# ToToday’s marriage licenses; can we do better?



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

1	Relationships are built upon decency, honor, loyalty, and loving each other. 

2	The modern marriage license is issued by the state and does very little to promote or get involved with any of the above!

3	The state’s marriage license means that the state will decide, in the event of divorce, the issues of custody and asset distribution. Issues of infidelity cannot even be brought up in most states. The state does nothing to promote the relationship but has all the power over your assets and children when the relationship breaks down. *Does that sound like a good idea?*

The state marriage license had some place many years ago when the woman had less of a chance to get a college education and they did not have as much chance at having as much income as the husband. In the 2nd millennium that has all changed. Women today have a much better chance now for education and earning powers.

Some will say that even today that the state marriage license helps marriage because the thought of losing partial or full custody of children and losing assets forces the couple to stay together. If the bases for a rich relationship as describe in item one above are gone then what kind of a relationship will you have if you are forced to stay married because of the loss of assets and custody? If that is your goal then modern marriage licenses have a place in your life. However, if your goal in marriage is to have a relationship that involves decency, honor, loyalty and love then a state marriage license is almost useless and in some cases a detriment. In today’s modern marriage license a man or woman that betrays the family and gets involved with another person including infidelity can pursue that betrayal and get half the assets and has a very good chance at getting at least half the custody of the children. *Can we do better than that?*

Now that the education and income earning is available for both man and woman there is very little need for a state marriage license IMO. Instead I support a co-habitation and an agreement between the man and woman that they will pursue decency, honor, loyalty, and loving each other. Also a legal agreement that in the event the relationship fails that the custody of the children will be split 50/50 unless it can be proven that one parent is less capable for providing for the children’s physical and emotional welfare. In the event that one parent has been proven to be less capable, including repeated violations of item number one above, then the other parent would get more than 50% custody.

In other words the relationship should be structured so that decency, honor, loyalty, and love would be the main thrust and top priority. If that top priority is violated then the consequences would be decided by the couple in the form of a legal agreement that would stand up in court. *This agreement would be formulated by the couple at the beginning of the relationship and NOT the state. *Since the current state marriage license does nothing to promote your top priority they should not have the power over your assets or children’s custody; the couple should settle this among themselves at the beginning.* If a couple is old enough and makes decisions such as having children then they are old enough to make an agreement about their relationship and children without the state having that power over you.*


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

The states should at least explain to applicates for a marriage license the terms to cancel the license I.e. divorce. Its a legal contract essentially yet very few understand the terms they sign up for. No one explains that premarital property as example becomes joint after marriage. No one explains that at say year 10 the world of alimony starts etc etc. 


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ConanHub (Aug 9, 2013)

We can do better and I honestly think the state should not be involved.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Dogbert (Jan 10, 2015)

I agree with your comments but as they say "the devil is in the details". For starters, what would be the standards for proof of infidelity? and what would be the legally acceptable ways of obtaining that proof? Would an EA pass muster as an affair?

If there is no clarification as to how to identify and prove infidelity in the eyes of the law, then any legal domestic partnership, is going to be just as woefully wanting as the present licensed partnership called marriage.


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> By Dogbert
> I agree with your comments but as they say "the devil is in the details". *For starters, what would be the standards for proof of infidelity? and what would be the legally acceptable ways of obtaining that proof*? Would an EA pass muster as an affair?
> 
> If there is no clarification as to how to identify and prove infidelity in the eyes of the law, then any legal domestic partnership, is going to be just as woefully wanting as the present licensed partnership called marriage.



Good questions Dogbert!

Infidelity was legal grounds for divorce years ago and I think that some states even today have infidelity as illegal in a marriage. Could we just get those standards of proof and clarifications from those old laws or the new laws?

Also, Weightlifter has a thread that I think covers some ways to get proof. I am not a lawyer but maybe some of those ways are legal? Link to weightlifter’s thread is below.

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/coping-infidelity/209754-standard-evidence-post.html


----------



## Dogbert (Jan 10, 2015)

Mr Blunt said:


> Could we just get those standards of proof and clarifications from those old laws or the new laws?


Still I wonder how effective these were during the days of fault divorce.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

One of the arguments against at fault divorce has been the burden of proof. When at fault existed in most states cell phones didn't exist, no one had computers and email at home. The world of technology and society are completely different now. 

Most of the divorce laws on the books are old and outdated to match the world we live in today. Divorce is a civil action, not criminal. The burden of proof isnt the same.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Dogbert (Jan 10, 2015)

Another thing is that if Infidelity is a broken vow, shouldn't the other vows be given equal treatment under the law when they to are broken?


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

Dogbert said:


> Another thing is that if Infidelity is a broken vow, shouldn't the other vows be given equal treatment under the law when they to are broken?


