Slavery vs Indentured Servitude

There is considerable disagreement on whether alimony comes under the category of slavery, where one is owned by another, or if it is indentured servitude, where one is bound in service to another for a debt which is required to be paid. Indentured servitude  was most commonly used in early America to bring much needed labor to the colonies.  A person wanting to leave his homeland, or forced to leave it, would have his or her passage paid by someone for whom he would agree to work in servitude for a pre-designated period of time, most often three to seven years.  

Againt the case for calling it slavery we find the following arguments being made by alimony recipients, their lawyers, and a few of the judiciary.  The falacies of these arguments follow the arguments themselves.
1) The alimony payer is free to go and come as he pleases.  Slaves are often rented out to another person for the owner, so they were not limited to the geographical locationof the "master." The slave owner always receives a cut of the slave's labor, even if that labor is conducted at another location for another person.  Trusted slaves, or those who are owned by masters who know government will enforce slave laws, often let the slave go on errands, unacompanied, away from home with the demand the slave will return.  

2.) All the alimony payer needs to do is put himself in the position of not having the ability to pay and the alimony payment requirment  will end.  This is simply not true as we have witnessed numerous men who have demonstrated in court the lack of ability to pay only to find themselves in jail for contempt of court  (the record is 14 years).

3.) Slaves are not freed on the death or remarriage of their master.  Actually, many slave owners in the past freed their slaves once the owner passed away.

Alimony being slavery is supported by the underlying fact that alimony is the form of slavery known as debt bondage.   Debt bondage (or bonded labor) is a form of contemporary slavery in which a person pledges themselves against a loan.[1]  In debt bondage, the services required to repay the debt may be undefined, and the services' duration may be undefined.[1]  Unfortunately, the poor alimony payor did not even pledge himself towards lifetime payment in the event of a failed marriage - his debt came ex post facto.   Nonetheless, courts consistantly place men in debt bondage to their ex-wives; but then those same courts gave us the Dread Scott Decision and allowed chattel slavery to exist for the first 80 years of the Republic.

The arguments made agianst alimony being indentured servitude, again by alimony recipients, their lawyers, and a few of the judiciary. 

1) There is no debt.  The court has created a debt.  If there is no debt then why would it need to be paid?

2)  Indentured servitude involved  a contract.  Marriage was a contract of which there was no clause which involved post divorce support.

3)  Indentured servitude was for a limited time.  The time required for lifetime alimony is limited by the death of the recipient or her remarriage.  This is even more cruel than the known duration of a contract for indentured servitude, the poor alimony payor has no idea when he will be set free.

It makes no difference whether alimony is slavery or indentured servitude.

Tennessee Constitution:
33. Slavery:  That slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, are forever prohibited in this State.
US Constitution Amendment 13: 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 

1) Kevin Bales (2004). New slavery: a reference handbook. ABC-CLIO. pp. 1518. ISBN 9781851098156. Retrieved 11 March 2011.