NationStates Jolt Archive

I had an odd idea a while ago, "What if we got rid of Marriage?" I'm talking about taking marriage out of law, not making it illegal. Marriage would then be more of a religious option.
The Mormons and Muslims would be quite happy with it. Also if you need marriage to keep you together you probably shouldn't be. As far as divorce, there would be no need for divorce lawyers because the assets of both people wouldn't be merged.
Any thoughts?

My financial situation would suck, and I would have a lot more paperwork.

That'd be fair. If they want to be absolutely equal. Take the government out of what isn't any of their affair anyway.

Any thoughts?

I think my wife might be annoyed.

I think my wife might be annoyed.

Why?

As far as divorce, there would be no need for divorce lawyers because the assets of both people wouldn't be merged.
Any thoughts?

For one, this statement is incredibly simplified and ignores the reality of the situation. Legally recognized or not, people will still get married. Legally recognized or not, such people will still often merge their assets. It's a bit difficult to live with someone for a long period of time without merging a significant amount of assets. As such, the need for "divorce" lawyers would shoot through the roof without marriage. Pretty much every break-up of a long-term marriage would have to go to court, since ownership/debt/child custody/etc. would be extremely unclear in that situation.

Why?

She likes the tax breaks.

I had an odd idea a while ago, "What if we got rid of Marriage?" I'm talking about taking marriage out of law, not making it illegal. Marriage would then be more of a religious option.
The Mormons and Muslims would be quite happy with it. Also if you need marriage to keep you together you probably shouldn't be. As far as divorce, there would be no need for divorce lawyers because the assets of both people wouldn't be merged.
Any thoughts?

Lets wait until after I'm back from the honeymoon. Oh I kinda wanna see what the difference in my taxes will be as well.

She likes the tax breaks.

Where do you live? In most cases, except for the very rich and the very poor, marriage increases the amount of taxes you are paying.

Edit: That is, unless one of you is not working, as the marriage tax brackets were set up for a single income family.

Where do you live? In most cases, except for the very rich and the very poor, marriage increases the amount of taxes you are paying.

Edit: That is, unless one of you is not working, as the marriage tax brackets were set up for a single income family.

Texas, baby. We have no State income tax and alimony does not exist here.

In return for that, being married by all legal State standards gives you certain rights.

She also likes the fact that if I'm even the slightest bit "crazy", she can take all my shit and have me committed without a court order.

God bless Texas.

For one, this statement is incredibly simplified and ignores the reality of the situation. Legally recognized or not, people will still get married. Legally recognized or not, such people will still often merge their assets. It's a bit difficult to live with someone for a long period of time without merging a significant amount of assets. As such, the need for "divorce" lawyers would shoot through the roof without marriage. Pretty much every break-up of a long-term marriage would have to go to court, since ownership/debt/child custody/etc. would be extremely unclear in that situation.
I'll give you the child custody (although it seems that the woman would be able to "get first pick" with the way the legal system looks now, but I don't really feel like arguing this point) as far as the other items, if they have seperate bank accounts (which I'm assuming without marriage would probably more common) what was in each would go to whovers name it was in. Ownership, whoever bought it (yes I know it gets fuzzy when people give things but if it's an equal relationship both sides would have the same ammount of items that the other wants)

Texas, baby. We have no State income tax and alimony does not exist here.

In return for that, being married by all legal State standards gives you certain rights.

She also likes the fact that if I'm even the slightest bit "crazy", she can take all my shit and have me committed without a court order.

God bless Texas.

Amen, brotha. :)

I'll give you the child custody (although it seems that the woman would be able to "get first pick" with the way the legal system looks now, but I don't really feel like arguing this point) as far as the other items, if they have seperate bank accounts (which I'm assuming without marriage would probably more common) what was in each would go to whovers name it was in. Ownership, whoever bought it (yes I know it gets fuzzy when people give things but if it's an equal relationship both sides would have the same ammount of items that the other wants)
have you ever sat through divorce procedings? I have. Nobody remembers after 2 years (much less 20) who bought what, and btw, even if they do they will lie about it to spite the other.

Marriage was civil before it was religious. Perhaps religious should butt the hell out of a civil institution.

I don't get it I think your saying we should make not marrying legal if so where the hell do you live?

