Govt free marriages

[pittsflyer]

Yet some how all other forms of contract law seem to manage in the courts. You dont think people try to tie things up in court with real estate, building projects, or any number of other contracts with alot of money on the line?

Anyone can do what you are talking about and tie things up in court. Look at Exxon, they tied up that oil spill for like 30 years. So does that mean we just toss out ALL contract, enviornmental and related laws and say well Exxon got away with it so lets all just go home and everyone do what ever you want.

Maybe we can bring back dueling while we are at it. Best shot wins.

Ehhh - I think you guys are living in some sort of fantasy-land where you're thinking "justice will be served"...where people get their come-uppance for bad behavior - the courts determine fault - etc... In practice it just doesn't work out that way, IMHO. Rather - putting a system in place where "fault" is a factor often enables people to use the legal system as a punitive tool for them to become a burden on the other party and/or try to compel them to do something they want them to do.

Nuisance suits, in other words.

I come from a family of attorneys - so I grew up hearing how people abuse the legal system for personal gain...and as an adult...it's always borne out to be true. The practical application of such things always turns out to be a mess - because once again - you are nothing more than "docket number xxxxx - case number xxxxx - where spouse A alleges that spouse B did x, y and z" - and regardless of "ultimate truth" - those claims must be heard out and sorted through.

For example - I have an aunt who lives in a state that does take fault into consideration. Her husband - fairly speaking (I've always disliked the guy) is a douche. She's been married to him for 40 some odd years - and she finally had enough of his crap and decided to divorce him so she could spend the last few years of her life in peace without his nonsense.

So what's he doing now? Through his attorneys he's requesting detailed phone records going back 20 years, including all numbers called, etc. Ostensibly, I guess, because "he wants to see if he can prove some sort of infidelity" (there wasn't - and truthfully he knows it). He's asking for her to produce tax records for every job she's had going back to 1985 (think about that) - even though he already knows that information due to them being married and having filed jointly. He's got a list that goes on for 20 pages of things just like that which he's requesting.

Why? Is it really because he thinks he's going to discover something? No. He's just doing it to be a thorn in her side and he's using the legal system as a punitive tool to punish her for leaving him. He's also using it as a negotiating tactic - kind of like "Hey, accept the pittance I'm offering you or else I will tie you up in the legal system for the next 10 years over this stuff."

Is the legal system going to stop him from doing that? No. From their standpoint, since they're both anonymous to the court, he could have a case and a legitimate reason for asking for all that stuff. In reality, though, he knows he doesn't, he's just using the power of the state and their anonymity as a tool to get to her.

That's how stuff pans out when you start factoring "fault" into the mix. These visions you have of wronged-husbands finally able to prove their wife's misdeeds and hold on to their possessions/keeping them from her cheating hands is just not how the real world works.

It's for that reason that I say the state should say "we don't care." While there might be a guy or two who does get the shaft - generally speaking I believe the greater good will be accomplished.

 

[pittsflyer]

I want to protect the last 20 years of education, career building and hard work. I dont really care about societys perceptions of who is weaker or who comes out "worse". I had to work hard in my life and I dont want it just peed away because of a lazy court system.

Also when they talk about women comming out "worse" its only because they dont have their husbands professional income anymore. But had they never got married they would have never had his income either.

Its like saying man kids are SO much worse off when they leave their parents house, really no crap lol.

And my grevances are with these 5-10 year marraiges not 40 year marriages where the woman stayed home and raised 5 kids. Modern day cases there is maybe one kid and the woman acts like a spoiled brat wants to go party etc. I dont know what circles people on these forums walk in but I have gone to the local bars in the area and they are EVERYWHERE.

Everyone paints the picture of this 50 year old poor woman who was left by the filandering husband but thats not even close to the case anymore these days. Maybe when these laws were first writen but not anymore by a long shot.

I didn't respond back to that mostly due to lack of time -

However - getting back to that idea - I don't disagree with you. There are a lot of ways people could provide legit evidence. Sure. You can put keystroke trackers on computers, provide phone records, hire private investigators, etc... The list is endless.

