# Is Marriage Even Necessary Any longer?



## TRUTHSEEKER60 (Jun 23, 2016)

Reading through many of the posts here in addition to just general observations in the outside world, I have been wondering - with all the issue surrounding formal marriage, excepting for religious regions (for the record I am not religions in the least) - why get married?
Two people certainly don't need a state sanctioned contract to love each other both emotionally and physically, or to even have children. Many relationships don't work out in the end and instead of going separate ways and trying to work things out, married couples are dragged through a messy legal enigma. Complete with high lawyer fees and court. Disclaimer: I was married the first time nearly 30 years ago - divorced 9 years later. Married again a year and half ago. Both times I was just doing "what I though I was supposed" to do. 
I am interested in what the community thinks about this.


----------



## BobSimmons (Mar 2, 2013)

TRUTHSEEKER60 said:


> Reading through many of the posts here in addition to just general observations in the outside world, I have been wondering - with all the issue surrounding formal marriage, excepting for religious regions (for the record I am not religions in the least) - why get married?
> Two people certainly don't need a state sanctioned contract to love each other both emotionally and physically, or to even have children. Many relationships don't work out in the end and instead of going separate ways and trying to work things out, married couples are dragged through a messy legal enigma. Complete with high lawyer fees and court. Disclaimer: I was married the first time nearly 30 years ago - divorced 9 years later. Married again a year and half ago. Both times I was just doing "what I though I was supposed" to do.
> I am interested in what the community thinks about this.


Depends on whether you regard tradition as necessary or not.

Sure most go to church, then sin like hell. Not sure why you need to stand in a church with pomp and ceremony, as god is your witness then proceed not to cherish and hold, not through sickness and health etc etc.

Laws are such that two people don't need to be married but still recognized as partners. Either way if parties split, that butt still has to go to court to separate stuff out.


----------



## SimplyAmorous (Nov 25, 2009)

Well obviously it's NOT necessary.. in this modern society, with all the shifts and hooking up and Tinderization of our young people... if marriage manages to stay around at all.. this is what we're looking at ... 

*>>*  Open Minded.com 



> Society has come to a point where marriage has taken a downward turn because it no longer satisfies the needs of the modern woman or man. In search of happiness, people are relying less on stereotypical gender roles and traditional relationship paradigms. While monogamy is certainly not dead, a shift in societal ideals has taken place, as more and more couples are choosing to buck traditions in favor of unconventional relationship configurations.
> 
> For many, ‘monogamy’ is almost synonymous with ‘monotony’, which can lead lesser men (and women) to cheat. But that is not the only way to get what you want. Consider these:
> 
> ...


Romance & exclusive commitment be da**ed...

Me personally.. I gravitate and would only feel at Home with the more Older fashioned traditionalist over the modern minded with these sort of values ...


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Marriage isn't necessary, of course, and many people forego marriage, cohabitate, and have children together. There are some practical benefits from a legal standpoint (as long as things go well and you stay together!). Those may include health insurance in some circumstances, some tax breaks in the right conditions, and higher Social Security Retirement Income for the lower earning spouse if the earnings discrepancy is large enough. On the downside, there is the cost of divorce and associated issues, and if one becomes disabled and needs public assistance to be cared for in a nursing home, the well spouse will be financially reamed before the government will pay (unless they do a "Medicaid Divorce"). And ACA health insurance can cost a lot more for some married people, so they may get a much better deal (or subsidy) if they divorce.

I don't think much of marriage as an institution. Still, I'm married, but happy about it in my particular situation and we're enjoying the legal benefits. That's not to say there won't be a Medicaid divorce in our future if that's the smart move.


----------



## badsanta (Oct 13, 2014)

@TRUTHSEEKER60 look at it this way....

Lets imagine hypothetically you have children and want to live close to your daughter for your end of life care. Your daughter has children of her own and you also need to do estate planning. Do you prefer to go into this with your daughter having:

A) A bunch of boyfriends that are OK with her kids and an open relationship.

