The list of volatile topics at play in the 2015 Legislature is long. It includes abortion, gay adoption, medical marijuana and guns.

But one issue continues to strike a particularly deep emotional chord: alimony.

It’s not surprising in a state where some 141,000 people get married each year and another 80,000 get divorced.

The last time the Legislature passed an alimony bill in 2013 it resulted in hundreds of Floridians inundating Gov. Rick Scott’s office with emotional pleas to either reject or sign the bill. Scott, who has been married 43 years, vetoed it.

Bills are again moving in the House and Senate that would end permanent alimony, create a formula for determining the length and amount of alimony and create the presumption that child-sharing should be on a “50-50” basis.

In a 5-1 vote Wednesday, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Criminal and Civil Justice backed a bill (SB 1248), sponsored by Sen. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland.

“The overall goal of this is to reduce litigation that inflicts an economic and emotional toll on spouses and their families,” Stargel said.

Stargel said the bill is an attempt to create a formula for awarding alimony similar to the arrangement currently used to determine child-support payments in divorce cases.

It would end permanent alimony and would generally limit the alimony payments to 25 to 75 percent of the term of the marriage. It would also cap the combination of alimony and child support payments to no more than 55 percent of the income of the spouse making the payments.

Stargel said the idea of the formula is to allow divorces to move more quickly to “the healing stage,” while trying to fairly divide the income and assets of the couple. Stargel said the bill also gives judges the ability to create a settlement outside of the formula if circumstances warrant it.

“The judge has the judicial discretion to go outside the parameters set forth in this formula,” Stargel said.

In a concession to Scott’s veto message two years ago, Stargel said the bill would not apply “retroactively” to divorce cases already settled. Scott cited the retroactivity provision in his 2013 veto, saying it would unfairly impact spouses who had built their post-divorce lives on the alimony agreements.

But Stargel’s bill drew opposition from a group of women who were stay-at-home mothers in long-term marriages that dissolved.

Cindy Mayer, a mother of three from Volusia County who was in a 20-year marriage, questioned the impact of ending permanent alimony.

“This bill is harmful to stay-at-home mothers,” Mayer said. “It’s a one size fits all. The duration of the alimony is not sufficient for families.”

If alimony ends, Mayer said it could become difficult for women to pay mortgages or keep their families in homes where the children know the neighbors and can attend the same schools.

“This bill is definitely one-sided towards the payer, the breadwinner and does not take into account or address the needs of the stay at home mother or the children,” she said.

Leisa Athey, an Orlando mother who was in a 23-year marriage, questioned whether the bill could still have a retroactive effect since it would allow settlements to be modified once the spouse making the alimony payments retires.

Cathy Jones, a Lakeland woman who was in a 20-year marriage, said while the bill may not impact existing settlement agreements, it would impact women in current marriages who eventually ended up in a divorce.

“This bill is a fiasco,” she said. “It is punitive. It is one-sided.”

Tari MacMillan, who has been paying permanent alimony to her ex-husband for 15 years after a 13-year marriage, said she supported the bill because if it had been in place when she was divorced, she might have been able to avoid years of litigation that eventually led her to declare bankruptcy, after losing her home, car and retirement savings.

“Under this bill a more balanced result could have been achieved without the need for a personally and financially destructive lawsuit,” said MacMillan, who is a member of the Family Law Reform group that has been advocating for alimony changes since 2010.

Another controversial provision in the bill is the presumption that child sharing should be on a 50-50 basis for all divorces, although the bill gives the judges the discretion to alter that presumption.

Nelson Diaz, representing the family law section of The Florida Bar, said his group supports the alimony provisions in the bill, but has concerns about the child-sharing language. He said the lawyers’ group is working with lawmakers on a possible compromise.

Sen. Arthenia Joyner, D-Tampa, voted against the bill on Wednesday, citing the 50-50 provision as one of her reasons. “I just can’t understand how this fits in an alimony bill,” she said.

The Senate bill next heads to the Appropriations Committee. A similar bill (HB 943), sponsored by Reps. Colleen Burton, R-Lakeland, and Ritch Workman, R-Melbourne, is ready for a floor vote in the House.