But that's not really what I was getting at. What I was getting at was the fact that from the state's perspective - there really is no difference between a wild nonsensical allegation and a legitimate one until they've heard it out. My issue is that the process of "hearing it out" is a cumbersome one and can be (and often is) used as a means of torturing the other partner.

It's called "discovery". Want to win a case and have nothing but time on your hands? Make a list of requests for the respondent that will become so cumbersome that he'll start doing calculations on how much this is worth to him. "Do I spend 40 hours replying to every damn thing on this list - or cave a little?"

A friend of mine got out of a speeding ticket once. How'd he do it? He sent the officer a list of all sorts of questions ranging from the type of radar gun he was using, what the manufacture date was, serial number, list of calibration dates, etc etc etc. It was quite an impressive list, and he was entitled to the answers. Did he truly intend to run around researching that specific model of radar gun, whether or not it was known to have defects for that year of manufacture, whether the last date of calibration might have some impact upon it's readings being legit, etc? No. He wanted to make it painful for the officer to do his due diligence. He wanted to try and be a nuisance, hope that it caused the officer to throw his hands up in frustration, and have it impact upon his case.

The questions were never answered - and the cop didn't show up in court. Case dismissed.

Same type of thing here.

Now as for your point about the state being able to fairly administer marriages - I walk the line on that. On the one hand - I see your point. On the other hand - there's a huge side of me that wants to protect the ones that will most likely end up on the short end of the stick.. Generally, I believe, our society is set up in such a way that it would be the women.

 

[RDKirk]

Yet some how all other forms of contract law seem to manage in the courts. You dont think people try to tie things up in court with real estate, building projects, or any number of other contracts with alot of money on the line?

Anyone can do what you are talking about and tie things up in court. Look at Exxon, they tied up that oil spill for like 30 years. So does that mean we just toss out ALL contract, enviornmental and related laws and say well Exxon got away with it so lets all just go home and everyone do what ever you want.

Maybe we can bring back dueling while we are at it. Best shot wins.

As I've already noted, other genuine contracts will specify the mutually agreed performance of each party and many will also stipulate penalties for breech of contract. Thus, there is usually much less to be disputed in court.

A marriage certificate, in contrast, stipulates absolutely nothing about the performance of either party. EVERYTHING is disputable in court--everything is a matter of local custom and individual presumptions. It's like entering a business partnership on the basis of nothing but a handshake.

 

[pittsflyer]

And if marriage contracts were proposed to be like that could you imagine the feminist outrage. It would be nice becasue less women would pressure it after having sex for only a year or 2.

I wonder if marriage licences like that do exist if a couple wants to do it? Like you wont drink more than X, you wont stop doing X, Y or Z in bed at least X times a week, no one will ever gamble or do drugs X Y or Z, etc etc.

As I've already noted, other genuine contracts will specify the mutually agreed performance of each party and many will also stipulate penalties for breech of contract. Thus, there is usually much less to be disputed in court.

A marriage certificate, in contrast, stipulates absolutely nothing about the performance of either party. EVERYTHING is disputable in court--everything is a matter of local custom and individual presumptions. It's like entering a business partnership on the basis of nothing but a handshake.

 

[RDKirk]

And if marriage contracts were proposed to be like that could you imagine the feminist outrage. It would be nice becasue less women would pressure it after having sex for only a year or 2.

I wonder if marriage licences like that do exist if a couple wants to do it? Like you wont drink more than X, you wont stop doing X, Y or Z in bed at least X times a week, no one will ever gamble or do drugs X Y or Z, etc etc.

Actually marriage contracts do exist. They're called "prenuptial agreements."

 

[pittsflyer]

I have heard that judges will basicly line item veto them in divorce court though. Though I am not sure to what extent that happens. It maybe that the woman signed something really crazy so the judge lets her off the hook (men never get let off the hook).

Actually marriage contracts do exist. They're called "prenuptial agreements."

 

[DZoolander]

I want to protect the last 20 years of education, career building and hard work. I dont really care about societys perceptions of who is weaker or who comes out "worse". I had to work hard in my life and I dont want it just peed away because of a lazy court system.

Also when they talk about women comming out "worse" its only because they dont have their husbands professional income anymore. But had they never got married they would have never had his income either.

