# Replacing marriage with a business agreement



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

It has been suggested (perhaps not seriously) in a thread on the divorce forum that perhaps, if we aren't going to consider lifelong marriage as a viable model, we would be better off with a partnership or LLC model. Given that the dissolution of such an arrangement can be specified in advance with much less trauma when it happens, that might at least reduce the disappointment and other negative emotions that occur upon one spouse deciding to divorce the other.

The sticking point in such a proposal is what happens to children. Of course, that might actually be better in that it would be handled via explicit provisions in the documents that set up the LLC, etc. And we can't really claim that the current situation benefits children very much either, given the very high chance of divorce.

So overall I think that abolishing marriage in favor of a business arrangement that specifies duties, privileges, and so on would be an improvement.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Wolf1974 (Feb 19, 2014)

My personal opinion is that government should be completely removed from marriage And it should become essentially a religious based ceremony or just commitment ceremony. No alimony, no tax breaks, no anything. So far as they are concerned it doesn't exist.

If children are created and the former couple disagree on who is doing the raising and so forth then yes the courts will have to intervene


----------



## romex (Nov 16, 2015)

The same people that would be interested in such an agreement are the same ones who sign prenuptual agrerements, and that's a very small percentage of married people.

Do you want to know why it's a very small percentage of people?

Because when people marry they are sure they're not like all those other failures out there. No way, they're in love, it ain't never gonna happen to them and business agreements just take all the fun out of it and it's not something people in love are going to do.


----------



## NoChoice (Feb 12, 2012)

Perhaps all that is necessary is to enforce the vows.


----------



## romex (Nov 16, 2015)

When people enter business agreements they know they need to protect their ass. They KNOW that business deals fail and they have no reason to trust their business partner implicitly because they don't have sex with their business partner and they don't share their innermost secrets with their business partner. At least, not usually- unless of course they're marrying their business partner!

Anyway, people don't think they need it, until of course, they need it.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

I just find the question rather sad.. Life is loaded with those who abandon us for this reason, that and another.. might as well add our spouse to the list.. and pretty much expect it...

I see the beauty & romance sucked out of the ideal of marriage more & more.. it's not the type of marraige I would want , I can tell you that.. nor would I for our children.. I hope they are deeply in love and both yearn for the "Forever"...to love, cherish & honor..... 

But true.. it takes 2 giving, forgiving, humble self aware people with strong values to pull this off... and hopefully not a nightmare of hardships coming upon them.. as this has the power to rip the strongest of bonds, if we aren't stubborn enough to not allow that...

When we put other things above our marriage... it will always erode the foundation.. 

I'm just not one in favor of sucking the beauty of the vows and forever out of marriage..


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

SimplyAmorous said:


> I just find the question rather sad.. Life is loaded with those who abandon us for this reason, that and another.. might as well add our spouse to the list.. and pretty much expect it...
> 
> I see the beauty & romance sucked out of the ideal of marriage more & more.. it's not the type of marraige I would want , I can tell you that.. nor would I for our children.. I hope they are deeply in love and both yearn for the "Forever"...to love cherish & honor..... but true.. it takes 2 giving, forgiving, humble self aware people with strong values to pull this off... and hopefully not a nightmare of hardships coming upon them.. as this has the power to rip the strongest of bonds...
> 
> ...


That's lovely... for the people who experience it that way.

But for a pretty large segment of the population, that's not how it turns out. Perhaps for many people, being more practical at the beginning would reduce the pain of breaking up something that is "supposed to last a lifetime"?


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

NoChoice said:


> Perhaps all that is necessary is to enforce the vows.


Can you suggest a way to do that? I can't think of one that would be feasible in the present day.


----------



## NoChoice (Feb 12, 2012)

technovelist said:


> Can you suggest a way to do that? I can't think of one that would be feasible in the present day.


Perhaps force psychological testing before marriage to try and determine if the couple are indeed intellectually developed enough to understand the commitment of "till death do us part". If they are found not to be, then deny the license.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

Why have any kind of agreement at all ?

Why not just have children with a partner and hope for the best in providing for them.

Enables man to exercise his primal urge to spread his seed and woman to seek the fittest partner.

If you go back far enough, they still hadn't defined love yet so that could be left out of the equation.

OR ON THE OTHER HAND

Why not have a basic constitution that governs every eventuality in such an arrangement with amendments to cover new developments and backed up by a system of law enforcement that suitably punished the offenders and rewarded success in marriage.

