Govt free marriages

[DZoolander]

The statistics of that are always fascinating to me. In my case, I was the one that filed for a divorce, and I stayed single far longer than she did. In the time of my remarriage - she's seen two more husbands as well from what I understand. lol

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

What are you going to do in a hospital or court that can't be done by someone other than a spouse?

Visit in situations where family only is allowed to visit. Make decisions whether or not a breathing machine is to be continued or withdrawn. Consent to risky surgery procedures.

Inherit the house, the bank account, the business, in case of death. Have a right to a fair share of the assets in case one or the other insists on seperation.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Ah - decriminalization. Gotta love it ... (NOT!!!)

There still should be the death penalty for adulterers.

Would you have thrown the first stone?

 

[ValleyGal]

There are a lot more women than there are men to start with. Throw significantly more men in prison than women, and there are even more "marrigeable" women than men. Add to that the fact that the ratio of men to women in the north (Alaska, Yukon, NWT and Nunavut as well as northern regions of southern provinces) is significantly higher, in warmer climates in the Americas, there is a LOT of competition. Iow, women have to compete much, much harder to find a husband than men have to compete to find a woman. So that is one factor.

Women are more invested in raising their children, so they are less likely to marry right away than men. Men, on the other hand, are often driven by sexual desires and beautiful women vying for their attention, so they are more motivated to marry - in addition, if they have child maintenance to pay, they are more likely to find women so the expenses can be shared. They are also more hesitant to marry a woman with children.

What I am saying is that on the bottom line, no one wins in divorce. Women have their challenges and men have theirs. You see things from a male perspective, but I am telling you that it is not necessarily reality - at least not the whole reality. Imo, both spouses get a short end of the stick in divorce, and just because you do not see the inequity for women doesn't mean it isn't there.

In Canada, the courts used to favor women more than men. It was much more like what the US sounds like now. But For about the last 10-15 years, the courts are much more favorable toward men. As long as there are no child protection issues, the courts mandate that both parents attend co-parenting courses, and they award joint custody and guardianship as often as is possible as the first choice for parenting after divorce. This is what is in the best interest of the children, and that is the court's concern, regardless of who initiated the divorce or the grounds for the divorce. And the court is very strict about both men and women regarding child support.

I think you might be hearing from friends, etc, and your perspective is narrowed by the limitations of your knowledge, as it is for most people. In addition, it is easier for you to identify with men's perspective rather than women's, and that is also understandable.

As for looks, men's looks do not change as much with age as women's do, especially after having and raising children. Women have to work much harder and spend way more money (and they are already earning less than men) and compete way harder for a man's attention. Most that I know eventually have given up looking - especially as we age because women generally outlive men by an average of 5 years (in Canada), and men prefer younger women.

Anyway, there is more to all this than meets the eye.... just know that if you marry well, invest in your marriage, stay committed and make it work no matter what, then the courts will have nothing to do with your marriage.

 

[DZoolander]

Anyway, there is more to all this than meets the eye.... just know that if you marry well, invest in your marriage, stay committed and make it work no matter what, then the courts will have nothing to do with your marriage.

Ehh - I agree with most of what you've said there - but I do think that bit at the end is a little naive. I hear a lot of people talking about how "If you work at it - or just try a little harder - that's the key".

Often that's true - but I can't get away from the fact that it takes two to tango and it really does boil down to the idea of whether or not you "married well". Often, especially if you're young (and even when you're older and should know better) you don't really KNOW what you're dealing with until you're actually in the thick of it. Sometimes you just discover you ended up marrying a douche - and no matter how much work you put in on your end - you ain't gonna be able to fix it.

So - there are conceivable circumstances where even the best of us who did our due diligence might end up in family court.

 

[ValleyGal]

Yes, it does take two to tango, so if you marry someone who is just as committed to making the marriage work as you are, then it should work. Yes, there are circumstances that might make a divorce necessary (such as untreated mental illness), but for the most part, if you are both on the same page and stay there, putting each other ahead of self, then divorce becomes much more unlikely.

 

[DZoolander]

Well, that's the trick, isn't it, in the very practical sense? I mean - I don't think anyone goes into marriage thinking "Gosh, I'm just gonna give this a shot and see how it goes. But if it isn't what I thought it was going to be then I'll divorce."

I think most people go into marriage sincerely believing they're going to make it work, have the maturity to do so, etc. But, people have an alarming tendency to misread themselves and what they're capable of. It's kind of like the stories you hear about how the most "gung ho" guys get into battle in war - and turn out to be the first ones to get killed off because they freeze/etc. You often really don't know what you're gonna do until you're truly faced with a situation.

...and you REALLY don't know what someone else is gonna do.

