Why does the government care who loves who and for how long?

[BlueEyedLady]

You are suggesting a form of what some states have tried as “covenant” marriages, in which couples decide at the time of their marriage (or after) to agree to limit the grounds for divorce in their marriages. The last time I saw statistics, 60% of people thought it would be good if divorces were harder to get, but in states where couples could choose “covenant” marriages, only around 1% or less cso. Were there couples in which one member backed out because the other wouldn’t sign on for the covenant? Maybe there were. I don’t know if anyone has done that research.

Yeah, I’m familiar with those. I like my idea better. I would not choose the marriage where divorce is harder to get, that’s just an obnoxious thing the state came up with to be symbolic. What I’m suggesting isn’t a different type of marriage, it’s a mandatory addendum. If the couple decides that there should be no consequences for initiating divorce or cheating or whatever, that’s fine, but at least they had the discussion and mutually decided that.

I would rather not live in a city where the anti-theft program was strictly on the honor system. In a weak moment, the specter of consequences sometimes help good people do the right thing. The same undoubtedly goes for marriage. There are people who stay married through a rough spot and are glad they did, but they only stuck with their marriages at the time because they didn’t want to chance the losses that divorce could put them through. That does not make them bad people. The knowledge that there will be a tangible consequence just help us to get past that near occasion of a sin we could regret for a lifetime. (I do know people who chose to divorce who regretted it later, too. Sometimes, society does us a great favor when it gives us good reasons to avoid rash decisions.)

That’s convenient, because we aren’t talking about a city wide into theft program, we’re talking about marriage. You aren’t protecting yourself from millions of strangers. You’re talking about wanting a third party (who judging from your posts you don’t normally like or trust) to step in and protect you and your husband from each other. I do think that marriage requires a tremendous amount of trust, and again, it really isn’t the government’s job to make sure it’s well placed. Either you and your spouse are people of good character who meant your vows, or you aren’t. More government isn’t going to fix things if you aren’t.

 

[EasterJoy]

Yeah, I’m familiar with those. I like my idea better. I would not choose the marriage where divorce is harder to get, that’s just an obnoxious thing the state came up with to be symbolic. What I’m suggesting isn’t a different type of marriage, it’s a mandatory addendum. If the couple decides that there should be no consequences for initiating divorce or cheating or whatever, that’s fine, but at least they had the discussion and mutually decided that.

That’s convenient, because we aren’t talking about a city wide into theft program, we’re talking about marriage. You aren’t protecting yourself from millions of strangers. You’re talking about wanting a third party (who judging from your posts you don’t normally like or trust) to step in and protect you and your husband from each other. I do think that marriage requires a tremendous amount of trust, and again, it really isn’t the government’s job to make sure it’s well placed. Either you and your spouse are people of good character who meant your vows, or you aren’t. More government isn’t going to fix things if you aren’t.

You are talking about “When you apply for a license you should be handed a quick prenuptial form. Not a full who-gets-what prenup that requires lawyers, just a quick form that asks the couple if there should be a penalty for initiating divorce, infidelity, abuse, etc. If they say yes, as I suspect many will, they will be held to that in court if it ever gets to that.”

No, I can guarantee they will not be held to that. If you say that you think something should be illegal, but it isn’t, you are still only held to the real legal standard. You aren’t held to the legal standard you used to favor that was never enacted by any legislature. You still get to have your unilateral no-fault divorce if you want it, just like everybody else.

I am only saying that I hear again and again from spouses who are being abandoned by the use of no-fault divorce that they feel betrayed by a system that gives them no protection from the whim of their partner. None. Zero.

You may as well say that you’d never take on a business partner unless all of your agreements were based on a handshake, because business contracts are just an invitation for the government to get involved in your business. I don’t see the difference.

Oh, and what is this “people of good character” thing? Do your really think that people of “good character” never make any real stupid rash decisions because they foolishly think it is the easiest fix for the most difficult situation they’ve ever been in? I’d like to say that “people of character” never let the thought of divorce cross their minds, but it doesn’t work like that.

I am only talking about a civil contract that is actually binding. That isn’t some huge government intrusion. That is a civil protection of vulnerable people who haven’t committed any breach of contract, who don’t deserved to be abandoned, and who don’t deserve to lose some custody of their children and their material security so their spouse can chase a “better deal.”