Marriage was civil before it was religious. Perhaps religious should butt the hell out of a civil institution.
Just like religion should stay out of government :rolleyes:

Marriage was civil before it was religious. Perhaps religious should butt the hell out of a civil institution.

Yes! But they won't. The Church has too much vested interest now.

Fortunately, the secularization of divorce collapses the religious hold on marriage. Give it about another decade.

Just like religion should stay out of government :rolleyes:

but Kings came before what we know of as a government didn’t they?

Hurrah for loopholes I say

Marriage was civil before it was religious. Perhaps religious should butt the hell out of a civil institution.
I really think that is a better solution. I think the church should do whatever it is they want to do, but the two shouldn't intermingle.

It's fine with me if a church wants to do a 'marriage' or have a wedding, but I really think that the actual thing that should count is the legal aspect. (not normal to hear from a Christian right?)

It did annoy me a little that having a "church wedding" counts on the marriage license here. I think everyone should have to go downtown and get their stuff signed off on (you have to go there to get the license anyway) and that priests and preachers shouldn't have any actual legal standing in the area, kinda like doing commitment ceremonies but legally you have to get a judge (or justice of the peace or whatever) to sign off on the legal end of it.

(of course then common law marriages wouldn't have any legal protection but meh.)

Marriage was civil before it was religious. Perhaps religious should butt the hell out of a civil institution.


exactly! :)

Just like religion should stay out of government :rolleyes:


Exactly! :fluffle:

Marriage was civil before it was religious. Perhaps religious should butt the hell out of a civil institution.

Marriage is a social construct that has been appropriated and adapted by both political and religious elements of societies. Perhaps they could try sharing it instead of having a bitchfest.

I think the idea of the government getting rid of marriage is kind of ridiculous. It (marriage) encourages people to build things, and add to society in a constructive way.

We obviously have many forms of marriage. The first would be biological, in which it is only possible (until science figures out a way to change this) to marry a male to a female, and results in a child. The second would be spiritual, in which a number of parties join together. The third would be religious, in which a spiritual union between a number of people is recognized by a religious institution. The fourth would be a legal marriage, in which the government recognizes one of the aforementioned unions due to its beneficial impact on society for the purpose of bettering society.

I was drawn to the forums because the issue of same sex marriage came up in my new country. I am new to the game, so please excuse any ignorance I may exhibit.

I feel that a fourth option should be added in which the government defines marriage as a corporation, with the man(men) and/or woman(women) being the sole members of the 'board of directors', to put it into corporate speak. Due to the separation of church and state, any form of marriage can be recognized for a price. Shold such a state recognized union be cancelled, the cancelling party shall pay the government for the expense of licensing the union, as well as paying any taxes which the government might have missed due to the person's state in the union. Child support costs would remain the same.

Hey, let's do this in the real world, too!

Marriage is a social construct that has been appropriated and adapted by both political and religious elements of societies. Perhaps they could try sharing it instead of having a bitchfest.

True, but whose religion? Mine? Yours? The people living down the street? Different religions have different (sometimes very different) views on what is marriage. One man married to one woman, in the scheme of human marriages only one of many possiblities.

One man to many women.

one woman to 2 men (is the norm in some areas)

2 men (usually brothers) to several women.

one man to one woman but is acceptable and very much encourage for both to father or mother children with other partners. (the most important thing in this culture is to have beautiful children)

So which culture/religion wins? Or is the law fexible enough to encompase all the possible ways a marriage could be formed?

I for one say religious marriage should not be made law. No one religion should dictate how a 'marriage' should look like. However a civil marriage, a contract between two people (and many be more) living together for mutual support and/or raising children should be maintained. A marriage in law doesn't just mean what to do in case of divorce (property, children, rights) it ialso defines what happens to the other partner(s) when one member dies.

Legal marriage in my mind is about protection and a define set common universel rules members of a marriage contract must abid too.I know in reality it isn't clear cut and filled with mud, but at least there is a guide which both members should strive to follow.

In my world that would be ideal of how a marriage should be. A social contract between individuals, regardless of number and gender. As for raising children... well the most important thing is stability and routine. That is all children need to feel safe and to grow.