So in a sense - it is kind of a crap shoot. It's all well and good to talk about "make sure you marry someone who's committed to the marriage" - but you REALLY don't know until you're sitting there with a crappy situation where you've got overdue bills piled up while the kid is screaming until 4am and you haven't slept in 2 days. You really don't know until you've told your last story about growing up for the fifth time over the past 10 years and they're looking at you annoyed that you told it again...etc..etc.

That's when you truly find out what a person is all about.

I was talking to my wife's aunt the other day who's in the midst of a divorce... She was telling me what a pain the guy is being, how he's calling her names, how he's doing this, how he's doing that, how he was in the marriage, how he was abusive, etc... and then she goes "He's a nice guy, and I feel sorry for him."

My response was "What do you mean he's a nice guy? Do nice guys do the list of things you've iterated out?"

"Well, he's just reacting because he feels hurt. If you're on his good side he'll do anything for you."

Well - isn't that the thing, though? Isn't the measure of someone what they do when things suck? Everyone is good when things are going swimmingly and how they want them to go. You don't get any bonus points for that in my eyes. The test of a person is how graceful they are through crappy situations, IMHO.

Same thing goes in marriage. I think the idea of "marrying well" is a noble idea, and there are things that you ought do in order to do your due diligence...but...when it really comes down to it - the truth is that it *IS* a crap shoot and far more random than people like to believe it is. Everyone has romanticized ideas about themselves and who they are...but that's usually a bunch of nonsense. Sure, there's a degree of truth to it because people at least try to be what they aspire to. But, when the tires hit the pavement, and when things draw on, that's when you see what you really have (and what you truly are).

IMHO.

 

[pittsflyer]

Yep, and if your a guy that does not want kids you get to go to the back of the line in the dating world.

Well, that's the trick, isn't it, in the very practical sense? I mean - I don't think anyone goes into marriage thinking "Gosh, I'm just gonna give this a shot and see how it goes. But if it isn't what I thought it was going to be then I'll divorce."

I think most people go into marriage sincerely believing they're going to make it work, have the maturity to do so, etc. But, people have an alarming tendency to misread themselves and what they're capable of. It's kind of like the stories you hear about how the most "gung ho" guys get into battle in war - and turn out to be the first ones to get killed off because they freeze/etc. You often really don't know what you're gonna do until you're truly faced with a situation.

...and you REALLY don't know what someone else is gonna do.

So in a sense - it is kind of a crap shoot. It's all well and good to talk about "make sure you marry someone who's committed to the marriage" - but you REALLY don't know until you're sitting there with a crappy situation where you've got overdue bills piled up while the kid is screaming until 4am and you haven't slept in 2 days. You really don't know until you've told your last story about growing up for the fifth time over the past 10 years and they're looking at you annoyed that you told it again...etc..etc.

That's when you truly find out what a person is all about.

I was talking to my wife's aunt the other day who's in the midst of a divorce... She was telling me what a pain the guy is being, how he's calling her names, how he's doing this, how he's doing that, how he was in the marriage, how he was abusive, etc... and then she goes "He's a nice guy, and I feel sorry for him."

My response was "What do you mean he's a nice guy? Do nice guys do the list of things you've iterated out?"

"Well, he's just reacting because he feels hurt. If you're on his good side he'll do anything for you."

Well - isn't that the thing, though? Isn't the measure of someone what they do when things suck? Everyone is good when things are going swimmingly and how they want them to go. You don't get any bonus points for that in my eyes. The test of a person is how graceful they are through crappy situations, IMHO.

Same thing goes in marriage. I think the idea of "marrying well" is a noble idea, and there are things that you ought do in order to do your due diligence...but...when it really comes down to it - the truth is that it *IS* a crap shoot and far more random than people like to believe it is. Everyone has romanticized ideas about themselves and who they are...but that's usually a bunch of nonsense. Sure, there's a degree of truth to it because people at least try to be what they aspire to. But, when the tires hit the pavement, and when things draw on, that's when you see what you really have (and what you truly are).

IMHO.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

True. But according to the law of the land if you do not file the marriage licence, YOU ARE NOT MARRIED. And if you are not married, you are forbidden by christian doctrine from having sex. What kind of "marriage" is that?

Actually there are such things as "common law marriage" . . . in some states, merely living together for a period of time counts as being legally married.

It is my opinion that living together as a couple makes you married in God's eyes and should be considered just as much as any legal marriage for such purposes as deciding whether or not a person can be a deacon or a pastor. If a church has a rule that no divorced person should be a deacon, I would tell them to extend that to no person who lived with someone for a while and then they broke up.