 

[gardenswithkids]

I very much expect some single people to start suing over the fairness of the marital tax advantage, not to mention many other advantages of marriage that single people with a trusty roommate can’t have when their roommate isn’t a sexual partner.

Yes. If the government is interested in regulating contacts based on two people who love each other, why doesn’t non-romantic love qualify for the benefits? Besides roommates and friends, close blood relatives might be interested in tax savings on inheritance and money from pensions and such. There are lots grandmothers who live with and raise grandchildren along with their daughters. Mothers and daughters can’t marry each other, even if they’re raising children together. That doesn’t seem right to me at all under equal protection laws that certain same-sex couples aren’t legally able to enter these voluntary contracts.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You are talking about “When you apply for a license you should be handed a quick prenuptial form. Not a full who-gets-what prenup that requires lawyers, just a quick form that asks the couple if there should be a penalty for initiating divorce, infidelity, abuse, etc. If they say yes, as I suspect many will, they will be held to that in court if it ever gets to that.”

No, I can guarantee they will not be held to that. If you say that you think something should be illegal, but it isn’t, you are still only held to the real legal standard. You aren’t held to the legal standard you used to favor that was never enacted by any legislature. You still get to have your unilateral no-fault divorce if you want it, just like everybody else.

Obviously, a plan like this would require some legislative action first. But I’m not detailing a policy proposal, just spitballing general ideas that I think that policy experts and elected officials may be able to flesh out to help solve a real problem here. I’m sure your familiar with that.

I am only saying that I hear again and again from spouses who are being abandoned by the use of no-fault divorce that they feel betrayed by a system that gives them no protection from the whim of their partner. None. Zero.

Feel betrayed by a system? The system didn’t make them any promises, the system didn’t build a life with them. They should feel betrayed by their spouse.

You may as well say that you’d never take on a business partner unless all of your agreements were based on a handshake, because business contracts are just an invitation for the government to get involved in your business. I don’t see the difference.

Do you really, honestly not see a difference? I would never, ever, in a million years have a business partner and no signed contracts and I have a hard time believing you would either. But we are both married. It’s a very real difference, and one that both of us have lived out for years.

Oh, and what is this “people of good character” thing? Do your really think that people of “good character” never make any real stupid rash decisions because they foolishly think it is the easiest fix for the most difficult situation they’ve ever been in? I’d like to say that “people of character” never let the thought of divorce cross their minds, but it doesn’t work like that.

Again, it is not the job of the government to keep people from making stupid decisions

I am only talking about a civil contract that is actually binding. That isn’t some huge government intrusion. That is a civil protection of vulnerable people who haven’t committed any breach of contract, who don’t deserved to be abandoned, and who don’t deserve to lose some custody of their children and their material security so their spouse can chase a “better deal.”

And I’m OK with that, provided that the couple has a say in what that will look like before they get married. But as it stands now, my marriage contract had no mention of anything that you want enforced. You don’t see the problem of finding implied clauses to have enforced in court? All of the promises I made on my wedding day happened completely separate from the government, as I’m sure yours did too. Those were religious vows, and yes, the idea of the government holding you to them is very frightening. That kind of policy is more fit for Indonesia or Saudi Arabia than the US.

Like I said, the only thing that can be reasonably enforced is the commitment. That’s dangerous. The same things that are causing the divorce epidemic (which is improving) are causing people to be really terrible husbands and wives. Let’s fix that. But don’t trap innocent people in danger.

 

[gardenswithkids]

It’s very easy for you to say that others should be bound in terrible situations while sitting comfortably in yours. What are you suggesting? What’s your solution? Use the law to hold people to abusive or dangerous situations until they can prove a good reason to be allowed to leave? I have a big problem with the idea of the government telling anyone “I know that you think it would be better for you to be out of this situation, but we’ve read your application and we’ve determined that it would be better for society in general if we keep you there”. That’s exactly what making people drag out (or make up) dirty laundry for third party scrutiny and judgement amounts to, and that gets ugly.

The problem with trying to legally enforce marriage vows is that you can only enforce the commitment. You can’t enforce fidelity, and you can’t go into someone’s home and keep them from harming their family. All you can do is make their partner stay…

I’ve known a few friends married 20+ years who divorced when there one of them didn’t want the divorce. We can’t force two people to live together, but if the government is interested in trying to stabilize families, they don’t have to make it quite so easy as it is to release them from their contract, especially when one party wants the contract to remain.

