Is Marriage in Britain on the Rocks?
Here is an article from the Times on the rewritten rules of marriage and divorce in Britain. I found the responses to the debate on the issue of whether or not divorcees should live off their ex-partner's fortunes interesting. I wonder if all of these intrusive rules are why marriage in Britain is "on the rocks?" (Hat Tip: dhdiary blog)
What I find amazing in these divorce cases is that the British legal system sees fit to think that women are entitled to enormous compensation from their rich ex-husbands because they go into the marriage expecting to be wealthy and then, when the marriage ends, they have a "need" to keep up this wealthy standard of living.
Wouldn't the equivalent for men be that a guy expected super hot sex when entering the marriage and once divorced, should be able to expect this from the ex-wife on a regular basis as long as a "need" is present? Maybe men in Britain should bring up this idea to the Parliament and see how it plays out.
What I find amazing in these divorce cases is that the British legal system sees fit to think that women are entitled to enormous compensation from their rich ex-husbands because they go into the marriage expecting to be wealthy and then, when the marriage ends, they have a "need" to keep up this wealthy standard of living.
Wouldn't the equivalent for men be that a guy expected super hot sex when entering the marriage and once divorced, should be able to expect this from the ex-wife on a regular basis as long as a "need" is present? Maybe men in Britain should bring up this idea to the Parliament and see how it plays out.
posted by Helen at 7:27 PM
20 Comments:
It's certainly the #1 reason I've never been married and never will get married. Too much legal liability. Marriage is a business arrangement. It's a bad one for men. A good one for women. As an American male I'd be stupid to do that sort of deal.
Stay single. Stay free.
I've been divorced here in Canada...I've seen what it could do and now know the realities involved. There is no way on God's Green Earth (tm) I will ever even consider co-habitating with a woman, let alone marry one, now that I know the law.
Ignorance of reality (more to the point refusal to believe the truth) is the only reason men even consider marriage here.
Either that or these men are just as gullible as I was.
Note that England was considered to be the "international jurisdiction of choice for divorce" (for divorcing women, one presumes) even prior to these decisions, and further that "At risk is anyone living in the United Kingdom, including even the many expat Americans"...
http://www.forbes.com/celebrities/2006/05/18/mccartney-beatles-divorce-cz_mf_0518mccartney.html
Don't wait for my tears to fall. This is not too far from the system we've had in Texas all along.
One relevant point is that prenuptial arrangements, common in the US, are not law here, it seems.
There is a story in today's Times (the day after the story you post about) detailing news of a case where a woman has to sell her home, etc, in order to support her husband, married one year. It cuts both ways.
There is also some correspondence in the Times about it today, including a letter from a vicar who says that he would not marry a couple if he knew they had a prenuptial agreement, becuase in his (church's) view, marriage is forever and you promise to share all your wordly goods for evermore.
In conclusion, I do not think anyone shoudl draw any general conclusions about "marriage in Britain" or anywhere else on the basis of two court cases and an article in the Times. People are people, and you can't generalise.
Generalising is what the UK govt is currently trying to do at the moment re. national diet/obesity.
Whole milk is now being banned in schools. I have two thin (skinny even) daughters. They are being told by authority that milk is bad but (by implication of omission) crisps, chips, biscuits, processed foods full of salt and additives, etc, are OK?
My point is, you can't generalise about any of these things. You either eat a sensible diet or you don't. You marry someone or not according to your own principles, you cannot legislate for human behaviour at this level.
Maxine,
The point is that the British government has interfered and decided to generalize about marriage--and court cases are important--they set the precedent for cases that follow and effect people's behavior by example. You are right that you cannot and should not legislate human behavior at this level. I believe that marriage should be a private contract between two people--not a commodity to be regulated by government.
I think Maxine has the gist of it: British courts have been willing to throw out pre-nups that were entered into with knowledge and consent by both parties. I vaguely recall this happening in U.S. courts a few times in the '70s when pre-nups were first coming into fashion here, but AFAIK this never became a precedent. I believe American courts still regard pre-nups in general as enforceable.
