Why shouldn't we abolish marriage?

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by jeff3

Why would you want to influence the availability of an option just because you don't want to participate? If you don't want to get married don't. How does other people getting married affect you personally?

You'd still have the option to "be married" in the terms of having a piece of paper. The gov't just wouldn't be involved.

Originally Posted by jeff3

Marriage is a social event, my guess is that it originated with the people within a clan wishing to make a public recognition of the desire to form a union which most likely would result in a family w/children being the outcome.

You just said "Marriage is a social event". You just hit the nail on the head. Marriage is a social event and a social lifestyle. So why don't we just re-structure marriage to be what it is?

Originally Posted by jeff3

Eliminating a choice for another person is like making a choice for them, which is most definitely a form of control. So the real question is, "why do you feel the need to control other people?", the only person you should be concerned about controlling is the one immediately behind the tip of your nose.

The gov't can't control whether you're married or not. You're right its a free choice. So why do we need to sanction it within the gov't?

I think people have a hard time wrapping their head around an entirely different structure and having different terms applied to things.

Obviously we'd have to still call it "Married" because there is a stigma within our culture to the term.

So what we'd do is just restructure tax laws, try to drive out the culture of women changing their name and allow people to get "married" and get their certificate, exchange rings and live happily ever after. BUT, without the expense of divorce and the inefficiencies of the gov't regulations, divorce hearings, etc, etc.

Its a win win.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I guess what you're saying is that our culture is... Still Growing...

Yes Daffy. Precisely.

[Lauxa]

SG, even if people didn't get married nothing would stop them from entering into legal contracts with each other describing the distribution of assets should they ever split. The states have institutionalized these contracts as "marriage" ... but I'm sure some contracts would be used even if the state were no longer handling it. There would still be disputes about how property should be distributed upon disengagement and since there would probably be more versions of the contract it might actually cost more for judges to have to study all the individual versions than to just implement a standard set of rules across all marriages.

As for taxes, haven't I heard somewhere about the "marriage penalty"? I have a second cousin who won't marry because it would cost more in taxes, so I'm not sure if assuming married people cost society in taxpayer dollars is accurate.

Ah, here you go. The tax code is advantageous for couples with disparate incomes but penalizes couples with roughly equal incomes.

Marriage penalty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Kanzeon]

Speaking as a divorce lawyer and a fan of marriage:

Humans pair up and put faith in one another in intimate relationships. Surely you've noticed that. And, when they do (whether they be hetrosexual or homosexual), they accumulate assets together, and raise children. They share the burdens differently at different times. Then, if the relationship ends, there are retirement assets, homes, cars, and other property to divide, and arrangements to be made for raising the children. No matter what the legal status is, the courts will be involved in cases where people disagree - and when lovers hit the rocks, they are certain to disagree. That is human nature: nothing will change that. Cases with prenups are more expensive to litigate than regular divorces, actually. And most divorces consume almost no court time. If you are concerned about court expense and congestion, look no further than the war on drugs.

The law recognizes that some relationships are based in contract: that is, arms-length, fairly negotiated deal making. Other relationships are based on fiduciary principles and status, on the understanding that people trust one another with everything dear to them. The law recognizes this trust, encourages it, and protects it.

Making every relationship a contract relationship is a cold, barbaric way to run a society. It is also contrary to the entire human experience of romantic love. Virtually everyone who has been in love is giddy and blind, to some degree. And in that blindness they will sacrifice more than they should, if they were dealing with their situation rationally. That sacrifice and blindness is one thing that makes life wonderful. To eliminate the institution of marriage is to negate the depth of human emotion, and to punish people for feeling deeply, for having hope, and experiencing love.

Not that I have a strong opinion on the matter, of course.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Lauxa

As for taxes, haven't I heard somewhere about the "marriage penalty"? I have a second cousin who won't marry because it would cost more in taxes, so I'm not sure if assuming married people cost society in taxpayer dollars is accurate.

This would be a serious problem, except that a couple has absolute freedom to file separately while married. Your cousin can get married without fear... fear of taxes, anyway. I make no guarantees that he can get married without fear of his wife .

The marriage penalty itself... I thought that had been mostly fixed in the more recent amendments to the tax code. I guess I should run the numbers again...
Overall, marriage itself doesn't really create more complications in the tax code. In fact, marriage probably simplifies things. As it is, most married couples file jointly. Instead of the IRS having to process two returns, they process one. The alternative proposed (a business organization that would then split income to the individuals) would greatly complicate the tax code. With the proposed solution, the IRS would process three returns instead of one.

