More on Marriage
Is marriage in the US on the rocks like it is in Britain? Apparently, the changing views on marriage are not going to stop the British legal system from stepping in to further control interpersonal behavior as those who are living together will now be subject to similar "rights" of those who are married--and finally, now gay couples will be included in the screw job--I mean rights--that we heterosexuals have suffered with--I mean "benefited" from, for years. (Hat Tip: Hot Air)
BTW, I am not talking about the interpersonal relationship of marriage as a "screw job"--a wonderful relationship is the ultimate reason for marriage, I merely mean that unfair laws regarding marriage can sometimes be a "screw-job."
BTW, I am not talking about the interpersonal relationship of marriage as a "screw job"--a wonderful relationship is the ultimate reason for marriage, I merely mean that unfair laws regarding marriage can sometimes be a "screw-job."
posted by Helen at 8:23 AM
17 Comments:
If the Ministers are so concerned that people living together think they have the same rights as married couples , wouldn't it be easier, cheaper, and just plain better to spend some money to inform them that they don't have the "rights" of married couples? Obviously this "concern" is just a smokescreen (as usual) for more government control.
Mike Doughty
Marriage on the rocks doesn't surprise me. It would take a true miracle to get me to remarry. And, I decided long ago not to have a "live-in" companion either. More and more people are realizing that with the high divorce rates and the unfairness of settlements that marriage if often a bad gamble.
In the UK it seems an educational campaign to inform people of their rights in non-married relationships would be satisfactory. Then people could make the choice as to what type of relationship they want. The eventual effect of such laws will be to decrease the number of living together couples.
I wonder how this will work with two people living together that don't have a sexual relationship. I know a gay guy who bought and lived in a large house with a woman for several years. This was not a try to appear straight action but basically a business arrangement between friends. With today's lawyers, etc. I could see arrangements like these becoming nasty.
If the problem is people don't know there are no "common law marriages," wouldn't it be simpler, easier, faster, and cheaper to run a few ads on the radio and TV to let them know.
(I composed this before I read the preceding comment; obviously all great minds think alike.)
There's no common law marriages in the place where the common law was (sort of) born?
That tickles me for some reason.
Dr. Helen, I like your husband's idea, if I understand it correctly: make marriage a contractual agreement. Make it excruciatingly specific. Take the sting out of pre-nups. Everyone should have one. Everyone should be clear on the outcome.
Benefits: 1)A contract is a pain in the arse and would require thought before impetuous decisions (remember Brittney Spears 5-minute drunken marriage?) 2)The notion of whether to have children or not would come up 3)Money division could be clarified in writing 4)Custody arrangements could be made ahead of time 5)Family members would be more likely to raise concerns--it would be a legal agreement
In fact, the benefits are endless. Your husband is a genius!
Dr. Melissa,
Well, of course, I think my husband is a genius. I do think the marriage contract is a good idea as it spells out exactly what two people want. Of course, things change as a marriage goes along and perhaps amendments could be added or subtracted based on negotiation. This way, in the case of a divorce, there would be no surprises.
why not make it a renewable contract system, you get a licence for 1 year, or 2, or 5, or 10 or for eternity, and at the end if you both want to carry on renew it, if it doesnt no harm no foul, if theres kids involved have it in the marriage licence that the kids will be take care of. takes all the power out of the lawyers hands, and it will be cheaper, and better for everyone.
Heh..I'm a lawyer and I don't know how many times I've had to tell people that one is not "automatically married" after 7 years under common law. That has been so ingrained into people here in the US and I don't even know where it comes from. I am in a common law marriage state (Montana) but 7 years has nothing to do with it.
And the effort to prove a common law marriage usually comes after one partner is deceased and the other's trying to get some inheritance or benefits.
Interesting thoughts! As a Conservative with Libertarian leanings, I agree that marriage should be split in two, not the husband and the wife, but the sacred and the political. In this way, homosexual couples could join in a legal union, sanctioned by the state, while religious institutions could decide whether or not to marry folks.