Dissolve marriage as we know it. Plain and simple. People can call themselves husband and wife or whatever; getting married must no longer count a whole hell of a lot for tax purposes. It can all be changed up; frankly, the only concerns I have with it is the Qualifying Widow status. After all, my future mother-in-law was widowed twice (talk about your misfortune...they both died of sudden heart attacks too. Ouch. Mega ouch) and I wouldn't want her to be screwed by losing a husband. However, the flip side is this: People need not to be responsible for their spouses' tax woes. The IRS ought to take it up with the guilty party, not the innocent spouse. This is where dissolving marriage comes in handy.

As for all those rights that come with marriage, there ought to be a long list of them consolidated into one, and people can grant them to anyone - spouses, parents, executors of one's will...you can grant these rights to anyone you please, though private insurers (like when people get medical insurance and put people on their accounts) can set limitations as they see fit. The idea here is that many of the benefits of marriage are still carried over and can be granted by anyone to anyone else and can be taken back at any time (if a man is dying, he wants to have his wife there to see him, but maybe if they have a falling out, he can take those rights away.) So it's like marriage - but completely different.

Just like religion should stay out of government :rolleyes:
That too.

What if we got rid of Marriage? There would be less divorces :D

Dissolve marriage as we know it. Plain and simple. People can call themselves husband and wife or whatever; getting married must no longer count a whole hell of a lot for tax purposes. It can all be changed up; frankly, the only concerns I have with it is the Qualifying Widow status. After all, my future mother-in-law was widowed twice (talk about your misfortune...they both died of sudden heart attacks too. Ouch. Mega ouch) and I wouldn't want her to be screwed by losing a husband. However, the flip side is this: People need not to be responsible for their spouses' tax woes. The IRS ought to take it up with the guilty party, not the innocent spouse. This is where dissolving marriage comes in handy.

you know that there is a form you can fill out that says you didn't have any knowledge or anything to do with your spouse's tax trouble and most of the time they won't burden you with it. They changed the form number a few years back so I don't remember it now, but it's called "innocent spouse" and what they do is they take your "portion" of the refund and give it to you and keep your spouses. I have a few clients who do it because (usually) the husband owes back child support and the wife doesn't want to pay. I have also seen it used when one partner owed student loans and the other didn't.

[/off topic]

EDIT: I believe it's actually called "injured spouse" I swear after April 15th my brain shuts off for a few months.

Marriage concerns law because the USA is a nation whose legal system was initially primarily based on Christianism. By now, it's become so integral that it seems to be a normal part of society...
The very fact that marriage takes place in a church should be a satisfactory indicator that it had a religious meaning before it had a civil meaning. If it were the other way around, then why have all these rituals around it? And why in a church, or by a church official, when if it were solely a civil practice, it could have been simply two people saying "Hm, let's live together and own the same stuff and all that." Not to mention the fact that any civil-minded person would never have such complicated procedures pertaining to the merging of assets, or divorce, etc.
But I digress. The fact is that since marriage has had such strong ties with the religion on which the US was based, it is now integrated into the normal life of any given average American citizen. It is simply accepted as what you do with someone you love if you want to live together. Why people can't just avoid the paperwork and live in the same house without merging assets, I don't know. But they do it.
So, I think that if you took away marriage, life would be easier, but most of the US population would want it back.

well lets see. since people will get together on a permanent (for now) basis anyway...

if we buy a house, is it his or mine? is it more his if he puts more money into it? what about the amount of time *I* spend maintaining it, does that count toward ownership or am i just donating my time? (if not, how are we required to keep that accounting?) if one of us dies does the other automatically get the other half of the house or can it be willed away to someone else?


does he have any responsibility for my debt? even if i bought stuff that benefitted him? what about his pension/401k/ira, do i have any rights to that? do i have to make investments independant of him in order to guarantee that i get some benefit from them?

what happens if i decide to be a stay at home mom when we have kids? if im not working can i collect welfare? if im staying home to care for HIS kids (so to speak) should i get some kind of monetary credit for that? what about the ramifications on my lifelong career earnings? shouldnt he have to offset that somehow to compensate me for earning less due to focusing on HIS kids? shouldnt we go to court to establish paternitiy and set up a child support schedule just so everyone knows where they stand as regards the kids?

so is his next of kin still his parents and then his siblings after they die? do THEY get to make emergency/ final decisions about his healthcare when he is incapable of doing so? if he dies before making a will, do his parents get his estate?