B) A stable relationship with one man (also the father of your grandchildren), but he refuses to marry her because he does not want to assume any legal responsibilities or liability should anything go wrong.

C) A stable marriage in which you feel confident enough to love you son-in-law as if he were your actual son both emotionally and legally.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

badsanta said:


> @TRUTHSEEKER60 look at it this way....
> 
> Lets imagine hypothetically you have children and want to live close to your daughter for your end of life care. Your daughter has children of her own and you also need to do estate planning. Do you prefer to go into this with your daughter having:
> 
> ...


Obviously the best for the parent is C, but unfortunately the best for the daughter's partner is B. In the US at least, marriage is too risky to recommend to men.

And I say this not with glee but with sadness. I'm happily married for almost 20 years now, but if I weren't already married, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't *get *married unless there were a compelling reason (e.g., residency in a foreign country).


----------



## TRUTHSEEKER60 (Jun 23, 2016)

badsanta said:


> @TRUTHSEEKER60 look at it this way....
> 
> Lets imagine hypothetically you have children and want to live close to your daughter for your end of life care. Your daughter has children of her own and you also need to do estate planning. Do you prefer to go into this with your daughter having:
> 
> ...


Agreed! It does present more stability and commitment. I think we do need to make laws more equitable, though, because Men seem to have the most to loose - that is if things don't work out.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

In the long run I think this will be better for society. Let the serial cheaters or the people who don't want to have monogamy come out of the closet so to speak. Do this so they don't get married to someone who wants to have monogamy. Hopefully this will remove some of the cheating that goes on in relationship because of this miss matched fidelity. 

I relate that to gay people who married straight in the 50s and 60s. Today there is absolutely no excuse for that. Before even though it is wrong I can understand the mindset, but now, no excuse. Hopefully we can get to that point with monogamy or lack there of.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

badsanta said:


> @TRUTHSEEKER60 look at it this way....
> 
> Lets imagine hypothetically you have children and want to live close to your daughter for your end of life care. Your daughter has children of her own and you also need to do estate planning. Do you prefer to go into this with your daughter having:
> 
> ...


So, it's about your selfish desires rather than what your daughter feels is best for her? I understand your point, of course, but B is as good as C in most cases. Nothing wrong with A, and the son-in-law in C might kick you out in favor of his own parents, which could lead to your daughter divorcing him and embracing option A!


----------



## Bananapeel (May 4, 2015)

I think at this point the purpose of marriage is for a stable family. Marriage conveys stability to kids and I think it's important for them to feel that stability. Now if people aren't planning on having kids I don't think marriage is a necessity, and in many cases is detrimental to at least one partner. Since a lot of the detriment of marriage is due to the legal complications of divorce, then a good pre-nup can alleviate most of those concerns. I know if I were to ever get married again I would insist on a prenup. That is not because I wouldn't trust my spouse but I know that people can change fundamentally and in ten or twenty years they might not be the same person with the same values that they were when the marriage occurred.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

SimplyAmorous said:


> Me personally.. I gravitate and would only feel at Home with the more Older fashioned traditionalist over the modern minded with these sort of values ...


Pretty much sums things up for me as well, but I am sure that isn't a surprise for @SimplyAmorous :grin2:

I think marriage is great (the caveat being you find the right person lol) but it is not for everyone. I think there still is this sense that you "have to" get married, although that may be lessening. Where you can see this, when 2 people have been dating for a while they get barraged with questions about "So, when are you getting married?". 

If my kids are able to have the type of relationship my W and I have, I would love to see them get married. However, this is something I believe they should never be rushed/forced in to, and would rather they lean on the side of caution instead of jumping into something that may not be right for them.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

This is a really good question. The way I've always felt about this is that it benefits women so they have a solid source of income if there's a divorce. Women will usually want to end a relationship unless you marry them. 

I think monogamy is a great principle and it should be the norm but if it's going to destroy a man's future, he is obviously going to steer clear of it.