OR

Have it completely governed by religion but in order to make that meaningful, to resort to a religious state so as to enforce it properly.

OR

leave it as it is and come to TAM when things go wrong.


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Tech,

You are essentially looking to change the laws pertaining to divorce. I'm sure you know that those laws vary widely between states. 

What are the primary changes you wish to implement? 

And FWIW - there are states which I believe are too harsh on the main breadwinner. And other states which I believe are too easy on the main breadwinner. 

So - it would be a beautiful thing to see a national standard for divorce law.....






technovelist said:


> It has been suggested (perhaps not seriously) in a thread on the divorce forum that perhaps, if we aren't going to consider lifelong marriage as a viable model, we would be better off with a partnership or LLC model. Given that the dissolution of such an arrangement can be specified in advance with much less trauma when it happens, that might at least reduce the disappointment and other negative emotions that occur upon one spouse deciding to divorce the other.
> 
> The sticking point in such a proposal is what happens to children. Of course, that might actually be better in that it would be handled via explicit provisions in the documents that set up the LLC, etc. And we can't really claim that the current situation benefits children very much either, given the very high chance of divorce.
> 
> ...


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Marriage is a business agreement. It always has been.

when we marry we are signing a contract. The terms of the contract are defined by state law.

For some reason people are ignorant of the law and do not realize this.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> Marriage is a business agreement. It always has been.
> 
> when we marry we are signing a contract. The terms of the contract are defined by state law.
> 
> For some reason people are ignorant of the law and do not realize this.


It is indeed a kind of contract, namely a partnership contract, but one with very strange and undesirable characteristics, including:
1. The state rewrites it *retroactively* if it so chooses (the change from at-fault to no-fault).
2. The parties cannot specify the terms themselves, or if they do (pre-nup) the terms are often overturned on appeal to the state.
3. There are no enforceable privileges or responsibilities specified in the contract.
4. There are no specific provisions for what happens if and when the partnership is dissolved. Instead, the state decides each instance at great expense and trouble for all concerned.

If we are looking at marriage as a contract, it is obvious to me that a normal kind of partnership contract would be far preferable.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Tech,
> 
> You are essentially looking to change the laws pertaining to divorce. I'm sure you know that those laws vary widely between states.
> 
> ...


No, it's not just divorce. The ugliness of divorce is just one of the defects in this arrangement. Marriage itself is a bizarre type of partnership that does not specify privileges, duties, penalties, compensation, or any of the other normal components of a contract.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

NoChoice said:


> Perhaps force psychological testing before marriage to try and determine if the couple are indeed intellectually developed enough to understand the commitment of "till death do us part". If they are found not to be, then deny the license.


And if they do get married after that psychological screening, but then change their minds later?

That's why a normal partnership contract is better; it takes into account the possibility of the parties wishing to dissolve the agreement, and how that can be done with the least disruption.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

This is just silly, because once we take a vow we are never allowed to change our minds, we are to put all personal growth on hold unless that person growth is approved by our SO and we cease to exist as individuals, or so some seem to think
Personally I am not opposed to the idea of an actual contract as opposed to the unenforceable open ended, ill defined vows that people imagine are iron-clad, absolute and eternal. At the very least the contract could spell out the terms of the agreement and any possible dissolution of the arrangement. Of course divorce corp. would never go for this as it would put lots of lawyers out of business.


----------



## Chuck71 (Nov 5, 2012)

Do like baseball..... sign a five year contract.... when it's up you can A-resign or B-free agency.

Write in agreements on child custody, CS, etc before... you say vows


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Ynot said:


> This is just silly, because once we take a vow we are never allowed to change our minds, we are to put all personal growth on hold unless that person growth is approved by our SO and we cease to exist as individuals, or so some seem to think
> Personally I am not opposed to the idea of an actual contract as opposed to the unenforceable open ended, ill defined vows that people imagine are iron-clad, absolute and eternal. At the very least the contract could spell out the terms of the agreement and any possible dissolution of the arrangement. Of course divorce corp. would never go for this as it would put lots of lawyers out of business.


Exactly. 