What vow did anybody take to get a marriage license really? Other than showing I'm not marrying a family member the ability to get one doesn't require anything other than paying a fee.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

ConanHub said:


> We can do better and I honestly think the state should not be involved.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


:iagree:

There have been attempts in my state at getting an at-fault law for determining alimony. Divorce would remain no-fault, meaning either person could file divorce and it would happen. But if infidelity or other egregious behavior has happened, alimony would be affected.

We are a permanent alimony state. To me this is the biggest failure of the system. A low earning spouse or SAH spouse can have an affair, then get claim to lifetime alimony from the betrayed!


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

Today in the state’s divorce courts someone that commits infidelity is not taken intro consideration with assets and custody assignments. My lawyer told me that the judge does not even want to hear about infidelity as it makes no difference. To me that makes the state’s authority in marriage a joke.

I will never get married with the state marriage license again and would be very willing to set up a legal document so that we will be held accountable for serious violations of relationship. One of the most serious violations of a relationship is betrayal and one of the worst betrayals is infidelity. One of the consequences for a serious violation such as in fidelity should include some loss of assets and custody.

I know that the marriage license people are not going to change but if you are not married and want a more accountable relationship I would forgo the marriage license from the state and draw up my own legal documents. The way that it is in a state marriage license it just does not make sense to me that the worst relationship killer, and the one that does the most damage to relationships, is betrayal infidelity, yet the state laws discount that all together.* Where is the accountability?*


*We can do better!*


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

Maybe if states required a legal prenup in order to obtain a license. In nearly any other business arraignment you need a legal biz structure. Accountability is lacking. 

People will say the cost is prohibitive to set up etc yet its a far cheaper investment than a divorce lawyer.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

Thor said:


> :iagree:
> 
> There have been attempts in my state at getting an at-fault law for determining alimony. Divorce would remain no-fault, meaning either person could file divorce and it would happen. But if infidelity or other egregious behavior has happened, alimony would be affected.
> 
> We are a permanent alimony state. To me this is the biggest failure of the system. A low earning spouse or SAH spouse can have an affair, then get claim to lifetime alimony from the betrayed!


My state has this. No fault for everything except alimony. The system in application is horrible.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> Traditional Wedding Vows 1
> I, (name), take you (name), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.


Almost all wedding vows that I have heard of have a variation of the above but all include LOVE.

Love in a marriage absolutely includes loyalty, trust, and commitment. So if that love is shattered by infidelity why does the state NOT allow that brutal violation of love to be a factor in a divorce case?

The state under its current positions have no bearing on a love relationship so therefore the state should stay out of marriage relationships. Also, the state’s divorce laws are unjust because they omit any violations of love to be a factor in the distribution of assets and custody. Because love is the main factor in keeping a relationship together, a serious violation of that love should be taken into consideration in assets and custody.

If you are unmarried and later get married with a state marriage license, then your spouse violates the main factor of love in a relationship (Infidelity) and harms the whole family, and is without true remorse, do not come crying because you got screwed in your asset and custody decree by the state laws.* If you are unmarried you have a chance to get a much better set up in case of divorce than depending on the state’s divorce laws.*


----------



## Dogbert (Jan 10, 2015)

If there is no political pressure nor will to change marriage by having the State bow out of it, then men and women will simply shun marriage altogether. In fact that is already the case with the lower middle and poor classes which has been financially stung badly by divorce. The high risk simply does not make it an attractive option.

Only when it becomes a crisis, you'll see lawmakers scrambling like chickens with their heads cut off, to resolve the issue.


----------



## sidney2718 (Nov 2, 2013)

Dogbert said:


> Still I wonder how effective these were during the days of fault divorce.


Terrible. So bad that the rush to change to no-fault was like a crowd of mad bulls charging. Divorces took forever, the courts were clogged and lies were common.

An instance from my parent's life: Friends, for reasons not important here, needed to get divorced. This was in New York State. So they enlisted their friends to lie. My parents were among them. They claimed to have walked in on the wife cheating with another man. Other friends testified to the same sort of thing. Everyone was lying. The judge knew it, the lawyers knew it, and the witnesses knew it.

But it was the only way to get out of a marriage.

The basic problem was that to get a divorce one spouse had to be dragged through the mud in public. This was NOT a good thing.

The main result was that many folks just walked away from the marriage and pretended that they weren't married. And they started new families. This worked well too, except that they left themselves open to blackmail since adultery was a crime.

For all of its problems, today's divorces are much less costly and painful. There are always exceptions though.