The cost of marriage (and divorce) on society can be high. The majority of civil cases in my area are divorces. That is probably the case most places. Divorces are some of the most contentious cases. When children are involved, they are second only to medical malpractice in raising hard questions.
Thing is, I don't see how eliminating marriage eliminates these cases. An uncontested divorce without problems of child support or alimony is easy to resolve. In fact, it takes only a few minutes. Cases that get dragged out involve parties fighting over division of marital property and support one party deserves as a result of the marriage.
Without marriage, people will still live in the same arrangements. They will still love and support one another. They will still rely on the other person supporting them in return. They'll still have children together. And they'll still fight over the same things. The courts will still be called on to resolve whether a party's work maintaining a household in reliance on the other's promises precluded their own financial well-being (alimony). They'll still have to resolve who is better suited to take care of the children (custody). They'll still have to resolve how much money should be used for the care of the children (child support). They'll still have to divide property obtained by the parties jointly, whether formally or informally (marital property).

A benefit of the abolition would be encouraging pre and post nuptual agreements. Those agreements make everything easier. You can modify them to work however you want and write them based on your love for each other rather than trying to resolve things in the midst of pain and anger. They eliminate the majority of the work for the courts and usually lead the parties to consent divorces. Fantastic, fantastic things.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

Speaking as a divorce lawyer

Whoa! I thought I was the only scum-sucking bottom-feeding ambulance-chaser on these forums. Glad to know I'm not alone .

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

A benefit of the abolition would be encouraging pre and post nuptual agreements. Those agreements make everything easier. You can modify them to work however you want and write them based on your love for each other rather than trying to resolve things in the midst of pain and anger. They eliminate the majority of the work for the courts and usually lead the parties to consent divorces. Fantastic, fantastic things.

I loved the rest of your post, but I couldn't disagree more with this.

Prenups are horrible to draft. They almost always contemplate circumstances that don't arise. The cause strife and difficulty in themselves, and no one drafts them cheaply, and some lawyers will increase their usual fee (the reason being that the lawyer who drafted it will probably be - without compensation - a witness at trial). Then, when things start to go haywire in the relationship, someone will try to use the terms of the prenup to gain leverage on the other. And, because each one is unique, and each one needs to be judged separately on the fairness of the drafting, the implemention, and the final result, it is expensive and ugly to try.

I have people come to me to get prenups, who have maybe a half million in assets. I turn them away. They've been told that getting a prenup is the responsible thing to do. It is only a good thing to do if you have significant assets (somewhere about a $2 million net worth), or if you have kids already that you want to protect, or if you are part of a family business.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by Kanzeon

Prenups are horrible to draft. They almost always contemplate circumstances that don't arise. The cause strife and difficulty in themselves, and no one drafts them cheaply, and some lawyers will increase their usual fee (the reason being that the lawyer who drafted it will probably be - without compensation - a witness at trial). Then, when things start to go haywire in the relationship, someone will try to use the terms of the prenup to gain leverage on the other. And, because each one is unique, and each one needs to be judged separately on the fairness of the drafting, the implemention, and the final result, it is expensive and ugly to try.

I have people come to me to get prenups, who have maybe a half million in assets. I turn them away. They've been told that getting a prenup is the responsible thing to do. It is only a good thing to do if you have significant assets (somewhere about a $2 million net worth), or if you have kids already that you want to protect, or if you are part of a family business.

Huh. My limited experience was the exact opposite. Most of them I drafted were for clients of a tax attorney who also did estate planning and the like. The few that resulted in a divorce led to quick resolutions according to the terms of the pre-nup. Then again, these were mostly people who fit the description you gave (high net worth) and generally professionals with two working partners.
My assumption was that they're fairly solid when done with adequate representation, full disclosure, and no compulsion...

[Kanzeon]

Originally Posted by ThoughtAddict

Huh. My limited experience was the exact opposite. Most of them I drafted were for clients of a tax attorney who also did estate planning and the like. The few that resulted in a divorce led to quick resolutions according to the terms of the pre-nup. Then again, these were mostly people who fit the description you gave (high net worth) and generally professionals with two working partners.
My assumption was that they're fairly solid when done with adequate representation, full disclosure, and no compulsion...

I worked on one of the most expensive divorces in history. A prenup was at issue, and complicated matters greatly. The husband maintained the prenup limited her to about $350,000. Her final settlement was $460 million. Had there been no prenup, the husband might have started from a more sensible position, and the case resolved more quickly.

I worked as an expert witness on a case, in which there was brutal domestic violence before the marriage. Despite the fact that the agreement had been drafted and redrafted by the attorneys and appeared substantively fair, it was thrown out. Had there been no prenup, the domestic violence issue and testimony would not have been nearly so prominent - almost irrelevant in a no fault divorce with no children.

I drafted a prenup for an internet millionaire's future wife, under the agreement that the husband would pay my bill. Looking back, I don't think that was wise. I sent the bill to the husband after the agreement was executed. The new husband threw a fit, said it was too big and she should pay it. The new wife walked out. A couple months later they were divorced, because of fight sparked by my bill for the prenup. She paid it in the end, by the way, and thanked me for being the impetus that got her out of a doomed marriage so quickly.