----------



## Emerging Buddhist (Apr 7, 2016)

When I married my wife near 28 years ago, we were coming back from Europe and knew she would be a SAHM and I would be the primary wage earner. Financially, marriage was the cornerstone that if either she or I made bad decisions that impacted us staying together, she (and the children at the time they weren't adults) would fairly benefit from the commitment and decisions we made... as it stands, she committed 20 years to being mom and even if she came to me tomorrow wandering away, we made a deal that I would honor, making it legal years ago gave it the clarity required for today's litigious society.

Besides, it wasn't the marriage that kept us together... it was the love, and that's what the kids see first over a legal document.

Fickle and fleeting bad habits in today's relationships... so much fear at pointing the finger inward to solve one's problems.
@SimplyAmorous... is there such a phrase as "ethical cheating"? I cannot even wrap my mind around such a thing... that is one of those "just wow" phrases.


----------



## Mclane (Apr 28, 2016)

Of course marriage is necessary.

I can't believe this question was even asked!

How else are divorce attorneys going to eat?


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Emerging Buddhist said:


> ... is there such a phrase as "ethical cheating"? I cannot even wrap my mind around such a thing... that is one of those "just wow" phrases.


No, there is not - that phrasing is self-contradictory. There IS ethical non-monogamy, though.


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

I believe marriage is necessary. But I believe it is a privilege and not a right. Only monogamous people who are mature and mentally stable should marry....IMO. 

I think it should be as hard to get married as it is to divorce. When a couple applies for a marriage license, they should be required to undergo a one year waiting period and during that time they should be required to attend mandated pre-marital counseling with a licensed counselor, pastor or marriage coach; and prior to the one year they should have to submit proof of counseling along with their blood tests before they are granted a license.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Banned-It.45 said:


> I believe marriage is necessary. But I believe it is a privilege and not a right. Only monogamous people who are mature and mentally stable should marry....IMO.
> 
> I think it should be as hard to get married as it is to divorce. When a couple applies for a marriage license, they should be required to undergo a one year waiting period and during that time they should be required to attend mandated pre-marital counseling with a licensed counselor, pastor or marriage coach; and prior to the one year they should have to submit proof of counseling along with their blood tests before they are granted a license.


Blood tests?!!?!?! Lord, I haven't heard of needing a blood test to marry since before I first married and that was over 20 years ago!

As to the rest, I agree. However, I don't like the lengthy time period of 12 months. Even the Catholic Church only requires 6 months marriage prep time.

Is marriage necessary? No. And it never has been. People have lived together and had babies together without benefit of marriage since forever.

Is there a point to marriage? Absolutely. It's about total commitment socially, legally, and spiritually. At a certain point, it's shyt or get off the pot. Either all in or let's get out.


----------



## bandit.45 (Feb 8, 2012)

MJJEAN said:


> Blood tests?!!?!?! Lord, I haven't heard of needing a blood test to marry since before I first married and that was over 20 years ago!


It was 25 years ago when I got married. I'm out of the loop I guess.


----------



## Steve1000 (Nov 25, 2013)

TRUTHSEEKER60 said:


> excepting for religious regions (for the record I am not religions in the least) - why get married?


When we take religion into account as a reason to get married and to stay married, those in the bible belt have the highest divorce rates according to the Christian Post and numerous other reports and studies. 

Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Oklahoma - states traditionally known for their conservatism - are experiencing divorce rates between 11 and 13.5 divorces per 1,000 for both men and women. Divorce Rates High in Southern, Bible Belt States


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

Emerging Buddhist said:


> , she (and the children at the time they weren't adults) would fairly benefit from the commitment and decisions we made... as it stands, she committed 20 years to being mom


So how is this sort of arrangement fair to a man? She benefits financially if there is a divorce. What advantages or benefits do you get or what is provided by her for you....being a Mom?? Any female can be a mom by default. It doesn't require her to do anything for you or make her legally responsible for anything. My point is, again, that a marriage benefits only a woman giving her free and legal access to your wallet for life.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Banned-It.45 said:


> It was 25 years ago when I got married. I'm out of the loop I guess.


