NationStates Jolt Archive

This column by Paul Campos (http://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/profile.jsp?id=10) was in The Rocky Mountain News on the 31st, and I thought it interesting, as might some of you.

A contract called marriage
OCT 31 - One of the bad effects of living in a fundamentally secular culture is that religious ideas don't get taken seriously, even by supposedly religious people. Consider, for example, the claim that marriage is a "sacred institution."

Marriage may well be a sacred institution for some people, but it can hardly be made so through the marriage licenses issued by our thoroughly secular government. Sacred marriages can only be created by sacred institutions. And treating the government as a sacred institution is something that addle-brained secularists are prone to do, not genuinely religious people.

Those who object to the government issuing same-sex marriage licenses should be campaigning to get the government to recognize what they consider "real" - which is to say religiously sanctioned - marriages. And there is a simple way to do this. But doing so would require religious believers to take their beliefs seriously.

Here's the plan: Civil marriage licenses would continue to be issued by the government, to whomever the government considered eligible to enter into that decidedly non-sacred condition. Religious marriages, however, would be a different matter.

Let us imagine that John and Jane decide to get married in the Roman Catholic Church. The following consequence would flow from this: As long as the Catholic Church said John and Jane were still married, they would be considered married by the government.

As a legal matter, divorce would remain a strictly civil rather than religious affair - but it would be available only to people who had either entered into civil rather than religious marriages in the first place, or to those who had been granted permission to dissolve their marriages by the religious institutions that had married them.

The practical consequence of this would be that if John decided he would prefer to enter into a civil marriage with Jackie (or Jack) rather than remaining married to Jane, he would be allowed to do this only if the Catholic Church agreed to release him from his wedding vows. Until then, he would remain married to Jane, and would continue to bear all the legal obligations created by that marriage.

This might sound like a radical idea, but legally speaking, it is merely the standard way in which we treat most business contracts. A friend of mine, law professor Stephen Safranek, is currently making this argument in an Ohio lawsuit involving a divorcing Catholic couple.

As Safranek points out, federal law requires that when a business contract lays out a process for arbitrating disputes that arise about the contract's meaning or enforcement, that process must be honored by the courts. Why shouldn't marriage contracts be treated with as much respect?

The answer has much to do with the hypocrisy of so many supposedly "religious" people in general, and "religious" politicians in particular. To choose an example at random, consider that someone like Newt Gingrich is even now blathering about how electing Nancy Pelosi speaker of the House will impose the degenerate values of the San Francisco Bay on the American people. (Pelosi has been married to the same man for 44 years, with whom she has had five children.)

Meanwhile Gingrich, the stalwart defender of "family values," is famous for divorcing his first wife while she lay in a hospital bed after uterine cancer surgery, and then being divorced by that second wife after she discovered he was having an affair with a (much younger) aide.

This kind of thing happens in part because, in America today, claiming that one believes in "traditional God-centered morality" or "the sacred institution of marriage" has no practical consequences.

Our government can help change that by treating religious ideas with respect. One such idea is that marriage is a sacred institution. Let us offer the people who say such things the legal option of giving those words some real meaning.

Bad idea.

I have known Catholics that view divorce as something that should NEVER be allowed no matter what.

Marriage is a "sacred" institution is crap.

Men and women have been hooking up long before Christianity.

Religion absorbed the concept of pair-bonding. They didn't create it.

Bad idea.

I have known Catholics that view divorce as something that should NEVER be allowed no matter what.

But that is the beauty of this suggestion. Those people should put their money where their mouth is - and never be allowed to divorce.

People that do not like those terms can simply choose to not marry under that religion.

Bad idea.

I have known Catholics that view divorce as something that should NEVER be allowed no matter what.

Marriage is a "sacred" institution is crap.

Men and women have been hooking up long before Christianity.

Religion absorbed the concept of pair-bonding. They didn't create it.

I think his point is that if you claim marriage is a sacred institution (whether it is or not), you should abide by the rules of your religion. The Catholic Church does not sanction divorce, very true, so if a couple chooses to marry as Catholics, they would have to abide by the rules of the Church. Under Campos' scheme, they would have a choice to get a civil marriage, which could be dissolved under the applicable state rules.

Doesn't Louisiana (or one of those southern states) have something along the lines of two different types of marriage licenses? One is the normal, buy it and discard it divorce types, and the other requires several mandatory marriage courses before you can get married and then if you want a divorce you have to wait longer and meet certain requirements before they grant you divorce?

From my understanding, the harder to get marriage license has a very low demand (only hard core conservative fundies getting it at all or something like that) but those that do get it actually do have a much lower divorce rate than the regular marriage license applicants do. (take this with a grain of salt, going by memory here folks, feel free to correct me if I’m mistaken*…



*you gotta be careful with this crowd, use disclaimers, or they’ll try to crucify you for the mere nominal offense :p

A friend or ours is a very devout fundy. In her first marriage, she followed the biblical rule, no divorce unless there's cheating. He beat the crap out of her and abused her mentally and physically for years but she wouldn't leave him until she finally caught him cheating on her because the bible said so.

There's logic for you.

A friend or ours is a very devout fundy. In her first marriage, she followed the biblical rule, no divorce unless there's cheating. He beat the crap out of her and abused her mentally and physically for years but she wouldn't leave him until she finally caught him cheating on her because the bible said so.

There's logic for you.

There's sadness for you. She was true to her own rules, though.

A friend or ours is a very devout fundy. In her first marriage, she followed the biblical rule, no divorce unless there's cheating. He beat the crap out of her and abused her mentally and physically for years but she wouldn't leave him until she finally caught him cheating on her because the bible said so.

There's logic for you.


I have a great deal of respect for her for standing up for what she believes in. I would not have belittled her so. I would have tried very hard to talk her into understanding that she is allowed to leave him without divorcing him if he ever touched her in a violent manner again. (additionally, I would have found a reason to have a discussion with her husband...)

Marriage is just a contract -- or at least, that's how it started. It wasn't until religions (as far back as Mesopotamia) grafted their ceremonies onto it that it evolved into a "religious institution." People need to learn some history and get over this shite.

A friend or ours is a very devout fundy. In her first marriage, she followed the biblical rule, no divorce unless there's cheating. He beat the crap out of her and abused her mentally and physically for years but she wouldn't leave him until she finally caught him cheating on her because the bible said so.

There's logic for you.

Actually, if I understand correctly, the Catholics allow divorce in cases of adultery and no other instances. The Biblical interpretation declares remarriage to be adultery but makes no claim about if a married couple decides to live apart and doesn't remarry.

If I understand correctly, there are Protestant denominations that state that marriage is for life and divorce is wrong - period. No ifs, ands, or buts. If she screws the mailman, he beats her, or they both do hard drugs and put out plots on each other's lives, they're still married until one of them drops dead.

I have a great deal of respect for her for standing up for what she believes in. I would not have belittled her so. I would have tried very hard to talk her into understanding that she is allowed to leave him without divorcing him if he ever touched her in a violent manner again. (additionally, I would have found a reason to have a discussion with her husband...)

Yes, perhaps in the company of some large friends ... words fail me when I try to express how I feel about someone who beats his (or even her) spouse.

i find the idea of avoiding secular marriage by having the secular state enforce your religious marriage a bit OFF.

catholics might get divorced as much as other religious groups but no practicing catholic takes the church's ban on divorce lightly. they just do what they have to do because of their individual circumstances.

if the church could enforce the ban on catholic divorce by law, then catholic couples would do what couples do in countries that dont allow divorce. they would go their seperate ways, not get divorced, and live "in sin" with the person that they would otherwise marry.

you cant force unhappy people to be happy. you cant force unhappy people to live together. all you can do is make their life a bit harder.

I have a great deal of respect for her for standing up for what she believes in. I would not have belittled her so. I would have tried very hard to talk her into understanding that she is allowed to leave him without divorcing him if he ever touched her in a violent manner again. (additionally, I would have found a reason to have a discussion with her husband...)

She didn't believe in leaving him either. I don't feel letting someone abuse you for years just because of "faith" is something deserving of respect.

Marriage is just a contract -- or at least, that's how it started. It wasn't until religions (as far back as Mesopotamia) grafted their ceremonies onto it that it evolved into a "religious institution." People need to learn some history and get over this shite.

But since it has become a religious institution, as well as a civil one, people ought to have the choice of which contract they wish to enter into, and once they do, they should be bound by the rules of that contract. I think the idea is excellent.

Marriage is just a contract -- or at least, that's how it started. It wasn't until religions (as far back as Mesopotamia) grafted their ceremonies onto it that it evolved into a "religious institution." People need to learn some history and get over this shite.

Really? It was just a contract before Mesopotamia? You mean like before the Sumerians?

Please, tell us, I'm really interested to find out how you know what they did before the Sumerians were around? Seeing has how they invented writing and all, what do you use to know their methodologies before that? Clairvoyance, or perhaps séances?

I have a great deal of respect for her for standing up for what she believes in. I would not have belittled her so. I would have tried very hard to talk her into understanding that she is allowed to leave him without divorcing him if he ever touched her in a violent manner again. (additionally, I would have found a reason to have a discussion with her husband...)

It isn't a matter of anyone belittling anyone - the church has a history of keeping women in abusive relationships.

If there was a god, and marriage was his idea, I don't believe that it would ever have been intended to be a divinely-ordained mechanism for providing female targets for male abuse.

Love isn't decided by a pair of signatures on a flimsy piece of paper, silly! :p

Really? It was just a contract before Mesopotamia? You mean like before the Sumerians?

Please, tell us, I'm really interested to find out how you know what they did before the Sumerians were around? Seeing has how they invented writing and all, what do you use to know their methodologies before that? Clairvoyance, or perhaps séances?

It's called reading the laws they left behind, smartass. The original idea of marriage was a contract between two families. Basically, "you take my daughter and care for her (so I don't have to); she gives you children -- preferrably male; and I get some livestock, land or whatever." Really, you should try reading before you pretend to know what the hell you're talking about.

Actually, if I understand correctly, the Catholics allow divorce in cases of adultery and no other instances. The Biblical interpretation declares remarriage to be adultery but makes no claim about if a married couple decides to live apart and doesn't remarry.

If I understand correctly, there are Protestant denominations that state that marriage is for life and divorce is wrong - period. No ifs, ands, or buts. If she screws the mailman, he beats her, or they both do hard drugs and put out plots on each other's lives, they're still married until one of them drops dead.

no. there is no divorce in the catholic church.

you may be allowed an annullment (the polite fiction that there was no real marriage regardless of how long you were married and how many children you had together) if the church decides that you didnt understand what you were doing, there was no true committment, no true meeting of the minds or if one partner is sterile.

yes, if you get a civil divorce and do not get an annullment in the church, you are FINE as long as you dont remarry. you are not required to stay in an abusive situation no matter what your lame-brained priest might tell you.

* attempting to nudge things back toward the OP *

The proposal is that in a Religious Marriage you would abide by the rules of the religion that married you. If Catholic and there's no divorce for Catholics, then that's that. If can get your religion to release you from the bonds of matrimony, the secular authority is fine with that.

It's called reading the laws they left behind, smartass.

LMAO... I'm sorry. LOL :p *okay, I'm trying really hard to stop chuckling* I did deserve that. :(

The original idea of marriage was a contract between two families. Basically, "you take my daughter and care for her (so I don't have to); she gives you children -- preferrably male; and I get some livestock, land or whatever." Really, you should try reading before you pretend to know what the hell you're talking about.

In honestly, I'll argue that A contract then was a religious ceremony. With sacrifices and ordinations and divinations etc., and asking for a successful outcome with the help of the gods.

There's a big big problem with this entire line of thinking.

His argument basically goes...the marriage is a contract between the couple and the church, the church rules say the marriage can not be ended by divorce, therefore the contract between couple and church stipulates that the contract can not be terminated by divorce.

There are two big problems with that. First, a marriage is NOT a contract between the couple and the church, if anything it is a contract between THEMSELVES. The church, if anything, is merely the witness of the situation, who validates that the two parties has "signed" the contract. Nothing more. If you want to get a bit more involved, then perhaps the church is the lawyer. The one who drafted the contract but has no direct stake in its contents.

To say that a marriage is a contract in any legal sense to anyone other than the couple themselves is fundamentally flawed. And since it's a contract between the two parties of the couple, any contract may be nullified by mutual consent.

Moreover there's a concept in contract law called reliance. The idea of reliance is that for a contract to be valid, all parties must get something out of it. If I sign a contract saying "I will give you one dollar", this is not a contract. Why? Because I gain nothing from that giving of the dollar. I do not rely on the contract for anything, I gain nothing.

If I say to you "I will give you a dollar" and require nothing from you, this is not a contract, it is a promise. And the law can't legally bind promises. For a contract to be valid, I must be getting something for what I give.

For a contract between couple and church to be valid, there must be reciprocation. OK the church performed the marriage, what reciprocation is given? The church does not have reliance on the couple remaining together. It has no quantifiable interest.

Oh sure it may have a hope they do, and become active, and have children who become active, and grow the church. However that's not an agreement, merely a hope, and hope is irrelevant.

You can say that the church receives payment for the wedding, true. In which case, the wedding is performed, the church is paid, the church no longer has interest.

The only argument one could make is that the contract is between the couple and god, as the church acting as the intermediary. To make THAT argument though you'd have to have a court recognize the existance of god.

Good luck with that.

no. there is no divorce in the catholic church.

you may be allowed an annullment (the polite fiction that there was no real marriage regardless of how long you were married and how many children you had together) if the church decides that you didnt understand what you were doing, there was no true committment, no true meeting of the minds or if one partner is sterile.

yes, if you get a civil divorce and do not get an annullment in the church, you are FINE as long as you dont remarry. you are not required to stay in an abusive situation no matter what your lame-brained priest might tell you.

Annulment. I know that word gets kicked around a good bit (my fiancee's father was in a disastrous marriage with a horrible, cheating, lazy wife, but she was kind enough to allow an annulment so he could remarry) but I was always under the impression that such a thing was mainly allowed because she was a cheating bitch and owned up to it, not because they couldn't declare themselves divorced.

* attempting to nudge things back toward the OP *

The proposal is that in a Religious Marriage you would abide by the rules of the religion that married you. If Catholic and there's no divorce for Catholics, then that's that. If can get your religion to release you from the bonds of matrimony, the secular authority is fine with that.

which is a nonsense proposal because the religion has no legal stake in the marriage once the ceremony is performed and they are paid. It is an agreement between the two parties, not the couple and the church.

And the agreement can be ended at any time with mutual consent.

...
If there was a god, and marriage was his idea, I don't believe that it would ever have been intended to be a divinely-ordained mechanism for providing female targets for male abuse.

There is a God, Marriage was his idea... He did not design it to be a mechanism for abusing people, it can only be used to abuse people when they abuse it.

Actually, acording to the Evolutionary theory, before religion there was no mariage. People basically just reproduced however they liked. Acrording to Religious theory, religion was from the beginning of creation, as was marriage. Either way, you end up with mariage being religious. I like the Idea of each religion having their own views of marriage, and doing as they wish. this is health, as it offers people choice. Choice is what it's all about. This way people can customize what rules they want formarriage, by chosing where to be married. Then they can't blame the system.

A couple of states to have an option like this. It's called a 'Covenant marriage,' and that is a basic return to the pre- no fault divorce ruling verion of marriage. Give people choice, and in the end everyone (in like 100 years) can see which system works best. Intrestingly in Covenant marriages, there is a 85% decrese in spousal abuse as compared to 'normal' mariages

It's an interesting idea, but a bad one as well. The religion of a person can, and quite often does, change over time, even if their views on marriage do not. There is no reason whatsoever that the legal recognition of their marriage should be dependent on what church it was performed in.

There is a God,


Opinion, and not one you can 'prove'. There is no point you trying to state it as a 'fact' when I already allowed it as one of the 'assumptions' of my premise.


Marriage was his idea...


Exactly the same response as for your last piece of pro-theocratic propaganda.


He did not design it to be a mechanism for abusing people, it can only be used to abuse people when they abuse it.

Utter rubbish.

It can be used by ONE person to abuse ANOTHER, without ANY 'abuse of the mechanism' by the victim.

LMAO... I'm sorry. LOL :p *okay, I'm trying really hard to stop chuckling* I did deserve that. :(



In honestly, I'll argue that A contract then was a religious ceremony. With sacrifices and ordinations and divinations etc., and asking for a successful outcome with the help of the gods.

Not initially it wasn't. I appreciate that you're trying to meet halfway or something here, but it really wasn't. When the concept of a marriage was first written into law, there were no religious connotations to it (unless you want to count the notion that the king was considered a god himself in some instances). It was a purely legal contract. Religious ceremonies came later. I'll dig out the refs from the appropriate texts, but it'll take me some time, as I'll have to go through some very old books that I've got (yes, I studied ancient law quite extensively at uni). But this is a point that drives me nuts, frankly: the notion that marriage is supposed to be some sort of "sacrosanct institution." It's original purpose was, to be frank and rather cold, to unload daughters and to ensure the "proper" inheritance of property to offspring from said marriages. That was it. Churches, even as far back, as you noted, as those in Sumeria jumped on it and turned it into a religious ceremony.

There's a big big problem with this entire line of thinking.

His argument basically goes...the marriage is a contract between the couple and the church, the church rules say the marriage can not be ended by divorce, therefore the contract between couple and church stipulates that the contract can not be terminated by divorce.

There are two big problems with that. First, a marriage is NOT a contract between the couple and the church, if anything it is a contract between THEMSELVES. The church, if anything, is merely the witness of the situation, who validates that the two parties has "signed" the contract. Nothing more. If you want to get a bit more involved, then perhaps the church is the lawyer. The one who drafted the contract but has no direct stake in its contents.

To say that a marriage is a contract in any legal sense to anyone other than the couple themselves is fundamentally flawed. And since it's a contract between the two parties of the couple, any contract may be nullified by mutual consent.

Moreover there's a concept in contract law called reliance. The idea of reliance is that for a contract to be valid, all parties must get something out of it. If I sign a contract saying "I will give you one dollar", this is not a contract. Why? Because I gain nothing from that giving of the dollar. I do not rely on the contract for anything, I gain nothing.

If I say to you "I will give you a dollar" and require nothing from you, this is not a contract, it is a promise. And the law can't legally bind promises. For a contract to be valid, I must be getting something for what I give.

For a contract between couple and church to be valid, there must be reciprocation. OK the church performed the marriage, what reciprocation is given? The church does not have reliance on the couple remaining together. It has no quantifiable interest.

Oh sure it may have a hope they do, and become active, and have children who become active, and grow the church. However that's not an agreement, merely a hope, and hope is irrelevant.

You can say that the church receives payment for the wedding, true. In which case, the wedding is performed, the church is paid, the church no longer has interest.

The only argument one could make is that the contract is between the couple and god, as the church acting as the intermediary. To make THAT argument though you'd have to have a court recognize the existance of god.

Good luck with that.

All valid points, to be sure. I expect no less from you.

The contract would be between the couple, I think. The church could witness, and the terms of the contract would be such that conform to the church's view of marriage. The terms of dissolution of the marriage would be set out in the marriage license (I'm sure the churches would have no problem with that). That license (contract) would be filed with the civil authorities because marriage has tax and other legal implications. If the couple gets divorced within the terms of the contract, civil authority records that, too.

It's a different way of looking at marriage, I grant you, but it does eliminate the endless debate over whether marriage is secular or religious by allowing the contracting parties (the couple) to decide how they wish to be married.

Opinion, and not one you can 'prove'. There is no point you trying to state it as a 'fact' when I already allowed it as one of the 'assumptions' of my premise.

Didn't say I could prove it, just made an absolute statement.

Exactly the same response as for your last piece of pro-theocratic propaganda.

Ditto.


Utter rubbish.

It can be used by ONE person to abuse ANOTHER, without ANY 'abuse of the mechanism' by the victim.