By the way, to threadjack my own thread, I also have a suspicion that one of the drivers behind same-sex marriage was the divorce lawyers. Why should same-sex couples be exempt from divorce court? >


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

technovelist said:


> Exactly.
> 
> By the way, to threadjack my own thread, I also have a suspicion that one of the drivers behind same-sex marriage was the divorce lawyers. Why should same-sex couples be exempt from divorce court? >


You may be correct about that. It is another thing I don't understand. What benefit is derived from ever inviting the state into your life? Most people don't realize the real purpose of government sanctioned marriage is totally about tax policy and nothing more. Then on the back end, they decide how it all goes down when it fails.


----------



## Mulligan (Nov 24, 2013)

Chuck71 said:


> Do like baseball..... sign a five year contract.... when it's up you can A-resign or B-free agency.
> 
> Write in agreements on child custody, CS, etc before... you say vows


I've had thoughts along the same lines, except seven year contracts (to correspond to the "seven year itch").


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

Actually I wonder if marriage would be more successful as an institution if the participants actually considered it a temporary arrangement. One would work at least a little bit harder to keep something good if you've got it. It might actually encourage the effort and dedication to keep it going that the assumption that it is permanent and life long.
I could imagine some really fun times when one is "playing for a contract next year"


----------



## Dude007 (Jun 22, 2015)

I think a lot of marriages are already a business arrangement anyway so I'm all in. Most married couples I know are not romantic. They are about buying houses and raising kids. Maybe even running a small biz together. Dude
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Chuck71 (Nov 5, 2012)

The government never intended to impede upon M but we know how that goes don't we?

Courts are different state to state. I wonder.... what states are more fair / down the middle and

which are completely lop-sided.

Personally.... I do know GA, TN, AL, MS, and SC are more down the middle.


----------



## Nynaeve (Jun 19, 2013)

I think this whole conversation is kinda silly, to be honest. It has more to do with fear than logic.

You cannot make laws or contracts that will keep you from getting hurt. That's what this is really about. People think if they can impose a law or craft a perfect contract they can make another person not cheat or not leave. That's absurd. Human relationships have never been free of risk. You can try to remove the love to safeguard against pain (I.e. make it all business rather than love) but then what's the point? Who would really want to live like that? Most people would rather try for love and joy than box upntheir hearts and treat intimate relationships like impersonal business deals.

And anyone who thinks lawyers will be out of business if we switch from having marriage be implied contracts to having express contracts really, really knows nothing about the law or lawyers. Are you kidding me? You're proposing going from a process where people fill out a simple form and get married to a process where people have to hire attorneys to write contracts that are individualized. And you have to have a lawyer for each party because there's a conflict of interest. So the lawyers have to discuss and trade drafts back and forth, review with their clients, make revisions, etc. This is what lawyers do when they represent businesses entering into contracts.

And do you know what divorce lawyers who charge by the hour love the most? Prenups! You know why? Because they get to argue over the wording. What does this clause really mean? Is it ambiguous? Does it really apply? Is it unconscionable? And it takes hours upon hours. Sometimes multiple hearings. Depositions. Interrogatories and requests for production of documents! Multiple pre-trial motions. Appeals! It's a divorce lawyer's wet dream. 

With the statutes and common law that we have now, the law is settled. There's no arguing about whether it's ambiguous or how it applies. That's been decided for years. Not so with individualized contracts. Oh no, there's so very much to argue about with those.

It's downright laughable that anyone could think making marriage contracts more like business arrangements would hurt divorce lawyers' business. Seriously.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Nynaeve said:


> I think this whole conversation is kinda silly, to be honest. It has more to do with fear than logic.
> 
> You cannot make laws or contracts that will keep you from getting hurt. That's what this is really about. People think if they can impose a law or craft a perfect contract they can make another person not cheat or not leave. That's absurd. Human relationships have never been free of risk. You can try to remove the love to safeguard against pain (I.e. make it all business rather than love) but then what's the point? Who would really want to live like that? Most people would rather try for love and joy than box upntheir hearts and treat intimate relationships like impersonal business deals.
> 
> ...


No one has said anything about a contract that will keep people from hurting one another; that is obviously ridiculous.

I agree it would be harder to get married under the regime I'm suggesting than it is now. But I don't consider that a negative; it's much too easy to get married now, and too hard to get divorced.

I assume that a reasonable partnership agreement would have a clear way for the parties to dissolve it without the necessity of getting the government involved *in the dissolution*, unlike marriage. 