Used to be, you had to have a blood test. Then it became an STD class instead. Now, they'll just hand you the license.

We have a 3 day waiting period between getting the license and being able to use it. Ohio, our closest neighboring state, doesn't have a waiting period at all. And their fees are lower. It's very common here for a couple to drive 45 min to Ohio, get married at the county courthouse, and drive back.


----------



## rileyawes (Jun 28, 2016)

I don't understand why people are saying marriage is worse / riskier for men than women. Can someone clarify with facts or statistics?

I'm married, but I'm not sure how I feel about it. I don't think it's strictly necessary. In Europe, marriage tends to take place later and at a lower rate, and they're doing fine. There are reasons to get married in America with the way things stand now, but laws can change.


----------



## john117 (May 20, 2013)

Laws rarely change fast enough to benefit a specific individual. Also, the very presence of laws is license to interpret them at will... and there's huge variation in divorce laws across the USA...


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

TRUTHSEEKER60 said:


> Reading through many of the posts here in addition to just general observations in the outside world, I have been wondering - with all the issue surrounding formal marriage, excepting for religious regions (for the record I am not religions in the least) - why get married?
> Two people certainly don't need a state sanctioned contract to love each other both emotionally and physically, or to even have children. Many relationships don't work out in the end and instead of going separate ways and trying to work things out, married couples are dragged through a messy legal enigma. Complete with high lawyer fees and court. Disclaimer: I was married the first time nearly 30 years ago - divorced 9 years later. Married again a year and half ago. Both times I was just doing "what I though I was supposed" to do.
> I am interested in what the community thinks about this.


I have to admit, I'm not sure if I'd do it again...but...

If your financial situation is such that you can't afford a house by yourself, and it takes two of you, then doing *something* to make it harder for one person to back out seems like an added bit of security.

However...back when I earned less and needed a partner for that affordability, we didnt' get married...never cheated...it lasted almost 10 years, and I finally left because I could not tolerate her increasing anger at - everything really. I talked about it for a year and indicated for that length of time that I was not willing to continue if this problem kept growing, and a year after I started the conversation, I said this is it. Gone that night.

So, even though I would consider marriage for that reason - I didn't do it, and the split was actually very easy. I just walked out and gave her everything.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

jb02157 said:


> So how is this sort of arrangement fair to a man? She benefits financially if there is a divorce. What advantages or benefits do you get or what is provided by her for you....being a Mom?? Any female can be a mom by default. It doesn't require her to do anything for you or make her legally responsible for anything. My point is, again, that a marriage benefits only a woman giving her free and legal access to your wallet for life.


Um she is the mother to your children? Do you care so little about them that you don't get that. :surprise:

Have you paid attention to all the crap that is happening in society today. Is it not obvious that not "any female can be a Mom".


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

sokillme said:


> Um she is the mother to your children? Do you care so little about them that you don't get that. :surprise:
> 
> Have you paid attention to all the crap that is happening in society today. Is it not obvious that not "any female can be a Mom".


ok and the man in the relationship is the father to his kids. Does he get anything from her merely because he is the father?? No. If the two get divorced is she committed to giving anything to him? No. However, he IS committed to give to her. 

This all says double standard to me.


----------



## rileyawes (Jun 28, 2016)

jb02157 said:


> ok and the man in the relationship is the father to his kids. Does he get anything from her merely because he is the father?? No. If the two get divorced is she committed to giving anything to him? No. However, he IS committed to give to her.
> 
> This all says double standard to me.


That is not true. The parents' salaries are considered, as well as which parent has the children more in child support determinations. Sometimes women end up paying child support to men. Perhaps what you're saying WAS true in the past, because women (especially once they become mothers) are generally paid less than men even now, if they even worked, and mostly had custody of the children with the fathers taking them on the weekend, the summer, or for short visits here and there, if at all. 

The usual mode was for dad to get remarried and be present with his new wife (usually his old secretary) and new kids while the former SAHM brushed off her old secretarial skills and had sole custody of her newly-made latchkey kids while dad called every so often but didn't drop by much. The moms got custody because the dads weren't interested, and their low earning power necessitated both alimony (until/unless she remarried) AND child support. 