----------



## sidney2718 (Nov 2, 2013)

honcho said:


> What vow did anybody take to get a marriage license really? Other than showing I'm not marrying a family member the ability to get one doesn't require anything other than paying a fee.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The license did not make you married. All it is is permission from the state to get married. To do that you needed a civil ceremony presided over by a licensed person.

For most of us that civil marriage was wrapped up in a religious marriage, but it does not have to be.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

In my opinion, emotions should not be a part of a binding agreement as serious as marriage. Love is an emotion. It is expected that it will be expressed as an action. How can an opinion which is not defined within a binding contract, be upheld in a court of law? Not trying to be a jerk here, but we all have our own personal definitions of what it means to be loved, honored and cherished. They may overlap, but our deal-breakers are different. Maybe a list of deal-breakers on a contract which both sign, would be a better way? I don't know. 

Checks for infidelity? Do it yourself, I think. Take your chances. 

Checks for psychological and physiological disorders? Maybe? It's all on the internet somewhere. It could be...I don't know.

Checks for savings and so forth of a monetary value? Maybe?

Much of this stuff seems ridiculous in the traditional sense. Maybe it is? These are just thoughts I've had after being here and reading what others have posted and relating them to what I've been through.

Some of this stuff needs to be considered well before any contracts are signed. Vows are for the church. Contracts are for the state. Maybe it's time to allow churches to separate, but be recognized, if they meet certain qualifications of the state? I think many churches have counseling sessions before marriage. Maybe the state needs to require these? Surely in a few sessions paid by the individuals getting married, a qualified counselor would uncover issues with compatibility?

I don't know. These are just thoughts.

Edit: The biggest issue that's coming up for me is the children who are born to couples that are/n't married. That's another issue that needs taken care of, but I don't think it comes into this discussion. Those issues are taken under consideration in other courts and don't have any bearing on compatibility for marriage. However, they are vitally important. Don't think I'm dismissing those issues.


On further consideration, I may be wrong about that. We all need to know in the marriage contract, what we are signing up to do. Don't we? 

So, those preferences would be acknowledged and be covered under a section for procreation/adoption/parenting choices. They could cover, in general, what each person is willing to participate in. Obviously, if the wo/man you are marrying has children already, you must sign the document to acknowledge your participation in their care. Those could be defined in financial and care-giving terms. Lets face it, those happen anyway by default. We might as well take responsibility on paper, we're going to do it anyway, without the limitations in a contract. 

Freedoms now come into question. Those individuals getting married are losing some freedom. Well, yes they are, in all marriages. 

Edit 2: What wasn't covered is who and how one will be taken care of when they get to old and sick to be at home. Those things need considered. The necessary funding will have to be available for selection and insurance of some kind purchased over the life of an individual, or they will have to sign a waiver allowing a doctor's evaluation to permit the implementation of the governing section of the contract. 

This is in no way all-inclusive, nor do I think in any way shape or form it is correct or even, moral or any other terms you can think of to describe it. They are just thoughts and they don't take into consideration, any feelings that I'm aware. I didn't include those considerations because it's a contract. They weren't left out with the intention of hurting anyone, and I'm not intelligent enough to think of everything.

Hey, you all may laugh like crazy, but one day you'll have to make these decisions. If they are presented up-front, maybe the gravity of what two are committing to will allow for responsible selection of a partner who is the best choice for the life-altering decision to get married.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

Why does the state have to give me permission to marry then dictate how it ends? They have no involvement in a person getting married other than charging a fee for a certificate suitable for framing. 

My divorce is the one in a million fiasco admittedly yet ramrodding no fault down peoples throats is a mistake. I should be allowed options if I chose. I chose to get married I should have to choice and options to see how it ends. 

No fault as an option is perfectly acceptable and the bulk of divorce would "officially end" that way. My best friend is still officially married yet they haven't lived together in over 14 years. The state kept telling them how to raise there child. The state didn't like this or that. The two of them have been in agreement since day one yet the state doesnt like it. They finally just gave up and will try again after the child turns 18. 

I should have been smarter when I got married and did a prenup.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> By 2ntnuf
> In my opinion, emotions should not be a part of a binding agreement as serious as marriage. Love is an emotion


*Love is the very heart and soul of a successful relationship especially one such a marriage and should be the main issue in a contract involving a personal relationship*. You never leave out the most important part of the operation in a contract. It is like having a construction contract without mentioning the main actions such as the work to be accomplished? Love is an emotion and the main part of a relationship especially a marriage.





> By 2ntnuf
> How can an opinion which is not defined within a binding contract be upheld in a court of law?


