do marriage laws need to be reformed?

[private_ryan]

Let's face it, the laws were for an era when people stayed married together for decades. Now even if you get divorced after a year you're facing bankruptcy paying divorce lawyers. In most cases, they're no winners since there's little money and both sides lose. years later you think and realize how much both sides got f-ed.

All of the sudden you find yourself King for a few days, what would you change?

[DireStrike]

1. Marriage should NOT be legally recognized.

Civil unions for everyone.

[private_ryan]

still

the same laws would apply to "civil unions". They'd just replace the word marriage with civil unions.

[DireStrike]

5. That's fine. Those laws need an overhaul too though.

[GinaMaria]

23. how about marriages for everyone and religious unions not legally

recognized? Those of us who had secular civil services consider ourselves married. You can get married without religion but you can't get married without the state. That really drives the fundies nuts doesn't it? They can have religious unions. They should leave marriage the fuck alone. They sully it with their divorce records anyway :-)

[Selwynn]

24. I strongly agree!

[unblock]

2. having been thru a divorce and on my second marriage, i can honestly say,

no, by and large divorce laws work fine.

the idea of lifelong commitment and the nonfulfillment thereof is not directly relevant in a divorce case.

what is pertinent is that on marriage, you've decided to legally pool your future incomes and liabilities and take joint ownership and guardianship of certain things, most notably kids.

on divorce the pool must be divided fairly and equitably, and that's what it's all about. even if the pooling were contemplated all along as being temporary, there would still be this problem, unless you're suggesting that, throughout the marriage, these things aren't pooled, which i would simply point out is the equivalent of not getting married.

divorce is not ugly because of the shift in expectations, although that is a key emotional driver that does aggravate things. but the real problem is that there's joint assets that need to be split, which is inherently not a pretty process.

[private_ryan]

6. I would make prenups

and other financial contracts more standard and bulletproof. You would review and resign them every year or so but it's a legal contract. This way no one is surprised.

[unblock]

9. prenups exist now, and are fairly standardized and becoming bulletproof

it takes a while for case law to clearly establish things, but there's a fairly large body of precedence now.

prenups are also more common than they used to be.

not sure about the annual renewal, that would basically force people to renegotiate and implicitly, if not explicitly, threaten divorce every year.

are you saying that prenups should be required?

[private_ryan]

11. not required as in legally

but it shoudl be part of marriage planning.

as far as "renewal": if you enter on one 10 years ago and things drastically change as in becoming a multi-millionaire...

[unblock]

16. but the whole (legal) point of marriage is to pool your income

if you suddenly, unexpectedly, become a multi-millionaire, that income should be split, and divorce handles that fine.

good prenups should contemplate things like this.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Seperate Church and State

by that I mean everyone who wants to get hitched legally gets what is called a civil union. It is done at the courthouse by a judge. There could be various simple civil union contracts to choose from, that would meet different circumstances and spell out what happens if there is a breakup, etc. Of course, custom made agreements can be used by those wishing to hire attorneys.

Marriage is a religious rite. It is performed by ordained ministers according to the spiritual tradition. Since there is no civil contract, people who go with only a marriage and not a civil union cannot go to court if they seperate. If the faith has a divorce/annulment procedure, it is performed in the faith. This could be a way for those whose faiths allow more than one spouse to have one. They just wouldn't have any legal status, which is the way it is now, anyway.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

7. Thank you. I've been saying this for a while now.......................

Wed in a church, you're married. Wed in Vegas by Elvis, civil union.

[Career Prole]

10. There ya go...

That's the answer right there. Get the church out of the legally-binding part. The law (lower-case L) is out of their jurisdiction.

[LiberalFighter]

14. And if they converted to a different faith after the marriage?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

18. Same thing as a minister who converts

I know a fellow who was a Lutheran pastor who converted to Catholocism. He was re-ordained as a priest. I don't know if he had to do additional studies, but I do know it happened.

Since marriage would not be a legal, but strictly a religious institution, it would follow laws by the various faiths. For some faiths, a new ceremony would be required, while other faiths (such as mine, which recognizes all faiths), any ceremony would be deemed sufficient to call someone married.

[LiberalFighter]

20. And if they were required to marry and they didn't?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

21. That would be up to their faith

and wouldn't have anything to do with civil law.

[LiberalFighter]

22. Marriage is not a religious rite...

only if it is performed by a member of the clergy.

Marriages are also performed by civil authorities.

If you research marriage licenses/certificates it will be found that states provide a place to indicate the type of marriage. Religious or Civil.