Its like saying man kids are SO much worse off when they leave their parents house, really no crap lol.

And my grevances are with these 5-10 year marraiges not 40 year marriages where the woman stayed home and raised 5 kids. Modern day cases there is maybe one kid and the woman acts like a spoiled brat wants to go party etc. I dont know what circles people on these forums walk in but I have gone to the local bars in the area and they are EVERYWHERE.

Everyone paints the picture of this 50 year old poor woman who was left by the filandering husband but thats not even close to the case anymore these days. Maybe when these laws were first writen but not anymore by a long shot.

Generally speaking - at least with my understanding of alimony (and that appears to be what we're talking about here) - is that it's most often completely up to the discretion of the judge. There are a number of factors that go into it, as well. Duration of marriage, the earning capacity of each partner, whether or not the earning capacity of one of the partners was limited due to deliberate choice of both partners to keep the lesser earning spouse out of the workforce to be a homemaker, etc.

That being said - in a situation like what you present where the couple has only been married for 5-10 years - most states have various rules regarding that. Most states I'm familiar with (California, Florida and a couple of others) have guidelines that go along the lines of "Under 10 years of marriage - alimony (if applicable) only lasts for half the duration of the marriage". So in other words - if you've been married for only 5 years - most likely even if alimony is awarded - it will only be for a period of about 2.5 years.

But even that's iffy. To be honest - the reason why I know so little about it is because I've never known anyone that had alimony awarded. Child support - yes. Absolutely.. I know plenty of people who have had child support awarded. But - not a soul can I think of that's been stuck with some alimony award they have to pay.

I'm curious - for all of the talk here - can you tell me your horror stories? I don't mean stuff you heard from some schmo off the street.. I mean stuff you've been stuck with that goes beyond the normal "child support + 50% of all assets obtained during the course of the marriage"?

 

[RDKirk]

I have heard that judges will basicly line item veto them in divorce court though. Though I am not sure to what extent that happens. It maybe that the woman signed something really crazy so the judge lets her off the hook (men never get let off the hook).

I've never heard of that happening. Pre-nups fall into the realm of contract law, which is a wholly different kettle of fish. It may be that the parties take to divorce court issues that were not included in the pre-nup agreement, which would merely point to having more comprehensive pre-nup agreements.

 

[Stealth001]

Me and my darling love chose a government free marriage. Both of us have experienced "civil marriage" and the divorce courts. Neither of us want to ever open ourselves up to have to endure that insanity again. So, government free marriage felt right for us.

Our wedding (or commitment ceremony) was styled after the Quaker manner of marriage. We invited family and a few friends over to our home for my wife's birthday party. In the midst of the party we stood together and I addressed the group and explained that we had decided to enter into the marriage covenant of holy matrimony through what is known as a "Quaker Wedding". I explained that in a Quaker wedding there isn't a priest or a preacher that officiates, but rather we enter into the covenant ourselves, simply as a couple before God, friends and family serving as witnesses. They were very charmed and happy at the prospect of seeing this transpire. I took her hand, placed the ring upon her finger, and spoke the Quaker "promises" (Quakers don't give "vows"):

"In the presence of God and these our friends I take thee, to be my wife, promising with Divine assistance to be unto thee a loving and faithful husband so long as we both shall live."​

She then took my hand, placed the ring upon my finger, and spoke the "Quaker promises":

"In the presence of God and these our friends I take thee, to be my husband, promising with Divine assistance to be unto thee a loving and faithful wife so long as we both shall live."​

Our children then rang the wind-chimes and we kissed. Our friends and family cheered and we were embraced and congratulated. We then served up dinner, cake, and the party continued until later that evening. It was very modest.

 

[DZoolander]

I've gotta say - you've really got me curious about what the "insanity of the civil procedure" was that you experienced.

Generally divorces go like...

"Now that both parties have been notified - list all assets and their associated values accumulated during the marriage. Done? Okay, now propose and agree upon a split. Does value of proposed split come out to 50/50? No? Try again. Yes? Make it so. Off you go. Now you're divorced."

