reducing divorce
Ilan Rabinowitz
>Make it harder to get married. I am not kidding. If marriage
were a substantial investment up-front (say a marriage license
that cost the equivalent of two-months of the couple's annual
income), I think more people would consider what they were
doing a little more carefully...
I find it interesting that many of us are trying to have the horse
push the cart rather than pull it.
Marriage is SUPPOSED to be a CONTRACT between two people.
If all other CONTRACTS in this society were as easy to break as
the marriage contract (primarily due to "no fault" divorce) this
society would be in a continuous state of anarchy. The DIVORCE
laws must change to enforce contracts, counsel rocky relationships,
limit access to divorce, and discourage the UNILATERAL breaking
of the marriage contract.
Because the marriage contract today can be broken by either party,
and for ANY reason (irreconcileable differences is ANY reason) the
state issued contract isn't worth the paper it's written on.
- Ilan Rabinowitz -
ilanet!i...@apple.com
-------------------------------------------
ILANET, home of Daddy & Me BBS
KHSkill
philosophy of the great Magliacci brothers (of NPR "Car Talk" fame). A
woman called them up a while back with some complaints about her very old
Honda. They told her, in effect, that she shouldn't expect so much from
her car. One of the brothers, I forget which, said "Happiness equals
reality minus expectations." In other words, if your expectations exceed
reality, you're certain to be unhappy. In my view, this applies to
marriages, as well as old Hondas.
Kenneth S.
Hank Heath
enough to stay in a marriage for ten years more than any reasonable person
should have "for the sake of the kids." Well, my kids can tell you better
than I that my sticking around in a bad relationship was worse than any
divorce proceedings that they could think of.
I admit that I have *suffered* as a result of the sh*tty divorce laws, but I
would not have re-entered into that relationship just to avoid the
consequences of the laws. My marriage was done for eighteen years ago. I
divorced eight years ago (and today I am done with alimony, finally). Was it
worth the trials and tribulations? Yes. Would I wish it upon anyone else.
HELL NO!!!! (Sorry for shouting.)
Hank Heath
Philadelphia
Bailey, Doug S
>I totally, totally disagree. Marriage as it exists should not be
>*The One True Way* to have a "family" in the first place. There
>should be other options and people should be encouraged to *consciously
>examine and choose between those options. Those who choose marriage
>The real crux of the problem, though, imo is the false categories
>"married" and "not married" replacing the many, many more possible
>social constructions that could be developed.
This is fine, but do you propose that all of these other 'options' recognize
the child's right to have a relationship with both parents? Assuming some
of the options you're suggesting do not include both parents, this innate
right of the child might cause some conflict in these options.
Regardless of what 'option' a child is born into, s/he has the right to both
biological parents, IMO.
Doug
dsba...@ingr.com, for those (like me) with header-stripping mailers
Stephen Hjelmstad
together for the benefit of the children, how stable are these alternate
lifestyle families going to be?
Stephen Hjelmstad
s...@seanet.com
On Tue, 28 Mar 1995, Barbara Saunders wrote:
> In article <3l41m3$n...@metroux.metrobbs.com> tas...@big10.metrobbs.com (Tina
> Haumersen) writes:
> >
> >: Make it harder to get married. I am not kidding. If marriage
>
> >: Chris Owens
> >
> ><ROFL> Sorry for laughing, but you are going about the problem the wrong
> >way, IMHO. It should not be made harder to get married, it should be
> >harder to get a DIVORCE.
>
> I totally, totally disagree. Marriage as it exists should not be
> *The One True Way* to have a "family" in the first place. There
> should be other options and people should be encouraged to *consciously
> examine and choose between those options. Those who choose marriage
> (and those who choose the other options, for that matter) should be
> encouraged to acknowledge the pros and cons of their choice and to
> make a *conscious decision to deal with them. *In that context,
> "getting out of" whatever committment one has made should be made
> more difficult.
>
> The real crux of the problem, though, imo is the false categories
> "married" and "not married" replacing the many, many more possible
> social constructions that could be developed.
> >
> >Tina
> >
> Barbara
>
Barbara Saunders
> together for the benefit of the children, how stable are these alternate
> lifestyle families going to be?
>
> Stephen Hjelmstad
> s...@seanet.com
>
Let em clarify my premise: The *reason*, I believe, that the marriage
contract is not stable is that the marriage contract is too rigid to
effectively cover all of the possible ways people might conduct relationships
in which children are supported and lovers grow into family. Because
marriage -- narrowly defined by law, with roles prescribed by stereotype
-- doesn't *fit* a very large people who want to create families, *those*
people's marriages are doomed to failure. Whether that failure is 'dysfunc-
tion', 'divorce', or 'unhappiness of spouses', whether that failure is
dismissed as "negligible" (i.e., social pressure to stay married whether
you're happy or not), or whether that failure causes a variety of social
problems, the *cause* is the rigidity of the system.