The Conservative part of me balks at the thought of time-limited marriages that could be renewed. But the Libertarian part of me says "Why not, if that is what people want?"
I agree that Glenn is a genius, but it is not lost on me all the money waiting to be made by practicing lawyers in the negotiations and breach of contract suits that would flow from totally contractualizing unions. Now I cannot decide if it would lower or raise the amount of time a divorcing couple spent in court.
Trey
If they separated state and marriage, it would be much harder to have spousal medical benefits. That might be bad news for a lot of people. But it would save our family quite a bit of money, since my wife and I both pay for employment benefits.
"why not make it a renewable contract system, you get a licence for 1 year, or 2, or 5, or 10 or for eternity,"
There used to be a form of this in Ireland, the "Telltown (Tailtiu) marriage. You got married for a year, and had to renew if you wanted to continue. It was associated with Bealtine celebrations at the beginning of May. That suggest it was a very old custom, going back who nows how many millenia, so it's far more traditional than anything in the Bible. That also suggests why it was suppresed eventually - ore because they were un-Roman that un-Biblical I am sure, along with a lot of other traditional marriage customs, such as the ability of men and women to enter several marriages, as long as they were all legally different, ie with members of legally different classes, so that none of the marriages competed on the same legal footing.
"but it is not lost on me all the money waiting to be made by practicing lawyers in the negotiations and breach of contract suits that would flow from totally contractualizing unions."
Standard contracts for most people, maybe? Boilerplate?
Cassandra, that seven-year business may be some folk memory from England, where ironiclaly enough, it appears they no longer have common law marriages. There is still something like this in a related culture, Sweden; it is called a conscience marriage, and it is legally binding. And it has nothing to do with a church weding, so it is probably a pagan survival.
Years ago, while I was a communicant in the Episcopal Church, I learned that any man and woman who agreed between themselves to live together as husband and wife were, in fact, married in the eyes of God, according to the Church. That did not suffice for the state, of course, but it provided some small comfort to one couple who thought they were married for more than 15 years, only to find out that they had married too soon after one was divorced. They were married in church as quickly as possible. In such a case, in this country, it was a "conscience" marriage, and a spiritual one, but not legally binding (to their horror!)
Perhaps the Ministers are just trying close the little loophole for men as this Brit planned
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=1&subID=516
Helen,
My wife Colleen, a school psychologist, and I, a social worker, listened to this enjoyable podcast together. It is so refreshing to hear another mental health professional who thinks like we do. I am talking about your statements such as "college is overrated," "people listen to experts too much instead of trusting their instincts," "children should not be idealized or put on a pedestal," "parents need to teach children responsibility," and "children are becoming more narcissistic and have a sense of entitlement." I also liked Lileks' emphasis on helping children find happiness. Dennis Praeger uses the second hour of his radio program every Friday to talk about the importance of happiness. I recommend it to anyone who has not heard him. As we were listening to your podcast, our two-year-old, whom we adopted in February, was cracking herself up lying in bed tickling her blankie, which she calls Gigi. Some people just have that natural knack for happiness! Oh, and we loved the music at the end with the profound lyrics, "You should have grown up when you had a chance!"
Bob,
Great to hear that you enjoyed the podcast. I think everyone has gotten so serious about children that we forgot to let them be kids! And at the same time, we need to teach kids real responsibility (have you seen a 13 year old babysitting lately?) so they dont't feel like the only way to prove they are adults is by drinking, having sex and acting in a reckless manner. I like the music also.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
免費視訊聊天室免費視訊聊天室546 視訊聊天室546 視訊聊天室uthome 視訊聊天室uthome 視訊聊天室168 視訊聊天室168 視訊聊天室0401 影音視訊聊天室0401 影音視訊聊天室080視訊聊天室080視訊聊天室視訊聊天室v6 0視訊聊天室v6 085cc免費影城85cc免費影城173liveshow視訊美女173liveshow視訊美女173視訊聊天
Post a Comment
<< Home