Odds of a good marriage and risks of getting married

[Estevao]

You keep repeating that a woman is entitled to half of “the man’s stuff”. That’s telling. It is not his stuff, it is theirs, so of course she gets half. Until you let go of the idea of his vs. hers, you aren’t ready for marriage.

Greetings BlueEyedLady. What I meant by “she gets half of his stuff” was that, while recognizing that during marriage his stuff becomes “their” stuff, after the marriage (which can be terminated at any time thanks to unilateral no fault divorce), in the eyes of divorce court, this situation still holds. This is so even though on a common sense point of view, there is no more “them” to hold “their” stuff. So in fact, what the man will have worked and paid for will be transferred to someone who has not worked and paid for this stuff. So in effect, the wife gets the benefits of marriage (provision), even though the husband no longer does (childcare, regular sex).

Moreover, and this is something I neglected to mention in my OP, if the husband resists this transfer of wealth, he is liable to imprisonment.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Sounds like you are called to live the single life. There is nothing wrong with that. I personally like many aspects of the single life but also love many things about marriage. The way I see it you can spread your love equally between everyone you encounter (the single life) or you can channel most of your love into one person (marriage).

That’s what I’m thinking. Marriage is not for everyone, even from a secular standpoint. If the OP can’t see himself being able to give himself to someone else completely and unselfishly without worrying about losing “his” material things, then he should probably devote himself to his career, or volunteer work, or caring for family or whatever he’s passionate about. No one is saying that he should get married, and if he’s asking to be talked into it…?

Nope, it isn’t for everyone.

 

[Groo]

Greetings BlueEyedLady. What I meant by “she gets half of his stuff” was that, while recognizing that during marriage his stuff becomes “their” stuff, after the marriage (which can be terminated at any time thanks to unilateral no fault divorce), in the eyes of divorce court, this situation still holds. This is so even though on a common sense point of view, there is no more “them” to hold “their” stuff. So in fact, what the man will have worked and paid for will be transferred to someone who has not worked and paid for this stuff. So in effect, the wife gets the benefits of marriage (provision), even though the husband no longer does (childcare, regular sex).

Moreover, and this is something I neglected to mention in my OP, if the husband resists this transfer of wealth, he is liable to imprisonment.

Details. You’re just afraid to feel. That’s your problem.

 

[Estevao]

Details. You’re just afraid to feel. That’s your problem.

On the contrary, I feel almost daily.

https://warosu.org/data/fa/img/0060/80/1367585851792.png

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Greetings BlueEyedLady. What I meant by “she gets half of his stuff” was that, while recognizing that during marriage his stuff becomes “their” stuff, after the marriage (which can be terminated at any time thanks to unilateral no fault divorce), in the eyes of divorce court, this situation still holds. This is so even though on a common sense point of view, there is no more “them” to hold “their” stuff. So in fact, what the man will have worked and paid for will be transferred to someone who has not worked and paid for this stuff. So in effect, the wife gets the benefits of marriage (provision), even though the husband no longer does (childcare, regular sex).

Moreover, and this is something I neglected to mention in my OP, if the husband resists this transfer of wealth, he is liable to imprisonment.

So a woman should give up a career to be a homemaker, but leave herself completely vulnerable in case of divorce? The family wouldn’t have made that money without her contributions to housework, childcare, cooking, errands, and her knowledge and wisdom being added to the couple’s decision making. A married couple is a team, regardless of who’s name is on the paychecks. Once again, if you can’t think in those terms, you shouldn’t marry.

If a woman wasn’t entitled to half of what she also dedicated her life to, she would be destitute, and after being out of the workforce for so long, she won’t be employable.

If you believe that men and women are equal in dignity, you would not ask that a woman give up everything to care for their families, only to be left without anything because she was at home and not doing “real work”.

 

[marymary1975]

Oh joy, a divorce lawyer is in our midst. I would like to pose a few simple yes or no questions to you. Please no prevarication or getting us tied down in legal loopholes.

1)Does the divorce system tend to award wives custody of the children?

2)Does the divorce system tend to award wives substantial child support?

3)Does the divorce system tend to award wives the marital home?

4)Does the divorce system tend to award wives half the couple’s assets?

5)Does the divorce system tend to award wives heavy alimony payments?

6)In your opinion, are the divorce laws in the USA biased against men?

