Orange County Commentary : Letters : Sullivan vs. Sullivan Court Ruling

Regarding the Dec. 31 ruling by the Supreme Court on the Sullivan vs. Sullivan case, most of the media seems to be collectively missing the main point of the decision.

The cause that has been fought for all these years is whether a professional degree or advanced training can be considered community property. The Supreme Court has ruled "no." The reporters' version has been exploiting the sensationalism that Mark Sullivan may have to pay Janet Sullivan an undetermined amount of money. This point has never been disputed, yet it seems to hold more intrigue than the main issue.

The courts seem to support the independence of the less-educated spouse (often a woman), saying that these individuals are capable of being self-supporting and should go on with the rest of their lives. The groups against the Sullivan Law are placing women in a position of lifetime dependency on another. This, in essence, says that women are more helpless as human beings than children.

As a woman who has been divorced in the past, I truly resent the insinuation that I must be cared for because I cannot do it myself. One would hope that we women have advanced beyond the state of concubinage.

If women want to enhance their self-esteem and attain equality, they are going to have to develop an attitude of independence and fight for their rights to sever the financial umbilical cord that pseudo-feminists want to keep permanently attached. The time has come to think pro-woman instead of anti-man.


Laguna Niguel

Maureen Sullivan is now married to Dr. Mark Sullivan.

Copyright © 2019, Los Angeles Times
EDITION: California | U.S. & World