As for the larger issue: I'll have to admit that I don't know what to think. I've been married to a wonderful woman for 11 years now. I trust her completely and I'm positive she would not pull that kind of stunt on me. Then again, I know of at least one man whose wife, after 25 years of marriage, suddenly decided she wanted out, and they have been going through a very messy process. I'll have to admit that in the back of my mind is the thought that my wife could take me to the cleaners if she were so inclined. But I don't really know. I had the experience of being a divorce child, and I know that the family courts can be downright screwy. The written law doesn't seem to have a lot of bearing on what actually happens in court sometimes.
I agree that court decisions such as this create incentives and alter behaviors that adversely affect marriages. On the other hand, there have always been factors that can make marriage a winning or a losing economic proposition. The underlying problem is that society no longer values marriage, nor does it reward married couples with social approval or unique benefits. Whatever benefits there once were to marriage can be acquired without actually getting married. The real issue is that society has already devalued marriage. Court decisions like this are simply tying up the loose ends left over from that devaluation.
I believe that marriage should be a private contract between two people--not a commodity to be regulated by government.
I love what you said there. I know it's totally off-topic, but I've been trying to phrase that debate in regards to gay marriage. I always wondered why gay people wanted government to acknowledge their marriages. Just one more personal issue for government to stick their nose into.
Michele,
I agree--it would seem that private contracts for marriage would be much better for couples of any sex than allowing for government intervention and regulation. However, there are probably benefits to having marriage regulated as it increases government power etc. and therefore the government would be reluctant to let go of that control.
i am a british man, i havent been married before, but i am engaged to a wonderful woman.
pre nups are considered "wacky" american things, not at all british.
a lot of the law makers are counting on the female voting to stay in power, so there is more and more pro female laws, which so long as there is equality in the law, the law should be blind in regards to sex and orientation. but it isnt, theres a lot of powerful groups pressing for changes in the law, the lawyers and feminists are going for these high cost divorces as lawyers get paid, women get money. and men, well men are somehow always deserving of being turned into a walking wallet.
LOL, Love that comment about sex.
Phillep
Cousin Dave:
Watch for the signs, if you get them, then be pre-emptive, quietly strip all your assets (max interest only mortgage, IRA rollovers to offshore accounts take max loans against it, etc), convert it into Gold bullion, bury it in a desert, mountain range or national forest.
Buy a luxury Sailboat, or a used 32 footer basic if you have to, with the largest mortgage possible, ... head out.
The lawyers lose interest if they can't find either you or the assets. That could take some of the sting and motivation out of the divorce.
I have a good friend who's wife flipped out and left him and three boys. She's now a Feng Shui consultant. Her lawyer thought she would get a big settlement off his business. ... nope.
She's also missing out on his most productive 20 years of income production in the future. She should have seen a psychiatrist, not a divorce lawyer.
From the article Comments "Firstly, pre-nups carry little legal weight in this country so are not a guarantee that your fortune will not be touched. Secondly, what temptation this ruling must put in the minds of young women newly wedded to a substantially more successful man - now they have him over a barrel, especially with the removal of consideration of conduct. "Buy me this house and car or else I'll divorce you and take your money". Thirdly, is this what men are really supposed to yearn for when they consider proposing to their sweetheart? That all their achievements in life so far are now to be subsumed into an amorphous 'one', to be divided in the event of divorce as if each partner has contributed the same proportion towards the whole? That may be the ideal but does it reflect the reality of most marriages! I for one will never get married now as this is not the sort of institution I want to be a part of. Alex MacGregor, Plymouth"
Hmmmmmmmmm ... certain "professional young men" in this country see it that way too" and it's increasing.
http://www.mattweeks.com/strike.htm
the Marriage Strike -- he's on strike
Well later, we're off to our anniversary dinner.
What is the ratio of males to females in the UK Parliament? What is the ratio of males to females in the UK judiciary?