 

[RDKirk]

I've gotta say - you've really got me curious about what the "insanity of the civil procedure" was that you experienced.

Generally divorces go like...

"Now that both parties have been notified - list all assets and their associated values accumulated during the marriage. Done? Okay, now propose and agree upon a split. Does value of proposed split come out to 50/50? No? Try again. Yes? Make it so. Off you go. Now you're divorced."

In a Community Property state.

 

[sdmsanjose]

By Stealth
Me and my darling love chose a government free marriage. Both of us have experienced "civil marriage" and the divorce courts. Neither of us want to ever open ourselves up to have to endure that insanity again. So, government free marriage felt right for us.

Our wedding (or commitment ceremony) was styled after the Quaker manner of marriage. We invited family and a few friends over to our home for my wife's birthday party. In the midst of the party we stood together and I addressed the group and explained that we had decided to enter into the marriage covenant of holy matrimony through what is known as a "Quaker Wedding". I explained that in a Quaker wedding there isn't a priest or a preacher that officiates, but rather we enter into the covenant ourselves, simply as a couple before God, friends and family serving as witnesses. They were very charmed and happy at the prospect of seeing this transpire. I took her hand, placed the ring upon her finger, and spoke the Quaker "promises" (Quakers don't give "vows"):
"In the presence of God and these our friends I take thee, to be my wife, promising with Divine assistance to be unto thee a loving and faithful husband so long as we both shall live."
She then took my hand, placed the ring upon my finger, and spoke the "Quaker promises":
"In the presence of God and these our friends I take thee, to be my husband, promising with Divine assistance to be unto thee a loving and faithful wife so long as we both shall live."
Our children then rang the wind-chimes and we kissed. Our friends and family cheered and we were embraced and congratulated. We then served up dinner, cake, and the party continued until later that evening. It was very modest

.


Thank you Stealth; very interesting indeed!

If true love is the goal of marriage then you, your spouse, and God are all that matters! The Quaker marriage seems like a good idea to me!
The alternative state marriage seems like a very bad idea. Who wants a third party that cares nothing for the couple, is cold and indifferent, leaves God out of their authority, and takes authority over your personal life but cops out of much of the responsibility?

Thanks to EZ he gave us a few summary lines below that detail some of the state’s attitudes

"We don't care" “Now go away” doesn't want to get involved in your drama"

 

[DZoolander]

Which generally are the no-fault ones being railed against on this thread

 

[DZoolander]

.
Thanks to EZ he gave us a few summary lines below that detail some of the state’s attitudes

When it comes to distribution of assets accumulated during the marriage, I still contend that ambivalence to circumstance is most oft the best course.

Child support, alimony, etc...those are a different animal though. But those are in a sense different proceedings.

 

[pittsflyer]

2.5 years is a long time when you want to get on with things.

Generally speaking - at least with my understanding of alimony (and that appears to be what we're talking about here) - is that it's most often completely up to the discretion of the judge. There are a number of factors that go into it, as well. Duration of marriage, the earning capacity of each partner, whether or not the earning capacity of one of the partners was limited due to deliberate choice of both partners to keep the lesser earning spouse out of the workforce to be a homemaker, etc.

That being said - in a situation like what you present where the couple has only been married for 5-10 years - most states have various rules regarding that. Most states I'm familiar with (California, Florida and a couple of others) have guidelines that go along the lines of "Under 10 years of marriage - alimony (if applicable) only lasts for half the duration of the marriage". So in other words - if you've been married for only 5 years - most likely even if alimony is awarded - it will only be for a period of about 2.5 years.

But even that's iffy. To be honest - the reason why I know so little about it is because I've never known anyone that had alimony awarded. Child support - yes. Absolutely.. I know plenty of people who have had child support awarded. But - not a soul can I think of that's been stuck with some alimony award they have to pay.

I'm curious - for all of the talk here - can you tell me your horror stories? I don't mean stuff you heard from some schmo off the street.. I mean stuff you've been stuck with that goes beyond the normal "child support + 50% of all assets obtained during the course of the marriage"?

 

[Stealth001]

I've gotta say - you've really got me curious about what the "insanity of the civil procedure" was that you experienced.