DONT ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS!

the point is that life is complicated. if we didnt have marriage laws then it would have to be figured out on a case by case basis, with 2 lawyers so both parties are represented (maybe 3 or 4 if there are meddling prospective inlaws).

perhaps we would make some kind of standard contract that people could go by and use as default.....maybe we could call that contract....marriage.

you know that there is a form you can fill out that says you didn't have any knowledge or anything to do with your spouse's tax trouble and most of the time they won't burden you with it. They changed the form number a few years back so I don't remember it now, but it's called "innocent spouse" and what they do is they take your "portion" of the refund and give it to you and keep your spouses. I have a few clients who do it because (usually) the husband owes back child support and the wife doesn't want to pay. I have also seen it used when one partner owed student loans and the other didn't.

[/off topic]

I checked it out, and there are only a few ways to get away with that, and what i am trying to say is this: There are not just a few limited circumstances in which people should be spared. I just think it should be a hell of a lot easier, and there should be no circumstance under which people are saddled with their spouses' debt. It just doesn't make sense. It's just antiquated ideas of everything becoming joint within a marriage used by the IRS as a means of collecting from people who don't owe when plenty of people overpay their taxes anyway, so get the hell over it you greedy pencil-pushers. Try spending the money wisely for a change.

being married by all legal State standards gives you certain rights.

Why can't the govenrment just treat everyone equally, as individuals, and not create a giant bureaucracy to deal with our relationships.

I checked it out, and there are only a few ways to get away with that, and what i am trying to say is this: There are not just a few limited circumstances in which people should be spared. I just think it should be a hell of a lot easier, and there should be no circumstance under which people are saddled with their spouses' debt. It just doesn't make sense. It's just antiquated ideas of everything becoming joint within a marriage used by the IRS as a means of collecting from people who don't owe when plenty of people overpay their taxes anyway, so get the hell over it you greedy pencil-pushers. Try spending the money wisely for a change.
there are only a few times when you would legitimately need it. besides why all the anger with the IRS when they are only trying to collect what is legally theirs?

don't want the IRS on your back? pay your taxes. see? simple.

The very fact that marriage takes place in a church should be a satisfactory indicator that it had a religious meaning before it had a civil meaning. If it were the other way around, then why have all these rituals around it? And why in a church, or by a church official, when if it were solely a civil practice, it could have been simply two people saying "Hm, let's live together and own the same stuff and all that." Not to mention the fact that any civil-minded person would never have such complicated procedures pertaining to the merging of assets, or divorce, etc.
Church participation in marriage rituals didn't start until the 1600s or so. It became fashionable to have a member of the clergy attend a wedding at first and then eventually it became commonplace to have a church official preform the ceremony. Marriage had been going on long before there were churches or before christianity was even thought of. Many societies have no religious involvement in marriage at all.
Furthermore, most of the founding fathers were diests, not christian.

Why can't the govenrment just treat everyone equally, as individuals, and not create a giant bureaucracy to deal with our relationships.
because married people dont live like room mates. there WILL be legal issues that come up and its best if everyone knows where they stand.

I had an odd idea a while ago, "What if we got rid of Marriage?" I'm talking about taking marriage out of law, not making it illegal. Marriage would then be more of a religious option.
The Mormons and Muslims would be quite happy with it. Also if you need marriage to keep you together you probably shouldn't be. As far as divorce, there would be no need for divorce lawyers because the assets of both people wouldn't be merged.
Any thoughts?

Something I considered, but it would create lots of problems. Family law and divorce court would become the jusristiction of church - and there would be no standardized procedure; Estate procedures would be a mess (move old lady! This house has to be sold to pay inheritance tax! And you owe us tax on his IRA and 401k balance right now!) Hospitals would require a medical poa regardless and always. Tax rates would be higher for stay at home parents than working parents. etc etc etc.

I've thought for a while that any two people should be able to have their relationship recognised by the state. If you then want to take the religious path, and get 'married' when you do that, then thats your choice.

Marriage...

Why? Why bother? It's a waste of time, a waste of money, and, frankly, marriage doesn't guarantee a strong, healthy bond. I say outlaw it. And if problems arise from people who want to seperate, let them hire their own lawyers and deal with it themselves without having to get the government involved.