Those are some of my experiences with prenups.

[Daffy Duck]

I've always felt that if you feel you need a prenup, then you shouldn't get married.

"Yes my love, I trust you with my life. Oh by the way... sign here." Sounds dumb to me!

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

I've always felt that if you feel you need a prenup, then you shouldn't get married.
...

I've always felt that if you think you don't need a prenup, you're headed for disaster.

Not prenup as in written contract, but prenup as in: being clear on what you really want and need from the relationship, and be as clear about your partner's wants and needs.

[AlekNovy]

What's obvious is that marriage will collapse eventually. Its just a matter of time. Whether it is 50 years or 150 is the question.

Most people don't realize that, but there's a whole bunch of levels coming after the gay issue. After gays get rights, then polyamorous people will fight their fight. When they get their rights, we will hear about friends-unions and relatives unions. This is where people want to get the same rights of a marriage with a friend or a relative.

Right now we only hear about the gay issue, coz its closest to being passed/accepted altogether. Once anyone can get a civil union with anyone in any way, we will realize marriage is a stupid idea altogether.

Its sad we have to do everything else first, lol. Instead of just skipping steps and doing it today.

[Daffy Duck]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

being clear on what you really want and need from the relationship, and be as clear about your partner's wants and needs.

Well, duh. That's obviously not the kind of "prenup" I was talking about.

Semantics.

[spirit4711]

I love semantics.

Duh Daffy Duck has a nice alliteration too!

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by Daffy Duck

"Yes my love, I trust you with my life. Oh by the way... sign here." Sounds dumb to me!

Till death do us part ' honey you missed a line who will keep the dogs' Oooops!

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

I've always felt that if you think you don't need a prenup, you're headed for disaster.

Not prenup as in written contract, but prenup as in: being clear on what you really want and need from the relationship, and be as clear about your partner's wants and needs.

There goes love and trust through the window and in comes selfishness and greed; does the prenup include which side of the bed?

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by newsbone

There goes love and trust through the window and in comes selfishness and greed; does the prenup include which side of the bed?

I think you misread what I wrote. If you need love and trust from your partner you better make sure you know, your partner knows and vice versa.

[ohTen]

i am way into this idea. i actually wrote about it a while ago on my blog.

[newsbone]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

I think you misread what I wrote. If you need love and trust from your partner you better make sure you know, your partner knows and vice versa.

And a piece of paper is supposed to make it happen, HUH!

[AlekNovy]

Originally Posted by ohTen

i am way into this idea. i actually wrote about it a while ago on my blog.

Hey ohTen, NICE post!!

But I could barely finish it due to the color choice. Lol, could you consider a different scheme. I seriously think the only person who could read your blog is someone with color-mismatched vision or something. Black on purple is just not readable. I was SERIOUSLY interested in your post, and hooked, but I had to force myself to finish reading it, just becaùse of the color choice.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I propose we abolish marriage all together.

We should just have a civil union for all couples.

LOL, how would that change anything?

Instead of seeing a multitude of divorce proceedings for marriages, you'd just see a multitude of divorce proceedings for civil unions.

All your concerns about legal fees, taxpayer's burdens etc would be equally applicable.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by newsbone

And a piece of paper is supposed to make it happen, HUH!

Read again. Where did I mention paper?

[Angela]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

Read again. Where did I mention paper?

Actually, you said specifically not as in a written contract.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Angela

Actually, you said specifically not as in a written contract.

I know...

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

LOL, how would that change anything?

Instead of seeing a multitude of divorce proceedings for marriages, you'd just see a multitude of divorce proceedings for civil unions.

All your concerns about legal fees, taxpayer's burdens etc would be equally applicable.

The tax burden would be equal? How do you figure?

OK so you go to church or a private company to get a piece of paper that says "civil union" or "married" or whatever. Since the gov't didn't regulate marriage it wouldn't require a proceeding to make amicable divorces valid.

Only in a portion of cases would couples choose to go forward with a civil trial to argue assets. The court could charge more for such proceedings and could even do so at a profit. The tax payer should get a tax decrease from wealthy couples arguing assets.

Certainly a good proportion of divorces in the US are simply a hearing to divorce and the separation of assets are not in dispute.

Your mind is hung up on there needing to be a judge to break a civil union. I'm prescribing that marriages be someone more aligned with a SCUBA License. How many court cases do judges see over people renewing their SCUBA License. I'm joking,,,, well kind of.

[Acting Like Godot]

If you can think of a system where courts are not necessary for dissolving a civil union, then you can think of a system where courts are not necessary for dissolving a marriage.

If you can think of a system where it is cheap to dissolve a civil union, then you can think of a system where it is cheap to dissolve a marriage.