*The harm that infidelity does is not an opinion it is a fact and can be defined in a contract*. The courts uphold hundreds of laws that deal with harm. Here is one statement that defines infidelity and consequences that can be upheld in court

CUSTODY
“This contract will be binding unless proof of infidelity is presented. Upon proof of infidelity the custody of the children will be in favor of the non-infidelity parent as such:
Percent of custody of children for non-infidelity parent _________%
Percent custody of children for parent that is guilty of infidelity	__________%

The above is just a sample and I am not a lawyer but lawyers can write just about anything and make it stick in court



> By 2ntnuf
> Not trying to be a jerk here, but we all have our own personal definitions of what it means to be loved, honored and cherished. They may overlap, but our deal-breakers are different.


2ntnuf, you are right there are a lot of personal definitions of what love is but *one thing is for sure and that is that infidelity is the opposite of everyone’s definition of love.* Betrayal/cheating/infidelity is a deal breaker for nurturing love. *One definition of love that is almost universally accepted is that it includes loyalty and commitment*. I do not think that a definition of love is that difficult to define. I will quote Forest Gump; “I may not be a smart man but I know what love is”

Since the current laws have control over your assets and children and are in the power of the state when a divorce is involved, *can we do better without the state getting the power over those very personal issues?* Can we write our own agreements; both man husband and wife?

*In other words why can’t we write our own pre-nups and leave the unjust state courts out of it*?


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

I'm sorry Mr. Blunt, but I can't comment on what you posted. You must have misunderstood what I wrote. Maybe I need to delete my post? Nowhere did I write the word, "infidelity", in that post. I can't answer you about that, since it wasn't what I was thinking about when I posted. 

I was under the impression that you wanted to know what we thought might help to improve on marriage licenses? I thought you wanted to get some opinions about how they could improve marriages if they were changed? 

Please correct me where I might have misunderstood and post exactly what it is you want to have help with changing. Otherwise, I don't know how to address what you have written in context with what I posted and what I understand to be your questions.

Edit: I apologise. I did use that word. 



> Checks for infidelity? Do it yourself, I think. Take your chances.


I did not suggest that it should be used in the acquisition of a marriage license, unless you consider it a deal-breaker. Please also notice that I posted:


> I don't know. These are just thoughts.
> 
> This is in no way all-inclusive, nor do I think in any way shape or form it is correct or even, moral or any other terms you can think of to describe it. They are just thoughts and they don't take into consideration, any feelings that I'm aware. I didn't include those considerations because it's a contract. They weren't left out with the intention of hurting anyone, and I'm not intelligent enough to think of everything.


ee.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Mr Blunt said:


> *Love is the very heart and soul of a successful relationship especially one such a marriage and should be the main issue in a contract involving a personal relationship*. You never leave out the most important part of the operation in a contract. It is like having a construction contract without mentioning the main actions such as the work to be accomplished? Love is an emotion and the main part of a relationship especially a marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mr. Blunt,

You can't legislate feelings. It's illegal, as far as I know. You can only make laws concerning conduct. Since love is part of the contract we make and is approved by the state, are marriages illegal according to the very laws we live by today? 

As far as the state is concerned, someone has to record these marriages and oversee them. Who would do that?

I answered your question about infidelity in my previous post.

As far as the state being involved with your assets and children's welfare(or that next to last? paragraph), I think we need to have a hand in it, but not total control. I think, if you reread what I posted, and think on it, you will understand that's exactly what I wrote. 

Without the state involved in some way, there would be no help for those who really do need it. Someone will have to enforce the prenups. Since the courts are where contracts are enforced, I don't think there is any other way, but to include the courts. What I posted takes all of that into account. Again, please reread what I posted and take out your feelings. Feelings cannot, as far as I know and I'm not a legal scholar or attorney or judge, be legislated. 

Edit: This thread, as far as I understood had nothing to do with prenups. Those may well be unnecessary if we would adopt proper laws, including testing and many of the other things I mentioned in that first post of mine, in this thread. Please, again, reread it and think about it. ee.

I ask again. If feelings cannot be legislated, how can a contract for marriage be binding if it involves feelings, as you have stated? Wouldn't they all be illegal unless defined in terms that both participants in the marriage agree upon?


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> I was under the impression that you wanted to know what we thought might help to improve on marriage licenses? I thought you wanted to get some opinions about how they could improve marriages if they were changed?


I wanted to know the thoughts on ELININATING the current marriage license that guarantee that the state will be involved in controlling the custody of your children and assets. That is what I meant when I said* “WE CAN DO BETTER”, meaning we leave the state and marriage license out of our personal relationships*





> You can't legislate feelings. It's illegal, as far as I know. You can only make laws concerning conduct


The courts do rule on contracts and if a couple makes a private contract with each other without the state involved that contract will be ruled upon in court; just like they do for a construction contract or other private contracts. If the contract spells out the provisions of a broken contract then the courts will rule on those provisions. Provisions such as infidelity, custody, and asset distribution. I am not a lawyer but think that this can be done because a private legal contract between two people is a legal document.