One person using 'marriage' as a justification, as a 'get out of jail free card' as an excuse to allow their bad behavior, IS abuse of the mechanism. The mechanism was not invented to allow abuse nor condone it nor make it possible to 'get away' with it. The mechanism IS abused IF it is used to excuse any such abusive behavior. That was my point.

Annulment. I know that word gets kicked around a good bit (my fiancee's father was in a disastrous marriage with a horrible, cheating, lazy wife, but she was kind enough to allow an annulment so he could remarry) but I was always under the impression that such a thing was mainly allowed because she was a cheating bitch and owned up to it, not because they couldn't declare themselves divorced.

nope

the church has very strict (yet very liberally applied) standards for annulment. your fiancee father, if annulled in the church, was probably for some lack of maturity at the time of the wedding excuse.

it doesnt have to make sense, it just has to be OK with the church.

nope

the church has very strict (yet very liberally applied) standards for annulment. your fiancee father, if annulled in the church, was probably for some lack of maturity at the time of the wedding excuse.

it doesnt have to make sense, it just has to be OK with the church.


No, it has to be okay with the state. It's a contract between two people (or families, as the case may be). There is no contract whatsoever with any church.

All valid points, to be sure. I expect no less from you.

The contract would be between the couple, I think. The church could witness, and the terms of the contract would be such that conform to the church's view of marriage. The terms of dissolution of the marriage would be set out in the marriage license (I'm sure the churches would have no problem with that). That license (contract) would be filed with the civil authorities because marriage has tax and other legal implications. If the couple gets divorced within the terms of the contract, civil authority records that, too.

It's a different way of looking at marriage, I grant you, but it does eliminate the endless debate over whether marriage is secular or religious by allowing the contracting parties (the couple) to decide how they wish to be married.

well sure, ok. You'd have to make different contracts, and make sure each contract is recognized by the state.

Here's the problem though. Who is the contract WITH? Even if I get married tomorrow with one of these big binding contracts, which says "no divorce", and my spouse also agrees "no divorce". the contract is between us, her and me.

And parties can walk away from a contract at any time by mutual consent. Even if a couple both agree, in writing, that they will not divorce each other....that's not binding, because if both agree that they want to divorce, and both mutually consent to the removal of the contract, then the contract is void.

Fundamental principle of contract law, a contract can be abandoned in its entirety at any time if all parties agree to it. So if the contract is between the couple, regardless of what it says, if they both want to opt out of the contract, the contract goes away.

You'd have to have SOME way of making the contract between the couple, and the church, and you'd have to have it be in some way where the church receives real, tangible benefit to the couple staying married.

And even THEN, in a courtroom, specific performance (IE you must stay married) is rarely applied, reliance damages would most often be paid. In other words, if the church received some real, tangible benefit from the couple being married, and the couple wanted to get divorced, the church can't really FORCE them to stay married, all it can do is seek the benefit it would have continued to get...

It's an interesting idea, but a bad one as well. The religion of a person can, and quite often does, change over time, even if their views on marriage do not. There is no reason whatsoever that the legal recognition of their marriage should be dependent on what church it was performed in.

Okay, but if the couple getting married are true believers, they'll follow the changing beliefs of their church. I don't see the problem there. As for the legal definition of the marriage, aren't churches trying to influence that now by saying "one man and one woman"? Under this scheme, the couple getting married agrees between them how their marriage will be defined and under what terms it may be dissolved. That definition and those conditions may be dictated by the church they belong to and they have to follow them. All the civil authority says is, fine, you're married under these terms and conditions.

You keep referring to the marriage contract. That is certainly the secular approach to marriage. As a Christian, my marriage is based on covenant. Contracts have loopholes which allowed lawyers to keep in business. Covenant is eternal. Commitment is the operative word. Abuse is not tolerated. Separation is neccessary at times to get on the right track. Divorce occurs, but as God told Moses, it is allowed because of the hardness of the heart, not because it is His plan for man. Remarriage is a sin but so is gluttony and lying and stealing. All is forgiveable. My husband and I have certainly had our share of disagreements, but after 33 yrs of marriage, I am happy we stuck it out. May you all find this joy!!

Not initially it wasn't. I appreciate that you're trying to meet halfway or something here, but it really wasn't. When the concept of a marriage was first written into law, there were no religious connotations to it (unless you want to count the notion that the king was considered a god himself in some instances). It was a purely legal contract. Religious ceremonies came later. I'll dig out the refs from the appropriate texts, but it'll take me some time, as I'll have to go through some very old books that I've got (yes, I studied ancient law quite extensively at uni). But this is a point that drives me nuts, frankly: the notion that marriage is supposed to be some sort of "sacrosanct institution." It's original purpose was, to be frank and rather cold, to unload daughters and to ensure the "proper" inheritance of property to offspring from said marriages. That was it. Churches, even as far back, as you noted, as those in Sumeria jumped on it and turned it into a religious ceremony.

I understand what you are trying to say. Although I don't want to discourage you from looking up your sources, I love reading that stuff, please do. My point however was perhaps more subtle than that. I mean to say, nearly ALL aspects of every day life back then WAS religious in nature when compared to modern day rituals. Such an example might be ... Beer making and consumption. Today, cheap American beer goes with lower class non-religious activities. Then, beer making was sacred, secret, only women were allowed to make it or even know how to make it, and beer was given out only through temples...

Everyday activities were religious events, superstitious might be the word today, doing it this way for luck, doing it that way for so-and-so's blessing etc. With that in mind, I said that ALL contracts (and thus marriage ones too) would be considered religious contracts by modern day comparison.

Didn't say I could prove it, just made an absolute statement.

"my cat is green" is an absolute statement too.

Doesn't mean it's true.

Didn't say I could prove it, just made an absolute statement.

Ditto.


I don't care. It's your mythology, not mine.

I 'allowed' it in my post, I didn't invite you trying to sell me how sexy your particular brand of propaganda is.

If you feel a despearate need to witness someone, I can PayPal you a fifty cents so you can call someone who gives a shit.


One person using 'marriage' as a justification, as a 'get out of jail free card' as an excuse to allow their bad behavior, IS abuse of the mechanism. The mechanism was not invented to allow abuse nor condone it nor make it possible to 'get away' with it. The mechanism IS abused IF it is used to excuse any such abusive behavior. That was my point.

And your point is rubbish.

One person abuses the 'mechanism', and yet another person is the victim of that abuse.

I don't want claptrap about our 'collective sin'. It isn't 'collective sin' that allows a 'mother' to use a kitchen knife to saw the arms of her two year old daughter, because she believes it is 'god' talking to her. It isn't 'collective sin' that hospitalises a woman over and over again because her husband is a drunken, abusive asshole.

It is very SPECIFIC sin, and not one that the chruch (any church) should have any part in legitimising.

I understand what you are trying to say. Although I don't want to discourage you from looking up your sources, I love reading that stuff, please do. My point however was perhaps more subtle than that. I mean to say, nearly ALL aspects of everything back then WAS religious in nature when compared to modern day rituals. Such an example might be ... Beer making and consumption. Today, cheap American beer goes with lower class non-religious activities. Then, beer making was sacred, secret, women only, and bought only through temples... Everyday activities were religious events, superstitious might be the word today, doing it this way for luck, doing it that way for so-and-so's blessing etc. With that in mind, I said that ALL contracts (and thus marriage ones too) would be considered religious contracts by modern day comparison.

Oh, cripes...if you wanna stretch it to those ridiculous extremes, sure. Then I could say that buying a loaf of bread is religious in nature, because it was initially sanctioned by a state, the head of which was considered a god. Don't be absurd.

Okay, but if the couple getting married are true believers, they'll follow the changing beliefs of their church. I don't see the problem there. As for the legal definition of the marriage, aren't churches trying to influence that now by saying "one man and one woman"? Under this scheme, the couple getting married agrees between them how their marriage will be defined and under what terms it may be dissolved. That definition and those conditions may be dictated by the church they belong to and they have to follow them. All the civil authority says is, fine, you're married under these terms and conditions.

But this is the problem. A contract may be altered, modified, or abandoned at ANY TIME at the mutual consent of all parties involved. And if the contract is just between the man and wife (or whatever), and if they both (or whatever) agree that they no longer want this contract, the contract goes away.

Mutual agreement of all parties nullifies a contract, always. If the couple, who are bound by contract together, no longer wish to be bound by contract together, the contract becomes meaningless

You keep referring to the marriage contract. That is certainly the secular approach to marriage. As a Christian, my marriage is based on covenant. Contracts have loopholes which allowed lawyers to keep in business. Covenant is eternal. Commitment is the operative word. Abuse is not tolerated. Separation is neccessary at times to get on the right track. Divorce occurs, but as God told Moses, it is allowed because of the hardness of the heart, not because it is His plan for man. Remarriage is a sin but so is gluttony and lying and stealing. All is forgiveable. My husband and I have certainly had our share of disagreements, but after 33 yrs of marriage, I am happy we stuck it out. May you all find this joy!!

Amen :)

well sure, ok. You'd have to make different contracts, and make sure each contract is recognized by the state.

Here's the problem though. Who is the contract WITH? Even if I get married tomorrow with one of these big binding contracts, which says "no divorce", and my spouse also agrees "no divorce". the contract is between us, her and me.

And parties can walk away from a contract at any time by mutual consent. Even if a couple both agree, in writing, that they will not divorce each other....that's not binding, because if both agree that they want to divorce, and both mutually consent to the removal of the contract, then the contract is void.

Fundamental principle of contract law, a contract can be abandoned in its entirety at any time if all parties agree to it. So if the contract is between the couple, regardless of what it says, if they both want to opt out of the contract, the contract goes away.

You'd have to have SOME way of making the contract between the couple, and the church, and you'd have to have it be in some way where the church receives real, tangible benefit to the couple staying married.

And even THEN, in a courtroom, specific performance (IE you must stay married) is rarely applied, reliance damages would most often be paid. In other words, if the church received some real, tangible benefit from the couple being married, and the couple wanted to get divorced, the church can't really FORCE them to stay married, all it can do is seek the benefit it would have continued to get...

Okay, yes, you're right, regardless of the terms of the contract, a couple could dissolve it by mutual choice. They'd be in hot water with their church, which has no legal standing, but that's between the two of them, their consciences and their God (and anyone else they'd care to add). I suppose the idea is, as someone up above said, to allow religious couples to put up or shut up. If you consider marriage sacred and binding for life, then you could write your marriage contract to say so. And if you dissolve that contract outside its terms, the civil authority would not be required to recognize that dissolution. Actually, I suppose that's where the idea breaks down. Nothing a little legislation couldn't fix, though I suppose the fundamentals of contract law are pretty ancient and hoary and not easily amended.

Oh, cripes...if you wanna stretch it to those ridiculous extremes, sure. Then I could say that buying a loaf of bread is religious in nature, because it was initially sanctioned by a state, the head of which was considered a god. Don't be absurd.

It's not absurd. Look at the nature of this thread. It is a discussion about doing just that. Turning the contracts BACK to the government enforced religous nature it was then...

You keep referring to the marriage contract. That is certainly the secular approach to marriage. As a Christian, my marriage is based on covenant. Contracts have loopholes which allowed lawyers to keep in business. Covenant is eternal. Commitment is the operative word. Abuse is not tolerated. Separation is neccessary at times to get on the right track. Divorce occurs, but as God told Moses, it is allowed because of the hardness of the heart, not because it is His plan for man. Remarriage is a sin but so is gluttony and lying and stealing. All is forgiveable. My husband and I have certainly had our share of disagreements, but after 33 yrs of marriage, I am happy we stuck it out. May you all find this joy!!

And that is your faith, and you are entitled to believe it. But to make it binding by LAW, which is what this topic is about, you would have to either:

a) recognize the existance of god, which is impossible under our legal system

OR

b) create a civil contract that is equally legally, secularly binding in the same ways as the covenant.

Your faith...is your faith, and you have the right to have it. But it's not in any way legally binding, which is what this discussion is about.

It's not absurd. Look at the nature of this thread. It is a discussion about doing just that. Turning the contracts BACK to the government enforced religous nature it was then...


Oh, sweet jeebus...

Marrige in modern day USA is a horrible contract heavily weighed in the females favor. Since im not overly fond of unfair contracts i wont enter one.

Marriage is just a contract -- or at least, that's how it started. It wasn't until religions (as far back as Mesopotamia) grafted their ceremonies onto it that it evolved into a "religious institution." People need to learn some history and get over this shite.

Let's make this easy. All marriages should be deemed civil unions. Marriages that are licensed currently should be civil unionized in the yes of the state. Get the government out of the demagogue business of marriage at all. Then if you want to have a religious ceremony and call it marriage in your particular house of worship so be it. Then the churches that allow gay marriage do and then ones that don't don't have to worry about it. Make the union a legally binding contract and leave the religious aspect up to the religious people.

Marrige in modern day USA is a horrible contract heavily weighed in the females favor. Since im not overly fond of unfair contracts i wont enter one.

I think the idea is supposed to be that the actual contract is kind of irrelevent, because you are supposed to be marrying someone so special to you, that you won't be LOOKING for ways to wriggle out of clauses later.

Let's make this easy. All marriages should be deemed civil unions. Marriages that are licensed currently should be civil unionized in the yes of the state. Get the government out of the demagogue business of marriage at all. Then if you want to have a religious ceremony and call it marriage in your particular house of worship so be it. Then the churches that allow gay marriage do and then ones that don't don't have to worry about it. Make the union a legally binding contract and leave the religious aspect up to the religious people.

Good point, well made.

If you consider marriage sacred and binding for life, then you could write your marriage contract to say so. And if you dissolve that contract outside its terms, the civil authority would not be required to recognize that dissolution.

Yes, it would, because they can dissolve ANY contract outside its terms if they both want to. Assuming their mind about "the sacred binding for life" changes, and they want to dissolve their secular contract, they are free to do so. The civil authority would recognize the dissolution just as they would recognize the dissolution of ANY contract with mutual consent.

But you're right, that can be fixed, if we rewrite the fundamental precepts of contract law. The question then is....why? Why bind people to a decision for life when they're mind might change 1, 5, 10, 50 years down the road, or that the person they wanted to marry turns out to be someone entirely different 1, 5, 10, 50 years later?

Why go through that trouble, why fundamentally alter the legal system? what good would it serve?

If we wanted to we could make murder legal, and make skipping class a punishment of 25 years in hard labor.

If we wanted to.

But why?

Yes, it would, because they can dissolve ANY contract outside its terms if they both want to. Assuming their mind about "the sacred binding for life" changes, and they want to dissolve their secular contract, they are free to do so. The civil authority would recognize the dissolution just as they would recognize the dissolution of ANY contract with mutual consent.

But you're right, that can be fixed, if we rewrite the fundamental precepts of contract law. The question then is....why? Why bind people to a decision for life when they're mind might change 1, 5, 10, 50 years down the road, or that the person they wanted to marry turns out to be someone entirely different 1, 5, 10, 50 years later?

Why go through that trouble, why fundamentally alter the legal system? what good would it serve?

Because some people wish to impose their own (religious) definition of marriage on the civil authorities. Under this proposal we allow them to define marriage as they wish, with the requirement that everyone else is allowed to do so, too, and that the definition they choose is binding. It would take away the "do as I say, not as I do" option.

Because some people wish to impose their own (religious) definition of marriage on the civil authorities.

So? I want a billion dollars and a tropical island. I aint gonna get it.

Screw em.

So? I want a billion dollars and a tropical island. I aint gonna get it.

Screw em.

Sure, but isn't screwing them via the law somehow particularly pleasant?

Not initially it wasn't. I appreciate that you're trying to meet halfway or something here, but it really wasn't. When the concept of a marriage was first written into law, there were no religious connotations to it (unless you want to count the notion that the king was considered a god himself in some instances). It was a purely legal contract. Religious ceremonies came later. I'll dig out the refs from the appropriate texts, but it'll take me some time, as I'll have to go through some very old books that I've got (yes, I studied ancient law quite extensively at uni). But this is a point that drives me nuts, frankly: the notion that marriage is supposed to be some sort of "sacrosanct institution." It's original purpose was, to be frank and rather cold, to unload daughters and to ensure the "proper" inheritance of property to offspring from said marriages. That was it. Churches, even as far back, as you noted, as those in Sumeria jumped on it and turned it into a religious ceremony.
__________________
Founder of DEFCON and member of NSO and UNO

Kivisto: Sheik Nadnerb Bin Cluich is a trigger happy, arrogant, womanizing, vitriolic a$$hole. We all love him ever so much . He is also incredibly intelligent and capable of extended reasoned discourse with those he feels are worth his time. He does not feel you are worth his time. Him popping in with a fu** off is akin to the Fonz throwing the thumbs up with an Ayyyyyyy.



I can also pull out books saying that It was first of all a Religious ceremony. I can also pull out books to prove the moon landing did, or didn't hapen. I can pull out books to prove the world was flat/ round/ a turtle, etc, etc. Books 'prove' nothing. It's completely irrelevant what your books say.

WE WHEREN'T THERE. So at best we're guessing. In recorded history, untill this centurey, marriage has been primarily a religious thing. However, this doesn't change my belief that people should be alowed to chose if it's a contract between 2 people, 2 people and God, 2 people and the Church and God, 2 people and the state, ect. etc.

Audults are audults, and can make their own decisions. if they change their mind later, oh well. a contract is a legal document. You have to live up to what you've agreed on, regardless of how you feel now. Our whole society depends on fullfillment of contract. Or else your boss could simply say 'I don't feel like paying you for last month.'

Whatevery you agree on you need to stick with.

Sure, but isn't screwing them via the law somehow particularly pleasant?

I would much rather that not one day, not one hour, not one second of the legislatures time, my EMPLOYEES time, to be used to rewrite legislation that would allow a church to impose legal weight to their wholey religious ceremonies

I don't care. It's your mythology, not mine.

I 'allowed' it in my post, I didn't invite you trying to sell me how sexy your particular brand of propaganda is.

If you feel a despearate need to witness someone, I can PayPal you a fifty cents so you can call someone who gives a shit.

You post in a forum, you open your opinion up to public comment. Sorry you're so sensitive, perhaps you should consider not posting if you don't want to be exposed to feedback that is contrary to your own opinion.

=And your point is rubbish.

One person abuses the 'mechanism', and yet another person is the victim of that abuse.

I don't want claptrap about our 'collective sin'. It isn't 'collective sin' that allows a 'mother' to use a kitchen knife to saw the arms of her two year old daughter, because she believes it is 'god' talking to her. It isn't 'collective sin' that hospitalises a woman over and over again because her husband is a drunken, abusive asshole.

It is very SPECIFIC sin, and not one that the chruch (any church) should have any part in legitimising.

Have you entirely lost your mind? Who said anything about collective sin? If a MAN hits his wife and he thinks the marriage contract he has allows him to do that, then HE is abusing the mechanism that God invented because the mechanism of marriage does NOT give you the right to hit your wife... (or reverse for wife abuse against Husband) ... this is singular abuse of mechanism, NOT collective anything.

Your misdirected ranting not withstanding, seriously, are you okay?

Actually, acording to the Evolutionary theory, before religion there was no mariage. People basically just reproduced however they liked.
What. The. FUCK?!

I would much rather that not one day, not one hour, not one second of the legislatures time, my EMPLOYEES time, to be used to rewrite legislation that would allow a church to impose legal weight to their wholey religious ceremonies

It would only be imposed on those willing to take up the burden. And I don't know about your state but in mine the legislature spends its time and my money on sillier things.

But, hey, nice discussion, and without a whole lot of yelling, too! ;)

Because some people wish to impose their own (religious) definition of marriage on the civil authorities. Under this proposal we allow them to define marriage as they wish, with the requirement that everyone else is allowed to do so, too, and that the definition they choose is binding. It would take away the "do as I say, not as I do" option.