Partnership agreements definitely have assignments of privileges, duties, compensation (where applicable) and the like, also unlike marriage.

Prenups are of course an attempt to add missing features to marriage, with the usual problems that you get with patches rather than a clean rewrite.

And if marital law is settled, why do divorce cases sometimes drag on for years, at great expense and suffering to at least one of the parties involved?

Let me guess what you do for a living. You're a lawyer, right?


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

technovelist said:


> No one has said anything about a contract that will keep people from hurting one another; that is obviously ridiculous.
> 
> I agree it would be harder to get married under the regime I'm suggesting than it is now. But I don't consider that a negative; it's much too easy to get married now, and too hard to get divorced.
> 
> ...


I agree. I don't recall anyone ever saying a contract would prevent hurt. But what it could do is prevent parasites from enriching themselves from enriching themselves off the misery of others. 
A standard marriage contract detailing the basics would be more than sufficient for most people. Why one would need a lawyer to draft one is beyond me, especially given that as standard contract would be just that - standard.


----------



## Nynaeve (Jun 19, 2013)

technovelist said:


> No one has said anything about a contract that will keep people from hurting one another; that is obviously ridiculous.


Well of course no one comes out and SAYS it. Because when you come out and say it, it's obviously ridiculous.

That doesn't mean that's not the root motivation.

It's about trying to protect oneself. Now, some people seem to care more about protecting themselves financially, it's true. But 99 times out of 100, the people who think marriage needs to be more like business and less like relationship are the same people who haven't gotten over being hurt.



> I agree it would be harder to get married under the regime I'm suggesting than it is now. But I don't consider that a negative; it's much too easy to get married now, and too hard to get divorced.


But what you're suggesting wouldn't make it easier to divorce, either. Just because there's a contract doesn't mean that the courts won't get involved. 

Do you have ANY concept of how many breach of contract cases get litigated every year? You think divorce attorneys make bank? LOL! No. The really high powered, wealthy lawyers aren't divorce lawyers. They're contract lawyers - they represent multi-billion dollar corporations drafting contracts and litigating about them. 

And why do you think it should be harder to get married? What is the harm that is being done by the ease of marriage?



> I assume that a reasonable partnership agreement would have a clear way for the parties to dissolve it without the necessity of getting the government involved *in the dissolution*, unlike marriage.


Partnership agreements have ways to dissolve without getting the government involved. That does not mean that they do not often involve the courts, anyway. 

Also, partnerships, LLCs, corporations... there are statutes about those too. So if people form an organization but don't bother to adopt bilaws or articles of incorporation or a partnership agreement... the laws of the state will control. So, actually very similar to marriage in that regard already.

95% of divorces are settled out of court. So while the government is involved, in the vast majority of cases, government involvement is minimal. And most divorces are quick and easy.



> Partnership agreements definitely have assignments of privileges, duties, compensation (where applicable) and the like, also unlike marriage.


Not necessarily. Like I said above, you don't have to enter into a written partnership agreement that spells everything out. You can rely on the statutes that spell all that out. Much like statutes and common law spell all that out for marriages. 



> Prenups are of course an attempt to add missing features to marriage, with the usual problems that you get with patches rather than a clean rewrite.


Um, no. Prenups are only about what happens to the money and assets. They do not cover things like "privileges, duties, compensation."

Those things aren't covered in the marriage contract because very, very few people actually want that. What you're proposing sounds more like indentured servitude than a partnership agreement. 




> And if marital law is settled, why do divorce cases sometimes drag on for years, at great expense and suffering to at least one of the parties involved?


Well, first of all, the cases that drag on for years and years usually are the ones with lots of money and prenups - so, it's because they're arguing over the things that aren't settled, i.e. the contract. Secondly, even when the law is settled, there are still the facts to be argued about. 

The vast majority of cases do not drag on for years.



> Let me guess what you do for a living. You're a lawyer, right?


You didn't need to guess. Not only have I said that multiple times in threads in which you've been involved, it's right there in my profile which I can see that you have visited recently.

[I do not currently practice family law. I have in the past. When I did, I represented lower income clients and I charged a flat fee rather than an hourly rate. I made much, much more money when I represented oil and gas companies in contract disputes.]


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Tech,

I've read, edited, negotiated and written a whole lot of contracts. 

Can't write one for a marriage that would really work. Reason for that couldn't be any simpler. 