I had an odd idea a while ago, "What if we got rid of Marriage?" I'm talking about taking marriage out of law, not making it illegal. Marriage would then be more of a religious option.
The Mormons and Muslims would be quite happy with it. Also if you need marriage to keep you together you probably shouldn't be. As far as divorce, there would be no need for divorce lawyers because the assets of both people wouldn't be merged.
Any thoughts?

sounds like a great idea.

there are only a few times when you would legitimately need it. besides why all the anger with the IRS when they are only trying to collect what is legally theirs?

There are a few cases where it would be needed, yes. I happen to be close to a lady who does, though - I will be marrying her daughter in December. Here's the problem - her second husband had a bunch of problems with the IRS before he even met her. His problems are really nothing she needs to concern herself with; she did everything she could to keep her finances separate from his. That's all well and good - but in 2004, he dies. So this past year, I did her taxes, and for the first time in 15 years, she got a refund - which she was counting on to pay some of my fiancee's college expenses. The IRS kept it because she "owed" a bunch of back taxes - that were her deceased husband's. She did everything to keep herself from getting shafted by the IRS and they screwed her anyway. That's why there's all this anger at the IRS. That's why I believe that such debts should NEVER be considered joint in a marriage.

don't want the IRS on your back? pay your taxes. see? simple.

I pay my taxes. My family is all law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. It doesn't always work.

Marriage...

Why? Why bother? It's a waste of time, a waste of money, and, frankly, marriage doesn't guarantee a strong, healthy bond. I say outlaw it. And if problems arise from people who want to seperate, let them hire their own lawyers and deal with it themselves without having to get the government involved.
Well, without marriage what is there that would tie fathers to children via the mothers of those children? Men don't get pregnant after all, they can just do their business at conception and leave it at that, not recognizing that they have any responsibility after the fact. This is not true though if men get married to the women who bore their children, since it creates that sense of obligation that follows from acknowledging their fatherhood. Would most men behave like fathers if they weren't tied to the women who gave birth to their offspring?

The way it is now is just fine. Right now the way it is set up is that it is basically a contractrual agreement. It is basically for the purposes of economic union and legal union of two people. It is almost the same as two corporations merging. The whole religious aspect is on the individual. That is why there are civil ceremonies and religious ones. It should never be banned in my opinion. Not very many single people can afford some of these huge houses. It would ruin the credit and realestate markets.

Well, without marriage what is there that would tie fathers to children via the mothers of those children?

Um, let's see. Love and commitment to their kids? Not all men need to be forced to provide, you know.

Men don't get pregnant after all, they can just do their business at conception and leave it at that, not recognizing that they have any responsibility after the fact.

On the contrary, a lot of men takes care of their kids regardless of marriage. Some men even take care of kids that they never actually conceived.

This is not true though if men get married to the women who bore their children, since it creates that sense of obligation that follows from acknowledging their fatherhood.

If men can not acknowledge their fatherhood, that's their problem, and it isn't caused by a lack of marriage. It's caused by a lack of responsibility.

Would most men behave like fathers if they weren't tied to the women who gave birth to their offspring?
Yes.

Why can't the govenrment just treat everyone equally, as individuals, and not create a giant bureaucracy to deal with our relationships.

Most of thease rights involve inheritance. Marriage make it easier for a spouse to claim property in the event of death. Also, if one of the spouses decide to be a stay at home parent or a housewife/husband, they can be identified as dependants and not a deadbeat roomate.

Um, let's see. Love and commitment to their kids? Not all men need to be forced to provide, you know.
No, but many do need to be forced to--if they didn't there wouldn't be such persons as "dead beat dads" who require a court order to make them pay for child support.

Also, what is it that creates love and committment?

On the contrary, a lot of men takes care of their kids regardless of marriage. Some men even take care of kids that they never actually conceived.
There are exceptions of course, and there are of course married men who are not good fathers, but I would wager that for most the reason they stick around is because they know that their wife's kids are their own and not some other man's.

Paternity tests are of course helpful to resolving who bears responsibility, but think for example of a man and a woman who just met have a one-night stand and don't see each other for nine months after that, she gets pregnant and keeps the child and then shows up at his door with the baby. Even when it's proven that it's his he still doesn't need to live anywhere near her and the kid, at most all he needs to do is pay child support, which isn't necessarily being a father since fatherhood is more than spending money.


