Govt free marriages

[Stealth001]

Civil marriage offers security to the woman (if she is the lower wage earner) and espeically if she is a mom. The man gets no security unless he is a dead beat and can prove he has been a dead beat for a period of time determined by the courts. If he has proven that he has not made any real money in X number of years then he is off the hook.

But if you are a degreed professional making good money the courts will hook you up every time.

So, would you agree that "civil marriage" offers a professional man making a decent living little to no security?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So, would you agree that "civil marriage" offers a professional man making a decent living little to no security?

Would you agree that "government free marriage" offers the female partner of a professional man, dependent on his income, little to no security?

 

[pittsflyer]

Depends if there are kids, how many, how long the marriage lasted and who was at majority fault. I am affraid that the days of the wall street banker leaving his wife of 25 years with 3 youngs kids is a fantasy these days.

The great majority of cases are women filing for divorce and then hopping on another pole before the divorce is even final with a kid or 2 and 1-4 years of marriage or less and the guy is paying out as if he left his wife of 30 years who served him in bed and out for all that time.

So no I dont feel sorry for women these days other than a VERY narrow group. I dont know if its just becuase there are so many more men than women these days or what. But it seems like these days if a woman is half way decent looking she can swing vine to vine with impunity.

The woman these days should not be dependant on his income, she has the right to work, vote etc etc.

Would you agree that "government free marriage" offers the female partner of a professional man, dependent on his income, little to no security?

 

[DZoolander]

I dunno, man. It's always been my observation (and true - it's out of the limited sample group I know... I certainly can't speak for everyone) that people don't get divorced flippantly. IMHO - people generally stay together far longer than they should - and not nearly enough people get divorced who should.

The idea that people are out there willy-nilly divorcing at the drop of a hat is just bizarre to me - because I don't know anyone that's done that. The cases of divorce I'm aware of (within my sphere of friends) were fraught over - debated ad nauseum - mulled over - etc...even when they were deserved. I don't know anyone that's ever gotten divorced because they "simply got tired of being married" or because the person put the toilet roll on the wrong way. Every case I know was precipitated by some pretty hard core douchebaggery by the other partner.

While I know a lot of people love to lament about how society nowadays promotes divorce - or that people are becoming more decadent and not mindful of their vows - I don't think that's the case. Society is simply now recognizing that sometimes your partner might just flat out be an ass - and it's not your duty to sacrifice your life at the alter of their jerkiness out of some misplaced feeling that somehow you're gonna be judged by God for saying "Made a mistake on that one. Time for a do-over."

...and I can't fault them on that.

 

[Dave-W]

reminds me of a song by Jerry Reed:

She got the gold mine I got the shaft
They took everything and split it down the middle
And gave her the bigger half
Sure seems kinda funny
but it hurts too much to laugh
She got the gold mine I got the shaft

Now, listen you ain't heard nothin' yet:
Why, they give her the color television set,
Then they give her the house, the kids, and both of the cars!
Well, then they start talkin' about child support,
Alimony, and the cost of the court
Didn't take me long to figure out how far in the toilet I was!

 

[pittsflyer]

That is an interesting point, I suppose the cases I have seen there had been some douchebaggery but the women left like a week after it started. I suppose it could have been going on for a long time and I was just unaware but even in my own expereince while I am not Jesus Christ I think women will walk out at the slightest sign of douchebaggery or even just a man standing up for himself.

Again this may just be the area that I live in. I have seen women walk out and hook up in pretty short order, very little working on the marraige or talking about it.

I dunno, man. It's always been my observation (and true - it's out of the limited sample group I know... I certainly can't speak for everyone) that people don't get divorced flippantly. IMHO - people generally stay together far longer than they should - and not nearly enough people get divorced who should.

The idea that people are out there willy-nilly divorcing at the drop of a hat is just bizarre to me - because I don't know anyone that's done that. The cases of divorce I'm aware of (within my sphere of friends) were fraught over - debated ad nauseum - mulled over - etc...even when they were deserved. I don't know anyone that's ever gotten divorced because they "simply got tired of being married" or because the person put the toilet roll on the wrong way. Every case I know was precipitated by some pretty hard core douchebaggery by the other partner.