Those who are whining about the laws in the UK can blame men for them.
anonymous its not about the ratios its about the whipped politictians, who follow the feminist line, if you notice, MEN gave women the vote, only about a generation after ALL MEN got the vote.
without the men to give women equality of the vote, then women wouldnt have it.
you are confusing, MP ratios with political power. look at blairs babes, thats what they are called, women only short lists for MP's.
so its mens fault for giving women the vote. for giving women more and more power.
I'm about as in-favor-of-tradition as you can get but even I think marriage is bum deal for guys. Maybe marriage was never a good idea in a purely utilitarian analysis, but thirty years of harridans imposing their own agenda-driven ideology on marriage certainly haven't helped to make it more favorable.
The more I read stuff like this, the more I realize just how lucky I was to find the woman I did.
Perhaps the best guidance in choosing a prospective spouse I've ever read comes, of all places, from Dr. Tom Stanley's "The Millionaire Mind" in the chapter "Choice of Spouse." Stanley identifies five characteristics of successful long-term marriages; these characteristics are necessary in both spouses:
- honest
- responsible
- loving
- capable
- supportive
Stanley further points out that marriages based on wealth (perceived or actual) or physical attractiveness are in fact the *least* likely to succeed. The accounts in the articles certainly appear to underscore the point.
So the key to success is to find an honest girl with a good heart, and love her with all of yours. Worked for me, anyway. ;)
Anonymous of 12:36 PM rhetorically asked, "What is the ratio of males to females in the UK Parliament? What is the ratio of males to females in the UK judiciary?"
Nice try at blaming men for the results of their obviously much greater generosity toward women than women show to men, Anonymous of 12:36 PM. Yes, in your haste to blame the victims (a little feminist lingo there), you've implicitly admitted that you are one of the many who, as this man notes, "hate us (men) for the very qualities we value most in ourselves and in others: such as generosity and self-sacrifice."
In his wonderful little downloadable book If Men Have All the Power How Come Women Make the Rules, author Jack Kammer points out the errors of the collectivist thinking with which your rhetorical questions are oh so pregnant, Anonymous of 12:36 PM. He notes that the vast majority of men lack the power and influence of the very few men who happen to be Members of Parliament and points out "It may be true that powerful men take care of their buddies, but powerful men are far more likely to devote their power to help and protect women they don't know than men they don't know..."
The message to women in England is now as clear as the already similar message to women in the U.S.: Marry a man who will be profitable to you in divorce. Don't marry the man. Marry his economic potential. Then divorce the man to get his money.
The message to men is equally clear: don't marry -- unless you are an unemployed bum with no prospects and no intention of ever producing anything in your life, and you happen upon a woman willing to support you.
Regarding the "Law Lords" of the British House of Lords, one wonders what would happen if when any of these "lords" got divorced they had to give up their prestigious and lordly "title" to their ex-wife?
Isn't the taking by the courts of this "title" and "position" (both very important things to British people, I assure you) directly analogous to the taking by the courts of the economic assets of these accomplished men -- assets which may be all they have to show for their life's work in their own professions?
But alas, what the "Lords" value most cannot be taken from them in divorce, now can it?
Future ex-wifes of British Lords, please do tell your attorneys that you also demand the hubby's position and title! It's only fair because without your many years of promoting him and putting up with the windbag you married, he surely would not have it!
You've earned it. You deserve it. It should be yours! Especially if you stayed married to the egomaniac for over 2 years and 9 months.
Now my "Lords", do you blithering fools get the point?
五分鐘護半身視訊美女五分鐘護半身視訊美女168 視訊美女168 視訊美女0401 視訊美女0401 視訊美女視訊美女一對一視訊美女一對一0401 影音視訊美女聊天室0401 影音視訊美女聊天室173liveshow 視訊美女173liveshow 視訊美女視訊美女 live0204視訊美女 live0204888 視訊美女聊天室888 視訊美女聊天室msn 視訊美女msn 視訊美女99 視訊美女主播 500 點99 視訊美女主播 500 點5 分鐘護半身視訊美女
Post a Comment
<< Home