> Edit: This thread, as far as I understood had nothing to do with prenups.


The title of this thread is “Today’s marriage licenses; can we do better?”

*We can do better by us entering into a legal private contract (Pre-NUP) between the couples that are entering into a personal relationship.*

We can do better than the state marriage license by not getting involved with a marriage license and therefore eliminating the power of the state to rule on your personal relationships in terms of assets and custody. The COUPLE will agree on the pre-nup in a private contract without the state’s involvement. *This thread includes private pre-nups by the couple and that is what I think will fall into the category of “We can do better”*


I am condensing my thoughts on how “we can dobetter” below:

*If you do not get a marriage license and do not involve the state then the state cannot have control over your assets; there will be no “Community Property” 

If you make a contact with your relationship partner regarding custody and infidelity then the courts will be ruling on the provisions of that contract.*


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

2ntnuf said:


> Mr. Blunt,
> 
> You can't legislate feelings. It's illegal, as far as I know. You can only make laws concerning conduct. Since love is part of the contract we make and is approved by the state, are marriages illegal according to the very laws we live by today?
> 
> ...


The state does regulate feelings....its called no fault. Often divorce is the most emotional turbulent time a person goes thru yet the state suddenly starts dictating nearly every aspect of your life and it can last for years. The states openly tell you your feelings don't matter during divorce. Its all about the balance sheet. 

How much less bickering/emotional upheaval would we have if you had a basic agreement already in place in case divorce happened.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

Mr Blunt said:


> I wanted to know the thoughts on ELININATING the current marriage license that guarantee that the state will be involved in controlling the custody of your children and assets. That is what I meant when I said* “WE CAN DO BETTER”, meaning we leave the state and marriage license out of our personal relationships*


Ahh. Eliminating the current marriage license? I sort of think of it as permission to get married if we meet certain qualifications. I guess what I was writing was expanding the qualifications and defining them more clearly. You know, we have education and testing for driving a car. I guess because they want no one to have an accident and or get hurt/die. Lives are permanently changed or eliminated. Seems like the same thing happens in a divorce. Well, I think we might be able to do better. I don't disagree. I'm not sure we can leave the state out of it. It's worth discussing.






Mr Blunt said:


> The courts do rule on contracts and if a couple makes a private contract with each other without the state involved that contract will be ruled upon in court; just like they do for a construction contract or other private contracts. If the contract spells out the provisions of a broken contract then the courts will rule on those provisions. Provisions such as infidelity, custody, and asset distribution. I am not a lawyer but think that this can be done because a private legal contract between two people is a legal document.


Yeah, if the courts rule on contracts, then by default, we really can't keep the state out of marriage contracts. They must recognise them through the courts. I think that's where I misunderstood that comment. I guess I was looking at criteria and how they could be determined, like describing love through checking off a list of common things similar to...I don't know...His Needs, Her Needs? Maybe a few of those needs or language of love books. Their lists could be refined and condensed...maybe, that's why I kept writing I don't know and maybe and so forth. There is a heck of a lot to consider. There could also be a space for adding what is not defined or represented in the checklist. If things are too ridiculous, it would indicate an issue between the two and/or an issue with one's expectations.





Mr Blunt said:


> The title of this thread is “Today’s marriage licenses; can we do better?”
> 
> *We can do better by us entering into a legal private contract (Pre-NUP) between the couples that are entering into a personal relationship.*


We have those now, and they can be worked around in many cases. Okay, you only want a pre-nup in cases where there is something to protect, financially. I guess I was including pensions and 401K's in this and maybe you are also? Those build over a lifetime and pre-nups put me in mind of someone bringing things into a marriage. I think there is a huge difference in our thinking. I think, stating in writing that I will not share my money, if that were true, would need to be part of the questions or list of options on an application for a marriage license. If approved by a partner and signed/notarized, well then you have that section approved. The state would make sure there is nothing illegal like, I get to take all his/her money each week and s/he gets none. Or, s/he can force me to walk ten miles to the grocery store and back every day with a cast on my foot, carrying five bags of canned goods of my choosing. Ridiculous example, but I think you get the idea. How that is done has yet to be determined. In fact, what is included or can be included has yet to be determined. Counseling is going to play a role in what folks will choose or if they are even mentally and emotionally stable enough to apply for permission to get married. I haven't written or thought much about how it all would be paid for either.