While I know a lot of people love to lament about how society nowadays promotes divorce - or that people are becoming more decadent and not mindful of their vows - I don't think that's the case. Society is simply now recognizing that sometimes your partner might just flat out be an ass - and it's not your duty to sacrifice your life at the alter of their jerkiness out of some misplaced feeling that somehow you're gonna be judged by God for saying "Made a mistake on that one. Time for a do-over."

...and I can't fault them on that.

 

[Stealth001]

Would you agree that "government free marriage" offers the female partner of a professional man, dependent on his income, little to no security?

No. In a government free marriage, a woman has as much security as the man. Technically, given state laws, united in "civil marriage" or not, after the union is terminated a woman can file for child support if she gains custody of the child.

 

[Stealth001]

Depends if there are kids, how many, how long the marriage lasted and who was at majority fault. I am affraid that the days of the wall street banker leaving his wife of 25 years with 3 youngs kids is a fantasy these days.

The great majority of cases are women filing for divorce and then hopping on another pole before the divorce is even final with a kid or 2 and 1-4 years of marriage or less and the guy is paying out as if he left his wife of 30 years who served him in bed and out for all that time.

So no I dont feel sorry for women these days other than a VERY narrow group. I dont know if its just becuase there are so many more men than women these days or what. But it seems like these days if a woman is half way decent looking she can swing vine to vine with impunity.

The woman these days should not be dependant on his income, she has the right to work, vote etc etc.

 

[Stealth001]

reminds me of a song by Jerry Reed:

She got the gold mine I got the shaft
They took everything and split it down the middle
And gave her the bigger half
Sure seems kinda funny
but it hurts too much to laugh
She got the gold mine I got the shaft

Now, listen you ain't heard nothin' yet:
Why, they give her the color television set,
Then they give her the house, the kids, and both of the cars!
Well, then they start talkin' about child support,
Alimony, and the cost of the court
Didn't take me long to figure out how far in the toilet I was!

Exactly. Government free marriage is the only way a marriage will not carry the liabilities a man has to risk given the statutes governing civil marriage.

 

[Stealth001]

That is an interesting point, I suppose the cases I have seen there had been some douchebaggery but the women left like a week after it started. I suppose it could have been going on for a long time and I was just unaware but even in my own expereince while I am not Jesus Christ I think women will walk out at the slightest sign of douchebaggery or even just a man standing up for himself.

Again this may just be the area that I live in. I have seen women walk out and hook up in pretty short order, very little working on the marraige or talking about it.

My ex-wife and I were high school sweethearts who married after high school. We also attended a very legalistic church. However, we had happily served as Christians for nearly 12 years. Almost overnight she lost interest in church and eventually stopped going altogether. She began hanging out with friends she had at work. Most were divorced women "living it up" at corporate parties, etc.. Well, my ex grew fond of a male co-worker who was into the swinger lifestyle, evidently, she was intrigued. My wife then began to argue for an "open marriage". I rejected the mere possibility. I tried to be patient, tolerant, and I advocated for marriage counseling. She refused. I put software on our home computer to track her every move with regards to websites and emails. I discovered that she was flirting with this guy she worked with, discussing how to possibly get me interested, and she was even a part of a forum where she was planning on meeting with this guy she worked with and another guy she met online. I printed everything out and confronted her with the documentation and she flipped out because I was "spying" on her. She then demanded a divorce. I begged for counseling to no avail. She said, "I deserve to be happy and to live a little! Marriage isn't for me." I was never able to pull her out of her nose dive.

Interestingly, the court didn't care about any of the drama. They didn't care about what she had done. They wanted to just dissolve us like a corporation. Attorney's fees alone were roughly $6,000. Thank God we only have one child and I got shared custody.

I realized real fast that the statutes of civil marriage aren't related to justice or biblical principles. The state didn't care who was at fault. All they cared about was who made more money and therefore would pay the other. There was no real concern for damages or who violated the marriage covenant. I felt trapped in a godless world only focused on how to take my money.