It's not to "screw over" men. That's a patently silly thing to say. And obviously I grabbed all that from old stereotypes and it does not and did not apply to every situation, but it's pretty much a trope by now.


----------



## Emerging Buddhist (Apr 7, 2016)

jb02157 said:


> So how is this sort of arrangement fair to a man? She benefits financially if there is a divorce. What advantages or benefits do you get or what is provided by her for you....being a Mom?? Any female can be a mom by default. It doesn't require her to do anything for you or make her legally responsible for anything. My point is, again, that a marriage benefits only a woman giving her free and legal access to your wallet for life.


As for being a mom, it was a partnership, equal and agreed on sealed on a promise to my children the day I knew of their existence in my world that I would do all in my control to honour them by honouring their mother. There were times I did a rather poor job of that with my angry rants after I left military service and she still stands by me today, I would say an equal portion is due should our relationship change.

In the end, my marriage was my word to be fair... I cannot control her actions, I can control my integrity.

Honestly, as the day ends so many hateful divorce discussions are over... things. I would rather live a free heart with minimal than lose my soul over money, half is duly owed if parting was to ever come.

That's just how I roll...


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

After being engaged, I've come to view marriage a little differently. With the right person, it will be the right thing. But, soooo many people seem to be rushing into it and marry the wrong person. Or the wrong person for them. Marriage can be a beautiful experience, yet I don't think that two people require it to prove their love for one another. The guy I'm dating now, we were friends for a couple of years and after my engagement ended, he told me how he feels. He told me the other night, and we have only been dating a short while, that for some reason, he could see me as his wife. Maybe deep down, marriage or the idea of it, brings out the romantic in us all? (even though it's a serious thing, and much more than just a romantic idea)


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

jb02157 said:


> ok and the man in the relationship is the father to his kids. Does he get anything from her merely because he is the father?? No. If the two get divorced is she committed to giving anything to him? No. However, he IS committed to give to her.
> 
> This all says double standard to me.


It is sad that men are not treated fairly at all, when there's divorce. So many stay in a toxic marriage simply to avoid the beatings they take financially in divorce court, and when it comes to custody. Have a friend who is going through something terrible in divorce court, and he doesn't deserve this. It's sad.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

*Deidre* said:


> It is sad that men are not treated fairly at all, when there's divorce. So many stay in a toxic marriage simply to avoid the beatings they take financially in divorce court, and when it comes to custody. Have a friend who is going through something terrible in divorce court, and he doesn't deserve this. It's sad.


Thank you so much for saying this Deidre! There are many in here who basically called me an idiot for saying this very same thing. Yes, men DO take a quite substantial financial hit in a divorce. It is the only reason why I'm not divorced at this very moment and am forced to stay in a very toxic marital situation.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

jb02157 said:


> Thank you so much for saying this Deidre! There are many in here who basically called me an idiot for saying this very same thing. Yes, men DO take a quite substantial financial hit in a divorce. It is the only reason why I'm not divorced at this very moment and am forced to stay in a very toxic marital situation.


Sorry to hear this  A stat people often don't like to look at but it's true, is that the majority of divorces are initiated by women. Because women usually don't lose custody nor their finances in a divorce as men do. Not to say there aren't exceptions, but the majority of divorces usually cost men a lot more than it costs women, from a custody and finance perspective. This is why a lot of men these days are opting to not marry at all.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

*Deidre* said:


> After being engaged, I've come to view marriage a little differently. With the right person, it will be the right thing. But, soooo many people seem to be rushing into it and marry the wrong person. Or the wrong person for them. Marriage can be a beautiful experience, yet I don't think that two people require it to prove their love for one another. The guy I'm dating now, we were friends for a couple of years and after my engagement ended, he told me how he feels. He told me the other night, and we have only been dating a short while, that for some reason, he could see me as his wife. Maybe deep down, marriage or the idea of it, brings out the romantic in us all? (even though it's a serious thing, and much more than just a romantic idea)


People respond to the romantic idea of marriage before they are actually married which is great and that's one of the things marriage is for. However, because of the monitory provisions that have been forced upon men in a divorce, we have turned these romantic ideas more into a business partnership where one or both are hurt financially if it doesn't work out. I think that's turning a lot of people away from marriage seeking a way you can be in a relationship with someone without having to pay if it doesn't work out. 