Mr Blunt said:


> We can do better than the state marriage license by not getting involved with a marriage license and therefore eliminating the power of the state to rule on your personal relationships in terms of assets and custody. The COUPLE will agree on the pre-nup in a private contract without the state’s involvement. *This thread includes private pre-nups by the couple and that is what I think will fall into the category of “We can do better”*


The existing system is terrible. I think we can do better. Remember, I am in the U.S. I can't even speak for other states. I only have some knowledge of my state's marriage laws, unfortunately. ha!



Mr Blunt said:


> I am condensing my thoughts on how “we can dobetter” below:
> 
> *If you do not get a marriage license and do not involve the state then the state cannot have control over your assets; there will be no “Community Property”
> 
> If you make a contact with your relationship partner regarding custody and infidelity then the courts will be ruling on the provisions of that contract.*


Interesting. If your marriage isn't recognized by the state, would you be able to receive any of the tax benefits? Who would recognise you as married, if the state doesn't? If something bad happened, would you have the ability to represent your marriage partner in a court of law? I think there are many problems with this idea. 

A preliminary screening and mandatory education and counseling prior to being able to apply for a marriage license would eliminate the need for any of that. It would cut down on those who got married, and really *never* should. It would then eliminate court costs and reduce wasted hours of the courts. If we all have a different prenup, we add to the problems and court time. The marriage could then be recognized by all and tax laws or any others could be looked at separately for issues and changes. 
Edit 2: I dont't know why that word in bold above, "never", is there. It should not be. ee.

*Interesting thread. Should it be moved to a different section, since it doesn't really deal with coping with infidelity? I think a moderator should be contacted before you go any further. They may allow it and should post their ruling.*


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

The problem with divorce is that the terms change depending on where you live, and change over time depending on the whims of the state.

So when I got married in NJ, there were laws in place regarding divorce. Then we moved to several other states through the years. Every place had different laws about the divorce process, custody, division of assets, and alimony.

I entered into a contract with my wife, yet the terms have changed numerous times over the years without my consent. How is that a valid contract when a 3rd party (the state) can change the basic terms? Furthermore, I entered into a verbal contract when we stated our vows, which became a written contract when we signed the marriage certificate. Yet those verbal terms have zero legal weight.

To improve the system, I think people getting married should be required to acknowledge they are entering into a legal contract with terms established by the state, changeable by the state, and which are completely different than the meaningless verbal vows.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

I would be in favor of totally eliminating marriage licenses. Let people enter into personal relationships without prior state approval required. Let people define what constitutes the ceremony binding them together in a spiritual marriage. If they want their dog to marry them, good enough. They can consider themselves spiritually married.

Change the system to allow people to sign a marriage certificate, or marriage contract. Such a document would then establish a legal marriage and bring with it all facets of any legal contract. A marriage might qualify the spouse for benefits and would ensure divorce would be per the state laws, but would bring with it obligations and risks as well. Absent a signed contract, people can consider themselves spiritually joined but not legally married.


----------



## Dogbert (Jan 10, 2015)

Like almost all animals, humans tend to be territorial creatures and a we tend to view a marriage license as a legal document that says "you belong to me". Once that piece of paper is signed by both parties, it only re-enforces that mindset. Then when things don't work out, we find that the marriage license was not a title of ownership but a legal document that binds both parties to unique set of legal protocols that suck royally as far as the post divorce type of personal freedom that is imposed by the State.

I for one, have pulled aside nephews and nieces engaged and gave them Dogbert's crash course on marriage and divorce. None of them have asked for their money back - then again it was free


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

Dogbert said:


> I for one, have pulled aside nephews and nieces engaged and gave them Dogbert's crash course on marriage and divorce. None of them have asked for their money back - then again it was free


How many took the advice? We think we are marrying the "special one" and none of this will happen. This is also why nearly every legal contract people sign have the terms to break said contract included except a marriage license.

The rules vary way too much from state to state. Again no where in a marriage license does it say the terms automatically transfer jurisdiction to a differing state. 

Each and every marriage is unique. We have all lived married lives based on agreements between each other. We are capable of making the decision to marry, buy assets and manage debt all without the states approval. When you purchase say a home one of the first thing you do is buy insurance to protect your investment. We have a much greater chance of divorce than a tornado. We as capable human being aught to be able to figure out who gets house and have such penalties in place for infidelity or domestic abuse or whatever two people agree to.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Dogbert (Jan 10, 2015)

honcho said:


> How many took the advice? We think we are marrying the "special one" and none of this will happen. This is also why nearly every legal contract people sign have the terms to break said contract included except a marriage license.


Sadly, none of them. Nevertheless I did my moral obligation as their uncle and warned them so if their marriages turn sour and their spouses cheat or leave them for others, they know that uncle Dogbert will say to them "I told you so".