 

[pittsflyer]

Typiclly common law takes 7 years, its pretty tough for anyone to wear a mask that long and women will be starting the pressure to get married a year or 2 in, way before the 7 year mark. Churches will never agree to that because then no one could ever be a pastor or a decon. But people that tried to do the right thing on the front end but either they failed or their spouse failed them are out. That will never change in my life time because the church is solidly cemented in its dogma which means they will die on the vine right where they are.

Actually there are such things as "common law marriage" . . . in some states, merely living together for a period of time counts as being legally married.

It is my opinion that living together as a couple makes you married in God's eyes and should be considered just as much as any legal marriage for such purposes as deciding whether or not a person can be a deacon or a pastor. If a church has a rule that no divorced person should be a deacon, I would tell them to extend that to no person who lived with someone for a while and then they broke up.

 

[South Bound]

Visit in situations where family only is allowed to visit. Make decisions whether or not a breathing machine is to be continued or withdrawn. Consent to risky surgery procedures.

Inherit the house, the bank account, the business, in case of death. Have a right to a fair share of the assets in case one or the other insists on seperation.

You realize that each of those can be address by legal means other than marriage, right?

 

[DZoolander]

You'd need the courts to step in and enforce those contracts, though, so in a sense it's a distinction without a difference. Just making a lot of busywork for yourself in order to achieve the same ends.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

You realize that each of those can be address by legal means other than marriage, right?

Marriage is easier. And if you address those by legal means other than marriage . . . . what happened to your desire to not have the state involved?

 

[South Bound]

Marriage is easier.

So then, by your own admission, it's not a matter of necessity, but of convenience.

And if you address those by legal means other than marriage . . . . what happened to your desire to not have the state involved?

I'm not an anarchist. I never said there should be no laws.

 

[ValleyGal]

If you never said there should be no laws, then why not have marriage and divorce laws, and submit yourself to them the way you would submit to other laws like common-law contracts, prenuptials, criminal or traffic laws? There have been marriage laws since nearly the beginning of time, and they were God's idea, so..... ?

 

[South Bound]

There have been marriage laws since nearly the beginning of time, and they were God's idea, so..... ?

What verse is that?

 

[pittsflyer]

Becasue it is the family law courts specificly that are especially corrupt. Most other areas of contract and criminal law in the USA are pretty good.

You sign a contract you better uphold your end or the courts will make you pay. Not so in a "marraige contract", there are no consequences (mostly for the woman) for adultry, bad behavior, sexual refusal, out of control spending of the family finances, etc. The courts will hold men accountable for this kind of behavior but rarely hold women FULLY accountable because women can use kids as a shield to keep payments comming. Even in cases where there are no kids women can still get large pay outs even if they are the ones to break contract (especailly in states like Colorado).

So yea its an issue. Powers of attorney are completely different areas of law.

The only area of criminal law women are treated with kid gloves is false rape claims. If a woman is found to have made a false claim she should get the same sentence the man would have got if the claim had stuck.

These sorts of injustices do drive behavior but I am frankly surprised that we have not seen macro scale consequences yet. Or maybe we have and I have just done a good job insulating myself from it.

Family law courts think everything should be fair and equitable, no it should not, there is usually someone at majority fault and they should not get a cushy settlement. Poor behavior should have negitive consequences that potentailly lead to suffering. Thats how life works. When you start punishing good or neutral behavior you will get less people doing good because it is being punished.

If you never said there should be no laws, then why not have marriage and divorce laws, and submit yourself to them the way you would submit to other laws like common-law contracts, prenuptials, criminal or traffic laws? There have been marriage laws since nearly the beginning of time, and they were God's idea, so..... ?

 

[ananda]

You'd need the courts to step in and enforce those contracts, though, so in a sense it's a distinction without a difference. Just making a lot of busywork for yourself in order to achieve the same ends.

Contracts are not the same as trusts.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

So then, by your own admission, it's not a matter of necessity, but of convenience.

I advise you to drop the technique of drawing false conclusions from what people say, it is not compatible with Christian ethics.

I said marriage is easier, not because I think it is the only reason to get married, but because it might persuade you, or someone like you, who is wavering on whether to get married instead of merely live together.

I'm not an anarchist. I never said there should be no laws.

So in that case, please restate for me your objection to government involvement in marriage. I'm puzzled by such inconsistent stances.

 

[South Bound]

I advise you to drop the technique of drawing false conclusions from what people say, it is not compatible with Christian ethics.

How is that a false conclusion? You're the one who acknowledged that there are other legal means, but that marriage is "easier".

So in that case, please restate for me your objection to government involvement in marriage. I'm puzzled by such inconsistent stances.

No thanks.