In marriage today, getting married makes you so financially vulnerable to that person that it's really not feasible to the one making most of the money.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

rileyawes said:


> That is not true. The parents' salaries are considered, as well as which parent has the children more in child support determinations. Sometimes women end up paying child support to men. Perhaps what you're saying WAS true in the past, because women (especially once they become mothers) are generally paid less than men even now, if they even worked, and mostly had custody of the children with the fathers taking them on the weekend, the summer, or for short visits here and there, if at all.
> 
> The usual mode was for dad to get remarried and be present with his new wife (usually his old secretary) and new kids while the former SAHM brushed off her old secretarial skills and had sole custody of her newly-made latchkey kids while dad called every so often but didn't drop by much. The moms got custody because the dads weren't interested, and their low earning power necessitated both alimony (until/unless she remarried) AND child support.
> 
> It's not to "screw over" men. That's a patently silly thing to say. And obviously I grabbed all that from old stereotypes and it does not and did not apply to every situation, but it's pretty much a trope by now.


Uh, that's not necessarily true. First of all, to this day, irregardless of salary or either parent, the woman will get custody of all the children unless it can be proven (yes proven) that the mother is incapable to care for the kids. This was told to me by a lawyer so don't tell me this is bull**** because IT ISN'T. If the women get's custody, (which per above is almost assured) then the cascade starts, the man is saddled with child support, alimony etc. etc. 

Does this process screw over men, of course it does. It's not a silly thing to say, it is an accurate thing to say. Old stereotypes aside the fact remains that custody is typically awarded to the mother and, as such, is awarded child support. Now there are no controls, unfortunately, on how this money is spent so it could be blown on any number of things. Now, with no money to spend on the kids the mother can go back to the judge and ask for more.


----------



## EllisRedding (Apr 10, 2015)

jb02157 said:


> In marriage today, getting married makes you so financially vulnerable to that person that it's really not feasible to the one making most of the money.


I think the challenge here though is depending on when you get married and where you are in your career, where you and your SO are financially prior to marriage may not even be close to where both you are eventually post marriage. In cases like this it is difficult to really take finances into consideration.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

jb02157 said:


> rileyawes said:
> 
> 
> > That is not true. The parents' salaries are considered, as well as which parent has the children more in child support determinations. Sometimes women end up paying child support to men. Perhaps what you're saying WAS true in the past, because women (especially once they become mothers) are generally paid less than men even now, if they even worked, and mostly had custody of the children with the fathers taking them on the weekend, the summer, or for short visits here and there, if at all.
> ...


This is absolutely not true. In my state, it is presumed joint custody, 50/50, unless it is shown that one is an unfit parent. And standard are NOT set very high.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

Livvie said:


> This is absolutely not true. In my state, it is presumed joint custody, 50/50, unless it is shown that one is an unfit parent. And standard are NOT set very high.


I think you need to read what Deidre wrote above. What you have written is absolutely false.


----------



## jb02157 (Apr 16, 2014)

*Deidre* said:


> Sorry to hear this  A stat people often don't like to look at but it's true, is that the majority of divorces are initiated by women. Because women usually don't lose custody nor their finances in a divorce as men do. Not to say there aren't exceptions, but the majority of divorces usually cost men a lot more than it costs women, from a custody and finance perspective. This is why a lot of men these days are opting to not marry at all.


Again Deidre thanks for writing this. It should be required reading for some of those below.


----------



## DustyDog (Jul 12, 2016)

jb02157 said:


> Again Deidre thanks for writing this. It should be required reading for some of those below.


In a divorce, it's impossible to be fair to either person, so the intent is to be fair to the family as a whole. Both adults will end up diminished, there's no way around it.