If men can not acknowledge their fatherhood, that's their problem, and it isn't caused by a lack of marriage. It's caused by a lack of responsibility.
And one way to teach responsibility is to get men into family relationships that create dependency of children upon them as parents.


Yes.
I don't think humans on the whole are quite as enlightened as you apparently do then.

All right, let's say we remove the social committment between men and women that tells them to stay together until the kids can live on their own. What then? Seems that you'd get a bunch of single mothers whose children have to be raised by day care so they can work and/or go to college, and a bunch of men, now free of social obligation, who come and go as they please and maybe send some money every couple weeks.

I don't know, maybe there wouldn't be a mass scale break down of the family without marriage holding people together, but I'm still not sure I see what the need is to throw out marriage either.

I'll give you the child custody (although it seems that the woman would be able to "get first pick" with the way the legal system looks now, but I don't really feel like arguing this point) as far as the other items, if they have seperate bank accounts (which I'm assuming without marriage would probably more common) what was in each would go to whovers name it was in. Ownership, whoever bought it (yes I know it gets fuzzy when people give things but if it's an equal relationship both sides would have the same ammount of items that the other wants)

Why would you assume that not having legal marriage would make people any less likley to merge their finances? Hell, my fiance and I just live together, and not having merged finances has already caused enough problems that we have begun to merge them. Once you make that committment - once you start living as one - it is actually much more difficult to keep finances completely separate. Even those married couples who say they have separate finances usually mesh them to some degree - at the very least sharing a home, vehicles, etc., even if only one technically owns it.

Most of thease rights involve inheritance. Marriage make it easier for a spouse to claim property in the event of death. Also, if one of the spouses decide to be a stay at home parent or a housewife/husband, they can be identified as dependants and not a deadbeat roomate.

The ability to claim people as dependents would be a sticky situation, sure. There would have to be rules for it, but that's not to say it's simple now. It would require someone to sit down and think about what the rules should be for dependents, including level of support (i.e. a person would be able to claim anyone for whom they provided more than 50% of their support, or if they were the chief provider for a pair or group that provided more than 50% of someone's support. So if a couple living as husband and wife both have jobs and have children together, they would each be allowed to claim their children as dependents, though they would likely be known as something like a "split dependent," and therefore the exemtion would be divided among two people...so if it was worth $3,000 for a single parent, it would be worth $1,500 apiece for a married couple.)

Also, the dependent exemption would apply to people who support parents, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces, and even hobos on the street if they can document it. I suppose it would apply to spouses as well, and people could lump all their exemptions on one person's return if they felt like it. I don't know. I could think about it.

There are a few cases where it would be needed, yes. I happen to be close to a lady who does, though - I will be marrying her daughter in December. Here's the problem - her second husband had a bunch of problems with the IRS before he even met her. His problems are really nothing she needs to concern herself with; she did everything she could to keep her finances separate from his. That's all well and good - but in 2004, he dies. So this past year, I did her taxes, and for the first time in 15 years, she got a refund - which she was counting on to pay some of my fiancee's college expenses. The IRS kept it because she "owed" a bunch of back taxes - that were her deceased husband's. She did everything to keep herself from getting shafted by the IRS and they screwed her anyway. That's why there's all this anger at the IRS. That's why I believe that such debts should NEVER be considered joint in a marriage.

if his tax problems were before the marriage there is a good chance (esp. now that he is dead) that she can get the debt written off and not have to pay it. She should consult a tax attorney, she could also file for hardship in the meantime and recieve part of her refund and they will be more lenient on collections as well.

[/off topic]

Marriage...

Why? Why bother? It's a waste of time, a waste of money, and, frankly, marriage doesn't guarantee a strong, healthy bond. I say outlaw it. And if problems arise from people who want to seperate, let them hire their own lawyers and deal with it themselves without having to get the government involved.

If lawyers are getting involved, that means the government is involved, as only the government enforces legal contracts......


That's why I believe that such debts should NEVER be considered joint in a marriage.

What if both parties want them to? What if my fiance and I want to merge every aspect of our lives, even my student loans and his bad credit?

