[Galt]

Can anyone tell me why there should be "community" or "marital" property or the laws that provide for them in the Twenty-First Century? It seems to me that today if anyone believes that their STBX owes them anything, they should simply have to prove it, in the same way anyone would if they were not married to the other party involved or even living with them. A recent survey shows that more people today are having permanent relationships without being married and without placing themselves under all the laws that control it, than are married. Why not treat everyone equally under the law then, at least in a financial sense? If anyone then wants any other arrangements they can make their own valid, honest contracts to provide for them. This is obviously better than having some confusing, subjective and not fully knowable law, which is constantly changing and evolving--all the while subject to many interpretations and variations in judicial discretion-- posing as a contract, and then unexpectedly being applied to the parties years later in a divorce, based upon the assumption that they somehow "knowingly" entered into such a "contract" when they got married.

I realize that many generations ago there were some valid arguments for these laws, with it being unimaginable that any married couple would not be operating a business together, usually a farm or a ranch. Today however these arguments are all obsolete, with far less than 1% of married persons working together in a family business. Both parties in a marriage are now truly equal and the woman is every bit as free as the man to work and create her own wealth. Modern conveniences make it highly likely that even a stay-at-home-mom will receive full compensation for her work in the form of the care and enjoyment of life she receives-not to mention avoidance of the stress of having to worry about being fired.

The above explains why this area of law is no longer necessary and serves no valid purpose (except perhaps the enrichment of gold diggers, some attorneys and a few demogogic politicians). The real problem though with these laws is the often outrageous injustice that results to the parties involved. One of many bad things (but certainly not the worst) they do today is simply to provide for the retroactive conversion of gifts--of assets or of helpful or generous behavior--to another person, into a contrived, imaginary contribution to a specious "financial partnership". This "partnership" in reality is always established by these laws not at the time of the marriage but--arguments to the contrary aside--at some future time. In the situation I am discussing this "partnership" is implemented when a married person no longer likes the other party (their spouse), permitting them to obtain the full or partial recovery of these gifts, and perhaps even much more, by dissolution of this alleged partnership through divorce. When I was growing up this kind of behavior would have been called (with appropriate apologies) "Indian giving".
Is the forcible "taking back" of a gift already given really any different than theft? If it is done by the operation of law, what does that make it?

I would like to know if anyone agrees with me and also to hear any rational arguments in favor of this arbitrary, presumptuous and expensive (to defend against) law. Remember you can also send me a PM.

Galt