I helped raise a nephew, but otherwise don't have kids.

As I see it, kids are a HUGE expense, and the courts are going to work hard for the best result for the kids. And, I've heard some family court judges say that part of why they make it hard on both adults is to create a dis-incentive to get divorced in the first place.

Both people are injured in a divorce. If, in the married couple, both work and income is relatively equal, then they've already had to find a solution to the day care problem. After divorce, presumably, similar day care will happen. But, whoever is the custodial parent will end up needing some help - you can't just leave the kids and go grocery shopping. So, perhaps day care, for an added cost, will keep the kids longer. If that's the case, then this burden should, IMO, belong to the non-custodial parent.

Two adults can live in one house and share mortgage, utilities, they get cheaper car insurance versus two separate policies, etc. The total paid by two separate is a lot more than two together. Even without kids, this is a larger burden for the two of them.

In marriage, it is assumed that you have abandoned much of your individual desires, and place the marriage at higher priority. Therefore, the courts assume that's exactly how you behaved in the marriage. So, if one person doesn't work, the courts assume this was agreed - and that the working person accepted that contributions made by the non-working spouse were equal to or greater than the income he/she didn't receive. During marriage, if you don't formalize these agreements (I think verbally anyway), then it's too bad - the laws will make assumptions if the two of you can't state in court, what your agreement was. This is why the divorce decree rarely pays any attention to who earned what during the marriage - it is assumed that whatever situation existed, it was intentional and acceptable to both.

I know more divorced women than men. None of my divorced friends - of either sex - believes it was fair to them. All of them claim it was biased toward the other side.

If statistically, a man usually earns more, than most likely, in a split, it will appear that more of the stuff that he thought was his during marriage (but legally was split) heads to her.

If people were required to get acquainted with divorce laws before getting married, then they might manage the financial parts of their marriage better.

Things are WAY better now, for men, then back in the day when it was assumed that a woman could never get a job! In those days, the men were often required to support the woman and children until all the children were 18 - or all of them through college, if either parent had been to college.

Marriage is a legal commitment...like any legal commitment, it pays greatly to understand how the law will treat you if it ends.

If you don't like the way the law will treat you, and you want it different, and your partner agrees, then execute a pre-nup. Or post-nup, it's possible to create such an agreement during the marriage, too.


----------



## Mclane (Apr 28, 2016)

Livvie said:


> This is absolutely not true. In my state, it is presumed joint custody, 50/50, unless it is shown that one is an unfit parent. And standard are NOT set very high.


 @Livvie

What state are you in? I've got an excellent source that discusses, in a practical way, what divorcing couples can expect from the courts based on actual case law, and interviews with known and respected lawyers in each state.

Truth is regardless of what state a divorcing couple lives in, the bias is overwhelmingly in favor of women getting primary custody, -regardless of how the law is "supposed to be interpreted", which of course has been stated by several posters on this thread.

Livvie you may not want to believe it's true that the courts in all states are biased towards maternal custody, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. It happens- all the time. Unless dad can make such a strong case, and has unlimited funds to spend on a highly contested custody battle, in which case "if" the mother can be made out to be an incompetent parent, well then maybe he's got half a chance.

Again, if you care to post your state, I'll provide a factual reference that might open your eyes.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Mclane said:


> Livvie said:
> 
> 
> > This is absolutely not true. In my state, it is presumed joint custody, 50/50, unless it is shown that one is an unfit parent. And standard are NOT set very high.
> ...


For identification purposes I'll decline to post my state, but it's actually there in the statues of my state that the presumption is shared custody. I work in the field of law. I know the law, and I see the divorce judgments.


----------



## Mclane (Apr 28, 2016)

*Deidre* said:


> This is why a lot of men these days are opting to not marry at all.


Or, like me, they don't make the same mistake twice.

I don't understand why guys get married a second, or third time.

It's like a guy gets pulled out of a flaming car wreck, and arbitrarily decides to crawl right back in again.

