think the point is to be objective and deal with real issues.
If laws are to be passed which concern families, they need to be done by very sober people.... i don't know if our parliament is that sober. this is not a battle between men and women. it should be a battle to maintain the least disruption to the family as much as possible, before, during and even after the marriage. It shouldnt create a situation where one party takes advantage of the other. For example, we have as many Mbuguas these days as we have young gals ready to reap where they did not saw. May be what you owned before marriage is yours, 50/50 for property acquired DURING marriage if marriage lasts 10+ years.... less than that, you take home what you have invested in.... something like that. wewe toa goggles. would it have been fair for Mbugua if he had divorced Wambui after one year to have an equal share?? It cuts boh ways, YES! Especially now that we have these professional women who are all monied but are male repellant. Wakizeeka they might look for a twenty something year old. @ .... do you work for any media house(half-baked reporting) or who's got muddy goggles now?
|
|
|
Rank: User Joined: 8/15/2013 Posts: 13,237 Location: Vacuum
|
Why are people angry with the bill? Why do people get married? If you marry for love then you shouldn't worry because there wont be a divorce. You should worry if you take marriage as you investment strategy. If Obiero did it, Who Am I?
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Culture
»
matrimonial property bill
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|