What if both parties want them to? What if my fiance and I want to merge every aspect of our lives, even my student loans and his bad credit?

for better or worse starts on the walk down the isle, that's what I always said, it's look before you leap. I figure you take all of them or none of them, and if you can't handle their money habits, you probably won't last long married anyway, whether you "merge" your $$ or not.

but that's just the opinion of a wife and former marriage counselor.... pay me no mind. ;)

This is a broad answer to alot of the more prevalent ideas. With divorce as easy as it is (now you don't even need to be king and start your own religion to get a divorce). As far ash the whole "What would we do?" for death and children, there are already laws that do that. Wills and child support pretty obviously state who gets what. As far as what about people who want to actually be together, congratulations, you may be part of the minority wh might actually stay together so the laws about who gets what at separation wont apply to you. This (hopefully) will make people actually think about the future (big dreams I know) and posiblilities that they might not like, or think that will really happen to their relationship so it's not just something that happens to "other people".

Jesus would have to come back to earth to sort us out again?

As far ash the whole "What would we do?" for death and children, there are already laws that do that. Wills and child support pretty obviously state who gets what.

Sure they do. And anything left in a will, rather than to a spouse gets taxed. Do you really think, for instance, that I should have to pay taxes to "inherit" half of my own house, possibly being forced to sell it to pay the tax?

And how many 20 or 30somethings do you know that have written a will? I know that I haven't, if only because I haven't amassed all that much stuff yet, and writing and changing wills can get freaking expensive - at least if you want them to be official.

Child support laws are entwined with marriage laws. They would have to be changed to keep child support where it is if marriage was abolished.

And *none* of this covers the issues with merged finances, spousal immunity, etc.....

As far as what about people who want to actually be together, congratulations, you may be part of the minority wh might actually stay together so the laws about who gets what at separation wont apply to you.

Until death do us part, of course. Death is a pretty big separation. And, sometimes, even the marriages that look like they have the best chance come to an early end. It's not something I think people should expect or go into lightly, but divorce sometimes is the best option.

If there was no marriage, who would feed the lawyers?

Won't somebody please think of the lawyers :(

If there was no marriage, who would feed the lawyers?

Won't somebody please think of the lawyers :(

The lawyers would get a whole lot more if there were no marriage, as every single arrangement would have to be made separately, through law that no layperson is going to dig through. You want to help the lawyers immensly? Go ahead and remove marriage.

The lawyers would get a whole lot more if there were no marriage, as every single arrangement would have to be made separately, through law that no layperson is going to dig through. You want to help the lawyers immensly? Go ahead and remove marriage.
I'd argue with you, but it was just a facetious comment and I have no knowledge on the subject what-so-ever. I would like to believe that people are capable of sorting out their personal problems between themselves, but this patently isn't the case.

It seems better not to get into a situation where it's necessary to sort it out in the first place; living 90 miles from one's girlfriend has its advantages there.

Why would you assume that not having legal marriage would make people any less likley to merge their finances? Hell, my fiance and I just live together, and not having merged finances has already caused enough problems that we have begun to merge them. Once you make that committment - once you start living as one - it is actually much more difficult to keep finances completely separate. Even those married couples who say they have separate finances usually mesh them to some degree - at the very least sharing a home, vehicles, etc., even if only one technically owns it.

Congratulations on your engagement. Word of advice re: finances - one of you should be in charge of the $. In my house it is my wife. We both deposit to the cheching account, but she pays the bills. I gets a spending allowance. Major purchases (Over $200) are discussed. To balance it out I am in charge of investments. It has worked OK for ten years.

So, when's the wedding?

Congratulations on your engagement.

Thanks!

Word of advice re: finances - one of you should be in charge of the $. In my house it is my wife. We both deposit to the cheching account, but she pays the bills. I gets a spending allowance. Major purchases (Over $200) are discussed. To balance it out I am in charge of investments. It has worked OK for ten years.

Hehe. He seems to want me to be in charge of the money, so we'll probably end up basically that way. I am better about saving than him and I have more experience with managing debt. But we've already gotten to the point where we discuss any major purchases, as well as general finances.

So, when's the wedding?

About a year from now - April 21st of next year. Gives me *plenty* of time to plan. =)

Post a pic of the ring?

Congratulations on your engagement. Word of advice re: finances - one of you should be in charge of the $. In my house it is my wife. We both deposit to the cheching account, but she pays the bills. I gets a spending allowance. Major purchases (Over $200) are discussed. To balance it out I am in charge of investments. It has worked OK for ten years.

