NORMAN — Editor, The Transcript:
Your editorial of May 28, 2010, concerning changes made to Oklahoma divorce law says that “House Bill 1053 would change Oklahoma’s alimony statute solely for members of the military.” As I read HB 1053 this is not true. (I reference http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/CF/2009-10%20COMMITTEE%20REPORTS/House/CCR%20Combined/HB1053%20CCR.DOC)
HB 1053 does, in fact, require a marriage to coincide with more than 10 years of military service for any military retired pay to be considered as “property.” It does not, however, prohibit a former spouse from receiving alimony “for support” based on the service member’s military pay or military retired pay, or, in the case of a traditional Guardsmen or Reservist, all income, military and civilian. The editorial cry that “For a longer marriage, the court would have discretion and may strip the veteran’s spouse from any attachment to the pension” is moot. There was no requirement that a military or other pension be divided as property; it was and still is an option of the court.
The way I read this, if a marriage coincides with 9 years 11 months and 27 days of military service, the former spouse is eligible for alimony; if it coincides with 10 years of military service, then the former spouse is eligible (if the court so decides) for alimony and possibly a portion of any current or future retired pay. Remember, if the service member separates before retirement or does not apply for retired pay, the former spouse receives no portion of retired pay. Hence the “support the troops” requirement for annual and periodic reminders to Oklahoma Guardsmen/women that retired pay can be treated as property in divorce cases. There was no mention of briefings stating that divorce courts can treat pay and pensions as income for alimony purposes, much less that refusing an earned pension could be seen as willful neglect and result in continued alimony requirements that exceed income after “retirement” without the pension.
The other insidious quality of this bill is that it strips aIl former spouses from receiving what many have come to consider their share, “earned” through their care and support of the working member, of pension benefits divided as property should that former spouse remarry or cohabit with a member of the opposite sex at any time subsequent to the divorce.
As changed, Oklahoma Statute 43, Section 134 A, requires aIl divorce decrees providing for payments of “property” to state such payments are “irrevocable and not subbed to subsequent modification, except as provided in subsection G of this section.” Subsection G provides for termination upon the former spouse’s remarriage or cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex. Subsection G does not limit said former spouses to those of military service members. I read this to mean ALL such divisions of retired pay/pension “property” terminate upon the former spouse’s remarriage or cohabitation with a member of the opposite sex. Therefore, this law equalizes such treatment of military and civilian pension assets in applicable divorce cases in Oklahoma; it all is treated as alimony.
The unfairness of this law extends to its apparent retroactive applicability to already settled divorce cases in which the former spouse is currently receiving a portion of a pension as property and, having remarried or found a cohabitation partner, is now subject to losing the property unexpectedly.
But, when compared to the ability of our elected representatives to remove retirement benefits from military pensioners, this is not surprising. When I first took my oath there were many promises of benefits for post retirement years that have since been eliminated or drastically reduced. What made you think they would treat military family members any better?
It is my fond hope that someday my fellow voters will realize that most of our current elected representatives, especially those of the Republican persuasion and “conservative” offshoots, support the Defense Industry not the Troops. After all, the fewer service members who retire, the more money the Department of Defense will have to support the Business of war.
I also dream that women will awaken and see that the “Christian Values” supported by these politicians (male and female) are those established by the patriarchal hierarchy, those that subjugate women and render us as “property” in any marriage; making the property settlement in any divorce to consist of our freedom and little else.
HELEN P. MERCHANT
Slaughterville