All marriages consist of a soup. That soup has a few key ingredients that drive behavior among them:
- The power dynamic (ideally driven more by love than fear) 
- Individual character drivers 
- External forces 

That said, ALL the beautiful things in my marriage come from love, not contract. They aren't mechanical compliance with terms. But rather the expression of a deep desire to connect, to love and to please. Or sometimes a need to demonstrate to ourselves that truly we are a good life partner. 

I don't believe you could write a contract that would change how we behave. And I'm good with that. 




technovelist said:


> No, it's not just divorce. The ugliness of divorce is just one of the defects in this arrangement. Marriage itself is a bizarre type of partnership that does not specify privileges, duties, penalties, compensation, or any of the other normal components of a contract.


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

Nynaeve said:


> 95% of divorces are settled out of court. So while the government is involved, in the vast majority of cases, government involvement is minimal.


I think you're not being realistic here.

In my divorce I knew what the courts could reward my exW so I based my decision in the settlement entirely on what the court had hanging over me. (20 year marriage and I was adamantly against alimony). To say the government was not involved? Um, yes they were.

So even though you could say the government was not involved, that would not be entirely true.

AND, the judge approves any settlement you agree upon.


----------



## sapientia (Nov 24, 2012)

I'm not a lawyer but I have experience with high-growth companies. It's the ones that don't have well-executed partnership agreements early on that run into problems and litigation later. Always.

Anyway, regarding marriage, historically its been more about protecting and consolidating family wealth. I think a lot of those antiquated justifications linger today.

Personally, I believe marriage is really for those with children (even then not much protection for a loser spouse). To try to ensure some stability for a woman raising young children. For the rest, it is the commitment that is important. Not a legal stamp or piece of paper.

A commitment might be made for life, but I think only the insecure would require such for its own sake. Life is flux. Things change. Those who have truly loving, long-term successful marriages evolved those over time. They are much rarer than Hollywood would have us believe.

I'm particularly fond of Heinlein's idea of a Line Marriage, where you marry into a family. Particularly the preservation of generational wealth and multiple parents who dilute the psychological effects of bad parenting influences:

_His line marriage — a family in which a chronological series of spouses coexist, raising kids together and occasionally bringing new ones into the fold — is a neat idea, a group that mixes the benefits of a typical genealogy (older members who can pass wisdom on to younger members) with those of deliberately forged relationships (not having to put up with Grandpa's drinking just because he's your mom's dad)._


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

In India, especially in central regions, the idea of family marriages has existed for thousands of years. The reason is either to preserve family wealth or because men are too poor to afford individual wives.

It is normally about sharing wives between brothers and all children come to call all of them fathers and sleeping arrangements are rotary with some preference being given to elder brothers. Wives can be added to the "group" as wealth grows.

The idea is now seen as outdated and crude and in many cases repulsive, in India so that it is legally banned. The idea was also borrowed and expanded upon and used in a work of fiction called the The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.

When the idea of Europa (now Europe) was arrived at by the Greeks and the Romans, the intention was to create a number of member nations that would improve the quality of life and abide by a similar set of standards. The Greeks had many good ideas (some original and some borrowed) and the Romans were masters at enforcement etc. So they set about uniting tribes into countries and imposing structure on them - nation builders if you like. They had a template which included a legal system, roads, sewage, the idea of an army, a governmental structure (which could be based on a monarchy or a senate), a moral structure (which eventually was superseded by the Catholic Church - Roman creation) etc etc. The idea of monogamous marriages was just one of the many things that came out of this and they set about creating France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK and later Italy. Others followed (Austria, Yugoslavian countries etc). This made Europe into a real success and it became a jewel in the world attracting people from far and wide.

Through the years many improvements were made to the original template for each country and even the birth of countries like the USA resulted. Now it seems, we are contemplating looking at redoing the institution of marriage - maybe its time for it. It would be useful to look back and understand why monogamy and marriage vows were brought in in the first place and what pandemonium existed before.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

manfromlamancha said:


> It would be useful to look back and understand why monogamy and marriage vows were brought in in the first place and what pandemonium existed before.


Yes it would be useful to do this. But even more importantly it would be useful to understand that many of those reasons are no longer valid in today's world.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good evening
legally I think having the government support a variety of contracts rather than marriage makes sense. Marriages are very different: some are symmetric (both work), some are asymmetric (one works, other raises children) and different contracts might make sense.