For that mater if people want to sign a marriage contract for 5 years or 10 years at a time, let them. I think that's dumb, but hey, that's my opinion. Time will tell what is a good idea and what isn't.

I can also pull out books saying that It was first of all a Religious ceremony. I can also pull out books to prove the moon landing did, or didn't hapen. I can pull out books to prove the world was flat/ round/ a turtle, etc, etc. Books 'prove' nothing. It's completely irrelevant what your books say.

WE WHEREN'T THERE. So at best we're guessing. In recorded history, untill this centurey, marriage has been primarily a religious thing. However, this doesn't change my belief that people should be alowed to chose if it's a contract between 2 people, 2 people and God, 2 people and the Church and God, 2 people and the state, ect. etc.

Audults are audults, and can make their own decisions. if they change their mind later, oh well. a contract is a legal document. You have to live up to what you've agreed on, regardless of how you feel now. Our whole society depends on fullfillment of contract. Or else your boss could simply say 'I don't feel like paying you for last month.'

Whatevery you agree on you need to stick with.

First of all, you fail at using the quote button.

Second of all, I have the texts of the primary sources, not some academic fucknut, saying "this is what it means." It's pretty straightforward if you can get your head out of your arse for a minute or so. Read the laws -- Codex Hammurabi, Lipit-Ishtar, etc. -- and you might have a bleedin' clue.

It would only be imposed on those willing to take up the burden. And I don't know about your state but in mine the legislature spends its time and my money on sillier things.

But, hey, nice discussion, and without a whole lot of yelling, too! ;)

What. The. FUCK?!

*sigh* :rolleyes:

Arthais 101: That was my very first post. Thank you for being kind with your admonishment. Earlier in the thread there was discussion about spiritual people and how they were forced to stay to gether even in abusive situations,etc. I thought I was on track in that discussion. Whether or not I have the piece of paper which legally binds, I was trying to explain that sometimes people of "faith" already have a more binding agreement than anything the government can devise.

I've never seen a church (Christian) that thinks wife abuse is a good thing

Arthais 101: That was my very first post. Thank you for being kind with your admonishment. Earlier in the thread there was discussion about spiritual people and how they were forced to stay to gether even in abusive situations,etc. I thought I was on track in that discussion. Whether or not I have the piece of paper which legally binds, I was trying to explain that sometimes people of "faith" already have a more binding agreement than anything the government can devise.

Well sure. That's your faith, you have a right to it, if you want to live your life by your faith, that's your right to.

If you feel that marriage is a covenant, unbreakable and inseverable, and that's how you wish to live your life, with a partner that agrees with that belief...then ok, that's your right.

That believe should not have any LEGAL binding however. In fact, to MAKE it legally binding, while at the same time not violating the constitution, would require so much logistic wrangling and legal manuevering that it's really not, in my opinion, even worth it.

If you want to live your life a certain way then you're free to do so, we don't need to bind you to that decision by law. I see no benefit of that.

And as for staying in abusive relationships due to religious beliefs, I'm not familiar enough with church rulings on that to comment.

First of all, you fail at using the quote button.

Second of all, I have the texts of the primary sources, not some academic fucknut, saying "this is what it means." It's pretty straightforward if you can get your head out of your arse for a minute or so. Read the laws -- Codex Hammurabi, Lipit-Ishtar, etc. -- and you might have a bleedin' clue.

Well, I'm learning how to use the quote. here you go.

So you have the origional Sumarian, or whatever texts you say you do that say ' marriage is a civil contract?'

*sigh* :rolleyes:

Hey, read what that was in response to, and you'll have the same reaction.

Well sure. That's your faith, you have a right to it, if you want to live your life by your faith, that's your right to.

If you feel that marriage is a covenant, unbreakable and inseverable, and that's how you wish to live your life, with a partner that agrees with that belief...then ok, that's your right.

That believe should not have any LEGAL binding however. In fact, to MAKE it legally binding, while at the same time not violating the constitution, would require so much logistic wrangling and legal manuevering that it's really not, in my opinion, even worth it.

If you want to live your life a certain way then you're free to do so, we don't need to bind you to that decision by law. I see no benefit of that.

And as for staying in abusive relationships due to religious beliefs, I'm not familiar enough with church rulings on that to comment.


Actually this is a state decision. look up 'covenant marriages. It's already legal in some states, though few people, Xian or other use it (3%)

You post in a forum, you open your opinion up to public comment. Sorry you're so sensitive, perhaps you should consider not posting if you don't want to be exposed to feedback that is contrary to your own opinion.


That has nothing to do with anything. It isn't a matetr of sensitivity - it is a matetr of you trying to browbeat others with your pet religion.

I don't mind feedback, but - since I had already 'allowed' the possibility of divinity in my post (i.e. I wasn't stating explicitly that marriage is an entirely human institution, even though that is what the evidence overwhelmingly suggests), there is really no point in you taking the opportunity to preach at me.

If you want to preach, knock yourself out. Start a 'preaching' thread, and let me know the title of it, so I can avoid your rantings.



Have you entirely lost your mind? Who said anything about collective sin? If a MAN hits his wife and he thinks the marriage contract he has allows him to do that, then HE is abusing the mechanism that God invented because the mechanism of marriage does NOT give you the right to hit your wife... (or reverse for wife abuse against Husband) ... this is singular abuse of mechanism, NOT collective anything.


Then your original post was, as I said, rubbish - because you implied that the physical abuse was only allowed by a kind of spiritual abuse... which is obviously bullshit, because one can physically abuse another in the NAME of religion, no matter what the belief system of the victim.

Covenant marriage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"A covenant marriage is a modern concept of marriage considered to be a cultural and political response to no-fault divorce. Couples in a covenant marriage agree to obtain pre-marital counseling before marrying, and accept more limited grounds for divorce. A primary purpose of covenant marriage is to provide both spouses the security and motivation to work hard to make theirs a good marriage, knowing that the other is committed to the same purpose.

A covenant is an unconditional agreement, stronger than a contract. Whereas a contract typically has an exit clause, the traditional marriage covenant commonly stated in marriage vows is "until death do us part." This mutual commitment is promoted as the long-term foundation for marriage and family life, with benefits both for spouses and children.

Legal covenant marriages are currently available as an option in Arkansas, Arizona, and Louisiana, which became the first state to approve them in 1997. Legislation was introduced but not passed in California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia. It is more difficult for couples who have a legal covenant marriage to obtain a divorce; cause for divorce is typically limited to abuse, a felony with jail time, or adultery. To date, the number of couples choosing covenant marriage in the states that have adopted it have ranged between 1 and 3 percent of all marriages.

Opponents of covenant marriages argue that they are too religious in nature, effectively legalizing a religious view of marriage. Some worry that women can become trapped in unhealthy marriages - even in cases of abuse, it can be difficult to prove allegations sufficiently for a judge to grant a divorce. However, it is currently still possible to file for divorce in a state that does not recognize covenant marriages."

I've never seen a church (Christian) that thinks wife abuse is a good thing

Maybe not - but I've attended a number of them where the assembly and/or clergy attempted to pursuade batetred wives to stay with abusive husbands.

Indeed, in some cases, there was no pursuasion at all. Instead there was the kind of talk: "You shouldn't have got pregnant by an abusive man, if you weren't willing to lie in the bed you were making"...

First of all, you fail at using the quote button.

D'oh! LOL, SEE! You do it too, now I feel better. ;)

Second of all, I have the texts of the primary sources, not some academic fucknut, saying "this is what it means." It's pretty straightforward if you can get your head out of your arse for a minute or so. Read the laws -- Codex Hammurabi, Lipit-Ishtar, etc. -- and you might have a bleedin' clue.


You do realize that they mean the people that were pre-sumerians, yes? The people who lived and created the society that thousands of years later would become the Hammurabi code and Ishtar etc., and you might lighten up a bit.

Yes, it would, because they can dissolve ANY contract outside its terms if they both want to. Assuming their mind about "the sacred binding for life" changes, and they want to dissolve their secular contract, they are free to do so. The civil authority would recognize the dissolution just as they would recognize the dissolution of ANY contract with mutual consent.

But you're right, that can be fixed, if we rewrite the fundamental precepts of contract law. The question then is....why? Why bind people to a decision for life when they're mind might change 1, 5, 10, 50 years down the road, or that the person they wanted to marry turns out to be someone entirely different 1, 5, 10, 50 years later?

Why go through that trouble, why fundamentally alter the legal system? what good would it serve?

If we wanted to we could make murder legal, and make skipping class a punishment of 25 years in hard labor.

If we wanted to.

But why?



You keep refering to "mutual consent". How many situations do you know of where the divorce was of "mutual consent"? I don't know of any. My mom left my dad after 20 years of marriage, and never gave a reason. Just "didn't want to be married anymore". My dad pleaded with her to stay. He still loved her, and would have done anything for her. I know several other men in similar situations. Whether marriage is a contract or a covenant, it should be binding, and there should be consequences for breaking the terms. If a couple does mutually consent to split, then it is not as painfull. One person should not be able to devastate the other's life on a whim.

Well, I'm learning how to use the quote. here you go.

So you have the origional Sumarian, or whatever texts you say you do that say ' marriage is a civil contract?'


Actually he's citing later sources, not Sumerian sources, but still Mesopotamian sources.

Maybe not - but I've attended a number of them where the assembly and/or clergy attempted to pursuade batetred wives to stay with abusive husbands.

Indeed, in some cases, there was no pursuasion at all. Instead there was the kind of talk: "You shouldn't have got pregnant by an abusive man, if you weren't willing to lie in the bed you were making"...

touche' very true, that does happen. Usually though the minister has more sence. typically the recomendation is counseling, and help, and a seperation for a time. If abuse continues, typically, though not always divorce or permenant seperation is advised. Normaly churches try to avoid divorces in cases where 'the sex just doesn't feel the same anymore,' but allow for criminal activity, audultery or abuse, phyisically and emotionally. typically, but unfortunatelly not always

You keep refering to "mutual consent". How many situations do you know of where the divorce was of "mutual consent"? I don't know of any. My mom left my dad after 20 years of marriage, and never gave a reason. Just "didn't want to be married anymore". My dad pleaded with her to stay. He still loved her, and would have done anything for her. I know several other men in similar situations. Whether marriage is a contract or a covenant, it should be binding, and there should be consequences for breaking the terms. If a couple does mutually consent to split, then it is not as painfull. One person should not be able to devastate the other's life on a whim.

That has nothing to do with divorce. That is just people.

If you don't allow them to divorce... then what? They obviously don't WANT to be together, so they resent the close confines... or they abuse each other... or they take it out in other ways... or the children suffer from being raised in a household where the parents hate each other... etc.

Divorce isn't breaking a marriage. It is admitting that a marriage already IS broken.

You keep refering to "mutual consent". How many situations do you know of where the divorce was of "mutual consent"?


My parents, for one.

Actually he's citing later sources, not Sumerian sources, but still Mesopotamian sources.

Sorry Mesopotamian. My bad. Do you have these origional documents? More importantly can you read Mesopotamian or have a translation of them? Or does your textbook just say so?

touche' very true, that does happen. Usually though the minister has more sence. typically the recomendation is counseling, and help, and a seperation for a time. If abuse continues, typically, though not always divorce or permenant seperation is advised. Normaly churches try to avoid divorces in cases where 'the sex just doesn't feel the same anymore,' but allow for criminal activity, audultery or abuse, phyisically and emotionally. typically, but unfortunatelly not always

I think that MOST people try to avoid divorcing over 'the sex doesn't feel the same'... unless the reason it doesn't feel the same is CONNECTED to abuse, for example. Churches are no different to most people in that respect.

The place where they DO differ, is in insisting there is some higher set of rules that means you MUST stay married, even if the parnter IS a drunken, abusive asshole. And - I'm sure - this doesn't happen in all churches, at least, not all the time... but I've seen it a number of times... in churches stretching over thousands of miles, and quite a degree of denominational 'distance'.

You keep refering to "mutual consent". How many situations do you know of where the divorce was of "mutual consent"? I don't know of any. My mom left my dad after 20 years of marriage, and never gave a reason. Just "didn't want to be married anymore". My dad pleaded with her to stay. He still loved her, and would have done anything for her. I know several other men in similar situations. Whether marriage is a contract or a covenant, it should be binding, and there should be consequences for breaking the terms. If a couple does mutually consent to split, then it is not as painfull. One person should not be able to devastate the other's life on a whim.

True. And it hurts the kids as well. More than the parents in many cases. In making it peoples choice what marriage system they want, it lets people make the coice 'is it worth getting hurt.'

I think that MOST people try to avoid divorcing over 'the sex doesn't feel the same'... unless the reason it doesn't feel the same is CONNECTED to abuse, for example. Churches are no different to most people in that respect.

The place where they DO differ, is in insisting there is some higher set of rules that means you MUST stay married, even if the parnter IS a drunken, abusive asshole. And - I'm sure - this doesn't happen in all churches, at least, not all the time... but I've seen it a number of times... in churches stretching over thousands of miles, and quite a degree of denominational 'distance'.

It's to bad when that happens. I'm a minister myself, and I have seen some places like that. However I would say that today those are a minority.

I think that MOST people try to avoid divorcing over 'the sex doesn't feel the same'... unless the reason it doesn't feel the same is CONNECTED to abuse, for example. Churches are no different to most people in that respect.

The place where they DO differ, is in insisting there is some higher set of rules that means you MUST stay married, even if the parnter IS a drunken, abusive asshole. And - I'm sure - this doesn't happen in all churches, at least, not all the time... but I've seen it a number of times... in churches stretching over thousands of miles, and quite a degree of denominational 'distance'.

The #1 reason for divorce is actually arguing over Money, followed by 'feeling unloved' normally people in abuseive relationships don't divorce, even when they should, because of fear

So if you were religiously married would you be required to act like a couple or could you live in different houses?

So if you were religiously married would you be required to act like a couple or could you live in different houses?

Even religious marriages typically alow an out for audultery, abuse and extrended prison times/ abandonment

It's to bad when that happens. I'm a minister myself, and I have seen some places like that. However I would say that today those are a minority.

I guess that depends where you are. I've seen it both sides of the pond and I've seen it in Anglican, Methodist, Baptist churches. I've even encountered similar sentiments expressed by Witnesses, although I've not attended any of their events. If it is a minority, it is a minority that is well spread out, and making itself LOOK like a majority.

But that is still almost an aside - the fact remains that it is ONLY really in the religious institution that this higher power CAN be invoked.

Common reasons that cause people to think about or want to get a divorce:

*Couple has conflicting personal beliefs
*Money
*Couple’s marital satisfaction decreases
*Desertion
*Adultery
*Cruel treatment
*Bigamy
*Imprisonment
*Spousal Indignities
*Institutionalization
*Irretrievable Breakdown of some kind


pardon me Noney is econd

Even religious marriages typically alow an out for audultery, abuse and extrended prison times/ abandonment

Not according to the Bible.

Common reasons that cause people to think about or want to get a divorce:

*Couple has conflicting personal beliefs
*Money
*Couple’s marital satisfaction decreases
*Desertion
*Adultery
*Cruel treatment
*Bigamy
*Imprisonment
*Spousal Indignities
*Institutionalization
*Irretrievable Breakdown of some kind


pardon me Noney is econd

But there is no rule that says any of these things is EXCLUSIVE.

...
Then your original post was, as I said, rubbish - because you implied that the physical abuse was only allowed by a kind of spiritual abuse... which is obviously bullshit, because one can physically abuse another in the NAME of religion, no matter what the belief system of the victim.

Nope, your reading ability must have been challenged just then... Because I said the exact opposite of what you accuse me of saying...

I said that God did NOT design Marriage to allow for anyone to abuse anyone. To use marriage that way IS abusing the marriage mechanism itself (the word “mechanism” being your word). But at least now I understand what you got upset about. If I DID say what you thought I said, that we could abuse people in marriage somehow, I would have been mad at me too. Good thing I didn’t say that then, see, bolding for emphasis now, not in the original:

There is a God, Marriage was his idea... He did not design it to be a mechanism for abusing people, it can only be used to abuse people when they abuse it.

In hindsight and after seeing your objection, I wish I would have defined the last "it" as what "it" is. That it is = Marriage mechanism. So, what I was trying to say was, you can't abuse people in proper use marriage, only broken marriage understanding would allow someone to even think that they could.

Time Magazine, September 17, 1999


Positive Illusions: From "I do" to the Seven-Year Itch, a new study shows
that marriage (surprise) is hard work BY AMY DICKINSON

Next to fig newtons, there's nothing I like better than a good
longitudinal study. I especially enjoy ones with fancy titles that use
lots of charts and graphs to tell us what we suspected all along. The
latest, entitled "The Nature and Predictors of the Trajectory of Change
in Marital Quality for Husbands and Wives over the First 10 Years of
Marriage," was published this month in the Journal of Developmental
Psychology. Cutely subtitled "Predicting the Seven-Year Itch," this
extensive research charts the decline in the quality of marriages of more
than 500 Midwestern couples, surveyed over 10 years.

According to the research, married couples' assessment of the quality of
their marriage starts to sink rapidly just after the "I do" and continues
downward through the first four years. The quality of marriage plateaus
after that first dip and then declines again during years eight, nine and
10--the "seven-year itch" part. Couples reported that the presence of
children is, not surprisingly, a considerable stress on a marriage; the
research states that having children at home prevented married couples
from maintaining "positive illusions about their relationships."

My local bookstore has a shelf of relationship books that is longer than
most relationships, detailing how to find the love you want, how to get
married and how to create, and try to maintain, those "positive
illusions." In our popular culture, marriage seems to flow naturally from
romance--Julia Roberts keeps running off with Richard Gere. Americans
love to get married, but half our marriages don't take. Then we switch
partners and remarry, with roughly the same odds of success.

Natalie Low, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist and instructor at Harvard,
counsels families as they navigate their way through the illusions and
into the reality of marriage. She says the couples she sees are trying to
nurture their relationships along with raising perfect kids and
maintaining careers, but in this compartmentalized era, they are without
the benefit of support systems of extended families and communities.
Couples also expect to be happy. But "the facts of life are very
grinding, so the reality of marriage is grinding," says Low, who has been
married for 51 years. Marriage is now, as it has always been, hard work.
Marriage is not a static event that can be measured, but a series of
developments--those triumphs and setbacks--that make up life. "There is
no obvious course to follow, so couples just have to keep working. A
person sees dramatic changes during a marriage," Low says, "so a couple
has to be committed to a way of life."

Lawrence Kurdek, Ph.D., the Wright State researcher who wrote the
seven-year-itch study, said that its grim statistics actually made him
hopeful. "Knowing the pattern of marriage relationships might help
couples stay together, if they can come up with positive ways to cope
with it," he says. "We have to build into marriage the idea that there
will be lots of change."

When married couples hit the inevitable doldrums, they may want to
revisit their Hollywood-fueled expectations about what marriage is and
what it will do for them. Then maybe they can chuck their positive
illusions and rent a good movie--one where the hero and heroine don't
necessarily live happily-ever-after all the time, but stay together
anyway.

Okay, but if the couple getting married are true believers, they'll follow the changing beliefs of their church.

That's one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard. I know that sounds harsh, but it's a pretty silly thing to say. First of all, I wasn't talking about the changing beliefs of any church. I was talking about the fact that individual beliefs change over time, whether they agree with the church or not. And "true believer" does not mean that your beliefs will never change, or that you will always agree with any given church. In fact, someone who changed their beliefs just because someone else said so wouldn't be a "true believer" at all.

I don't see the problem there. As for the legal definition of the marriage, aren't churches trying to influence that now by saying "one man and one woman"? Under this scheme, the couple getting married agrees between them how their marriage will be defined and under what terms it may be dissolved.

Wrong. Under this scheme, an entity separate from both the couple and the government - a given church - decides that.

That definition and those conditions may be dictated by the church they belong to and they have to follow them. All the civil authority says is, fine, you're married under these terms and conditions.