Generally divorces go like...

"Now that both parties have been notified - list all assets and their associated values accumulated during the marriage. Done? Okay, now propose and agree upon a split. Does value of proposed split come out to 50/50? No? Try again. Yes? Make it so. Off you go. Now you're divorced."

My divorce was long and drawn out. We both were living paycheck to paycheck. My attorney wanted $3000 up front and estimated that it would cost $6000. Neither one of us had the money. So we talked about a dissolution. However, she disagreed with everything no matter what agreement I tried to make. So I quit trying to work with her. Times were very tough and I could barely pay the bills on what I made. I didn't have the money to save up for an attorney. One attorney offered me a deal to do everything for $2000, but he wanted me to volunteer to work it off by working on some of his properties. Well, I work long hours and didn't have the time to do any work for him, so he didn't go through with the process. After all was said and done it had been over 6 years since she left me before I got some financial help from a friend.

You'd be amazed at how many people I talked to who were essentially separated from their legal spouse, but unable to afford a divorce. One guy I talked to has been separated from his wife for over 20 years now, and they still haven't gotten a divorce! Neither one of them have the cash for a divorce and things have moved on for so long, he doesn't even think about it.

That was over 6 long years of my life. I couldn't get the divorce due to lack of money. I couldn't move forward. I couldn't buy a house. I couldn't consider remarriage. It was like being a prisoner. Because she was still my legal wife she wreaked havoc in my life as it related to finances and even some issues relating to medical.

We didn't have anything to split but debt. And we fought terribly over it. I got stuck with most of it because I make more. And because I make more she fought for spousal support, even though she had cheated on me and practically abandoned me. Even though we divided the time up with our son equally on our own from the beginning, she demanded full guardianship, I wanted shared custody. She fought me and fought me on that. If we hadn't already set up equally divided time, and had I not been faithful to my time with my son, she'd have gotten that too. She even wanted child support and by that time she was on her feet making about what I make and we both had him equal time, so I couldn't see the point. If she was going to get child support, shouldn't I? It was the fight of my life.

My current wife's experience was terrible too. Her ex-husband was in the military. He had all kinds of legal resources he took advantage of to leave her near destitution. She was living with her mom when I met her.

No way. Not doing that again. A "Quaker Marriage" has worked out just fine for me and my second wife. If one of us gets a case of "stupid" and wants out... we can leave and call it a day. If she leaves me, she might take the television and the X-Box, my music, the computer, etc. But she can't touch my bank account. Nor can I touch hers. She can't touch my income. Nor can I touch hers. She can't take property like my car or anything registered in my name. If she leaves me, I don't have to try to raise several thousand dollars to fight for my life again. I can buy a bottle of Jack Daniels and drink until I pass out, then wake up the next day and move on with my life. lol

And if we ever had kids together, the courts would handle custody anyways. So why bother??? We both have more security and control over our own lives in this "Quaker Marriage", or "Covenant Marriage", than a Civil Marriage.

 

[Stealth001]

.


Thank you Stealth; very interesting indeed!

If true love is the goal of marriage then you, your spouse, and God are all that matters! The Quaker marriage seems like a good idea to me!
The alternative state marriage seems like a very bad idea. Who wants a third party that cares nothing for the couple, is cold and indifferent, leaves God out of their authority, and takes authority over your personal life but cops out of much of the responsibility?

Thanks to EZ he gave us a few summary lines below that detail some of the state’s attitudes

Bingo!

 

[RDKirk]

My current wife's experience was terrible too. Her ex-husband was in the military. He had all kinds of legal resources he took advantage of to leave her near destitution. She was living with her mom when I met her.

Those legal resources were not because he was in the military--military counsel will not touch divorce.

 

[DZoolander]

My divorce was long and drawn out. We both were living paycheck to paycheck. My attorney wanted $3000 up front and estimated that it would cost $6000. Neither one of us had the money. So we talked about a dissolution. However, she disagreed with everything no matter what agreement I tried to make. So I quit trying to work with her. Times were very tough and I could barely pay the bills on what I made. I didn't have the money to save up for an attorney. One attorney offered me a deal to do everything for $2000, but he wanted me to volunteer to work it off by working on some of his properties. Well, I work long hours and didn't have the time to do any work for him, so he didn't go through with the process. After all was said and done it had been over 6 years since she left me before I got some financial help from a friend.