Let me explain to you how the concept of civil unions arose.

It had to do with gays who wanted to marry. In many countries, this has met with opposition eg on religious grounds.

So the artificial concept of civil union evolved. Gays could not get into a "marriage", but they could get into a "civil union". The religious objections were thereby sidestepped, because no one was requiring the church to come approve the relationship.

However, for almost all practical intents and purposes, the legal rights and obligations of a person under a "civil union" were the same as the legal rights and obligations of a person under a "marriage". The dissolution of a civil union would therefore be approximately as complicated or as simple as the dissolution of a marriage.

The only significant reason why a civil union could be quicker is that in many jurisdictions where civil unions exist, same-sex partners nevertheless may not be allowed to have children (via adoption). Children are a complicating factor in legal proceedings (eg custody and visitation rights come into the picture).

Now, the thing is, in many countries where civil unions were made possible, they are not limited to gay people, but also to heterosexual couples. Otherwise it would be too overtly an exercise to sidestep the religious objections. In many jurisdictions, a problem with equal rights also would arise. That is, since gays should not get special options that straights do not, straights also become entitled to enter into civil unions if so they wish.

But the simple point for you is just this. As far as the law is concerned, the same kind of issues that arise for heterosexual civil unions also arise for marriages. Fundamentally, it's issues like:

(a) division of assets
(b) payment of maintenance
(c) custody of children, if any
(d) visitation rights
(e) protection orders (if violence is an issue)

These issues can arise whether you are in a civil union or in a marriage. Therefore neither type of relationship is necessarily any cheaper or faster than the other, to be dissolved.

[Still Growing]

ALG,
If "I" can think of a way?

You do know that as long as the gov't is responsible for managing something that its almost always over budget and not very efficient.

Don't get hung up on "MY" use of the term civil union and then equate that to the origins of the term.

I am glad to see that you too believe that the system could improve.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

You do know that as long as the gov't is responsible for managing something that its almost always over budget and not very efficient.

Then that will equally affect the way it handles the dissolution of civil unions.

Don't get hung up on "MY" use of the term civil union and then equate that to the origins of the term.

I was seeking to explain that the legal issues arising out of both types of relationships are similar.

The logical follow-up question from you would have been - "Is that so? Then why were civil unions invented in the first place?"

So I gave you the answer in advance.

I am glad to see that you too believe that the system could improve.

To begin with, you and I are not in the same countries. And the two countries have many differences.

Where I come from, the court system is the most efficient in the world (according to international studies); civil unions do not exist at all; and before you can even get to a court to petition for a divorce; you and your spouse have to get through professional counsellors and mediators who will try to help you discuss your marital problems and find solutions.

But yes, all systems have their flaws and all of them have room for improvement.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Then that will equally affect the way it handles the dissolution of civil unions.

I'm not arguing for civil unions in replace of marriages managed by the gov't. I'm stating that the gov't need not manage either.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

To begin with, you and I are not in the same countries. And the two countries have many differences.

Where I come from, the court system is the most efficient in the world (according to international studies); civil unions do not exist at all; and before you can even get to a court to petition for a divorce; you and your spouse have to get through professional counsellors and mediators who will try to help you discuss your marital problems and find solutions.

ALG, I don't want to offend your country's system because it may be the best solution for your country's culture. Maybe with your national tax rate being so high you have enough gov't workers to manage people. In the US our tax system does not support this and the American culture rejects it.

With that said, what you are saying is that your gov't has created mandatory counseling before a couple can divorce. This is creating more legislature and more gov't intervention. I'm sure studies show that this reduces the amount of divorces and remarriages however I can assure you that your system costs more per person than the US system if this counseling is paid for by the gov't. Is it?

The gov't should have absolutely no say when a couple wishes to part. What your system has done is to put a band aid over the problem. (Which is better than the US btw; which doesn't even do that effectively)

For the US, our gov't has shown that it cannot manage anything. Maybe if they doubled taxes then they'd be able to hire enough clowns to manage big gov't.

In life sometimes simplicity is the best answer.

I am proposing that couples go to their church or to a company to get married. They get a certificate, they can exchange rings, have a wedding and do whatever they like. Under my proposal there would also be a flat tax and no need for the marriage tax discount. You are taxed on what you earn with no deductions. A small flat tax less than our current taxes we pay.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I am proposing that couples go to their church or to a company to get married. They get a certificate, they can exchange rings, have a wedding and do whatever they like.

But this is already a possibility - having a party to celebrate your relationship without getting a marriage licence. This is what vow renewals are too. Why do you want to legislate in order to make it the only possibility?

Also, you haven't addressed my previous post - what about emigration issues? Are you ready to accept any migrant in your country, based only on their declaration that they are married to a citizen or visa holder, without legal proof?