In retrospect, I can say that civil marriage isn't worth the risks.

I did meet a lady and we hit it off. Both of us have experienced divorce. Her ex-husband was a cheat and a drunk in the military. He used every military resource at his disposal to rake her over the coals. Her experience was just as negative with the system she was subjected to. We both are Christians and we are both very libertarian minded. After seeing each other for over a year and a half we thought about getting married. While each of us were willing to commit for life and raise our children together (she has a daughter and I have a son)... the idea of a civil marriage and the liabilities involved continued to bother us and cause us to hold off any serious planning with regards to getting married. Then we discovered the "government free marriage" option. Our fellowship is a house church network. We have no licensed elders, so no minister "licensed" with the state is available to sign state "marriage licenses". Our house church also supports with the, Marriage Pledge, in which ministers conduct "Christian marriages" and allow individual couples to seek civil marriage separately should they choose. We also discovered that historically Quakers had no licensed clergy and don't even have a minister officiate their marriages. The couple declares their desire to marry and unites themselves in the eyes of God before family and friends. We felt that this was a beautiful option, so we did it. Our rings are the tokens of our covenant. We know that our marriage isn't recognized under the law. And we like it that way. Frankly, we don't want the government involved with our marriage or to be subject to courts if we decide to part ways. Yes, we reserve the right to seek a civil marriage if we choose. However, that is our choice to make and at this point neither of us are impressed with the institution of "civil marriage" being offered by the government. And with the growing concern over the acceptance of "gay marriage", we're almost adamant in our refusal to involve ourselves in the civil marriage system.

We're happy and this works for us. No church or fellow Christian has questioned our marriage or even asked to see a state marriage certificate. We have set up proper wills to resolve any issues of inheritance should one or both of us die.

So, needless to say, I'm a rather big advocate of government free marriage.

 

[DZoolander]

Ya know - it's bizarre for me to hear horror stories like that. My divorce was the complete opposite.

My ex-wife got into all sorts of weird behaviors - and I wanted no part of it. So, I filed for divorce. The initial cost was going to be around $500 for my attorney (plus whatever filing fees there were). The ex-wife didn't even respond - so I ended up having to pay another $400 or so to basically hire my attorney to essentially represent both of our interests. All in all - the divorce ended up costing me about $1000.

The truth was - it was simple and there was little drama. Of course - I didn't fight the idea of community property. I accepted that in California - it's a no fault state - so regardless of what had transpired - she was entitled to half of the assets accumulated during the marriage. That's how things were structured - that's how I divided the assets - and it was done. Six months - and I walked away.

When I hear people complaining about how "civil marriages don't take fault into account" - I'm often left wondering if the person doing the complaining is somehow doing some sort of computation like...

"Well, since they precipitated the divorce, or cheated, that should be reflected in the judgment. They may start out with 50% of all assets accumulated during the marriage - but since they caused it - they should get less."

Is that what you're getting at? You think that the courts should take blame into account and adjust the proceeds accordingly? So - kind of like - "You're a cheater - therefore you get none of the 50%...or you only get 25%...or whatever"?

 

[DZoolander]

And as far as gay marriage is concerned - I can't think of anything I really care about less.

What do I care if a couple of gays want to go to the courthouse, stand in front of a judge, and then call themselves "married" and reap the legal benefits of that? What bearing does that have on my life in any manner whatsoever? What bearing does that have on my marriage whatsoever?

So long as they're not lobbying for churches to have to marry them or recognize their marriages - which honestly I've never heard a single gay person say - what do I care? Call yourselves married. Call yourselves Martians for all I care. I've got better things to worry about that have an actual impact upon life.

Stop worrying about the gays.

 

[pittsflyer]

Depending on how old you were and how many assets you had the asset split is not always a big deal its the child and mom support and or alimony that is the gift that keeps on giving long after she is polishing some other guy.

Ya know - it's bizarre for me to hear horror stories like that. My divorce was the complete opposite.