We have a world wherein some pegs are round, some square, some triangular,
some octagonal. I'm not arguing that there needs to be a form for
every possible irregular shape. But there at *least* needs to be more
than *just* square. Marriage as it stands is a square hole. As it stands,
there are no other holes. The triangles, octagons, and circles are never
going to comfortably and safely be kept in the square holes.
Barbara
Bailey, Doug S
>Commitment? Sure, got plenty of that. Marriage? No, thanks. My partner
>and I can make our own contract and set up our own obligations to
>each other. We don't need the State of Oregon to hold our hands for
Fine. But what sex is your partner? Female? If so, that shows a bias
which taints your position. It's one thing to be anti-marriage if you're
a lesbian or gay, but another thing entirely if you're heterosexual.
Since lesbians/gays are by their nature controversial to society,
and since marriage originally was a hetero institution, it follows that
lesbians/gays would (of course) be anti-marriage.
Most hetero women see marriage as a way to safeguard themselves
against men who cannot commit completely. What is your personal
reason for not marrying?
Just curious.
Doug
dsba...@ingr.com
KHSkill
the information about marriage is available to people before they get
married.
First, no one (so far as I am aware) makes any attempt to communicate
this information. I got married in 1969 in Pennsylvania. Certainly no
one did it then. My understanding of what would happen was derived from
my parent's marriage. I assumed that I would have a lifelong marriage,
would support my family, and would have security, so long as I did not
breach the obligations of marriage. I lived in several other places, and
then was divorced in Virginia in 1987. In the meantime, all kinds of
changes took place in laws that affected me, without my assent, and that
would have caused me to have serious reservations, had I known in advance
back in 1969 that they were going to happen.
Secondly, suppose the information about the implications of marriage
were to be made available -- either through personal research, or through
some sort of "Truth in Marriage Act" that you'd sign before you walked
down the aisle. What would the information consist of? It would have to
be something like:
(1) This marriage ceremony is nice, but it's of no legal significance
whatsoever -- the "obligations" that you undertake can be repudiated at
any time, without penalty;
(2) If you're a man, and you have children followed by a divorce, even if
you're the innocent party, there's a 90 percent probability that you will
lose your children and have to pay your ex-wife a great deal of money for
many years;
(3) There's a 50 percent probably that scenario (2) will happen; and
(4) Just in case that's not enough uncertainty for you, in the future you
may move to another state and then that state's marriage law apply. Even
if you stay put, your state legislature can (and frequently has) made ex
post facto changes to your personal marriage contract.
Come to think of it, it might be kind of fun to see brides and grooms
being presented with this just before the ceremony!
Kenneth S.
Hank Heath
>Marriage is SUPPOSED to be a CONTRACT between two people.
>If all other CONTRACTS in this society were as easy to break >as
>the marriage contract (primarily due to "no fault" divorce) >this
>society would be in a continuous state of anarchy
My reply:
This country IS in a continuous state of anarchy. In business, I see
contracts broken every day, with the help of some excellent lawyers.....and
.... they all feel that this is a good way of doing business. The politicians
enter in their *contracts* with their voters with no more desire to fulfill
these contracts than to get to the next election.
The problem, as I see it, is that the marriage contract is not entered into
seriously enough. As a result, I see that it should be as easy to break as to
enter into. Thus, if you want marriages to last more than five years, let
them enter into a five year contract with real benefits spelled out for each
party and real penalties spelled out for *both* parties who break the
contract.
I have been informed too many times by well-paid lawyers that a contract is
not binding unless it covers a specific period of time, it defines the
benefits for both parties, and it defines the penalties for both parties for
breaking the contract. Marriage is not for a specific period of time ('til
death do you part), shows no specific benefits, *and* has very ill-defined
clauses for breaking the contract. Get your legal mind in gear, and tune up
the contract that you want people to abide by.
Just my not-so-humble opinion.
Hank Heath
Philadelphia
KHSkill
Is he a lawyer? Is there now a respectable body of opinion that says
that breaking contracts is OK, and shouldn't be condemned? Are there
no-fault business contracts that actually reward contract breakers (as
happens with mothers who get custody of the children, and receive 18 years
or more of child support)?
And what's this about marriages not having a stated period during
which they operate? I thought "until death us do part" was a stated
period of time.
There seem to be so many questions.
Kenneth S.