Remember Pink Floyd's album "Wish You Were Here"? The album cover had two men in business suits shaking hands implying the sealing of a deal or contract. Do you know why it has one man on fire? Because in many deals that are made, there is always one who will get burned.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Dogbert said:


> Remember Pink Floyd's album "Wish You Were Here"?


I play that song all the time. Great song.


----------



## Thundarr (Jul 4, 2012)

Okay. As parents we really have to step up and teach our kids what to expect from a partner. It's not the state's job to train our youth to pick a good partner. The state polices the contract but that's about it.


----------



## Q tip (Apr 15, 2014)

so marriages should have an expiration date and renewable options then...


----------



## RespectWalk (Mar 16, 2015)

I think they should bring back punishment for cheaters. Cheating is a crime and should be punished.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

I've struggled through this whole thing and I have a few comments.

What does infidelity or a prenuptial agreement have to do with Child custody? Child custody is about the best welfare of the child. My understanding of current law is that both parents (biological or by adoption even if the adoption was achieved by deceit) are responsible for the child's care and support up until some legally determined point when the child can care for it's self. Using access to the child, or the funds intended for the child care as a bargaining chip in the dissolution of a marriage is counter productive to the best interests of the child.

Alimony is a rip off. Always has been.

Fidelity is not universal hasn't been since medieval times and likely earlier.

The government acts as an arbitrator in civil disputes when no other arbitration is satisfactory. 

The government will charge fees. There is nothing more universal than Death and Taxes.

I recently reviewed the vows in my (admittedly unusual) marriage. I found that much was implied but little was actually said.

MN


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

Mr Blunt said:


> In today’s modern marriage license a man or woman that betrays the family and gets involved with another person including infidelity can pursue that betrayal and get half the assets and has a very good chance at getting at least half the custody of the children. *Can we do better than that?*




I've been saying this over and over. Marriage, the way the courts have made it these days, makes it very difficult for a man to justify. If his blushing bride, while not working and staying at home with the kids, decides to betray the marriage, the courts do not recognize this betrayal and instead awards her with half of her husbands assets and future pay. This is obviously wrong on several levels and should be changed. Men in this position should have a better remendy avaialble to them instead of having to turn over the house they work themselves to the grave to be able to live in with their wife, to the very person who betrayed them and her new lover.

It's really getting to the point marriage is a bad idea for men. I think that if the courts are going to continue to to award wives for cheating, men should have to go to a class to inform them of what a poor position marriage puts their future in. Given these facts, not many men would want to do it anymore. Sadly, things like honor and love don't matter today, it's all about how much you can play somebody. 

I do like the idea of a couple writting their own marriage license but it should be taken a step futher to include what the expectations on both sides are and the consequences for betrayal or not meeting the expectations. I know that takes all the romance out of the idea of marriage, but let's face it, marriage today it's what it used to be. It's not about love and honor anymore.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

RespectWalk said:


> I think they should bring back punishment for cheaters. Cheating is a crime and should be punished.


Agreed, there should also be some kind of legal action that can be taken against a refuser in a sexless marriage. If a marriage license is truly a contract, their should be penalties for those who do not carry out the contact in good faith...as in any other contract.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

Q tip said:


> so marriages should have an expiration date and renewable options then...


Not so much an expiration date, but some type of penalties for those who decide not to carry out the marriage contract in good faith, or do things that would nullify the contract.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

Mr. Nail said:


> I've struggled through this whole thing and I have a few comments.
> 
> What does infidelity or a prenuptial agreement have to do with Child custody? Child custody is about the best welfare of the child. My understanding of current law is that both parents (biological or by adoption even if the adoption was achieved by deceit) are responsible for the child's care and support up until some legally determined point when the child can care for it's self. Using access to the child, or the funds intended for the child care as a bargaining chip in the dissolution of a marriage is counter productive to the best interests of the child.
> 
> ...


Divorce and child custody/child support are two separate legal actions, they just get lumped together in almost all divorce proceedings. 

If I was unwed and had a child I can sue for custody etc. I also would have more ability and greater latitude in bringing "fault" in a child custody case if it was handled separately from divorce hearing. Children get used as pawns in divorce, the states could care less about the childrens welfare. A child is not an asset or liability to be negotiated yet that is how the state basically handles it. 

The state doesn't act as just arbitrator they dictate your life in essence during a divorce proceeding. You cant obtain loans, you cant payoff debt. You cant purchase a different car or home without a courts approval. Any purchase over 500 bucks in my state needs court approval while a divorce proceeding is going on. If I followed the strict letter of the law here I would have had to have a court hearing to buy tires for my car. It ridiculous.