Every once in a while, I hear a story about an old couple divorcing, with one of the members opposing the divorce–and I wonder if they person demanding a divorce is still of sound mind. I knew a wonderful, older Catholic couple who lived faithfully to each other for years–until a brain injury happened. Brain injuries are strange things, especially when they result in a total personality change.

I want protection that my husband or I won’t be able to do something to destroy my marriage following a stroke or some other type of brain injury that might be so subtle it’s not detected except perhaps through personality changes.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

Yes. If the government is interested in regulating contacts based on two people who love each other, why doesn’t non-romantic love qualify for the benefits? Besides roommates and friends, close blood relatives might be interested in tax savings on inheritance and money from pensions and such. There are lots grandmothers who live with and raise grandchildren along with their daughters. Mothers and daughters can’t marry each other, even if they’re raising children together. That doesn’t seem right to me at all under equal protection laws that certain same-sex couples aren’t legally able to enter these voluntary contracts.

When distributing property, many state laws award property to surviving spouses first, then children, parents, siblings and distant relatives. So there is indeed a system that acknowledges a parent/grandparent as a potential legal gardian without a will.

 

[Joe_5859]

The government doesn’t care “who loves” – the reason the government ‘cares’ is that the civil contract tells them who is entitled to inherit any property when one or both members of that contract dies. Oh, and who owes taxes on that property or income, too.

I think it’s truly sad if that’s all the government thinks marriage is good for. A contract regarding inheritance is called a will. Anyone can make one and leave whatever they want to whomever they want. No marriage required.

I think certain people appealed to these types of things to make it sound like it was absolutely necessary to allow for same sex marriage else you wind up with two people of the same sex spending their life together and then when one dies the other is treated like a stranger. I greatly sympathize with anyone who found themselves in such a situation, but the solution to that problem does not necessitate redefining marriage. And now it seems there are many who think that’s all marriage is good for.

 

[gardenswithkids]

DistributionGiggly Giraffe;13089119]When distributing property, many state laws award property to surviving spouses first, then children, parents, siblings and distant relatives. So there is indeed a system that acknowledges a parent/grandparent as a potential legal gardian without a will.

Distribution laws differ from tax laws. Inheritance tax typically don’t apply to spouses but they usually apply to other family members. Plus, there are other potential financial benefits to couples that have legal recognition as a couple. Same sex couples that fought for the right to legal recognition of their unions excluded siblings, parent-child, cousins (in most states), and other family members.

But to your point, in the absence of a will, a relative who was living with and raising the child of a recently deceased family member might have to contend with other relatives of the childin petitioning the court for custody.

The utter unfairness of recognizing some same-sex relationships while disregarding others strikes home with me as a vlose family member was raised by her aunt and grandmother. There were no legal protection for their family, and of the courts are truly interested in validating same-sex relationships under equal protection laws, then they need to also strike down laws prohibiting relatives from entering unions.

 

[EasterJoy]

I think it’s truly sad if that’s all the government thinks marriage is good for. A contract regarding inheritance is called a will. Anyone can make one and leave whatever they want to whomever they want. No marriage required.

I think certain people appealed to these types of things to make it sound like it was absolutely necessary to allow for same sex marriage else you wind up with two people of the same sex spending their life together and then when one dies the other is treated like a stranger. I greatly sympathize with anyone who found themselves in such a situation, but the solution to that problem does not necessitate redefining marriage. And now it seems there are many who think that’s all marriage is good for.

Archbishop Vlazny in Portland said very clearly when there was a push for civil unions that the Church has no problem with the government providing for adults who were in non-married relationships of mutual care. He only objected that adults not have to be in a sexual relationship or an implied sexual relationship in order to give each other those benefits. Those pushing for civil unions for homosexuals rejected that entirely.

That was what showed me that this political agenda has nothing to do with getting the benefits needed to love and take care of each other and everything to do with coveting the position of having a sexual relationship that got full societal validation. That is what this has always been about.

You are right: Now marriage has been reduced to what civil union could have provided. Since marriage has been unmoored from procreation and since the government does not even give spouses legal recourse in the case of adultery, there is no longer any reason for civil marriage to have the least thing to do with whether or not the partners in civil marriage are sexual partners or not.

They’ve destroyed marriage as we know it, whether or not *they *know it. What they wanted is impossible, and so this was inevitable.