My ex-wife got into all sorts of weird behaviors - and I wanted no part of it. So, I filed for divorce. The initial cost was going to be around $500 for my attorney (plus whatever filing fees there were). The ex-wife didn't even respond - so I ended up having to pay another $400 or so to basically hire my attorney to essentially represent both of our interests. All in all - the divorce ended up costing me about $1000.

The truth was - it was simple and there was little drama. Of course - I didn't fight the idea of community property. I accepted that in California - it's a no fault state - so regardless of what had transpired - she was entitled to half of the assets accumulated during the marriage. That's how things were structured - that's how I divided the assets - and it was done. Six months - and I walked away.

When I hear people complaining about how "civil marriages don't take fault into account" - I'm often left wondering if the person doing the complaining is somehow doing some sort of computation like...

"Well, since they precipitated the divorce, or cheated, that should be reflected in the judgment. They may start out with 50% of all assets accumulated during the marriage - but since they caused it - they should get less."

Is that what you're getting at? You think that the courts should take blame into account and adjust the proceeds accordingly? So - kind of like - "You're a cheater - therefore you get none of the 50%...or you only get 25%...or whatever"?

 

[pittsflyer]

Of course fault should count, it counts in all other forms of contract law. If mom does not play her cards right she should not even get custody of kids, rear end out on the street with nothing depending what she was doing.

The big ones are cheating, any form of sexual refusal, out of control spending & and drugs.

Ya know - it's bizarre for me to hear horror stories like that. My divorce was the complete opposite.

My ex-wife got into all sorts of weird behaviors - and I wanted no part of it. So, I filed for divorce. The initial cost was going to be around $500 for my attorney (plus whatever filing fees there were). The ex-wife didn't even respond - so I ended up having to pay another $400 or so to basically hire my attorney to essentially represent both of our interests. All in all - the divorce ended up costing me about $1000.

The truth was - it was simple and there was little drama. Of course - I didn't fight the idea of community property. I accepted that in California - it's a no fault state - so regardless of what had transpired - she was entitled to half of the assets accumulated during the marriage. That's how things were structured - that's how I divided the assets - and it was done. Six months - and I walked away.

When I hear people complaining about how "civil marriages don't take fault into account" - I'm often left wondering if the person doing the complaining is somehow doing some sort of computation like...

"Well, since they precipitated the divorce, or cheated, that should be reflected in the judgment. They may start out with 50% of all assets accumulated during the marriage - but since they caused it - they should get less."

Is that what you're getting at? You think that the courts should take blame into account and adjust the proceeds accordingly? So - kind of like - "You're a cheater - therefore you get none of the 50%...or you only get 25%...or whatever"?

 

[DZoolander]

Of course fault should count, it counts in all other forms of contract law. If mom does not play her cards right she should not even get custody of kids, rear end out on the street with nothing depending what she was doing.

The big ones are cheating, any form of sexual refusal, out of control spending & and drugs.

That's the thing - the state doesn't want to get involved in your drama. It doesn't want to waste resources attempting to sift through wild un-provable claims. It doesn't want to promote a system whereby people start conducting all sorts of wacky behaviors like investigating each other, hiring private attorneys, etc. They don't want to have to figure out the "he said she said" nonsense that would inevitably arise.

From their standpoint - they don't care. A partner wants out? It takes two to tango and they're not going to compel someone to stay where they don't want to stay. Someone wants out? Marriage is dissolved. Doesn't matter why. Everything obtained during the marriage is now split 50/50.

Other issues regarding fitness/morality can be brought up during child custody hearings, if applicable.

 

[pittsflyer]

So why do people throw a fit when men dont want to sign the contract? It should be no big deal if a couple does not want to get legally married. But it is and alot of people do throw a fit about it.

That's the thing - the state doesn't want to get involved in your drama. It doesn't want to waste resources attempting to sift through wild un-provable claims. It doesn't want to promote a system whereby people start conducting all sorts of wacky behaviors like investigating each other, hiring private attorneys, etc. They don't want to have to figure out the "he said she said" nonsense that would inevitably arise.