You'd be amazed at how many people I talked to who were essentially separated from their legal spouse, but unable to afford a divorce. One guy I talked to has been separated from his wife for over 20 years now, and they still haven't gotten a divorce! Neither one of them have the cash for a divorce and things have moved on for so long, he doesn't even think about it.

That was over 6 long years of my life. I couldn't get the divorce due to lack of money. I couldn't move forward. I couldn't buy a house. I couldn't consider remarriage. It was like being a prisoner. Because she was still my legal wife she wreaked havoc in my life as it related to finances and even some issues relating to medical.

We didn't have anything to split but debt. And we fought terribly over it. I got stuck with most of it because I make more. And because I make more she fought for spousal support, even though she had cheated on me and practically abandoned me. Even though we divided the time up with our son equally on our own from the beginning, she demanded full guardianship, I wanted shared custody. She fought me and fought me on that. If we hadn't already set up equally divided time, and had I not been faithful to my time with my son, she'd have gotten that too. She even wanted child support and by that time she was on her feet making about what I make and we both had him equal time, so I couldn't see the point. If she was going to get child support, shouldn't I? It was the fight of my life.

My current wife's experience was terrible too. Her ex-husband was in the military. He had all kinds of legal resources he took advantage of to leave her near destitution. She was living with her mom when I met her.

No way. Not doing that again. A "Quaker Marriage" has worked out just fine for me and my second wife. If one of us gets a case of "stupid" and wants out... we can leave and call it a day. If she leaves me, she might take the television and the X-Box, my music, the computer, etc. But she can't touch my bank account. Nor can I touch hers. She can't touch my income. Nor can I touch hers. She can't take property like my car or anything registered in my name. If she leaves me, I don't have to try to raise several thousand dollars to fight for my life again. I can buy a bottle of Jack Daniels and drink until I pass out, then wake up the next day and move on with my life. lol

And if we ever had kids together, the courts would handle custody anyways. So why bother??? We both have more security and control over our own lives in this "Quaker Marriage", or "Covenant Marriage", than a Civil Marriage.

Yeah - I can see where you're coming from on that - and why you take the stance you do. If my divorce had been anything like that - my feelings might be different.

So - how do you handle things in a practical sense right now? Do you currently have a true division of all of your property? Separate bank accounts, nothing jointly owned, etc? No co-mingling? What's mine is mine and understood to be mine, same as for what's yours?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

. . . . .
No way. Not doing that again. A "Quaker Marriage" has worked out just fine for me and my second wife. If one of us gets a case of "stupid" and wants out... we can leave and call it a day. If she leaves me, she might take the television and the X-Box, my music, the computer, etc. But she can't touch my bank account. Nor can I touch hers. She can't touch my income. Nor can I touch hers. She can't take property like my car or anything registered in my name. If she leaves me, I don't have to try to raise several thousand dollars to fight for my life again. I can buy a bottle of Jack Daniels and drink until I pass out, then wake up the next day and move on with my life. lol

And if we ever had kids together, the courts would handle custody anyways. So why bother??? We both have more security and control over our own lives in this "Quaker Marriage", or "Covenant Marriage", than a Civil Marriage.

OK many of our churches insist that a pastor, or a deacon, shall not be ordained if they have been divorced and since remarried; they cite scriptures saying a pastor or a deacon should be the husband of one wife.

In the light of your sanctioning of non-state related marriages, would you advise those churches to consider not only legal marriages, but also any past times when the candidate for pastor or deacon lived with a woman for a time prior to their current marriage? How many nights of staying with a woman would count as constituting a "marriage" that would disqualify a candidate for being a pastor or a deacon?

Churches with that idea don't consider how long ago the marriage was, or whether the candidate has repented and lived a life faithful to the current spouse. Merely the presence of the former marriage is enough to rule the candidate out.

So what do you suggest such a church do, as they interview candidates for pastoral or deacon ordination?