...which would end up being discrimination based on religion. Divorce requirements, under the law, would differ based on religion.

Statistics on Divorce and Domestic Violence

Part of the Divorce Reform Page, sponsored by Americans for Divorce Reform
Polls | Legislation | Statistics | Articles/Opinion | Quotations | Other family-related articles

(See also Does divorce reduce children's exposure to family conflict?)

Domestic violence inversely related to marriage

Domestic assault & urban "community disinvestment", nonmarriage/divorce

"The more one learns about the crime of domestic violence, the less likely
it seems that the formal mechanisms of divorce law have much influence one way
or another in helping women escape their batterers. For one thing, most
batterers are not husbands. A 1991 Justice Department survey, for example,
found that more than two-thirds of domestic violence offenders were boyfriends
or ex-spouses, while just 9 percent were spouses. Cohabitating women,
according to one review of the literature, are four times more likely to
suffer severe violence than married women."
Gallagher in "End No-Fault Divorce?" (Maggie Gallagher debates Barbara Dafoe Whitehead) in First Things 75 (August/September 1997)

Even religious marriages typically alow an out for audultery, abuse and extrended prison times/ abandonment

What if there is none of that? Even though you wear the title married do you have to speak to each other and live together. What happens if you just part ways, can they stop you?

Nope, your reading ability must have been challenged just then... Because I said the exact opposite of what you accuse me of saying...

I said that God did NOT design Marriage to allow for anyone to abuse anyone. To use marriage that way IS abusing the marriage mechanism itself (the word “mechanism” being your word). But at least now I understand what you got upset about. If I DID say what you thought I said, that we could abuse people in marriage somehow, I would have been mad at me too. Good thing I didn’t say that then, see, bolding for emphasis now, not in the original:

And, I'm looking at it in front of me, and it still doesn't say what you claim it does.

If you MEAN it to mean something else, I'd suggest you re-word it (extensively)... because I can't get to your offered translation from what you show.

Let me show you what I mean:

"...it can only be used to abuse people when they abuse it..."

When who 'abuses it'? It can only be used to abuse people, when THEY abuse it... obviously, if read as written, the people it allows to be abused, are the ones that abuse the mechanism.

But this is the problem. A contract may be altered, modified, or abandoned at ANY TIME at the mutual consent of all parties involved. And if the contract is just between the man and wife (or whatever), and if they both (or whatever) agree that they no longer want this contract, the contract goes away.

Mutual agreement of all parties nullifies a contract, always. If the couple, who are bound by contract together, no longer wish to be bound by contract together, the contract becomes meaningless

Good point. The church is not a party to the contract, any more than a lawyer who draws up a contract is a party within it. Two parties could hire completely separate lawyers to dissolve a contract, or do it themselves. The original lawyer would have no say whatsoever in how the contract was altered.

That's one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard. I know that sounds harsh, but it's a pretty silly thing to say. First of all, I wasn't talking about the changing beliefs of any church. I was talking about the fact that individual beliefs change over time, whether they agree with the church or not. And "true believer" does not mean that your beliefs will never change, or that you will always agree with any given church. In fact, someone who changed their beliefs just because someone else said so wouldn't be a "true believer" at all.



Wrong. Under this scheme, an entity separate from both the couple and the government - a given church - decides that.



...which would end up being discrimination based on religion. Divorce requirements, under the law, would differ based on religion.



Why do you want to force people to be married acording to what you believe? Why not let people decide for themselves?

Good point. The church is not a party to the contract, any more than a lawyer who draws up a contract is a party within it. Two parties could hire completely separate lawyers to dissolve a contract, or do it themselves. The original lawyer would have no say whatsoever in how the contract was altered.


Unless the contract made the church a 3rd party in the mariage, which is what religious mariages are about.

If people want that, let them do what they want.

What if there is none of that? Even though you wear the title married do you have to speak to each other and live together. What happens if you just part ways, can they stop you?

Abandonment is usually grouds for divorce

Why do you want to force people to be married acording to what you believe? Why not let people decide for themselves?

I think you must have quoted the wrong person. I am arguing against forcing peopel to be married according to any beliefs but their own.

Unless the contract made the church a 3rd party in the mariage, which is what religious mariages are about.

No, it isn't. Even in religious marriages, the only possible 3rd party to the contract is God. Of course, anyone and everyone can claim to speak for God, so when the couple says, "God led us to get a divorce," the church can excommunicate them or whatever, but it cannot prove them wrong.

Meanwhile, even if the marriage contract did list the church as a third party that suddenly got rights to determine how the couple would live their lives, how they could legally see to their own welfare and the welfare of their children, and so on, it would be rather quickly declared to be an unconscionable contract by any reasonable judge as soon as it was challenged.

If people want that, let them do what they want.

The whole discussion is about people who don't want that - people who married under a given church, but now disagree with that church and wish to divorce.

And, I'm looking at it in front of me, and it still doesn't say what you claim it does.

If you MEAN it to mean something else, I'd suggest you re-word it (extensively)... because I can't get to your offered translation from what you show.

Let me show you what I mean:

"...it can only be used to abuse people when they abuse it..."

When who 'abuses it'? It can only be used to abuse people, when THEY abuse it... obviously, if read as written, the people it allows to be abused, are the ones that abuse the mechanism.

Agreed, my apologies. That interpretation was so far from my actual thinking that I didn't see the possibility of it being read that way until you exposed me to it.

For fairness:
There is a God, Marriage was his idea... He did not design it to be a mechanism for abusing people, it can only be used to abuse people when they abuse it.

In hindsight and after seeing your objection, I wish I would have defined the last "it" as what "it" is (was meant to be). That "it" is = Marriage mechanism understaning. So, what I was trying to say was, you can't abuse people in proper marriage, only broken marriage understanding would allow someone to even think that they could. Again, my apologies.

I think you must have quoted the wrong person. I am arguing against forcing peopel to be married according to any beliefs but their own.

No, it isn't. Even in religious marriages, the only possible 3rd party to the contract is God. Of course, anyone and everyone can claim to speak for God, so when the couple says, "God led us to get a divorce," the church can excommunicate them or whatever, but it cannot prove them wrong.

The whole discussion is about people who don't want that - people who married under a given church, but now disagree with that church and wish to divorce.

When I marry a person in the church the contract is formed by the church and the 2 people, if they so chose. This makes the church a 3rd party. I'm actually a minister, so this part I do know.

If people want this in their marriage, they should be free to do so

When I marry a person in the church the contract is formed by the church and the 2 people, if they so chose. This makes the church a 3rd party. I'm actually a minister, so this part I do know.

If people want this in their marriage, they should be free to do so

And as soon as they want it out of their marriage, they should be free to do so. As soon as they want to say, "Look rev, I really don't agree with your teachings any more, I'm out of here," that should be their right. Anything else is legally tying them into a religion - when they have the right to free practice of their religion, whatever it may be.

And it is.

Like I said, such a contract basically says that one party gets to exert control over the rights of two other parties and gets to entirely control dissolution of the contract, while providing nothing material to either. In *any* court of law, this would be declared an unconscionable contract as soon as it were challenged.

Meanwhile, it is interesting to see that there is a church that considers itself party to a marriage, rather than God. Way to remove the deity from the equation and put yourself in God's place, rev.

q

That's one of the dumbest statements I've ever heard. I know that sounds harsh, but it's a pretty silly thing to say. First of all, I wasn't talking about the changing beliefs of any church. I was talking about the fact that individual beliefs change over time, whether they agree with the church or not. And "true believer" does not mean that your beliefs will never change, or that you will always agree with any given church. In fact, someone who changed their beliefs just because someone else said so wouldn't be a "true believer" at all.

Oooh, careful there. Different topic thinking cap on now, but I think you don't realize the hazard ahead for your other topics of interest if you say that quote too much. Think of the few so called 'progressive' churches that want to change some of their previous doctrines to be more ‘open.’

I believe I've seen some of your other posts on topics to include you favoring some of those changes. Changes that I would think you would like to see mandated even. No?

And as soon as they want it out of their marriage, they should be free to do so. As soon as they want to say, "Look rev, I really don't agree with your teachings any more, I'm out of here," that should be their right.

And it is.

Like I said, such a contract basically says that one party gets to exert control over the rights of two other parties and gets to entirely control dissolution of the contract, while providing nothing material to either. In *any* court of law, this would be declared an unconscionable contract as soon as it were challenged.

Meanwhile, it is interesting to see that there is a church that considers itself party to a marriage, rather than God. Way to remove the deity from the equation and put yourself in God's place, rev.

Typically this is done to protect either party or the children involved. If I have a contract, with you, and another person, it may only be brocken if all 3agree. this is basic law. If people chose to make a contract withthe church, they must hold to the contract. noone forces them to enter into such a contract. But if they do, they are agreeing to stay in contract, unless disolved by all 3 parties. You may not agree with this, so don't do it. If people want to do this, then they need to stay with the 'contract.'

And as soon as they want it out of their marriage, they should be free to do so. As soon as they want to say, "Look rev, I really don't agree with your teachings any more, I'm out of here," that should be their right. Anything else is legally tying them into a religion - when they have the right to free practice of their religion, whatever it may be.

And it is.

Like I said, such a contract basically says that one party gets to exert control over the rights of two other parties and gets to entirely control dissolution of the contract, while providing nothing material to either. In *any* court of law, this would be declared an unconscionable contract as soon as it were challenged.

Meanwhile, it is interesting to see that there is a church that considers itself party to a marriage, rather than God. Way to remove the deity from the equation and put yourself in God's place, rev.


You are too harsh. You say, let people marry any way they want, he then describes an attempt by their church to enforce in people's minds the seriousness of the marriage vows by getting them to promise to the church as well as their spouse (if it works or not is not my point) and YOU attack him for taking the deity out and for showing how the contract is not an actual 'legally' enforceable contract?

Who cares if it's court room enforceable, they could theoretically be excommunicated or booted out of the church membership, and you tsk tsk at their very attempt to reduce divorce... so much for open mindedness and allowing people to marry how they want.

That has nothing to do with divorce. That is just people.

If you don't allow them to divorce... then what? They obviously don't WANT to be together, so they resent the close confines... or they abuse each other... or they take it out in other ways... or the children suffer from being raised in a household where the parents hate each other... etc.

Divorce isn't breaking a marriage. It is admitting that a marriage already IS broken.

Well, if you read my post, I did not say don't allow divorce, I just said there should be consequences. The consequences could by decided by mutual consent at the time of the marriage, and be part of the contract/covenant. My mom made a covenant before God, angels, and witnesses to love and be an equal partner to my dad for time and all eternity. 20 years later she walks away with no explanation. It seems to me that someone that is willing to make that serious of a commitment, should not just expect to walk away scot free.

It wasn't that "they" did not want to be together, it was that SHE no longer wanted to be married. No reason given.

Also are you saying that even though it takes 2 people to make a marriage, it only takes one to break it? Where is the equality under the law in that?

My parents, for one.

How old where you? I was 17. For me, the only decent part of my life was that my family was happy. My mom ended that out of selfishness. I came very close to committing suicide over the next year.

Meanwhile, it is interesting to see that there is a church that considers itself party to a marriage, rather than God. Way to remove the deity from the equation and put yourself in God's place, rev.

Let me clarify
Its not just a church, its any church. The church is the representative of God on earth. admittetly many don't do such a good job of that. However legally speaking the church is the 3rd party, because the State does not recognise 'God' on a marriage contract:) Though that would be fun to take to court. It's like the nuns and monks. Though they are 'married to christ' the church is the representation of that on earth. So yes God is the 3rd party, but the church is legally the representative in a church marriage

Oooh, careful there. Different topic thinking cap on now, but I think you don't realize the hazard ahead for your other topics of interest if you say that quote too much. Think of the few so called 'progressive' churches that want to change some of their previous doctrines to be more ‘open.’

Then they should do so. If members agree with those changes (some obviously do, or the changes wouldn't be made in the first place), then they will wish to remain in that church. If members disagree, they may leave the church. Some may stay with the church and eventually change their views.

The point is that, if you change your beliefs just because the reverend said so, or your cousin Bobby said so, without there being more to it, you quite obviously didn't hold those beliefs in the first place.

I believe I've seen some of your other posts on topics to include you favoring some of those changes. Changes that I would think you would like to see mandated even. No?

Changes in what? And no, I don't want to see any religious doctrine mandated on anyone.


Typically this is done to protect either party or the children involved.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!

If two people feel the need to get divorced, not being allowed to do so will not protect either party or any children. It will do nothing more than make life hell for them. And, should either party take custody of the children and then remarry, but not legally because some church has denied them that right, the children will be more in danger, as one of their parents will be unable to be legally responsible for them.

If I have a contract, with you, and another person, it may only be brocken if all 3agree. this is basic law.

Indeed, but if the contract is unconscionable, a judge can do away with it. A contract in which one party (here, the church) says, "I get to take control over how you run your life. I provide nothing material to this contract. It's all your possessions and your legal rights that are being altered, but I get to decide how and if it can ever be dissolved," is quite clearly an unconscionable contract. It gives one party power over the legal rights of the others. It is a logically equivalent contract to, "I get your right to vote. Sign here."

If people chose to make a contract withthe church, they must hold to the contract. noone forces them to enter into such a contract. But if they do, they are agreeing to stay in contract, unless disolved by all 3 parties. You may not agree with this, so don't do it. If people want to do this, then they need to stay with the 'contract.'

It isn't dissolved by all three parties, however. One party gets full and complete rights over determining the situation in which the contract will be dissolved, while contributing absolutely nothing else. Like I said, clearly an unconscionable contract.

True. And it hurts the kids as well. More than the parents in many cases. In making it peoples choice what marriage system they want, it lets people make the coice 'is it worth getting hurt.'

Thank you. My dad would cry as he talked about how much he loved my mom and that he didn't understand why she would leave. I ended up very distrustfull of people in general and women in particular. It took me until I was 31 to find a woman that I could trust to not abandon me the way that my mom abandoned my dad and me. I am happily married now, but the # of women that I met that were selfish was scary. To be fair, it is not all their fault. When their mothers and society have shown them that there are no consequenses to their choices, what can we expect?

It isn't dissolved by all three parties, however. One party gets full and complete rights over determining the situation in which the contract will be dissolved, while contributing absolutely nothing else. Like I said, clearly an unconscionable contract.

Try to hire someone on a contract. Agree to pay them, then disolve the contract. See if one person can disolve a contract without consent from the other party. Fo that matter try to lease a house, and then move out before the lease is over. You still are required to pay. in c aontract by deffinition, all parties are required to abide by the contract untill it is disolved by all parties, or the end of the term.

Really? It was just a contract before Mesopotamia? You mean like before the Sumerians?

Please, tell us, I'm really interested to find out how you know what they did before the Sumerians were around? Seeing has how they invented writing and all, what do you use to know their methodologies before that? Clairvoyance, or perhaps séances?

Ah yes, the written word is supreme. Pooh to the illiterate or purely oral...

Aboriginal peoples (for example) married for love, or for benefit. Cree marriages were (and some continue to be) arranged for a specific purpose. Marriage was the symbolic enactment of the contract being entered into. The fact that these contracts were no written down is of no consequence.

Agreed, my apologies. That interpretation was so far from my actual thinking that I didn't see the possibility of it being read that way until you exposed me to it.

For fairness:


In hindsight and after seeing your objection, I wish I would have defined the last "it" as what "it" is (was meant to be). That "it" is = Marriage mechanism understaning. So, what I was trying to say was, you can't abuse people in proper marriage, only broken marriage understanding would allow someone to even think that they could. Again, my apologies.

I began to realise we MUST be at crossed purposes on that - thanks for apologising - not many would.

Thank you. My dad would cry as he talked about how much he loved my mom and that he didn't understand why she would leave. I ended up very distrustfull of people in general and women in particular. It took me until I was 31 to find a woman that I could trust to not abandon me the way that my mom abandoned my dad and me. I am happily married now, but the # of women that I met that were selfish was scary. To be fair, it is not all their fault. When their mothers and society have shown them that there are no consequenses to their choices, what can we expect?

Trust is hard to find these days. I feel for people like you and your father who have been forced to go through sytuations like this. Things sometimes suck. I'm glad you've found a woman you can trust.

You are too harsh. You say, let people marry any way they want, he then describes an attempt by their church to enforce in people's minds the seriousness of the marriage vows by getting them to promise to the church as well as their spouse (if it works or not is not my point) and YOU attack him for taking the deity out and for showing how the contract is not an actual 'legally' enforceable contract?

We aren't talking about promising. Promising is fine. And when the person's opinion changes, then they may decide otherwise.

Meanwhile, I am the one showing that the contract is not legally enforceable. He is claiming that it should be, as per the topic of discussion in this thread.

Who cares if it's court room enforceable, they could theoretically be excommunicated or booted out of the church membership, and you tsk tsk at their very attempt to reduce divorce... so much for open mindedness and allowing people to marry how they want.

My dear, the entire topic of conversation is making it a legally enforceable contract, rather than a church-enforced one. I have no problem with a church excommunicating members or refusing to recognize a divorce and then remarry them. I do have a problem with any attempt to make the church's decisions legally enforceable on people. It makes just as much sense as, "You've been baptised in a Baptist church, so you are legally unable to convert to Islam."


Let me clarify
Its not just a church, its any church.

Fine. So what happens when a couple marries in one church and then moves to another? Or maybe they just stop going altogether? What if they convert to an entirely different religion?

The church is the representative of God on earth.

Any human being can be the representative of God on earth.

admittetly many don't do such a good job of that.

Indeed. And when a legal representative of someone isn't doing a good job of it, they lose their right to do so - generally court ordered. Of course, whether or not any given church is doing a good job of this is pretty much open to interpretation, no? So shouldn't it be the believers who get to decide?

However legally speaking the church is the 3rd party, because the State does not recognise 'God' on a marriage contract Though that would be fun to take to court. It's like the nuns and monks. Though they are 'married to christ' the church is the representation of that on earth. So yes God is the 3rd party, but the church is legally the representative in a church marriage

And you are advocating giving the church the right to make contracts that would be immediately declared unconscionable if a human being or corporation made them, but without the consequence of having them immediately thrown out of court that would occur to any other entity.

I like the idea of people sticking to their beliefs as long as no one is hurt or robbed of the power of consent because of those beliefs.

Try to hire someone on a contract. Agree to pay them, then disolve the contract. See if one person can disolve a contract without consent from the other party. Fo that matter try to lease a house, and then move out before the lease is over. You still are required to pay. in c aontract by deffinition, all parties are required to abide by the contract untill it is disolved by all parties, or the end of the term.

All of these are irrelevant examples. In the church-marriage contract you are advocating, the church is the only party that gets to decide whether or not a divorce is granted - whether or not the contract can be dissolved. Meanwhile, the church provides nothing to the contract. It isn't being hired, it isn't leasing anything. It is basically saying, "If you sign this, I get to decide how you live your life. I get to lock you into a religion you may or may not agree with in 10 years. I get to control your personal relationships and how you pursue them."

"If you work for me, I'll pay you $X," isn't an unconscionable contract unless the pay is disproportionate to the work. "I get to control your life decisions just because you sign this," is an unconscionable contract no matter how you look at it.

Trust is hard to find these days. I feel for people like you and your father who have been forced to go through sytuations like this. Things sometimes suck. I'm glad you've found a woman you can trust.

Thank you again. She is wonderfull, and has brought much joy to my life.

Ah yes, the written word is supreme. Pooh to the illiterate or purely oral...

Aboriginal peoples (for example) married for love, or for benefit. Cree marriages were (and some continue to be) arranged for a specific purpose. Marriage was the symbolic enactment of the contract being entered into. The fact that these contracts were no written down is of no consequence.



True, that. Unfortunatelly though oral is important, it's also subjective. Much exists in oral, but much has been lost. I agree that it doesn't matter if things where written down or not. however 'proving these things' is tough. If we diadn't have writing, archeologists in the future might have assumed we worshiped lawn ornamets. Anything in history is difficult to 'prove' at best.