From their standpoint - they don't care. A partner wants out? It takes two to tango and they're not going to compel someone to stay where they don't want to stay. Someone wants out? Marriage is dissolved. Doesn't matter why. Everything obtained during the marriage is now split 50/50.

Other issues regarding fitness/morality can be brought up during child custody hearings, if applicable.

 

[DZoolander]

So why do people throw a fit when men dont want to sign the contract? It should be no big deal if a couple does not want to get legally married. But it is and alot of people do throw a fit about it.

Because of how society generally works.

For example - my wife is completely dependent upon me. I earn 90% of the cash in the house. We've both chosen, because we're married, to have me be the breadwinner and she stays home and takes care of the kids.

I know that type of thing is changing due to the need for dual incomes in a lot of situations...but let's use my case as an example.

Let's say I was a douchebag. Let's say I didn't treat her well, was condescending toward her (nothing physically abusive - I'm not going to go that far in my example), I ignored her wishes, etc... Let's say I was just generally a jerk to her.

...and let's say she wanted to leave.

Community property is a protection she's afforded so that I cannot then turn around and say "Hey, I've paid for everything. It's mine." It's a protection that's offered so that say I earned twice as much as she did, I don't start pro-rating out the contributions that she's made toward things in order to compute her "share".

That protection offers some degree of protection to her - so that she doesn't feel compelled to stay with me out of nothing but force of circumstance. It exists so that I do not have that kind of power over her.

And I don't disagree with that. I don't want women staying in situations with douchebag guys or guys who would feel empowered over their wives realizing that the wives are bargaining from a position of weakness. I prefer the idea that the state says "We don't care why. 50/50 on everything obtained during the marriage" - because how the alternative would play out is even more distasteful to me.

 

[pittsflyer]

Ok so why is it distasteful for so many people when men dont want kids or a marriage but just a long term relationship? That way with no kids to watch there is nothing stopping her from getting a job and being her own person so she can leave when ever she wants. No one has to have any leverage or bargianing power.

The problem with legal marraige is it assigns this dynamic even if there are no kids and if there are no kids then things SHOULD be prorated out. Because if she does not have a job and her own money its out of her own lazyness.

I mean I guess I get the whole child support kid thing but it is still financially devistating to men so its no surprise we are seeing a negitive birth rate amoung certian demographics. Where as women would still want the kids no matter what level of poverty it put them in, not so much with men. Men have kids becuase they want to have sex with women and for alot of women kids are a deal breaker. But the steaks are getting high enough for men now that they are less willing to give in to that so you see these women getting close to 30 freaking out because alot more men dont want to deal with the very scenario you described. They know the courts dont care so your entire life is at the discression of your wife and kids. I am sure some guys are genuine dbags but I think there alot of women who just have no coping skills because they are hot enough to not need them. Guy says one or 2 mean things and boom she is outta there because she has like 3 orbiters lined up to swing too. And of course the orbiters are going to justify it, saying oh he was such a dbag as if he had been cussing her out for 20 years every day.

When the courts refuse to define a line of fault then it becomes an antagonistic game with larger social implications like birth rates ability to defend ourselves as a nation, etc.

Because of how society generally works.

For example - my wife is completely dependent upon me. I earn 90% of the cash in the house. We've both chosen, because we're married, to have me be the breadwinner and she stays home and takes care of the kids.

I know that type of thing is changing due to the need for dual incomes in a lot of situations...but let's use my case as an example.

Let's say I was a douchebag. Let's say I didn't treat her well, was condescending toward her (nothing physically abusive - I'm not going to go that far in my example), I ignored her wishes, etc... Let's say I was just generally a jerk to her.

...and let's say she wanted to leave.

Community property is a protection she's afforded so that I cannot then turn around and say "Hey, I've paid for everything. It's mine." It's a protection that's offered so that say I earned twice as much as she did, I don't start pro-rating out the contributions that she's made toward things in order to compute her "share".

That protection offers some degree of protection to her - so that she doesn't feel compelled to stay with me out of nothing but force of circumstance. It exists so that I do not have that kind of power over her.

