I'm pretty sure this is a repeat. But it should be repeated.

I hate the idea of alimony. It's corrupt in most circumstances. It would only be ethical if:

(a) the lesser earner PROVES THEY COULD NOT BE EMPLOYED IN A COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER... This is not "elected to stay home." This is COULD NOT cost effectively stay home. And this would take some healthy proof. The lesser earning spouse would need to give hard numbers.

For example, if the couple has a Down's Syndrome baby, the lesser earner should prove he/she could not cover the cost of child care of a special needs child with a reasonable 40 hour job.

or (b) there is ample DISPOSABLE INCOME. This would still make alimony super evil. But it places a necessary guard rail. If the payor is left anywhere near the poverty line, judges cannot place the payor in debt of the payee.

In either case, there should be some required signature at the time of marriage warning people that this can happen, what alimony is, and what their risks are. One of the problems here is that kids are stupid. They don't realize five years down the line they might be responsible for their ex's income. I mean, who would even suspect such a thing? It's so "socialist." And it's weird, a socialist community of two. So unless the soon to be wed acknowledged they understood the situation, alimony cannot be claimed in the future. Yep, this would destroy the marriage rate. The answer is to get rid of alimony.

Women have an equal obligation to earn a paycheck. This is where we as a democracy went.

Child support as it exists today is fine perhaps minus some tuning. 50/50 is FINALLY a thing.