All of these are irrelevant examples. In the church-marriage contract you are advocating, the church is the only party that gets to decide whether or not a divorce is granted - whether or not the contract can be dissolved. Meanwhile, the church provides nothing to the contract. It isn't being hired, it isn't leasing anything. It is basically saying, "If you sign this, I get to decide how you live your life. I get to lock you into a religion you may or may not agree with in 10 years. I get to control your personal relationships and how you pursue them."

"If you work for me, I'll pay you $X," isn't an unconscionable contract unless the pay is disproportionate to the work. "I get to control your life decisions just because you sign this," is an unconscionable contract no matter how you look at it.


In a church marriage, all 3 have to be agreed that a divorce is warented. Not just the church

Besides people can still seek out civil marriages. Also the government recognizes only covanent marriages as church marriages. And in a covenant marriage, these are the reasons allowing diviorce
1. Cruelty
2. Desertion
3. Adultery
4. Alcoholism
5. Felony conviction
6. Nonsupport

Well, if you read my post, I did not say don't allow divorce, I just said there should be consequences. The consequences could by decided by mutual consent at the time of the marriage, and be part of the contract/covenant. My mom made a covenant before God, angels, and witnesses to love and be an equal partner to my dad for time and all eternity. 20 years later she walks away with no explanation. It seems to me that someone that is willing to make that serious of a commitment, should not just expect to walk away scot free.

It wasn't that "they" did not want to be together, it was that SHE no longer wanted to be married. No reason given.

Also are you saying that even though it takes 2 people to make a marriage, it only takes one to break it? Where is the equality under the law in that?

Has it occured to you that, just perhaps, you don't know all the story?

You might not want to hear it, but maybe your loving father, was also actually an abusive husband?

Of course - it doesn't have to be that, there are numerous other reasons people just CAN'T stay together.

When you say you aren't talking about 'not allowing divorce'... instead, you are talking about "consequences"... what do you REALLY think that 'consequences' means? In real terms?

If you are talking punitive actions - the only result will be that people will stay in broken marriages longer rather than face additional 'punishment'... so battered wives will stay with abusive husbands longer... mothers who fear their husbands are sexually predating their children will risk their children longer... people that are trapped in unfaithful relationships will put up with it longer.

None of that is good.

You say the divorce in your stated case was not consensual... but ONE of the partners definitely DID want a divorce (even if YOU don't know why). What would you rather... that that person had been bound into non-consensual continuation of the marriage?

No matter which way you look at it - both people ended up NOT wanting one common thing. No matter which way it resolved, someone was going to be unhappy... and, for my sake, I prefer the option that does NOT make one person the emotional prisoner/hostage of the other.

Ah yes, the written word is supreme. Pooh to the illiterate or purely oral...

I didn't say that, nor even imply it. I was attacking the idea that he could know today what they believed then since they were six thousand years ago AND they didn't leave anything in writing for him to read... I did not attack any non-literate peoples, not even a little, not a one.

Aboriginal peoples (for example) married for love, or for benefit. Cree marriages were (and some continue to be) arranged for a specific purpose. Marriage was the symbolic enactment of the contract being entered into. The fact that these contracts were no written down is of no consequence.

In other words, they marry for the same reasons the world's people have always done it. BTW: "the symbolic enactment" makes me think there might be some prayers involved? If yes, I think I might have scored another point again in the religious contract discussion.

No matter which way you look at it - both people ended up NOT wanting one common thing. No matter which way it resolved, someone was going to be unhappy... and, for my sake, I prefer the option that does NOT make one person the emotional prisoner/hostage of the other.


While I woulden't call the person a hostage, If you want to be able to leave a marriage anytime you want, than write that into your prenups. Your choice. Good luck with that. Some of us prefer the other options. Our choice. Good luck with that.

get it?
Our choce
Your choice
They are different
I respect your choice, you respect mine.
Tolerance is respecting things or people when you disagree with them. If I don't disagree with them I don't need to be tollerant, I agree.
Choice is what it's all about. Yust be ready to live with the consequences of your choice

Incidently, like the old quote goes

"I disagree entirely, totally and absolutely with your opinion, but I'll defent to the death your right to say it."

...If we diadn't have writing, archeologists in the future might have assumed we worshiped lawn ornamets. Anything in history is difficult to 'prove' at best.


log entry for December 12th, Year of our lord; 3152.
Today we discovered the church of the Pink Flamingo went as far as the Pacific beaches of western Arizona, next week we will be doing deep see investigative trench digs to see if the Pink Flamingo cult extended as far as the underwater city of L.A.


Oh I can so see that article in my minds eye! :p

log entry for December 12th, Year of our lord; 3152.
Today we discovered the church of the Pink Flamingo went as far as the Pacific beaches of western Arizona, next week we will be doing deep see investigative trench digs to see if the Pink Flamingo cult extended as far as the underwater city of L.A.


Oh I can so see that article in my minds eye! :p


LOL

That's the funniest thing I've heard this week

OI oi oi
that is too funny

True, that. Unfortunatelly though oral is important, it's also subjective. Much exists in oral, but much has been lost. I agree that it doesn't matter if things where written down or not. however 'proving these things' is tough. If we diadn't have writing, archeologists in the future might have assumed we worshiped lawn ornamets. Anything in history is difficult to 'prove' at best.

Unfortunately, writing is also highly subjective.

Not all cultures have lost their oral traditions. Those that have tend to discount those of us who have maintained links to those traditions for tens of thousands of years. Written or not, if confirmation is desired, then one should rely on anthropological evidence as far as is possible. Just because some inbred Jesuit priest wrote down his fantasies about our people does not suddenly make his ethnocentric and highly ignorant ramblings more 'true' than our oral histories.

If we die out, then perhaps our traditions will be a mystery. That's fine with me, considering how maligned and misrepresented our customs and beliefs tend to be when written down by western scholars.

Also are you saying that even though it takes 2 people to make a marriage, it only takes one to break it? Where is the equality under the law in that?
It takes two people to make a marriage, just as you said. But not just to make it...to maintain it. If you've got one of the two people wanting to get the hell out of there, then clearly you don't have 2 people making the marriage any more.

As for "equality under the law," what does that have to do with anything? If we are equals, then your desire to be married to me does not trump my desire to not be married to you. You don't get to say that you have some "right" to be married to me against my wishes. There is no "right" to be married to somebody else.

While I woulden't call the person a hostage, If you want to be able to leave a marriage anytime you want, than write that into your prenups. Your choice. Good luck with that. Some of us prefer the other options. Our choice. Good luck with that.
I hate to be the one to break this to you, but in much of the US (as well as plenty of other places in the world) you don't need a prenup to be able to leave a marriage when you want to.

While I woulden't call the person a hostage, If you want to be able to leave a marriage anytime you want, than write that into your prenups. Your choice. Good luck with that. Some of us prefer the other options. Our choice. Good luck with that.

I think you misunderstand me.

I am in a marriage... there are no prenups. It was a cute little church ceremony, all above board, and right with the church. I intend it to be the only time I will ever be married. I expect that this marriage will be the marriage that my wife is similalry committed to.

I'm not looking for an out, I'm not choosing options.

But I AM being a realist... and it REALISTICALLY might not be possible for these two people to stay together as they had once intended.

If my wife changes her mind, and NEEDS out... I don't want to 'punish' her into staying. That sure as hell doesn't resemble anything LIKE the marriage I signed up for. I don't think she should be bound by contract to stay in an unhappy relationship, and I don't think she should have to worry about further earthly punishments on top of a failed marriage.

I love this person. You don't wish shit like that on people you love.

Unfortunately, writing is also highly subjective.

Not all cultures have lost their oral traditions. Those that have tend to discount those of us who have maintained links to those traditions for tens of thousands of years. Written or not, if confirmation is desired, then one should rely on anthropological evidence as far as is possible. Just because some inbred Jesuit priest wrote down his fantasies about our people does not suddenly make his ethnocentric and highly ignorant ramblings more 'true' than our oral histories.

If we die out, then perhaps our traditions will be a mystery. That's fine with me, considering how maligned and misrepresented our customs and beliefs tend to be when written down by western scholars.

You are right. Written materials are also very subjective. however there is only the writer bias to getby when interpreting things (presuming he wrote what he saw). However in oral traditions, you have a whole line of peoples biases to get by, for noone repeats verbatum.

Has it occured to you that, just perhaps, you don't know all the story?

You might not want to hear it, but maybe your loving father, was also actually an abusive husband?

Of course - it doesn't have to be that, there are numerous other reasons people just CAN'T stay together.

When you say you aren't talking about 'not allowing divorce'... instead, you are talking about "consequences"... what do you REALLY think that 'consequences' means? In real terms?

If you are talking punitive actions - the only result will be that people will stay in broken marriages longer rather than face additional 'punishment'... so battered wives will stay with abusive husbands longer... mothers who fear their husbands are sexually predating their children will risk their children longer... people that are trapped in unfaithful relationships will put up with it longer.

None of that is good.

You say the divorce in your stated case was not consensual... but ONE of the partners definitely DID want a divorce (even if YOU don't know why). What would you rather... that that person had been bound into non-consensual continuation of the marriage?

No matter which way you look at it - both people ended up NOT wanting one common thing. No matter which way it resolved, someone was going to be unhappy... and, for my sake, I prefer the option that does NOT make one person the emotional prisoner/hostage of the other.

So, instead, you would prefer that one person be allowed to damage 8 others (my dad, myself, my 4 brothers, and 2 sisters) because she did not want to live up to a commiment she made? There was NO abuse of her or us, EVER! My dad supported my mom, was faithfull to her, obeyed the law, and was loved and respected in our community. My mom just decided that she did not want to be married. So, she is allowed by the law to walk away, break the contract she entered into of her own free will and choice, abandon her children, and take half of the assets my dad had built of through 20 years of hard work. Again, where is the equal justice under the law in that?

You are right. Written materials are also very subjective. however there is only the writer bias to getby when interpreting things (presuming he wrote what he saw). However in oral traditions, you have a whole line of peoples biases to get by, for noone repeats verbatum.

But you also have many more people ensuring accuracy. Oral traditions are not passed down one person to one person, they are passed down by many to many. Someone starts adding in or embellishing, and they get called on it, immediately.

And it makes a heck of a lot more sense to pay attention to a people's interpretation of themselves, than it does to pay attention to the interpretations of an ignorant outsider. Unless of course you simply delight in the ridiculous...

My mom just decided that she did not want to be married. So, she is allowed by the law to walk away, break the contract she entered into of her own free will and choice, abandon her children, and take half of the assets my dad had built of through 20 years of hard work. Again, where is the equal justice under the law in that?No offence, but it sure sounds like you've only ever gotten one side of a story that can never only have one side.

I think you misunderstand me.

I am in a marriage... there are no prenups. It was a cute little church ceremony, all above board, and right with the church. I intend it to be the only time I will ever be married. I expect that this marriage will be the marriage that my wife is similalry committed to.

I'm not looking for an out, I'm not choosing options.

But I AM being a realist... and it REALISTICALLY might not be possible for these two people to stay together as they had once intended.

I love this person. You don't wish shit like that on people you love.


That is you're (both) choice

But you also have many more people ensuring accuracy. Oral traditions are not passed down one person to one person, they are passed down by many to many. Someone starts adding in or embellishing, and they get called on it, immediately.

And it makes a heck of a lot more sense to pay attention to a people's interpretation of themselves, than it does to pay attention to the interpretations of an ignorant outsider. Unless of course you simply delight in the ridiculous...

Valid point. If there is a group of people route memorizing traditions, it is likely to be highly accurate

So, instead, you would prefer that one person be allowed to damage 8 others (my dad, myself, my 4 brothers, and 2 sisters) because she did not want to live up to a commiment she made?

We're talking about legal divorce, here. Let's be really clear about that.

I don't think it's a good idea for anybody to ditch out on their family. But it's quite possible to divorce without doing that. If your mom happened to make some lousy choices, and if she hurt her family, then that sucks and I am honestly sorry for what you endured. However, I sincerely doubt that your life would have turned out peachy if only your mother had been legally forced to stay with a family that she (apparently) really really wanted to ditch.


There was NO abuse of her or us, EVER! My dad supported my mom, was faithfull to her, obeyed the law, and was loved and respected in our community. My mom just decided that she did not want to be married.

Your mom didn't want to be married. Do you really think things would have been better for you if she was forced to remain in a marriage she didn't want? Do you think you could have somehow forced her to want to stay with your dad? Do you think forcing her to stay with him would make her LESS angry and resentful? Do you really think you can just chain people up and MAKE them love you, or MAKE them want to care for you?

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.


So, she is allowed by the law to walk away, break the contract she entered into of her own free will and choice, abandon her children, and take half of the assets my dad had built of through 20 years of hard work. Again, where is the equal justice under the law in that?
What is all this crap about "equal justice under the law"? Your father could legally do everything she did. He didn't choose to do so, your mother did. That's not the fault of the laws.

Honestly, I think a big problem here is that so many people view marriage as a contract that you enter into and then the deed is done. Marriage is ON-GOING. It's not like you sign a paper and voila! marriage! Marriage is something that must be built, maintained, and upheld. One person cannot build a marriage for two. A marriage cannot be maintained if one person flat-out does not want it. You can legally force them to remain in a relationship, to stay in the home, or to go through the motions, but the actual marriage is over in every way that counts.

It takes two people to make a marriage, just as you said. But not just to make it...to maintain it. If you've got one of the two people wanting to get the hell out of there, then clearly you don't have 2 people making the marriage any more.

As for "equality under the law," what does that have to do with anything? If we are equals, then your desire to be married to me does not trump my desire to not be married to you. You don't get to say that you have some "right" to be married to me against my wishes. There is no "right" to be married to somebody else.

Okay, I'll grant that one person desiring to be married and the other does not are both equal PRIOR to the marriage. However, once the marriage contact/covenant has been entered into of their own free will and consent, then one person should not be able to break the contract without consequenses. If one spouse breaks the contract by being abusive of the other or the children, or breaks the law, or is unfaithfull to the contract, i.e adultery, they should have to pay for breaking the contract. The same goes for someone deciding that "I just don't want to be married anymore". The penalties could be that the party breaking the contract forfeits any right to assets created under the contract, including children. If people knew that they could not break their marriage, and keep their children and get their spouse's money, maybe they would reconsider their selfishness.

But you also have many more people ensuring accuracy. Oral traditions are not passed down one person to one person, they are passed down by many to many. Someone starts adding in or embellishing, and they get called on it, immediately.

And it makes a heck of a lot more sense to pay attention to a people's interpretation of themselves, than it does to pay attention to the interpretations of an ignorant outsider. Unless of course you simply delight in the ridiculous...

At the same time a peoples view of themselves in only one side of the story. a valid one, but sometimes an outsider can have greate insights. not always. sometimes. there's 2 sides to every coin.

Honestly, I think a big problem here is that so many people view marriage as a contract that you enter into and then the deed is done. Marriage is ON-GOING. It's not like you sign a paper and voila! marriage! Marriage is something that must be built, maintained, and upheld. One person cannot build a marriage for two. A marriage cannot be maintained if one person flat-out does not want it. You can legally force them to remain in a relationship, to stay in the home, or to go through the motions, but the actual marriage is over in every way that counts.


I agree whith the part that marriage is an ongoing comitment. It does need to be maintained

Okay, I'll grant that one person desiring to be married and the other does not are both equal PRIOR to the marriage. However, once the marriage contact/covenant has been entered into of their own free will and consent, then one person should not be able to break the contract without consequenses. If one spouse breaks the contract by being abusive of the other or the children, or breaks the law, or is unfaithfull to the contract, i.e adultery, they should have to pay for breaking the contract. The same goes for someone deciding that "I just don't want to be married anymore". The penalties could be that the party breaking the contract forfeits any right to assets created under the contract, including children. If people knew that they could not break their marriage, and keep their children and get their spouse's money, maybe they would reconsider their selfishness.


Deterants have often worked.

At the same time a peoples view of themselves in only one side of the story. a valid one, but sometimes an outsider can have greate insights. not always. sometimes. there's 2 sides to every coin.

Depends on what we're talking about, doesn't it. In terms of marriage, the most accurate description of our ceremonies and purposes are contained in our oral traditions, and in the fact that we continue to conduct our ceremonies in much the same way. Unless you are privy to our language and our ceremonies themselves, you have no way of describing them, in writing or otherwise. And anthropologists are notorious for ignoring what we tell them in favour of writing what they want to. So, "this marriage links our two tribes until the seventh generation and ensures that we have a defence pact" becomes, "and the quaint little savages exchange bundles, dance and sing and then pick up camp and depart."

So, instead, you would prefer that one person be allowed to damage 8 others (my dad, myself, my 4 brothers, and 2 sisters) because she did not want to live up to a commiment she made? There was NO abuse of her or us, EVER! My dad supported my mom, was faithfull to her, obeyed the law, and was loved and respected in our community. My mom just decided that she did not want to be married. So, she is allowed by the law to walk away, break the contract she entered into of her own free will and choice, abandon her children, and take half of the assets my dad had built of through 20 years of hard work. Again, where is the equal justice under the law in that?

How do you know there was no abuse? I'm not meaning to be rude here, but 'rape within marriage' is a fairly recent entity in the courts... it was previously not even considered a possibility, in legal terms.

How do you know your mother wasn't raped by her husband? Or forced to have sex with his workmates? Or forced to have anal sex which she found degrading?

Most people don't have THAT degree of intimate conversation with their parents - so I fell it very likely you don't know FOR SURE what the reasons are behind your mother wishing to leave the marriage.


Of course - it might be nothing like that... it might simply be that she could not STAND living with your father for another minute. If you've ever had two friends... both friends with YOU, but not with each other - you'll easily understand how you could still have a good relationship with your father, even if your mother couldn't.


I'm sorry - but it sounds like you are bitter... angry at your mother for leaving. ANd it makes me think, just maybe, you have never really TRIED to understand why she might make a decision like that. Indeed, the fact you write it off so flippantly "My mom just decided that she did not want to be married", or "she did not want to live up to a commiment she made" suggests you might not have honestly even tried to spot what was really wrong.


Last point... 'equal justice'? Who cares about 'equal justice'? This isn't justice... this is love, this is marriage. If you want 'justice', find a way of marrying that doesn't involve the quirks and foibles of human hearts, and where everything can be decided by a jury.

No offence, but it sure sounds like you've only ever gotten one side of a story that can never only have one side.

I have asked my mom repeatedly over the last 15 years, as have my brothers and sisters to explain her reasons. She never has. She will just sit there and stare off into space until we change the subject. I asked her best friends, and they did not know either. Considering the stigma attached to divorce in our community (not as much now, but certainly significant then), if my mom had any reason other than "I just don't want to be married", then she would have told it to everyone.

That is you're (both) choice

And? What is the point of your post?

I have asked my mom repeatedly over the last 15 years, as have my brothers and sisters to explain her reasons. She never has. She will just sit there and stare off into space until we change the subject. I asked her best friends, and they did not know either. Considering the stigma attached to divorce in our community (not as much now, but certainly significant then), if my mom had any reason other than "I just don't want to be married", then she would have told it to everyone.

Or it is something she is not willing to share, because the stigma is greater even than the stigma of divorce.

I think you misunderstand me.

I am in a marriage... there are no prenups. It was a cute little church ceremony, all above board, and right with the church. I intend it to be the only time I will ever be married. I expect that this marriage will be the marriage that my wife is similalry committed to.

I'm not looking for an out, I'm not choosing options.

But I AM being a realist... and it REALISTICALLY might not be possible for these two people to stay together as they had once intended.

If my wife changes her mind, and NEEDS out... I don't want to 'punish' her into staying. That sure as hell doesn't resemble anything LIKE the marriage I signed up for. I don't think she should be bound by contract to stay in an unhappy relationship, and I don't think she should have to worry about further earthly punishments on top of a failed marriage.