I don't think this will help marriages last though - I think most marriages succeed or fail for emotional reasons, not practical ones.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

Nynaeve said:


> You didn't need to guess. Not only have I said that multiple times in threads in which you've been involved, it's right there in my profile which I can see that you have visited recently.


Just for the record, I visited your profile right *after *posting that, and do not recall your mentioning it in previous threads, although of course I don't doubt that you did.



Nynaeve said:


> Also, partnerships, LLCs, corporations... there are statutes about those too. So if people form an organization but don't bother to adopt bilaws or articles of incorporation or a partnership agreement... the laws of the state will control. So, actually very similar to marriage in that regard already.


Yes, it is similar in what happens if you *do not bother* to adopt a partnership, etc., agreement. The difference is that with marriage you *cannot* specify the terms of the agreement, but *must* adopt an agreement specified unilaterally (and changed at will, including retroactively) by the government.

Do you really maintain that *forbidding *partnerships, etc., from adopting their own bylaws or agreements, forcing them to follow only those agreements made unilaterally (and changed at will, including retroactively) by the government, would not change the very nature of business? If so, that is a very strange notion that I have never heard before.


----------



## Ynot (Aug 26, 2014)

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening
> legally I think having the government support a variety of contracts rather than marriage makes sense. Marriages are very different: some are symmetric (both work), some are asymmetric (one works, other raises children) and different contracts might make sense.
> 
> I don't think this will help marriages last though - I think most marriages succeed or fail for emotional reasons, not practical ones.


I don't know if the purpose would be to help marriages last as much as it would be geared to allowing them to unwind in some organized, recognized manner as opposed to mish mash of who has the most cut throat lawyer who happens to be drinking buddies with the judge.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

jdawg2015 said:


> I think you're not being realistic here.
> 
> In my divorce I knew what the courts could reward my exW so I based my decision in the settlement entirely on what the court had hanging over me. (20 year marriage and I was adamantly against alimony). To say the government was not involved? Um, yes they were.
> 
> ...


Yes, that is called "bargaining in the shadow of the law", and it has a tremendous impact. However, because it is implicit, it allows those in favor of the current system to claim that the government isn't affecting the outcome. To anyone who is involved in the case, that is obviously false.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Tech,
> 
> I've read, edited, negotiated and written a whole lot of contracts.
> 
> ...


I think it is obvious that if all partnership agreements said "Whoever wants out of the partnership agreement, regardless of defaulting on the agreement, is rewarded according to his or her relative (lack of) wealth", there would be a lot fewer partnerships.

Which of course means that the contract *does *affect behavior.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

No one is forcing anyone into marriage. If you don't like divorce laws, don't get married and you'll never have to deal with them. Leave marriage for those who are interested in marriage instead of a business agreement.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

norajane said:


> No one is forcing anyone into marriage. If you don't like divorce laws, don't get married and you'll never have to deal with them. Leave marriage for those who are interested in marriage instead of a business agreement.


Unless you are declared to be married or otherwise partnered by the government, against your will.

Anyway, I'd be happy to leave the existing arrangement in place for those who want it, while allowing people who want to write their own contract (or adopt a standard one) to do that instead.


----------



## tornado (Jan 10, 2014)

I thought marriage was a business agreement for most. Person A, brings a,b,c and persons B brings d,e,f. They share finances, office (house). Most have a pretty similar outlook on life matters. On occasion they have sex, sounds almost exactly like a business agreement.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Marriage in the eyes of the law is just a legal binding of assets -- present and future.

What we make of that is up to us. The law doesn't give a **** about that, nor should it.


----------



## Chuck71 (Nov 5, 2012)

Pop told me way back in the early 90's... 1992 I think (d. 1996) if he could have done things over.....

He and mom would buy a house.... keep in their name.... rent it out until I decided to M. "Rent" it to

us with provision it would have been ours in xxxx years. He would tell me stories of people his age

(a WW2 baby) getting everything taken away. "A man's W cheats on him, he wants to save M,

she gets full custody, he gets every other weekend and a Thursday evening at Mike's Pizza Parlor,

he pays alimony, child support, mortgage, health insurance, she has a live-in but will never M him, would stop her support.

He goes from a nice house, nice side of town to a dump one section away from hotels which "rent by the hour"

"One had an agreement about back to school supplies..... her 50%, him 50%... she showed receipts 

and he matched. She took her half back in exchange for cash."