Members of the clergy must also file documentation that will allow them to perform marriages with the state. Without the documentation any marriage performed is not valid/recognized.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

27. I know that

I am an ordained minister, and my papers of ordination are on file at the county court house. But the premise of this thread was what one would do if they could change the marriage laws in this country. That was the premise from which I spoke.

[LiberalFighter]

29. Just allow ordained clergy to performed marriages...

as long as they don't violate civil law.

They can perform marriages between man and woman only if that is what they want to do or same sex. But the state would not be able to dictate if they should or should not.

[GinaMaria]

25. I am so sick of making this arguement on DU

I had a secular civil ceremony. I am married . My husband and I have a marriage certificate. Marriage existed long before christianity. Marriage is not a religious rite. The state/society issues marriage licenses. Get over it. If the religious want a special name for what they have, they can have religious unions. No religion OWNS the word marriage. No one has the right or the rite to determine what my relationship with my husband is or is not.

You can get married without religion, but you cannot get married without the state. Drives fundies nuts doesn't it?

[Shoeempress]

4. Marriage should remain legal, but it should be harder to get married.

More like getting a drivers license, at least. There should be a compatibility test, maturity test, and possibly an interview with a Psychiatrist, to see if you are getting married for the right reasons and that no one is crazy.

[luaneryder]

15. It's far too easy to get married in some states

TN and SC for example. Then the fundies expect the marriages to last and want to make divorce more difficult to obtain:eyes:

[GinaMaria]

26. Do you want to decide who can and cannot marry?

Adults are free to make decisions about their lives. They are also free to make huge mistakes. You can grow as much from divorce as you can from marriage if it gives you a better understanding of yourself, others and the world.

[luaneryder]

28. No, I'm not talking about mature adults

I've seen too many 18 year olds decide, "Hey, let's get married," in places like rural TN where I used to live-no wait required. Then, if one or the other is still in high school they drop out. They're free to make that decision, sure, and those same lives I've seen destroyed because of that spur of the moment decision by two star struck teens with no thought as to the consequences of their actions and no one saying wait and take a breath before leaping. I expect some people can grow from divorce if they look at it in that light after time, but I don't know anyone with that enlightened attitude while going through a divorce.

[GinaMaria]

30. if you can get drafted at age 18

shouldn't you be able to get married? 18 is considered an adult under the law. Would you change that law? Would you have the age of adulthood increased and if so to what?

Whose job is it to sit 18 y/o HS students down and say slow down? It's not the government's. If their lives are 'destroyed' (not really sure what you mean by that) that was their choice. They could always choose a better way in the future. Some people have to make mistakes to learn, some can learn from other people's mistakes. How about the freedom to choose your own path? In this day and age if you are 18 and getting married, you have been exposed to lots of messages about young marriages. Choose to listen or not listen. I'm not interfering with an adult's decision.

but I don't know anyone with that enlightened attitude while going through a divorce.

The same could be said about anything unpleasant. Grief and loss are no picnic, but you can come out on the other side of it wiser, more grateful and a better human being. Attitude is a choice.

[wuushew]

8. Yes polygamy and incestuous marriage should be legalized

Not to do so would be inconsistent with a free society.

[private_ryan]

12. "incestuous marriage"

that threatens the existence of the group...it isn't happening. Iamgine if we had more freepers running around.

[wuushew]

13. The hypocrisy is quite astounding

Two non-related people with congenital defects are legally able to procreate in this country. People with hereditary infertility problems are also able to seek fertility treatment and pass along these same problems to their progeny.

In the absence of a sound and impartial scientific treatment on such matters my conclusion is that current policy is a result of the intersection of law and religion. That is a situation I cannot tolerate.

[Nikia]

17. Polygamy is a whole different subject

Since marriage law currently is dependent on there being two people, there would have to be big changes in law taking into account several different scenarios (For example if the marriage is between a man and three women is the man married separately to each wife or do the wives have a legal contract with each other too). Then we go back to the whole issue of what does marriage mean. In most traditions with polygamy it means male as head of household in control of wives with an obligation to support each of them and the ownership of any of her assets and children. That is very different than our more modern law in which marriage partners are legal equals. The ability to marry more than one spouse also would increase marriages for convience and other economic reasons that could really mess things up for those of us who are not into big marriage conglamerates. I do think that perhaps some "marriage" rights should be extended. For example, if someone wants a couple friends to be counted as immediately family for the purpose of hospital visits and such, they should have the right to do that.

[sangh0]

19. What a load!

Very few people are "bankrupted" by divorce lawyers. Saying so is like complaining about "welfare queens"