I love this person. You don't wish shit like that on people you love.
Exactly.

Personally, I would place absolutely zero value on my relationship if my partner were legally forced to stay with me. The whole point, for me, is that my partner can leave any time he wants. He is not bound to me by anything other than his own desire to be my companion.

I would not value our relationship if it were otherwise. I have no desire to force my partner to stay with me ONE MOMENT longer than he wants to.

Instead, I focus on ensuring that my partner wishes to stay with me. I make sure to show him kindness, respect, and affection. I help build a life with him that we both value and enjoy, and which we both wish to uphold and sustain.

It is certainly scary to think that a person I care about so much could one day decide to leave me. It's pretty damn terrifying, to be honest, because I'm pretty nuts about this fellow. I understand the desire to enforce some kind of certainty, and to make sure that you cannot be hurt in that way. But sometimes what may feel good at first is not a good idea in the long run.

I have asked my mom repeatedly over the last 15 years, as have my brothers and sisters to explain her reasons. She never has. She will just sit there and stare off into space until we change the subject. I asked her best friends, and they did not know either. Considering the stigma attached to divorce in our community (not as much now, but certainly significant then), if my mom had any reason other than "I just don't want to be married", then she would have told it to everyone.

Why would you make that assumption? Not telling you her reasons does not mean she didn't have any. One does not make such a decision lightly. Perhaps she doesn't think you need to know why, or believes that knowing why will be more damaging than not knowing.

Why would you make that assumption? Not telling you her reasons does not mean she didn't have any. One does not make such a decision lightly. Perhaps she doesn't think you need to know why, or believes that knowing why will be more damaging than not knowing.

or, perhaps, she just doesn't want to tell you.

Okay, I'll grant that one person desiring to be married and the other does not are both equal PRIOR to the marriage. However, once the marriage contact/covenant has been entered into of their own free will and consent, then one person should not be able to break the contract without consequenses. If one spouse breaks the contract by being abusive of the other or the children, or breaks the law, or is unfaithfull to the contract, i.e adultery, they should have to pay for breaking the contract.

If that's what you want, write it into your prenup.


The same goes for someone deciding that "I just don't want to be married anymore". The penalties could be that the party breaking the contract forfeits any right to assets created under the contract, including children. If people knew that they could not break their marriage, and keep their children and get their spouse's money, maybe they would reconsider their selfishness.
I don't think it's remotely "selfish" to admit that you don't want to be married any more. Again, you seem to assume that other people are entitled to be married to me. You seem to think there is some "right" to be in a relationship with another person. I don't see it that way. It's not "selfish" to say, "I don't want to be a part of this relationship any more. I am unhappy and do not desire this." That's called "honesty."

If a person feels that way, the marriage is already over. No amount of punishing them is going to change that fact. All you'll do is force more unhappy people to stay in marriages they don't want. Personally, I think that just further degrades marriage as an institution.

.

Exactly.

Personally, I would place absolutely zero value on my relationship if my partner were legally forced to stay with me. The whole point, for me, is that my partner can leave any time he wants. He is not bound to me by anything other than his own desire to be my companion.

I would not value our relationship if it were otherwise. I have no desire to force my partner to stay with me ONE MOMENT longer than he wants to.

Instead, I focus on ensuring that my partner wishes to stay with me. I make sure to show him kindness, respect, and affection. I help build a life with him that we both value and enjoy, and which we both wish to uphold and sustain.

It is certainly scary to think that a person I care about so much could one day decide to leave me. It's pretty damn terrifying, to be honest, because I'm pretty nuts about this fellow. I understand the desire to enforce some kind of certainty, and to make sure that you cannot be hurt in that way. But sometimes what may feel good at first is not a good idea in the long run.

I can't understand how someone would wish to create the kind of environment a legally ENFORCED 'marriage' would foster.

Who would want to wish THAT kind of atmosphere on the children?

Who would want to do THAT to someone they claim they love?


I've heard the trite statement "If you love something, you have to let it go" a hundred times or more. It is a tired old cliche... but it came by it honest, because it just so happens, it is also one of those things that is true.

You can't keep 'love' in a bottle. You can't hold eternity captive.

How do you know there was no abuse? I'm not meaning to be rude here, but 'rape within marriage' is a fairly recent entity in the courts... it was previously not even considered a possibility, in legal terms.

How do you know your mother wasn't raped by her husband? Or forced to have sex with his workmates? Or forced to have anal sex which she found degrading?

Most people don't have THAT degree of intimate conversation with their parents - so I fell it very likely you don't know FOR SURE what the reasons are behind your mother wishing to leave the marriage.


Of course - it might be nothing like that... it might simply be that she could not STAND living with your father for another minute. If you've ever had two friends... both friends with YOU, but not with each other - you'll easily understand how you could still have a good relationship with your father, even if your mother couldn't.


I'm sorry - but it sounds like you are bitter... angry at your mother for leaving. ANd it makes me think, just maybe, you have never really TRIED to understand why she might make a decision like that. Indeed, the fact you write it off so flippantly "My mom just decided that she did not want to be married", or "she did not want to live up to a commiment she made" suggests you might not have honestly even tried to spot what was really wrong.


Last point... 'equal justice'? Who cares about 'equal justice'? This isn't justice... this is love, this is marriage. If you want 'justice', find a way of marrying that doesn't involve the quirks and foibles of human hearts, and where everything can be decided by a jury.

You are right. I am bitter. I have a right to be. People should live up to the commitments they make, and if they break them, especially the legal ones, there should be penalties. I would not have forced her to stay married to my dad, but I also would not have allowed her to drag him through a contested divorce process that took a year to conclude. If she wanted out, then she could have walked away. No claims on the children, no claims on any assets. That at least would have been less painfull.

The idea of anyone "forcing" my mom to do anything she did not want to is just hilarious. She is one of the most independant, self willed people I have ever met. People that publicly disagree with someone, and belittle their suggestions or requests, are not "little miss submissive" in private. It doesn't work that way.

Depends on what we're talking about, doesn't it. In terms of marriage, the most accurate description of our ceremonies and purposes are contained in our oral traditions, and in the fact that we continue to conduct our ceremonies in much the same way. Unless you are privy to our language and our ceremonies themselves, you have no way of describing them, in writing or otherwise. And anthropologists are notorious for ignoring what we tell them in favour of writing what they want to. So, "this marriage links our two tribes until the seventh generation and ensures that we have a defence pact" becomes, "and the quaint little savages exchange bundles, dance and sing and then pick up camp and depart."

lol.

good point

It would be hard for an outsider to apreciate the nuances of such an event

.

Hahahahahaaa....doesn't count, this is a written medium anyway...you wouldn't expect me to type out responses to you were we in the same room...I hope...

I have asked my mom repeatedly over the last 15 years, as have my brothers and sisters to explain her reasons. She never has. She will just sit there and stare off into space until we change the subject. I asked her best friends, and they did not know either. Considering the stigma attached to divorce in our community (not as much now, but certainly significant then), if my mom had any reason other than "I just don't want to be married", then she would have told it to everyone.
You really seem to leap to the worst possible conclusions about your mother.

What if she believes that telling you (or others) about her reasons would be even more hurtful than not telling you? What if she faces even more disapproval if she shares her real reasons than if she simply keeps her mouth shut about it?

If you're mad at your mother for abandoning you, that's one thing. It's perfectly fair and right for a kid to be pissed off at a parent who ditches them. But that's NOTHING TO DO with divorce. Whether or not your mom is married to your dad is totally and completely irrelevant to her being a mom to you. It is 100% possible to have a fabulous mom and a fabulous dad who are no longer married to one another. Indeed, I know several kids who only got to have fabulous parents BECAUSE their folks divorced.

If your mom decided to abandon her family, that's a different topic altogether. Hell, plenty of MARRIED PEOPLE abandon their kids. Abandonment and divorce are not synonymous.

Divorce isn't the problem in your family, and punishing your mom for seeking a divorce wouldn't have fixed one damn thing. It just would have made her miserable.

I can't understand how someone would wish to create the kind of environment a legally ENFORCED 'marriage' would foster.

Who would want to wish THAT kind of atmosphere on the children?

Who would want to do THAT to someone they claim they love?


I've heard the trite statement "If you love something, you have to let it go" a hundred times or more. It is a tired old cliche... but it came by it honest, because it just so happens, it is also one of those things that is true.

You can't keep 'love' in a bottle. You can't hold eternity captive.
Indeed.

Except for the part about "eternity." I hate that word. As well as "forever." Hallmark has ruined them. They're just stupid nothings that teenagers whisper to each other before somebody's cherry gets popped. :D

If she wanted out, then she could have walked away. No claims on the children, no claims on any assets. That at least would have been less painfull. It would have been less painful to know your mom didn't want anything to do with you after disolving a marriage with your father? If anything, the fact she still wanted contact with you should tell you something about her reasons for leaving...which likely had nothing to do with you.

Indeed.

Except for the part about "eternity." I hate that word. As well as "forever." Hallmark has ruined them. They're just stupid nothings that teenagers whisper to each other before somebody's cherry gets popped. :D

Obviously, when I said you couldn't keep love in a 'bottle', present company was excluded. ;)

You hate the word 'eternity'? So - you didn't mean it when you whispered it in my ear? *sobs*

It would have been less painful to know your mom didn't want anything to do with you after disolving a marriage with your father? If anything, the fact she still wanted contact with you should tell you something about her reasons for leaving...which likely had nothing to do with you.

No, I did not say contact, I said claim. Meaning custody, rights regarding, legal influence over.

Seperatly from that, I don't see how a parent can claim to love a child, then want to deprive them of their other parent without cause. Fortunatly, since I was 17 at the time, the judge (a woman) allowed me to choose which parent would have custody of me. Very few children get that choice.

You are right. I am bitter. I have a right to be.


No one is debating you 'right' to be bitter. That is just part of being human. Even the emotional pains leave wounds. There are no 'rights' to that. it just 'is'.


People should live up to the commitments they make, and if they break them, especially the legal ones, there should be penalties.


So - if I said I was going to take you to the park (verbal contract), but I break my leg and can't go... punitive actions should be in place because of my 'breach'?


I would not have forced her to stay married to my dad, but I also would not have allowed her to drag him through a contested divorce process that took a year to conclude. If she wanted out, then she could have walked away. No claims on the children, no claims on any assets. That at least would have been less painfull.


So - it isn't leaving that is the problem. It is the fact that she and he didn't agree on terms, and you feel bitter about the way THAT arbitration concluded?


The idea of anyone "forcing" my mom to do anything she did not want to is just hilarious. She is one of the most independant, self willed people I have ever met. People that publicly disagree with someone, and belittle their suggestions or requests, are not "little miss submissive" in private. It doesn't work that way.

Shows what you know.

Got your Psych qualifications online somewhere, so you can link to them?

You are right. I am bitter. I have a right to be. People should live up to the commitments they make, and if they break them, especially the legal ones, there should be penalties. I would not have forced her to stay married to my dad, but I also would not have allowed her to drag him through a contested divorce process that took a year to conclude. If she wanted out, then she could have walked away. No claims on the children, no claims on any assets. That at least would have been less painfull.

The idea of anyone "forcing" my mom to do anything she did not want to is just hilarious. She is one of the most independant, self willed people I have ever met. People that publicly disagree with someone, and belittle their suggestions or requests, are not "little miss submissive" in private. It doesn't work that way.

I wouldn't necessarily say that "penalties" is a good word there. Sometimes marriages fall apart for reasons that are the fault of neither partner.

However, you should not be allowed to take significant extra benefits out of your divorce - there is a certain amount of leeway on this (for example, a parent who gives up education to raise their children while their partner works will find it significantly harder to find work - it's something they sacrificed for their marriage and family), but I really hate the argument in court where large amounts of money beyond just basic standards of living are demanded because it hurts them financially to leave their partner.

Do your siblings share similar feelings about your mother? You seem to hold her in contempt, and whether it is deserved or not I can't help wondering why, if she didn't care about you and vice versa, she would push for child custody.

No, I did not say contact, I said claim. Meaning custody, rights regarding, legal influence over.

Seperatly from that, I don't see how a parent can claim to love a child, then want to deprive them of their other parent without cause. Fortunatly, since I was 17 at the time, the judge (a woman) allowed me to choose which parent would have custody of me. Very few children get that choice.

So in this hotly-contested divorce, your father was not trying to also get custody?

Hahahahahaaa....doesn't count, this is a written medium anyway...you wouldn't expect me to type out responses to you were we in the same room...I hope...

lol
nope

No, I did not say contact, I said claim. Meaning custody, rights regarding, legal influence over.

Seperatly from that, I don't see how a parent can claim to love a child, then want to deprive them of their other parent without cause. Fortunatly, since I was 17 at the time, the judge (a woman) allowed me to choose which parent would have custody of me. Very few children get that choice.

You were extremely lucky in that case - In a lot of cases, regardless of wages, time spent with the familiy, or even serious addictions (drugs, alcohol, gambling) Custody is awarded on the basis that "children need their mother"

So - if I said I was going to take you to the park (verbal contract), but I break my leg and can't go... punitive actions should be in place because of my 'breach'?



So - it isn't leaving that is the problem. It is the fact that she and he didn't agree on terms, and you feel bitter about the way THAT arbitration concluded?



Shows what you know.

Got your Psych qualifications online somewhere, so you can link to them?

If you said that you were going to take me to the park, and you did not, then the possible punitive actions are: no longer trusting you, considering you to be a liar, and dishonarable (of course this is presuming that it was your CHOICE to break your commitment to me, rather than being prevented from doing so), or utimatly severing our relationship.

No, the issue is not the divorce settlement, it is that she chose to break her commitments without cause. I feel that should be punished. The OP of this thread presented the idea of marriage as a contract. I am advocating this fully. In any business contract, there are penalties placed on any party that breaks it. The law does not force anyone to remain bound by a contract, but it does penalize the the party that breaches it. I would like to see this apply to marriage as well. Everything I have posted on this thread was in support of the idea presented in the OP.

No, I don't have any "Psych" qualifications other than my experience interacting with other people all my life. I don't have any respect for a profession where the primary tenent is "Man is an animal and has no soul".

Thank you. My dad would cry as he talked about how much he loved my mom and that he didn't understand why she would leave. I ended up very distrustfull of people in general and women in particular. It took me until I was 31 to find a woman that I could trust to not abandon me the way that my mom abandoned my dad and me. I am happily married now, but the # of women that I met that were selfish was scary. To be fair, it is not all their fault. When their mothers and society have shown them that there are no consequenses to their choices, what can we expect?

Do you honestly think you would have been better off if she had stayed? I can tell you from experience that children can tell when their parents are unhappy (just as you could with your father), and it isn't a good situation. I probably had more hangups with marriage because my parents stayed together as long as they did than I ever would have had if they had divorced earlier. I realized, after my parents divorce (so when I was 14) that, prior to that point, I can never remember seeing my mother truly happy. What do you think that does to a kid?

If you said that you were going to take me to the park, and you did not, then the possible punitive actions are: no longer trusting you, considering you to be a liar, and dishonarable (of course this is presuming that it was your CHOICE to break your commitment to me, rather than being prevented from doing so), or utimatly severing our relationship.

No, the issue is not the divorce settlement, it is that she chose to break her commitments without cause.


Again - just because YOU are ignorant of a cause, doesn't mean there IS no cause.

Everyone thought Jeri Ryan was happily married, and would have no cause for divorce, until she admitted her husband kept trying to force her into sex with other men.


I feel that should be punished. The OP of this thread presented the idea of marriage as a contract. I am advocating this fully. In any business contract, there are penalties placed on any party that breaks it. The law does not force anyone to remain bound by a contract, but it does penalize the the party that breaches it. I would like to see this apply to marriage as well. Everything I have posted on this thread was in support of the idea presented in the OP.


You can't legislate love. You can't MAKE the magic.

And the system shouldn't be tailored to allow bitter teens to hurt their parents just because the choose to play favourites.


No, I don't have any "Psych" qualifications other than my experience interacting with other people all my life. I don't have any respect for a profession where the primary tenent is "Man is an animal and has no soul".

And, I don't have any respect for assertions that "It doesn't work like that" based on nothing but wishful thinking.

In a church marriage, all 3 have to be agreed that a divorce is warented. Not just the church

But the church is given the ultimate decision making capability, as it has full control over what requirements must be met for a divorce. Meanwhile, it has no participation in the legal aspects of the marriage contract whatsoever. It contributes no material wealth to the couple. It does not make legal decisions for either (except, in this case, whether or not they can dissolve their legal attachments). It does not raise their children. It provides nothing whatsoever to the contract except its signature and control over whether or not that contract is dissolved.

Suppose my fiance and I decided to start a business together. A third party decided to sign the contract for some reason. That third party did not contribute to the business. They drew nothing from it. They owned no portion of it. My fiance and I now want to end the business, but that third party who has had nothing whatsoever to do with it from a legal standpoint doesn't want to allow it. Just how enforceable do you think that contract will be?

Add to it that marriage, by law, can be dissolved by either of the two parties, and does not require consent from both. One person can want to be married, and the other wants a divorce. Guess what the law does? It grants the divorce.

Do you honestly think you would have been better off if she had stayed? I can tell you from experience that children can tell when their parents are unhappy (just as you could with your father), and it isn't a good situation. I probably had more hangups with marriage because my parents stayed together as long as they did than I ever would have had if they had divorced earlier. I realized, after my parents divorce (so when I was 14) that, prior to that point, I can never remember seeing my mother truly happy. What do you think that does to a kid?

Got another one here. I'm 21 and my parents are still married. That's why I don't celebrate holidays with them, and generally avoid their home at all costs. My mother physically and verbally abused me until I was 18. My father was there to clean up the mess, so to speak. Had my parents divorced, he would have gained sole custody, and the bullshit would have stopped. Also, kicking her out of the house for days at a time and leaving her in the local psych ward for about a week per year would have been circumvented. However, my mother is still around, now medicated, still balancing the checkbook, cooking, paying bills, etc. She is little more than an argumentative live-in personal assistant/housekeeper.

So, instead, you would prefer that one person be allowed to damage 8 others (my dad, myself, my 4 brothers, and 2 sisters) because she did not want to live up to a commiment she made? There was NO abuse of her or us, EVER! My dad supported my mom, was faithfull to her, obeyed the law, and was loved and respected in our community. My mom just decided that she did not want to be married. So, she is allowed by the law to walk away, break the contract she entered into of her own free will and choice, abandon her children, and take half of the assets my dad had built of through 20 years of hard work. Again, where is the equal justice under the law in that?

You would have been equally, if not more, damaged if she had stayed in what was apparently, for her, an unhappy marriage.

I wouldn't necessarily say that "penalties" is a good word there. Sometimes marriages fall apart for reasons that are the fault of neither partner.

However, you should not be allowed to take significant extra benefits out of your divorce - there is a certain amount of leeway on this (for example, a parent who gives up education to raise their children while their partner works will find it significantly harder to find work - it's something they sacrificed for their marriage and family), but I really hate the argument in court where large amounts of money beyond just basic standards of living are demanded because it hurts them financially to leave their partner.

Do your siblings share similar feelings about your mother? You seem to hold her in contempt, and whether it is deserved or not I can't help wondering why, if she didn't care about you and vice versa, she would push for child custody.


Well, she said she loved me, and maybe she does as much as she is capable of loving anyone. She probably cares about me as much as she cares about anyone, which is minimal and insignificant. As I said she is selfish.

Also, whether she says she cares about me or not, what did her actions show? She tried to take my father away from me. That is NOT the action of a mother that cares about her child. (Unless the father is abusive, which he was not and I covered that in my prior posts.)

So in this hotly-contested divorce, your father was not trying to also get custody?


Sure he was. But he was not trying to deprive me of my other parent. My dad did not want the divorce, he still wanted to be married to my mom. Aside from that, he would have been okay with joint custody, and encouraged me to visit my mom.