"Son I just don't want you to get into a trap like people I know have. Now if you have kids....

you pay for your kids or I will bust your arse whether you would be 25 or 35.... that's not what a man does."


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Nynaeve,
I believe the 'bigger' theme here has to do with money. 

If I understand him correctly, Tech wants the higher income/asset person to be able to walk away without having to write a big check or a series of big checks. 

Tech,
If that's what you want, don't get married. 

And I'll share a viewpoint that is hopefully more common than not. 

When we went through a rough patch, M2 and I had a few conversations about splitting assets. She said: I don't want half, you did all that hard work to make the money we have. 

And my response was: Everything we have is the result of a team effort. You injected an immeasurable amount of positive emotional energy into the marriage, while exercising considerable restraint on the spend side. So you will get exactly what you earned: HALF

Courts or no courts, that was fair. 






Nynaeve said:


> I think this whole conversation is kinda silly, to be honest. It has more to do with fear than logic.
> 
> You cannot make laws or contracts that will keep you from getting hurt. That's what this is really about. People think if they can impose a law or craft a perfect contract they can make another person not cheat or not leave. That's absurd. Human relationships have never been free of risk. You can try to remove the love to safeguard against pain (I.e. make it all business rather than love) but then what's the point? Who would really want to live like that? Most people would rather try for love and joy than box upntheir hearts and treat intimate relationships like impersonal business deals.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuck71 (Nov 5, 2012)

Often... in the beginnings of a road to D, "I just want out, no money"

Then they want the kitchen, kitchen sink, drip from kitchen sink....

Correct me if I am wrong but... that is what I read in many threads as this


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Chuck,

If she'd said she wanted half I would have just nodded. She was entitled to it. We built what we have together. It's ours not mine. And I could not have done what I did without her. Just the truth of it.....

If others are with partners who aren't contributing, they ought to leave.


UOTE=Chuck71;14175034]Often... in the beginnings of a road to D, "I just want out, no money"

Then they want the kitchen, kitchen sink, drip from kitchen sink....

Correct me if I am wrong but... that is what I read in many threads as this[/QUOTE]


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Nynaeve,
> I believe the 'bigger' theme here has to do with money.
> 
> If I understand him correctly, Tech wants the higher income/asset person to be able to walk away without having to write a big check or a series of big checks.
> ...


No, what I want is for the parties to be able to make their own agreements rather than to be bound to the government's one-size-fits-very-few agreement.

Anyone who is fine with the governmental agreement would be free to use that.

(In my divorce case, my ex-wife kept her assets, which were more than mine, and I kept mine, even though I was entitled to a 50-50 split. She *did* try to get our case transferred to a known insane judge who always gave everything to the wife no matter what the facts were, but failed.)


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Tech,

Is your issue that the government often invalidates or ignores prenuptial agreements?





technovelist said:


> No, what I want is for the parties to be able to make their own agreements rather than to be bound to the government's one-size-fits-very-few agreement.
> 
> Anyone who is fine with the governmental agreement would be free to use that.
> 
> (In my divorce case, my ex-wife kept her assets, which were more than mine, and I kept mine, even though I was entitled to a 50-50 split. She *did* try to get our case transferred to a known insane judge who always gave everything to the wife no matter what the facts were, but failed.)


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

MEM11363 said:


> Tech,
> 
> Is your issue that the government often invalidates or ignores prenuptial agreements?


The issue is that it is impossible for the two parties to a marriage to decide how their marriage partnership agreement should be legally constructed.

Then add the facts that, unlike a partnership agreement constructed by or for the parties (including standardized ones), the rules for the governmental agreement:

1. Can be applied arbitrarily according to the whim of the judge;
2. Can change arbitrarily, sometimes with retroactive effect; and
3. Do not lay out specific responsibilities or privileges for either party,

Clearly under these circumstances it is impossible for the parties to have any certainty as to what will happen either during the partnership (if they have a dispute) or should they decide to terminate their partnership.

This is inherently unfair to anyone who wishes to determine their own agreement, while of course anyone satisfied with the governmental agreement should be free to do so.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

I thought divorcing couples could go through mediation and agree to whatever they wanted, aside from child support laws. Courts get involved only when people can't agree on the settlement terms, right? If that's the case, then no contract is going to work because people will always litigate to get more, if they are so inclined.