So, when's the wedding?

same thing here, all his money goes into our account and I pay the bills, and we both get "allowance" after I figure out how much disposable money is left. Purchases over $50 (not out of your allowance) are discussed (just in case one of us knows where to get the same thing cheaper ect.) and it pretty much works out fine. He reconciles the checkbook though, I handed that headache over to him. LOL (it's even funnier when you realize that I am a financial advisor/tax preparer)

Marriage is a religious ceremony – which should have no legal binding or ramifications whatsoever. Hence, a Mormon can marry as many wives as he wants and the state has no business interfering. Of course if people want to merge their assets at the same time, that sounds like a good idea. ;)

The government recognized ‘marriage’ should be nothing more than a contractual merging of assets (much like a corporate merger – perhaps the assets could be considered to be held in a trust with all parties as executors) as well as a power of attorney over the other parties in this agreement.

Though it may shock and surprise you, but there are children born out of wedlock *gasp*. There are legal frameworks on how to manage child support, custody, etc. It is not a requirement to be married to have a kid – so using children as an argument for keeping religious marriages a state enforced agreement is spurious.

Since marriage (as far as the state is concerned) is nothing more than a merging of assets and limited power of attorney over other parties (allowing a spouse to make medical decisions for example), the state does not have grounds for denying ‘marriage’ to anyone – it should therefore be available to everyone, regardless of religious views. Thus homosexuals and polyamorous people could ‘marry’ without interference by Southern Baptists crying that it denigrates their religious ceremony.

Post a pic of the ring?

Ok.....Not sure why, but sure.

Looks a bit like this:

http://www.kay.com/images/en_US/products/thumbnails/tn160931109.jpg

But in white gold instead of yellow.

Marriage is a religious ceremony – which should have no legal binding or ramifications whatsoever.

Not for everyone, it isn't. Many people get legal marriages without religious ceremonies. Many have ceremonies that are not religions.

Hence, a Mormon can marry as many wives as he wants and the state has no business interfering. Of course if people want to merge their assets at the same time, that sounds like a good idea.

I would agree that a person can religiously marry whatever he/she wants (so long as it doesn't involve anything illegal with consummation issues). Legal marriage, however, is already a separate construct from religious marriage.

The government recognized ‘marriage’ should be nothing more than a contractual merging of assets (much like a corporate merger – perhaps the assets could be considered to be held in a trust with all parties as executors) as well as a power of attorney over the other parties in this agreement.

Ok, sounds about like what we have now, with a few other issues thrown in for protection of those who enter such a contract. So, what's the problem?

Though it may shock and surprise you, but there are children born out of wedlock *gasp*. There are legal frameworks on how to manage child support, custody, etc. It is not a requirement to be married to have a kid – so using children as an argument for keeping religious marriages a state enforced agreement is spurious.

It isn't a requirement. However, before partial custody is granted to someone other than a biological parent, marriage is expected. The main reason for this, I would guess, is that it is one way for the government to ensure the welfare of the child - that the person isn't going to be in their life and then out again randomly.

Since marriage (as far as the state is concerned) is nothing more than a merging of assets and limited power of attorney over other parties (allowing a spouse to make medical decisions for example), the state does not have grounds for denying ‘marriage’ to anyone – it should therefore be available to everyone, regardless of religious views. Thus homosexuals and polyamorous people could ‘marry’ without interference by Southern Baptists crying that it denigrates their religious ceremony.

Polyamory wouldn't work under current marriage statutes. For those arrangements, another construct, probably closer to incorporation, would be necessary. I do agree, however, that people should be able to form such contracts if they so desire.

I ask because EVERY engaged girl wants to show off her ring - thats why!
White gold would look nice. I didn't see any rocks on it?

I know when we first got married I could barely afford a gold band, let alone an diamond engagement ring. My loving wife told me she really didn't care what size the rock was so we went budget wise.

Ten years later I got her a more respectable set of rocks. Along the way I learned that any woman who says that it doesn't matter is really lieing. Maybe for the right reason - but still lieing :)

well we would abolish the divorce problem too, lol

in theory sounds like a very good idea, however, as there is a lack of common sense at time, legal, or otherwise. It would still be difficult on divorses, not so much the money end, as how children would be effected.