If that's what you want, write it into your prenup.

It would most likely be considered an unconscionable contract and would never be enforced. You can't take all of a person's worldly possessions and any custody rights to their children away as the way to end a contract.

You were extremely lucky in that case - In a lot of cases, regardless of wages, time spent with the familiy, or even serious addictions (drugs, alcohol, gambling) Custody is awarded on the basis that "children need their mother"

Yes, I know. I know the family where the man was the first one in that state to be awarded custody of his children, and that was only in 1967. Prior to that all children went to the mother no matter what. There is still a strong influence that way.

Do you honestly think you would have been better off if she had stayed? I can tell you from experience that children can tell when their parents are unhappy (just as you could with your father), and it isn't a good situation. I probably had more hangups with marriage because my parents stayed together as long as they did than I ever would have had if they had divorced earlier. I realized, after my parents divorce (so when I was 14) that, prior to that point, I can never remember seeing my mother truly happy. What do you think that does to a kid?

I know what it does to a kid. My mom was not happy before she left my dad. However she had every reason to be happy and chose not to be. She was not happy after she divorced my dad, and is still not happy to this day. I am not sure that she has every been happy in her entire life. So, if she was miserable before the divorce, and miserable after, what did it benefit her? She just caused her husband and children to miserable as well.

(Don't particularly like having to post under my silly Nation name; don't take that seriously. LOL)

First off, I want to thank everyone in this thread for an enjoyable read. Truly, honestly, no sarcasm. I have appreciated all the viewpoints and debates here.

I'm not even going to attempt to reply to anyone else's post (so if you see yourself anywhere in here, it was not intentional, please don't take offense), I just wanted to put in my buck-and-a-quarter about marriage.

A little background: both of my parents are retired Presbyterian pastors. I myself am not religious, though I was raised in the church. If I had to pick one of the major labels for myself, it would be Agnostic, but that's not entirely accurate, either. I am 27 and single, never married. I come from a long line of long marriages; I think there's been one divorce in the entire family tree (one of my uncles). I firmly believe the Church (generalized term) shouldn't stick its nose in the legal matters that affect everyone in the country, including people not of that religion. Oh, and I don't want children, if that applies at all.

Now, as for my idea of marriage. One day, I hope to find a partner with whom I can share the rest of my life. I have had excellent role models for relationships (which, frankly, scares the hell out of me; seems like it should be time for someone in the family to mess up) and my parents, sister, and brother-in-law are my personal heroes in that regard. I believe that marriage is a partnership and that both members of the couple need to work at the partnership, grow as individuals and a pair, adapt to the inevitable changes, allow the inevitable growth, and be equal.

If those conditions are not met in some way (including anything from "husband resenting wife going back to school" to "wife abusing husband" to "one partner trying to enforce a personal change of beliefs on the other") and cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the partnership should be allowed to be dissolved, but my sincerest wish would be not to get divorced (but the moment my partner lays an abusive hand on me, I am out the door). I firmly believe that the high rate of divorce in the world is due to people getting married for the wrong reasons, not understanding that marriage isn't all roses and sunshine, not accepting that people do change, not really knowing the other person as well as s/he thinks they do, or just plain being too immature to make such a long-term commitment. But I don't believe that unhappy people should be forced to stay together, because that doesn't make anyone's life better, including any children in the family (kids can sense that something's wrong, regardless of the parents' public face). Some divorce is mandatory (such as in abusive relationships), some divorce is pure laziness, a lot is somewhere in between.

I don't believe religion (or lack thereof) has anything to do with it; I believe the individuals involved (including their interpretations of their beliefs/religion) have everything to do with it. I have known non-religious people who are entirely happy in their marriages, I have known religious people who are entirely miserable.

As I said, I hope one day to find a partner with whom I can share the rest of my life. (all that follows of course depends on my partner agreeing to the plan. LOL) If/when that happens, we will make a promise to each other that we will love, honor, and cherish each other until death do us part. We will sign whatever papers are needed to be recognized as a couple all legally (because I have seen problems that can occur for committed but unmarried couples), but the "contract," "promise," or whatever you want to call it will be between the two of us. Our choice, our decision, our oath to each other. We will not be married in the church, because that is not my belief, though I hope to have my parents conduct a secularized ceremony where we will share our promise with our friends and family, because I have always wanted my parents to preside over the "public performance." But the wedding is just that - a "public performance" of the promise the couple makes to each other - it's something you do for the benefit of everyone else. The actual point when marriage begins (note "begins," not "happens") occurs before the wedding date.

The next however many years, hopefully until death do us part, I fully expect to be a series of challenges testing our commitment and how willing we are to work at maintaining our union. Nothing is perfect, including people and marriages.

*looks over post* Geesh, I do go on when inspired. Apologies. As stated, I am not writing in response to anyone else, I'm just sharing my view. I don't expect anyone else to agree with me if you don't, and if you do disagree, please be respectful in that disagreement.

Thank you. That is all. :-) We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

Got another one here. I'm 21 and my parents are still married. That's why I don't celebrate holidays with them, and generally avoid their home at all costs. My mother physically and verbally abused me until I was 18. My father was there to clean up the mess, so to speak. Had my parents divorced, he would have gained sole custody, and the bullshit would have stopped. Also, kicking her out of the house for days at a time and leaving her in the local psych ward for about a week per year would have been circumvented. However, my mother is still around, now medicated, still balancing the checkbook, cooking, paying bills, etc. She is little more than an argumentative live-in personal assistant/housekeeper.

In your case your father would have had just cause to divorce your mother, and in fact had a responsibility to you to do so. I am sorry that he did not live up to that.

My point is that where there is a loving, supportive, faithfull spouse, the other should not be able to just destroy their life and walk away scot-free.

Well, she said she loved me, and maybe she does as much as she is capable of loving anyone. She probably cares about me as much as she cares about anyone, which is minimal and insignificant. As I said she is selfish.

Also, whether she says she cares about me or not, what did her actions show? She tried to take my father away from me. That is NOT the action of a mother that cares about her child. (Unless the father is abusive, which he was not and I covered that in my prior posts.)

I would say that for someone to go through a long arduous divorce(especially since there was a stigma associated with it where you lived) it would take a very good reason for your mom to divorce your dad.
Not giving any reason at all is probably the best proof for this:
If she didn't have a reason she'd say so.
If she had an average reason, she'd say so too.
The only reason for her not giving a reason is that it's too hard for her to talk about it.

And wasn't your father fighting for custody too?

Well, she said she loved me, and maybe she does as much as she is capable of loving anyone. She probably cares about me as much as she cares about anyone, which is minimal and insignificant. As I said she is selfish.

Also, whether she says she cares about me or not, what did her actions show? She tried to take my father away from me. That is NOT the action of a mother that cares about her child. (Unless the father is abusive, which he was not and I covered that in my prior posts.)



Sure he was. But he was not trying to deprive me of my other parent. My dad did not want the divorce, he still wanted to be married to my mom. Aside from that, he would have been okay with joint custody, and encouraged me to visit my mom.

Wait...she was pushing for sole custody? On what basis? She broke up the marriage, and you certainly seem to prefer your father over her.

Well, that does seem pretty selfish to me; whether or not she still loved your father, that's just wrong.

Wait...she was pushing for sole custody? On what basis? She broke up the marriage, and you certainly seem to prefer your father over her.

Well, that does seem pretty selfish to me; whether or not she still loved your father, that's just wrong.

Yes, she was. I guess that I was not sufficiently clear in my prior posts. It was not hyperbole when I stated that she tried to destroy my dad. She divorced him, tried to take his children from him, tried to turn his children against him, and tried to slander his reputation. She also attempted to ruin him financially, including claiming half of assets created by my dad PRIOR to his marriage to her.

Fortunately, she was not able to take us children, and only managed to turn one out of seven of us against him. His friends stood by him, and the community still respects and honors him. She was successfull in financially ruining my dad though, and then has wasted away all that money since, and has nothing to show for it. It took my dad about 10 years to get back to where he was money-wise before the divorce, and he will NEVER be where he could have been if she had been reasonable.

Yes, she was. I guess that I was not sufficiently clear in my prior posts. It was not hyperbole when I stated that she tried to destroy my dad. She divorced him, tried to take his children from him, tried to turn his children against him, and tried to slander his reputation. She also attempted to ruin him financially, including claiming half of assets created by my dad PRIOR to his marriage to her.

Fortunately, she was not able to take us children, and only managed to turn one out of seven of us against him. His friends stood by him, and the community still respects and honors him. She was successfull in financially ruining my dad though, and then has wasted away all that money since, and has nothing to show for it. It took my dad about 10 years to get back to where he was money-wise before the divorce, and he will NEVER be where he could have been if she had been reasonable.

are you sure your dad isn't trying to turn you guys against her?

It makes a lot of sense, but the marriage debate for the right really seems to be about the legitimization of homosexuals, who are seen as perverts. I think this is fundamentally the right argument, civil marriage licenses are a contractual agreement relating to the secular benefits available to couples who enter into that contract, and religious marriage is whatever religions want it to be. They are separate, one legal and the other cultural. This is precisely what was done in Vermont and is likely to happen in New Jersey. Eventually equal civil marriage rights will be won by homosexuals, our society is far more accepting of that lifestyle choice than it has been in the past, and there is an absense of secular policy arguments to prevent it. It comes down to the fundamental 14th amendment argument that all Americans deserve equal rights under law, and in the long term there is no way that gays and lesbians will not be granted these rights to which they are deserving. I really don't think you can force a church to marry a couple whose lifestyle they disagree with, but marriage rights are about extending equal benefits, the article is right on the mark.

I would say that for someone to go through a long arduous divorce(especially since there was a stigma associated with it where you lived) it would take a very good reason for your mom to divorce your dad.
Not giving any reason at all is probably the best proof for this:
If she didn't have a reason she'd say so.
If she had an average reason, she'd say so too.
The only reason for her not giving a reason is that it's too hard for her to talk about it.

And wasn't your father fighting for custody too?

Sure he was. But he was not trying to deprive me of my other parent. My dad did not want the divorce, he still wanted to be married to my mom. Aside from that, he would have been okay with joint custody, and encouraged me to visit my mom.

are you sure your dad isn't trying to turn you guys against her?


Yes, I am sure. He was not trying to deprive me of my other parent. My dad did not want the divorce, he still wanted to be married to my mom. Aside from that, he would have been okay with joint custody, and encouraged me to visit my mom.

Yes, I am sure. He was not trying to deprive me of my other parent. My dad did not want the divorce, he still wanted to be married to my mom. Aside from that, he would have been okay with joint custody, and encouraged me to visit my mom.

I don't know then, you sound very angry, and you seem to think that a marriage ends because one person screws up, and it's just not that way, there are things that come up as "the reason" but if you trace it back both parties screw up, you seem to have a very black and white view of the whole thing and when it comes to marriage it's really less black and white and more a whole mess of grey.

I don't know then, you sound very angry, and you seem to think that a marriage ends because one person screws up, and it's just not that way, there are things that come up as "the reason" but if you trace it back both parties screw up, you seem to have a very black and white view of the whole thing and when it comes to marriage it's really less black and white and more a whole mess of grey.

I don't see what is gray about it. Now, if someone gets married by a judge and give now vows to each other, then I guess maybe there are no expectations. However, most people in the USA, whether religeous or not, "vow" or commit certain things to each other in marriage. So, if the marriage ends, obviously one, or both have broken the commitment they made. People just don't like to look at it that way because then they have to take personal responsibilty. If I were to abuse my wife, cheat on her, not provide for her, or even just choose to stop loving her, then I have failed in the commitment I made to her. Should I be allowed to benefit from that? I think not. There should not be any such thing a choice without consequences.

I don't see what is gray about it. Now, if someone gets married by a judge and give now vows to each other, then I guess maybe there are no expectations. However, most people in the USA, whether religeous or not, "vow" or commit certain things to each other in marriage. So, if the marriage ends, obviously one, or both have broken the commitment they made. People just don't like to look at it that way because then they have to take personal responsibilty. If I were to abuse my wife, cheat on her, not provide for her, or even just choose to stop loving her, then I have failed in the commitment I made to her. Should I be allowed to benefit from that? I think not. There should not be any such thing a choice without consequences.

I agree, but it just seems strange that you jump to the conclusion that your mom is wrong, from the evidence you give us, she left, didn't say why, wanted sole custody...maybe there is something about your dad that she didn't tell you.

I am all about personal responsibility, and I think if a marriage falls apart 9 times out of 10 both partners have some responsiblity for the train wreck.

Yes, she was. I guess that I was not sufficiently clear in my prior posts. It was not hyperbole when I stated that she tried to destroy my dad. She divorced him, tried to take his children from him, tried to turn his children against him, and tried to slander his reputation. She also attempted to ruin him financially, including claiming half of assets created by my dad PRIOR to his marriage to her.

Fortunately, she was not able to take us children, and only managed to turn one out of seven of us against him. His friends stood by him, and the community still respects and honors him. She was successfull in financially ruining my dad though, and then has wasted away all that money since, and has nothing to show for it. It took my dad about 10 years to get back to where he was money-wise before the divorce, and he will NEVER be where he could have been if she had been reasonable.

Did she do all that to try and help her in court, or did she genuinely hate your father? If the former, it's rather ruthless, cold blooded and aggressive, but I can understand the attempt. If the latter, then I can't see why you or any of your siblings stay in contact with her at all.

Incidentally, the one sibling who "turned against" your father, does he/she still feel that way, and why did/does she feeel it?

I agree, but it just seems strange that you jump to the conclusion that your mom is wrong, from the evidence you give us, she left, didn't say why, wanted sole custody...maybe there is something about your dad that she didn't tell you.

I am all about personal responsibility, and I think if a marriage falls apart 9 times out of 10 both partners have some responsiblity for the train wreck.

It wasn't a conclusion that I jumped to, it is based on the evidence. I understand and agree that in most cases, both persons in a marriage could have done better. You say 9 out of 10 times, but then you, and most of the other posters on this thread refuse to believe that my parents situation could possibly be that tenth time. Everyone keeps writing "Well, maybe there is something you don't know".

NO, THERE ISN'T!

I agree, but it just seems strange that you jump to the conclusion that your mom is wrong, from the evidence you give us, she left, didn't say why, wanted sole custody...maybe there is something about your dad that she didn't tell you.

I am all about personal responsibility, and I think if a marriage falls apart 9 times out of 10 both partners have some responsiblity for the train wreck.

Based on what has been said, the father seems caring and reasonable. If there was some good reason why she hated her husband so much, don't you think she would have mentioned it in court, rather than lose custody? Don't you think she would have made some attempt to justify her actions to her children, especially if they began to resent her choice?

Based on what has been said, the father seems caring and reasonable. If there was some good reason why she hated her husband so much, don't you think she would have mentioned it in court, rather than lose custody? Don't you think she would have made some attempt to justify her actions to her children, especially if they began to resent her choice?
If they were my children, I might keep certain things to myself so that I didn't ruin their relationship with their father.

It wasn't a conclusion that I jumped to, it is based on the evidence. I understand and agree that in most cases, both persons in a marriage could have done better. You say 9 out of 10 times, but then you, and most of the other posters on this thread refuse to believe that my parents situation could possibly be that tenth time. Everyone keeps writing "Well, maybe there is something you don't know".

NO, THERE ISN'T!

I refuse to believe that you know everything about your parent's marriage or you would have some clue as to why your mom left.

I do know that you know more about it than I ever will, so I will drop it. ;)

It wasn't a conclusion that I jumped to, it is based on the evidence. I understand and agree that in most cases, both persons in a marriage could have done better. You say 9 out of 10 times, but then you, and most of the other posters on this thread refuse to believe that my parents situation could possibly be that tenth time. Everyone keeps writing "Well, maybe there is something you don't know".

NO, THERE ISN'T!

You're bang on here. If your father were, say, an alcoholic, and that was the reason your mother left, why would she not use the problem to get custody? Abused women who love their kids don't leave their kids in the hands of the abuser. Admittedly, your point of view may be biased, but the evidence still strongly supports the dad

Did she do all that to try and help her in court, or did she genuinely hate your father? If the former, it's rather ruthless, cold blooded and aggressive, but I can understand the attempt. If the latter, then I can't see why you or any of your siblings stay in contact with her at all.

Incidentally, the one sibling who "turned against" your father, does he/she still feel that way, and why did/does she feeel it?

The way the rest of us figure it, my mom does not live in the same reality as the rest of us. That, or she is just evil. Either way, I hurt for her, and wish that she would choose better.

A lot of people on this thread have implied that I have contempt for my mother, or that I hate her. I don't. I love my mom very, very much, and wish that she would choose to be happy. I have contempt for her choices, and hate her behavior. There is a difference between a person, and their choices.

As for my sister that turned against my dad, that actually only happened 5 years ago (10 after the divorce). She was having trouble in her marriage and went to see a "counselor". She has been screwed up in the head ever since. I think she blames my dad for her bad marriage. Of course, she chose her husband, so I don't see how it is dad's fault. Again, people refusing to take responsibility for their choices.

Based on what has been said, the father seems caring and reasonable. If there was some good reason why she hated her husband so much, don't you think she would have mentioned it in court, rather than lose custody? Don't you think she would have made some attempt to justify her actions to her children, especially if they began to resent her choice?

Thank you very much. My point exactly.

If they were my children, I might keep certain things to myself so that I didn't ruin their relationship with their father.

Yes, but she DID try to ruin our relationship with him!

You're bang on here. If your father were, say, an alcoholic, and that was the reason your mother left, why would she not use the problem to get custody? Abused women who love their kids don't leave their kids in the hands of the abuser. Admittedly, your point of view may be biased, but the evidence still strongly supports the dad

Again, thank you. It is amazing to me that people who strongly believe in logic and reasonableness will through that all out when it comes to relationships. Most of the people in this thread are holding my parents divorce, and my mom's choices to a standard that they would not allow in any other situation in life.

You do realize that they mean the people that were pre-sumerians, yes? The people who lived and created the society that thousands of years later would become the Hammurabi code and Ishtar etc., and you might lighten up a bit.

You do realise that they haven't a clue what they mean, right? They just have some ill-informed view to which they're going to stick no matter what is presented them. They'll just put their fingers in their ears, like they always do here, and shout, "LA LA LA!!!"

I'm not going to lighten up at all. The willful ignorance is sickening. I will, however, not bother with this thread any longer. It's a waste of my time to attempt having a serious discussion with such people. You may all now continue with your worthless back-and-forth of "I'm right"/"No, I'm right" until your fingers fall off from typing the same drivel over and over again.

As for my sister that turned against my dad, that actually only happened 5 years ago (10 after the divorce). She was having trouble in her marriage and went to see a "counselor". She has been screwed up in the head ever since. I think she blames my dad for her bad marriage. Of course, she chose her husband, so I don't see how it is dad's fault. Again, people refusing to take responsibility for their choices.

Have you ever asked her reasoning for it?
And people do not just divorce for no reason. The reason might not have anything to do with your dad, but she still had a solid reason to divorce him.

Have you ever asked her reasoning for it?
And people do not just divorce for no reason. The reason might not have anything to do with your dad, but she still had a solid reason to divorce him.

Solid reason does not equal good reason. Two people can be wonderful, lovely caring people and still not be right for each other, through no fault to either party. However, purely from the factual actions, putting aside all personal comments from either side, you've got to go with the dad. It's not the decision to break up - it's the actions afterwards that are seriously questionable

I can't help noticing that my attitude seems to be "sometimes it's neither persons fault, and things just happen", where as most other people on this thread say "It's the fault of them both"

Anyway, unless someone cares to fax me the court records, legal papers and personal statements from all involved parties and witness, we can't make a complete judgement

Have you ever asked her reasoning for it?
And people do not just divorce for no reason. The reason might not have anything to do with your dad, but she still had a solid reason to divorce him.