1. No. In 2014 the multi state rule is joint custody. Also as I mentioned to you before, 90% of divorces are settled so the statement “the divorce system tend to award wives custody” is completely wrong. Now if you tell me: “many men agree to give their spouses primary physical custody if their children” that would have been a different story but that was not your statement, so the answer if No.
2. another huge No. That was an even bigger wrong statement. Child support is not “awarded to the wife”. The wife doesn’t get awarded anything. Child support is a legal right if the children, not the wife. Child support payments follow a strict guideline established by the state which takes into account the income of both parties, medical insurance payments and other factors. In fact is a mathematical formula through which the amount of CS that the child should receive is calculated.
3. there is no law that I know in any of the states within the US that says that the marital home should be awarded to the wife, so again the answer is No.
4. again, no law regarding property division say that half of the marital assets go to the wife, so the answer is No. Property division when actually don’t by the Court (which happens by the way in less than 10% of the cases) is based on multiple factors and is done in a case by case basis. The results tend to be atricklenly different in one case from another.
5. No again. In fact, reality in 2014 is that most judges don’t award alimony. Again 90% of cases alimony is mutually agreed by the parties. The times that is awarded by judges is again based on another formula and many states like mine have a scale which factors many things from length of the marriage, potential for finding a job etc. Truth is if you see the actual amounts that are awarded through the state’s guidelines they are ridiculous amounts with which if that is your only income you probably will be in the poverty line.
6. Extremely broad question. The US has millions of millions of laws so the broadness of your question makes it impossible to answer. Give me the specific laws and their contents and then I can tell you.

 

[marymary1975]

That’s what I’m thinking. Marriage is not for everyone, even from a secular standpoint. If the OP can’t see himself being able to give himself to someone else completely and unselfishly without worrying about losing “his” material things, then he should probably devote himself to his career, or volunteer work, or caring for family or whatever he’s passionate about. No one is saying that he should get married, and if he’s asking to be talked into it…?

Nope, it isn’t for everyone.

I fully agree with you BEL on this.

And I also agree that Estevao you should stay single and not get married.

 

[Estevao]

So a woman should give up a career to be a homemaker, but leave herself completely vulnerable in case of divorce? The family wouldn’t have made that money without her contributions to housework, childcare, cooking, errands, and her knowledge and wisdom being added to the couple’s decision making. A married couple is a team, regardless of who’s name is on the paychecks. Once again, if you can’t think in those terms, you shouldn’t marry.

If a woman wasn’t entitled to half of what she also dedicated her life to, she would be destitute, and after being out of the workforce for so long, she won’t be employable.

If you believe that men and women are equal in dignity, you would not ask that a woman give up everything to care for their families, only to be left without anything because she was at home and not doing “real work”.

Perhaps all this should be a thought in her mind before she decides to unilaterally sever the marriage. Luckily the second wave feminist revolution happened to attempt to remove consequences for women’s decisions.

It’s not so much that I care about my material things to the point that I would prefer them to loving a wife, it’s just that I don’t like to be made into a sucker (it’s the same reason why I don’t play the lottery or go to the casino).

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Perhaps all this should be a thought in her mind before she decides to unilaterally sever the marriage. Luckily the second wave feminist revolution happened to attempt to remove consequences for women’s decisions.

It’s not so much that I care about my material things to the point that I would prefer them to loving a wife, it’s just that I don’t like to be made into a sucker (it’s the same reason why I don’t play the lottery or go to the casino).

So women should be forced to stay in abusive, unfaithful, or otherwise awful marriages, and face homelessness if they don’t.

You say men are financially vulnerable, but you’re asking women to be far, far more vulnerable than men are.

So this isn’t about money, it’s about pride? Dude, DO NOT GET MARRIED. There is no place for pride or materialism in marriage.

 

[thewanderer]

Perhaps all this should be a thought in her mind before she decides to unilaterally sever the marriage. Luckily the second wave feminist revolution happened to attempt to remove consequences for women’s decisions.

It’s not so much that I care about my material things to the point that I would prefer them to loving a wife, it’s just that I don’t like to be made into a sucker (it’s the same reason why I don’t play the lottery or go to the casino).

So it is your belief, then, that women when they marry should become so financially dependent on their husbands that they do not have the option of leaving even if the situation becomes one of abuse?