----------



## Chuck71 (Nov 5, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> Chuck,
> 
> If she'd said she wanted half I would have just nodded. She was entitled to it. We built what we have together. It's ours not mine. And I could not have done what I did without her. Just the truth of it.....
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Overall viewing, not just yours


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

Tech,

Can you explain the bolded text? I don't understand why you believe that. 


*The issue is that it is impossible for the two parties to a marriage to decide how their marriage partnership agreement should be legally constructed. *

Then add the facts that, unlike a partnership agreement constructed by or for the parties (including standardized ones), the rules for the governmental agreement:

1. Can be applied arbitrarily according to the whim of the judge;
2. Can change arbitrarily, sometimes with retroactive effect; and
3. Do not lay out specific responsibilities or privileges for either party,

Clearly under these circumstances it is impossible for the parties to have any certainty as to what will happen either during the partnership (if they have a dispute) or should they decide to terminate their partnership.

This is inherently unfair to anyone who wishes to determine their own agreement, while of course anyone satisfied with the governmental agreement should be free to do so.[/QUOTE]


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

Chuck71 said:


> Often... in the beginnings of a road to D, "I just want out, no money"
> 
> Then they want the kitchen, kitchen sink, drip from kitchen sink....
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong but... that is what I read in many threads as this


Oh hell yes this is exactly what women do!

While going through the process they will get other women friends to convince them to try and soak you.

My exW basically knew I was unwavering and if she wanted alimony I told her I would bankrupt up before doing so. 

My biggest gripe is alimony. I got my degrees paid for by the GI bill (Degree #1) and Degrees #2 & 3 through work. So she did not pay a dime towards any of them.

I paid for her degree even though she made 1/3 of my salary after. I sucked it up with my schedule etc to get my education done. She went to part time at work etc and we bent over backwards to get her through school.

Splitting assets I have no issues. Lifetime gravy train of alimony? No fing way.


----------



## knobcreek (Nov 18, 2015)

I know I would rather just bang and hang out with someone then venture into some business model like this, definitely not for me at all. 

I really love the idea of marriage, all things being perfect it would be awesome in theory. I've had times in my marriage where it's amazing and I don't think a business arrangement like this would've benefited us at all.


----------



## Chuck71 (Nov 5, 2012)

jdawg2015 said:


> Oh hell yes this is exactly what women do!
> 
> While going through the process they will get other women friends to convince them to try and soak you.
> 
> ...


How long after her degree completion did the D happen?


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

Chuck71 said:


> How long after her degree completion did the D happen?


6.5 years.

She could have made more money but she didn't want to work to do so.

Instead I was busting my back to move up and get us ahead. The more I made the more she just stayed in comfort zone.

Marriage should never be a lifetime guarantee of money for the spouse who makes less. 

My exW knew I was serious about alimony. I'd rather have wasted every penny in legal wranglings than give her a penny of "spousal support".


----------



## Chuck71 (Nov 5, 2012)

I completely understand child support. But.... alimony??? This was adapted when it was very common

to be a SAHM. If she sacrificed her "future earnings" to raise children, I can agree with alimony.

How could an entry level job work when qualified child care facilities would eat a great deal of that check up?

SAHMs and the middle class are vanishing. Where I live (TN) as long as the difference in incomes is 

not something over two standard deviations... alimony is thrown out the window. Of course it is simply 

"replaced" with child care / after school programs. The only time alimony is brought up is when one 

makes 5x or more than the spouse. 

SAHM used to be a noble profession. I call it a profession because raising 3-4 kids, teaching them

basics before grade school.... is difficult.


----------



## jdawg2015 (Feb 12, 2015)

Chuck71 said:


> I completely understand child support. But.... alimony??? This was adapted when it was very common
> 
> to be a SAHM. If she sacrificed her "future earnings" to raise children, I can agree with alimony.
> 
> ...


Our daughter was in college during divorce. I paid daughters tuition out of my pocket and bought out her house equity with my 401k. She walked away with her own 401k and plus cash that was divided 75/25 out of our savings. No alimony.
I am based overseas for work and so she also got use of the house for 2 years in which I pay the mortgage but she has to cover her own utilities.

She also got the truck and car. I got to keep my show car Mustang.

Right now when I go home to the US I still have to rent a car.


----------