These are all part of the joys that you get saddled with when you obtain a marriage license and none of this is disclosed by "the state". The government wants license revenue, that's swell but if they would look at the costs of maintaining the current divorce system its pretty obvious the costs outweigh the revenues.


----------



## chaos (Mar 9, 2012)

RespectWalk said:


> I think they should bring back punishment for cheaters. Cheating is a crime and should be punished.


What kind of punishment are we talking about, civil or criminal?



jb02157 said:


> Agreed, there should also be some kind of legal action that can be taken against a refuser in a sexless marriage. If a marriage license is truly a contract, their should be penalties for those who do not carry out the contact in good faith...as in any other contract.


Don't ge me wrong, I agree but but who is going to do a thorough and exhaustive investigation of hundreds of thousands of people on a yearly basis? Does the money exist to hire an army of investigators? If it doesn't, is there enough political will to raise taxes for it?

Wouldn't it be simply better and cheaper to get the State out of the issuing of marriage licenses altogether? What/who is the State protecting with those licenses? Lastly, no marriage = no divorce and no massive amounts of monies spent by nations throughout the world.

In a free society, the State should mind its own business from the personal affairs of its citizens.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

chaos said:


> Wouldn't it be simply better and cheaper to get the State out of the issuing of marriage licenses altogether? What/who is the State protecting with those licenses? Lastly, no marriage = no divorce and no massive amounts of monies spent by nations throughout the world.
> 
> In a free society, the State should mind its own business from the personal affairs of its citizens.


Oh I agree 100%. If there was no marriage license and then technically no legal binding of marriage, that obviates divorce settlements and thus payments to wives who can now essentially be paid to act like a *****, cheat on you, beat your children or be a refuser. It also makes someone, whether man or woman, free to leave a relationship whenever they want without getting involved with courts. That makes alot more sense in this age where love and honor no longer matter. A man could then take his money and possessions and leave without having to give away 70% of everything.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

There is a very simple reason why lawmakers have not brought back punishments for adultery. The solution is as simple. If the majority of us are not cheaters we should stop voting for them.

BTW Honcho thanks for the clarifications. I believe that pretrial mediation is more often the best course. I see that the courts have taken the lead in making the children pawns. We can do better than that.


----------



## Dogbert (Jan 10, 2015)

Mr. Nail said:


> There is a very simple reason why lawmakers have not brought back punishments for adultery.


Yeah, they would all be in court being indicted on charges of infidelity. Washington DC and most of the State capitals would be nothing but ghost towns.

Like it or not, we have always been governed by cheating scoundrels.


----------



## TheGoodGuy (Apr 22, 2013)

Thor said:


> A low earning spouse or SAH spouse can have an affair, then get claim to lifetime alimony from the betrayed!


That is scary **** right there..


----------



## Mr Blunt (Jul 18, 2012)

> Jb012
> I do like the idea of a couple writing their own marriage license but it should be* taken a step further to include what the expectations on both sides are and the consequences for betrayal or not meeting the expectations*.


*Absolutely, the expectations and consequences of both should be spelled out in detail and agreed upon by both*. Now you have what is expected and what the consequences are. This will have several advantages: 

The first is that there will be no misunderstandings about the major issues in the relationship from the beginning.

Secondly, the couple can review this agreement as the years go on to keep them fostering each other’s closeness and keep them on tract.

Thirdly, , the agreement will take way the state’s authority to regulate your personal lives such as your assets and custody of your children to name a few. 

Fourthly, the consequences of violating the agreement can be a deterrent to infidelity and other improper actions. 

Fifth, the agreement can help deter one taking the other for granted; the agreement reinforces the idea that just because you both are committed to the relationship that you do not own that person and they are still a free person.

Conversely, the current marriage license and divorce laws do not have some of the advantages as listed above. In addition, the marriage license and divorce laws are unjust in the situation where there is infidelity. *The injustice is the fact that the divorce laws will dictate to you how your assets and custody will be put into law but they will blatantly disregard taking into consideration any infidelity*. In other words the state takes over the authority to decide for you in the areas of assets and custody but they cop out on having ANY RESPONSIBILTY TO address the most important violation of the marriage which is infidelity. The state wants the authority but not the responsibility.

Infidelity has as much if not more effect on the family than the assets and custody yet the state shucks this responsibility, that is another reason that the state should be left out of a personal relationship altogether. However,* the biggest reasons that the state should be left out of personal relationships are that they are unjust in some areas and that the couples themselves can write a private agreement themselves that would give then a better chance of keeping the marriage healthy!*


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Pre-nup





Mr Blunt said:


> 1	Relationships are built upon decency, honor, loyalty, and loving each other.
> 
> 2	The modern marriage license is issued by the state and does very little to promote or get involved with any of the above!
> 
> ...


----------