And I don't disagree with that. I don't want women staying in situations with douchebag guys or guys who would feel empowered over their wives realizing that the wives are bargaining from a position of weakness. I prefer the idea that the state says "We don't care why. 50/50 on everything obtained during the marriage" - because how the alternative would play out is even more distasteful to me.

 

[sdmsanjose]

Originally Posted by pittsflyer
Of course fault should count, it counts in all other forms of contract law. If mom does not play her cards right she should not even get custody of kids, rear end out on the street with nothing depending what she was doing.

The big ones are cheating, any form of sexual refusal, out of control spending & and drugs.

By EZ
That's the thing - the state doesn't want to get involved in your drama. It doesn't want to waste resources attempting to sift through wild un-provable claims. It doesn't want to promote a system whereby people start conducting all sorts of wacky behaviors like investigating each other, hiring private attorneys, etc. They don't want to have to figure out the "he said she said" nonsense that would inevitably arise.

From their standpoint - they don't care. A partner wants out? It takes two to tango and they're not going to compel someone to stay where they don't want to stay. Someone wants out? Marriage is dissolved. Doesn't matter why. Everything obtained during the marriage is now split 50/50.

Other issues regarding fitness/morality can be brought up during child custody hearings, if applicable.

"wild un-provable claims”………. What about PROVABLE claims?

“wacky behaviors”… What about drugs, adultery, ruining credit due to irresponsibility? Those are wacky behaviors that require accountability and consequences!

Marriage is dissolved. Doesn't matter why. Everything obtained during the marriage is now split 50/50.

That is right the state does not care about the drama of drug use, adultery, etc. in divorce. That is the reason that the state should stay out of being the authority over your personal relationships; because they do not care about what deeply affects the family on many issues.

That's the thing - the state doesn't want to get involved in your drama.

The feeling is mutual and I do not want the state involved in my personal relationships.


The state wants the authority but not the responsibility. You try that anywhere in a personal relationship or a business relationship and see how much that works for you.

For some Christians, and I assume other faiths, marriage is a sacred spiritual event. Now why would those people want the secular state to have the authority over the custody of their children and all their assets when violations of the spiritual marriage covenant is breached with very serious issues?


Should an adulterous and/or drug using partner get 50% of all assets and some custody of the children? That would be the current case with the state’s authority. Either the state takes the responsibility along with their authority or they should stay completely out of personal relationships.

 

[DZoolander]

Well, with respect to things being "proveable" - that's the thing, isn't it?

It's kind of like people that get all worked up over the fact that they got pulled over by the cops and frisked when they're innocent. You may know you're innocent. You may know that you're behaving yourself. But - do you really expect the cop is going to somehow via divine intervention miraculously know all that? You're a random - and a random he knows nothing about.

Same thing goes with people that show up in court making wild accusations. It may or may not be true. They have no idea. They don't know you - they don't know your history - etc. You're just a random face embroiled in an emotional situation that you may or may not be lashing out about (and most likely - you are). Family court and family law doesn't exactly bring out the best in people.

Do you really want to embark on a course of action where you're essentially encouraging people to fling wild accusations at each other in order to try and curry favor from the judge?

"Well, your honor, she was banging our next door neighbor."
"How do you know that?"
"My cousin told me. He saw her going into his house one day. Here. Let me bring up my cousin."

Wife:
"That's not true, your honor. I've never been inside of his house. His cousin is just lying to cover someone in his family - and to hide the fact that he was banging his secretary."
"How do you know he was having sexual relations with his secretary?"
"My best friend works at the company, and often sees them together during lunch. He also came home late one night after work with what appeared to be lipstick on his collar."

blah blah.

That's exactly what it would turn into. You'd create a system where it was a non-ending drama fest of friends-of-friends testifying on behalf of their friends in order to slander the other partner. You'd have people running around hiring private investigators in order to scrape up as much crap as they could about their partners - etc...

Ehhh - personally - given the option between the two - I prefer the anonymous "We don't care" option. "You two aren't getting along? Whatever you obtained during the marriage - 50/50. Now go away. See you again in a few years with your next drama fest."