 

[Xantippe]

Estevao’s questions weren’t addressed to me, but I’ll take a stab at a few.

“1)Does the divorce system tend to award wives custody of the children?”

Yep, and divorced mothers live high on the hog.

Everybody knows how rich single mothers are. All the married mothers are thinking to themselves, if only I could be a divorced single mother–I’d live like a queen!

Actually, none of that is true. Single mothers tend to be poor and single mothers run an especially high risk of bankruptcy.

“2)Does the divorce system tend to award wives substantial child support?”

I think “substantial” is going to be a subjective issue. It looks big if you’re paying it. It looks pitiful if you are trying to raise a child on it. I haven’t run the calculators, but based on the numbers I’ve seen casually googling, it looks like the average child support payment is several hundred dollars a month per child. Fun! Especially when you consider how many divorced or unmarried fathers don’t pay.

Did you feel like your custodial parent was living the sweet life off child support when you were a kid? Did your life get materially better, or worse after the divorce?

“3)Does the divorce system tend to award wives the marital home?”

Yes, and it’s generally a huge financial mistake to keep it.

“5)Does the divorce system tend to award wives heavy alimony payments?”

Alimony is very much an endangered species. One of my aunties got divorced some years ago from her high-earning husband (he had commenced a third family at around age 50). As I recall, she got about three years of spousal support and that was it. They had been married and lived together for nearly 20 years when he left to start over again.

“6)In your opinion, are the divorce laws in the USA biased against men?”

Divorce is almost never going to be a happy situation, as it costs much more to pay for two households than one. Financially speaking, divorce generally takes one marginal household and turns it into two struggling households.

Lay off the men’s rights stuff–it’s un-Christian and very unlikely to make you happy. Those guys don’t sound happy, do they?

 

[thewanderer]

So women should be forced to stay in abusive, unfaithful, or otherwise awful marriages, and face homelessness if they don’t.

You say men are financially vulnerable, but you’re asking women to be far, far more vulnerable than men are.

So this isn’t about money, it’s about pride? Dude, Do NOT GET MARRIED. There is no place for pride or materialism in marriage.

Seriously, you asked us to convince you to get married but it has become quite clear that to do so would be seriously wrong on our part. You are not currently ready for marriage. Whether or not you will ever be I cannot know. But marriage is not the only vocation, there is a good chance it is not your vocation. Instead of asking people to convince you to marry perhaps you should spend some time discerning other ways you can currently live your life while following the Gospel?

 

[Estevao]

1. Extremely broad question. The US has millions of millions of laws so the broadness of your question makes it impossible to answer. Give me the specific laws and their contents and then I can tell you.

Okay, lets say for example my wife decides to go to a bar while I’m out of town to have a roll in the hay with a charismatic stud, and does so without using artificial contraception because she wants to have a child by this dude. Against all odds, this one time gets her pregnant, and she’s going to have a child.

Now say that I don’t what to consider this child mine, because, well, it isn’t. However, as the law would have it, I am presumed to be this child’s father because I am the mother’s husband. Apparently the amount of evidence required to overturn this presumption of paternity is rather high.

Is this a law which is biased against men?

Perhaps it would be helpful to consider the contrary where a husband has a child with a woman that is not his wife. Is there a presumption of maternity for the wife because she is the wife of the father?

 

[AnastasiaRomano]

Perhaps all this should be a thought in her mind before she decides to unilaterally sever the marriage. Luckily the second wave feminist revolution happened to attempt to remove consequences for women’s decisions.

It’s not so much that I care about my material things to the point that I would prefer them to loving a wife, it’s just that I don’t like to be made into a sucker (it’s the same reason why I don’t play the lottery or go to the casino).

I think you’re missing BEL’s point. Though many divorces are initiated by women, many are initiated by men, too. Your viewpoint seems to be that no man should get married because his wife might leave him and he’d lose some financial assets. But as BEL notes, women are at risk of their husbands leaving, too, and women who have been stay-at-home mothers or housewives are particularly at risk for being left destitute. Such women have contributed to the marriage in equal ways as their wage-earning husbands, and as such our legal system recognizes their contributions to the marriage and equitably divides assets if a divorce does occur.