Whose reasoning? Sorry, just confused since there were 2 "her" referenced.

The point I have been trying to make is that there is NO solid reason for a divorce that does not have anything to do with the spouse. What, "I just don't want to be married anymore"? That is NOT a solid reason for divorce.

All of my posts in this thread were in support of the idea given in the OP, namely that marriages are, or can be considered contracts. As such, they are enforcible, or there are penaties for breaking them.

If one partner is abusive, unfaithful, criminal, witholds support, or abandons, that is breach of contract, and should be penalized. The same holds true for a spouse that decides they "don't love you anymore", "don't want to be married anymore", or the ultimate abrogation of personal responsibility "I'm not happy". Well, tough cookies. Happiness is a choice, and it is not your spouse's responsibility, or even ability to make you be happy. They can only provide an environment that encourages you to be happy. My dad did all he could for 20 years to provide joy for my mom, and she choose to be miserable. Why should my dad have been punished for her choice?

Solid reason does not equal good reason. Two people can be wonderful, lovely caring people and still not be right for each other, through no fault to either party. However, purely from the factual actions, putting aside all personal comments from either side, you've got to go with the dad. It's not the decision to break up - it's the actions afterwards that are seriously questionable

I can't help noticing that my attitude seems to be "sometimes it's neither persons fault, and things just happen", where as most other people on this thread say "It's the fault of them both"

Anyway, unless someone cares to fax me the court records, legal papers and personal statements from all involved parties and witness, we can't make a complete judgement

You are right about judgement. The only person on this thread with knowledge of everything you listed is me. I have read the records, papers, and have heard from everyone involved. That is why it is so frustrating when people say "You can't know everything about this situation". Sure I can. I was there in the middle of it all. I know everything that anyone has been willing to reveal, and if my mom won't give a reason for the divorce, and particularly for the mean and hatefull actions afterward, then I can only go by the results of her choices.

Personally, I wouldn't want to stay married to someone who didn't love me. And I have a friend whose parents divorced, with at the very least civility, and even still a bit of friendship and affection. They have joint custody, both love their kids very much, and have both found new partners with whom they are happy. I fail to see how "punishing" either party would have helped the situation.

Obviously, if abuse, neglect, adultery is a factor, then it is different. But if you honestly don't love your spouse, I think it's better that you seperate - not just for you but for them. Look after your kids, be civil to your partner, even remain friends if it's possible, but let them find someone who really loves them.

However, do not make their life a living hell through a long drawn out court battle, do not neglect your kids, and for gods sake at least try and explain.

Personally, I wouldn't want to stay married to someone who didn't love me. And I have a friend whose parents divorced, with at the very least civility, and even still a bit of friendship and affection. They have joint custody, both love their kids very much, and have both found new partners with whom they are happy. I fail to see how "punishing" either party would have helped the situation.

Obviously, if abuse, neglect, adultery is a factor, then it is different. But if you honestly don't love your spouse, I think it's better that you seperate - not just for you but for them. Look after your kids, be civil to your partner, even remain friends if it's possible, but let them find someone who really loves them.

However, do not make their life a living hell through a long drawn out court battle, do not neglect your kids, and for gods sake at least try and explain.

I know that I am harsh on this subject. It is just that I view it differently than most people. I don't believe that people "fall" in love. We choose to love someone. If my mom chose to love my dad when she married him, then it was her choice to stop loving him 20 years later. Without any explanation or reason from her as to why she made that choice, I don't see why she could not have chosen to keep loving him.

I would not want to be married to someone that did not love me, either. I just think that if she loved me once, and I have kept up my end of it, she can, and should choose to continue to love me.

I know that I am harsh on this subject. It is just that I view it differently than most people. I don't believe that people "fall" in love. We choose to love someone.
I absolutely agree.

I absolutely agree.

Wow! Thank you.

This column by Paul Campos (http://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/profile.jsp?id=10) was in The Rocky Mountain News on the 31st, and I thought it interesting, as might some of you.

The guy is advocating giving religious values the force of law? I suppose nothing can go wrong with an idea like that. Right? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/country_profiles/1162668.stm)

I know what it does to a kid. My mom was not happy before she left my dad. However she had every reason to be happy and chose not to be. She was not happy after she divorced my dad, and is still not happy to this day. I am not sure that she has every been happy in her entire life. So, if she was miserable before the divorce, and miserable after, what did it benefit her? She just caused her husband and children to miserable as well.Your posts are just making you seem like a whiny, judgemental, narrow-minded, unsympathetic, hurt little child. Get better soon.

The guy is advocating giving religious values the force of law? I suppose nothing can go wrong with an idea like that. Right? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/country_profiles/1162668.stm)

Actually, he is advocating that people live up to the choices they make. If they choose to enter into a marriage contract that is from the state, and has little if any consequences, then that is what they have to live up to. However, if they choose to enter into a church based marriage, then the contract for that can be more strict.

Your posts are just making you seem like a whiny, judgemental, narrow-minded, unsympathetic, hurt little child. Get better soon.

So, you don't believe that there should be consequences when people are selfish, and hurt others intentionally?

So, you don't believe that there should be consequences when people are selfish, and hurt others intentionally?

So you believe she did this whole thing just to hurt people? That only enforces my opinion.
My mother was miserable in her marraige to my father. He never physically abused her, but was abusive in every other way. She was so miserable she was suicidal. I completely understand her desire for a happier life, if it'd been me, I would have left him far earlier. She was entitled to some happiness. Obviously your mother thought her path to happiness was not with your father. Perhaps you are the one who should think about the happiness of others occasionally. If she was happy with your father, doubtless she would have stayed with him.
You'll probably have a cow at this, but your sister's problems may have stemmed from sexual abuse. It's entirely possible that that's something the family would prefer to keep undiscussed.

Actually, he is advocating that people live up to the choices they make. If they choose to enter into a marriage contract that is from the state, and has little if any consequences, then that is what they have to live up to. However, if they choose to enter into a church based marriage, then the contract for that can be more strict.

It can be as strict as it likes, but it cannot be legally enforceable, any more than the law can legally enforce a Catholic not using birth control, a baptised person participating in the church, or a Muslim person refraining from eating pork.

The church has its own way of trying to enforce its edicts - excommunication of some sort basically being its ultimate recourse. Its doctrine does not, however, and cannot, carry legal weight.

This column by Paul Campos (http://lawweb.colorado.edu/profiles/profile.jsp?id=10) was in The Rocky Mountain News on the 31st, and I thought it interesting, as might some of you.

I really have to wonder why you were reading the Rocky Mountain News. That newspaper disgusts me with its obvious bias. (Not that I like the Denver Post all that much more, but it's at least palatable.)

Still, it's a worthwhile suggestion, and one I agree with.

Everyone keeps writing "Well, maybe there is something you don't know".

NO, THERE ISN'T!

Surely the whole point of the 'something you don't know' things is... you don't know?

So - saying "no, there isn't" is neither convincing, nor logical?

You're bang on here. If your father were, say, an alcoholic, and that was the reason your mother left, why would she not use the problem to get custody? Abused women who love their kids don't leave their kids in the hands of the abuser. Admittedly, your point of view may be biased, but the evidence still strongly supports the dad

Didn't the other poster say that the mother tried to get custody? Wouldn't that argue in favour of the point you just made?

But the church is given the ultimate decision making capability, as it has full control over what requirements must be met for a divorce. Meanwhile, it has no participation in the legal aspects of the marriage contract whatsoever. It contributes no material wealth to the couple. It does not make legal decisions for either (except, in this case, whether or not they can dissolve their legal attachments). It does not raise their children. It provides nothing whatsoever to the contract except its signature and control over whether or not that contract is dissolved.

Suppose my fiance and I decided to start a business together. A third party decided to sign the contract for some reason. That third party did not contribute to the business. They drew nothing from it. They owned no portion of it. My fiance and I now want to end the business, but that third party who has had nothing whatsoever to do with it from a legal standpoint doesn't want to allow it. Just how enforceable do you think that contract will be?

Add to it that marriage, by law, can be dissolved by either of the two parties, and does not require consent from both. One person can want to be married, and the other wants a divorce. Guess what the law does? It grants the divorce.

And I't still your choice to do that or not to. noone can force you to sign anything. you chose. live up to your choices.

I like it. We should try this.

I like it. We should try this.

I think the idea proposed was that if you believe strongly in what your church professes, you should have no trouble signing up to their definition of marriage. And to the conditions, if any, under which a marriage may be dissolved. The civil authorities should extend the rights and privileges of marriage to any two adults who are not already married to someone else, regardless of gender. Now, as my friend Arthais pointed out, there might be problems with the nature of the contracts themselves, but I would hope that reasonable people could work those out.

I think the idea proposed was that if you believe strongly in what your church professes, you should have no trouble signing up to their definition of marriage.

Of course, 10 years down the line, when your religious views have changed, as have your spouse's, and both of you wish to dissolve that contract, a third party which is not at all involved in your marriage should not be able to block it.

Of course, 10 years down the line, when your religious views have changed, as have your spouse's, and both of you wish to dissolve that contract, a third party which is not at all involved in your marriage should not be able to block it.

Why not ? The people signing the contract decided that third party could. Who are you to overrule them ?

Of course, 10 years down the line, when your religious views have changed, as have your spouse's, and both of you wish to dissolve that contract, a third party which is not at all involved in your marriage should not be able to block it.

Reasonable answer: That's an issue that would have to be resolved. I'm not saying this would be easy to implement.

Unreasonable answer: Why would your religious views change? Have you become and ebil liveral? You can't go against the Will of the Majority! Think of the Children! If you get a divorce, the terrorists win! (Did I cover them all?)

Reasonable answer: That's an issue that would have to be resolved.

No- it wouldn't. People would sign the contract knowing full well that that could happen, accepting the clause.

No- it wouldn't. People would sign the contract knowing full well that that could happen, accepting the clause.

I suppose, but Dem does have a point. If you stop believing, you should have an out. And as Arthais said, the signers of a contract can agree to void it regardless of its terms.

I suppose, but Dem does have a point. If you stop believing, you should have an out.

Why ? People could chose not to include the clause in the first place. Noone would be forcing them.

And as Arthais said, the signers of a contract can agree to void it regardless of its terms.
I imagine a religious representative would be a third signee.

Bad idea.

I have known Catholics that view divorce as something that should NEVER be allowed no matter what.
I don't know why they would think that. Jesus said that divorce was bad, yes, but he also said that adultery was an acceptable reason for it.

Why ? People could chose not to include the clause in the first place. Noone would be forcing them.
No, no one would be forcing them. The Idea is that if they believe strongly enough in the teachings of their church they would want to define their marriage by the rules set forth by their church. There would also be a purely civil kind of marriage, in which the rules of marrying and divorcing are defined by the secular authority.

I imagine a religious representative would be a third signee.
If that's the case, where the religious representative is actually a party to the contract, then the couple would need agreement of that person, too, or his or her successor.

I don't know why they would think that. Jesus said that divorce was bad, yes, but he also said that adultery was an acceptable reason for it.

I think he said it was the only reason you could get divorced.

No, no one would be forcing them. The Idea is that if they believe strongly enough in the teachings of their church they would want to define their marriage by the rules set forth by their church. There would also be a purely civil kind of marriage, in which the rules of marrying and divorcing are defined by the secular authority.

Exactly. So there is no reason to have special consideration for people that change their beliefs later on. They wanted the special "sacred marriage with extra cheese" deal and they got it.

Why not ? The people signing the contract decided that third party could. Who are you to overrule them ?

I'm not overruling them. They are. And we cannot remove those rights from people, even by contract.

If I signed a contract that you would be able to make decisions about my assets/children/next-of-kin/etc. for the rest of my life, but then decided I didn't like that decision, do you think a court would enforce it? I can tell you right now that it would not. That would be an inconscionable contract, in which you had all the power, but gave nothing in return.

Why would this suddendly work if that entity was not you, but was a church instead?

Reasonable answer: That's an issue that would have to be resolved. I'm not saying this would be easy to implement.

It would be *impossible* to implement without looking to the government to enforce religious values, something it cannot and should not do.

Unreasonable answer: Why would your religious views change? Have you become and ebil liveral? You can't go against the Will of the Majority! Think of the Children! If you get a divorce, the terrorists win! (Did I cover them all?)

hehe.

I'd really like to find someone whose religious views haven't change at all over the course of their lives. Actually, come to think of it, I wouldn't. That person would have had to be a very boring person who lead a very, very, very boring life.



No- it wouldn't. People would sign the contract knowing full well that that could happen, accepting the clause.

If I sign a contract saying I will be a slave, is that contract legally enforceable?


I suppose, but Dem does have a point. If you stop believing, you should have an out. And as Arthais said, the signers of a contract can agree to void it regardless of its terms.

In the case of a marriage contract, either person can unilaterally end the agreement. It doesn't even take both signers.


No, no one would be forcing them. The Idea is that if they believe strongly enough in the teachings of their church they would want to define their marriage by the rules set forth by their church. There would also be a purely civil kind of marriage, in which the rules of marrying and divorcing are defined by the secular authority.

And government could only enforce the purely civil kind of marriage. It has no power to enforce religious doctrine.

If that's the case, where the religious representative is actually a party to the contract, then the couple would need agreement of that person, too, or his or her successor.

Not really. In this case, the third party would be given great power over all others in the contract, without providing anything of value to the contract. In law, this type of contract would be immediately thrown out upon challenge.

Exactly. So there is no reason to have special consideration for people that change their beliefs later on. They wanted the special "sacred marriage with extra cheese" deal and they got it.

Oh, sure, I agree, it's a "put up or shut up" kind of deal. I have no problem imposing their own values on religious people, seeing that they have no problem imposing their views on me.

If I signed a contract that you would be able to make decisions about my assets/children/next-of-kin/etc. for the rest of my life, but then decided I didn't like that decision, do you think a court would enforce it? I can tell you right now that it would not. That would be an inconscionable contract, in which you had all the power, but gave nothing in return.

And yet you signed it willingly, without being forced. Courts would overrule it now, correct - but should they?
Besides, in the marriage case you DO get something extra. You get that great feeling that you are protecting "the sanctity of marriage". Since that for many people is so important that they wish to deny marriage to homosexuals they should jump at this chance to put their money where their mouth is.

Of course, I know full well that this will cause misery for those people, amongst other things for the reasons you stated. But they deserve it.

And yet you signed it willingly, without being forced.

Irrelevant. I could sign a contract saying I will never vote, willingly, without being forced, but it is completely unenforceable because I have a Constitutionally protected right to vote. I could sign a contract saying that I will sign over all my worldy possessions to you and be your slave willingly, without being forced, and it would be completely unenforceable, because one cannot sign away a fundamental right.

Courts would overrule it now, correct - but should they?

Yes.

Besides, in the marriage case you DO get something extra. You get that great feeling that you are protecting "the sanctity of marriage". Since that for many people is so important that they wish to deny marriage to homosexuals they should jump at this chance to put their money where their mouth is.

That brings nothing at all to the legal contract that the government would be enforcing. Meanwhile, all it *will* do is put people in danger, definitely mental and financial, and possibly physically.

Another thing it will do is restrict the right of both parties to freely worship as they choose. The government will basically say, "Hey, you were Baptist when you signed this, so now you have to abide by Baptist dogma for the rest of your lives and we're gonna enforce it!"

Of course, I know full well that this will cause misery for those people, amongst other things for the reasons you stated. But they deserve it.

Even when their feelings on the matter change, they end up converting to a new religion, and have no problem with same-sex marriage?

*snip for brevity*

Oh, I know. The column the idea comes from was published during the great Marriage Definition debate here in Colorado prior to the election (which saw me relegated to the status of a second-class citizen, not entitled to all the rights of heterosexual citizens). The author teaches law at the University of Colorado (a notorious hotbed of liberal philosophy - Ward churchill teaches there). His point was, if you are so adamamnt about the teachings of your church on marriage, why not put it into your marriage contract. Put up or shut up, to be not so polite. It probably wouldn't work but it's a good idea to suggest when people start defining marriage religiously.

*scratching my head* Now how long is it going to take to get that silly "one man, one woman" amendment out of the state constitution?

Oh, I know. The column the idea comes from was published during the great Marriage Definition debate here in Colorado prior to the election (which saw me relegated to the status of a second-class citizen, not entitled to all the rights of heterosexual citizens). The author teaches law at the University of Colorado (a notorious hotbed of liberal philosophy - Ward churchill teaches there). His point was, if you are so adamamnt about the teachings of your church on marriage, why not put it into your marriage contract. Put up or shut up, to be not so polite. It probably wouldn't work but it's a good idea to suggest when people start defining marriage religiously.

*scratching my head* Now how long is it going to take to get that silly "one man, one woman" amendment out of the state constitution?

Not too terribly long, hopefully. I don't see DOMA ever standing up to a serious challenge, and with New Jersey (which doesn't have a carry-over law from the anti-miscegenation days that would keep out-of-state couples from marrying) looking like it's going to recognize same-sex marriage, major challenges are going to be coming out of the woodwork. The Supreme Court has avoided them on technicalities up until now, but there will eventually be a case they can't sidestep.

Another thing it will do is restrict the right of both parties to freely worship as they choose. The government will basically say, "Hey, you were Baptist when you signed this, so now you have to abide by Baptist dogma for the rest of your lives and we're gonna enforce it!"

Yes. Wonderful isn't it ?
Now explain this to all those nice people that wish to enforce their current religious values on others and maybe this system will not be needed to pound some sense into them.

Not too terribly long, hopefully. I don't see DOMA ever standing up to a serious challenge, and with New Jersey (which doesn't have a carry-over law from the anti-miscegenation days that would keep out-of-state couples from marrying) looking like it's going to recognize same-sex marriage, major challenges are going to be coming out of the woodwork. The Supreme Court has avoided them on technicalities up until now, but there will eventually be a case they can't sidestep.

I do hope so. I would have thought the "full faith and credit" clause would have worked. Looking in Wiki, I find also the "privileges and immunities" clause of Article IV might even be better, or the similar clause in the Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Damn, I do wish I had another lifetime coming, I'd be a constitutional lawyer, I do so love this stuff!

Yes. Wonderful isn't it ?
Now explain this to all those nice people that wish to enforce their current religious values on others and maybe this system will not be needed to pound some sense into them.

So you think the way to keep people from enforcing religious dogma in law is to......enforce religious dogma in law?

That makes about as much sense as "preserving free speech" by censoring people who say they want to censor.


I do hope so. I would have thought the "full faith and credit" clause would have worked.

It likely will, if the Supreme Court ever actually considers it. Like I said, they've sidestepped the issue thus far on technicalities and issues of whether or not those bringing suit had cause to do so. They have yet to actually address the law as it relates to "full faith and credit" or the 14th Amendment.

So you think the way to keep people from enforcing religious dogma in law is to......enforce religious dogma in law?

Correct. I have the strange feeling that people will be far less willing to enforce religious dogma on others once they realise they are also enforcing it on themselves. Though I fear it may take a generation or two in some population groups...

And if not, this system would let people enforce religious dogma in law on themselves instead of on others, as is the case now. I would consider that an improvement.

Correct. I have the strange feeling that people will be far less willing to enforce religious dogma on others once they realise they are also enforcing it on themselves. Though I fear it may take a generation or two in some population groups...

And if not, this system would let people enforce religious dogma in law on themselves instead of on others, as is the case now. I would consider that an improvement.

Personally, I'm a bigger fan of not letting *anyone* fly in the face of the Constiitution.

Personally, I'm a bigger fan of not letting *anyone* fly in the face of the Constiitution.

So am I. However, it seems a significant part of voters disagree.

I agree with the article in the OP. I have always thought that it is ok to get a divorce if you were not married in a religious ceremony and that it is wrong to get divorced if you are married in a religious ceremony. This article takes the next step. I approve.

By the way I am not supporting divorce when there are kids involved even if it was a secular marriage.