(On a side note, just because one spouse initiates divorce proceedings doesn’t always mean they’re at fault. I have a friend whose husband left her for another woman but refused to file for divorce because he said it was too much of a “hassle.”
After some time, she ended up being the one to file because she needed to settle legal matters etc. – but would she really be the one considered to be at fault in the divorce, simply because she was first to file?)

 

[AnastasiaRomano]

So women should be forced to stay in abusive, unfaithful, or otherwise awful marriages, and face homelessness if they don’t.

You say men are financially vulnerable, but you’re asking women to be far, far more vulnerable than men are.

So this isn’t about money, it’s about pride? Dude, DO NOT GET MARRIED. There is no place for pride or materialism in marriage.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Seriously, you asked us to convince you to get married but it has become quite clear that to do so would be seriously wrong on our part. You are not currently ready for marriage. Whether or not you will ever be I cannot know. But marriage is not the only vocation, there is a good chance it is not your vocation. Instead of asking people to convince you to marry perhaps you should spend some time discerning other ways you can currently live your life while following the Gospel?

I’m starting to suspect that he isn’t asking to be talked into marriage, so much as trying to talk others out of it. I wonder how the pope would take that attitude.

 

[Estevao]

So women should be forced to stay in abusive, unfaithful, or otherwise awful marriages, and face homelessness if they don’t.

You say men are financially vulnerable, but you’re asking women to be far, far more vulnerable than men are.

So this isn’t about money, it’s about pride? Dude, DO NOT GET MARRIED. There is no place for pride or materialism in marriage.

So it is your belief, then, that women when they marry should become so financially dependent on their husbands that they do not have the option of leaving even if the situation becomes one of abuse?

I believe the cases of abuse or unfaithfulness you are describing would be termed “at fault” divorces, and no unilateral no fault divorces.

I don’t really see why a wife should be able to up and leave a marriage for no fault and still get the benefits of marriage.

 

[thewanderer]

I’m starting to suspect that he isn’t asking to be talked into marriage, so much as trying to talk others out of it. I wonder how the pope would take that attitude.

I must admit I have been wondering the same thing.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I think you’re missing BEL’s point. Though many divorces are initiated by women, many are initiated by men, too. Your viewpoint seems to be that no man should get married because his wife might leave him and he’d lose some financial assets. But as BEL notes, women are at risk of their husbands leaving, too, and women who have been stay-at-home mothers or housewives are particularly at risk for being left destitute. Such women have contributed to the marriage in equal ways as their wage-earning husbands, and as such our legal system recognizes their contributions to the marriage and equitably divides assets if a divorce does occur.

(On a side note, just because one spouse initiates divorce proceedings doesn’t always mean they’re at fault. I have a friend whose husband left her for another woman but refused to file for divorce because he said it was too much of a “hassle.”
After some time, she ended up being the one to file because she needed to settle legal matters etc. – but would she really be the one considered to be at fault in the divorce, simply because she was first to file?)

Women file at slightly higher rates, but men have much higher rates of domestic abuse, infidelity, and substance abuse. Men do not get to do those things and then complain when women file. There’s usually a reason people leave marriages, and just because its legally classified as “no fault” doesn’t mean that there weren’t awful wrongs committed by one or both parties.

My mom unilaterally filed for divorce despite my father’s pleads and protests. He was a violent alcoholic. Good for her for keeping us both safe.

 

[thewanderer]

I believe the cases of abuse or unfaithfulness you are describing would be termed “at fault” divorces, and no unilateral no fault divorces.

I don’t really see why a wife should be able to up and leave a marriage for no fault and still get the benefits of marriage.

First of all “at-fault” divorces are difficult to prove, extremely lengthy, and much more costly than “no-fault” divorces, so much so that it is possible for women to be stuck in abusive situations because they cannot afford it or meet the proof requirements because of the care taken by their abusive husband. I have run into at least one person here on CAF who was seriously abused by her husband and the only way she was able to remove herself and her children from the situation was through a no-fault divorce.

Secondly, let me ask you this. If a man stayed at home to take care of the kids instead of furthering his career, while his wife used the fact that he stayed at home to take care of the house as an added boost for her career, and then they later divorced, do you believe the man should just accept homelessness and destitution and that it would be fair for him to be left homeless and destitute? with no prospect for attaining livable employment? No means of living while furthering his education or taking unpaid/underpaid positions to earn experience to further his career so that he can actually afford to take care of himself? Does anything about that sound even a little bit off?