The definition of insanity...


----------



## Mclane (Apr 28, 2016)

Livvie said:


> For identification purposes I'll decline to post my state, but it's actually there in the statues of my state that the presumption is shared custody. I work in the field of law. I know the law, and I see the divorce judgments.


You work in the law filed, and you've seen divorce judgements that award custody to dad, all other things being equal?

Shocking.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Mclane said:


> Livvie said:
> 
> 
> > For identification purposes I'll decline to post my state, but it's actually there in the statues of my state that the presumption is shared custody. I work in the field of law. I know the law, and I see the divorce judgments.
> ...


No. I said the presumption is SHARED CUSTODY, unless one parent is extremely unfit. All things being equal, it is 50/50.


----------



## Chuck71 (Nov 5, 2012)

Not exactly making a response-yet. My mom was a WW2 baby, had three older siblings born during Great Depression, one early 50's. In those days... elementary schools went K-8, then high school. None of her three older siblings went one day to HS. For the record, the 50s sibling M right out of HS in '69. Mom did not M until she was (gasp) 22! She caught crap from older relatives "you don't want to become a spinster do you," or "are you a lesbian." She caught the same type when she refused to have children until her late 20s. It was hard for me to believe when I was told, being I grew up in the 1980s and many people STILL thought the exact way twenty years later (80s).

Mom's parents M at 17 and 13. Each grew up in the country, sustainable income from farming. Got a big farm... need a big family. Life expectancy was just under 50 in the 1930s. Somewhat correlates with having children starting in your teens. If a man waited until he was 35-40 to have kids... he might be dead by then. Miscarriages were very common, numerous diseases were still widespread, and there were no guarantees the mother would make it through labor. Hard to believe this was just two generations ago. M were commonplace, small ceremony, maybe not a ring nor honeymoon. No posh n pomp, $25k wedding.

Not too much changed when my generation came along, just a reduction of. Farming is almost extinct as a "way of life," diseases eradicated, advanced medicine. We can now wait much longer to M. Even our boomer parents recommended it. We M later, kids, and now.... D. An ugly scenario. The laws are slanted... for today's standards. They were not slanted as much..... in the 1950s and 60s. Yet most never go after the lawmakers to change the laws. Yes almost all the lawmakers who enacted the current laws on the books were..... men, men of religious prevalence. 

But here we are.... scared to leave for fear of being raked over the coals financially. We read on here where a spouse cheats, gets the kids 90 / 10, CS, alimony, health insurance, the house. The wage earning spouse ends up renting an "extended stay suite" on the bad side of town while the cheating spouse receives enough funds to pay the mortgage, not have to work if they choose not to, and have the AP move in. The AP virtually raises the kids.

The upcoming generation is viewing this and have three words... oh he!! no. We have "starter marriages" and "starter homes." Play house, no kids... walk away after five-seven years and then, "really" get M. Or just wait until 30s to M. What about the fact it may take most a few years to find their "soul mate." Then a few more years to see if any nasty skeletons fall out of the closet. Why is it now we are hearing a lot more about reproductive issues with both genders? Did we wait too long? Can't you freeze the necessary "items" needed.... you can but most people do not have the funds necessary to do so.

I find it odd... people today have reproductive issues while we live in a society, modern society, advanced medicine, sanitation, access to numerous things my grandparents did not. In those days, hard liquor was everywhere, poor sanitation, almost primitive medical knowledge, and had access to nothing. Or if they did, it might be a day or two's travel away. Yet you hear of large families... even with the setbacks of miscarriages, stillborn, diseases.

Something doesn't add up.


----------



## Mclane (Apr 28, 2016)

Livvie said:


> No. I said the presumption is SHARED CUSTODY, unless one parent is extremely unfit. All things being equal, it is 50/50.


Ok, right you did say that, my apologies.

I see that there is a trend in some states towards shared custody, although in many states including my own, the courts do not have the power to award shared or joint custody unless both parties agree to it, and in most cases the mother will not, because she won't get the profits from the child support. Even in many states that courts award joint custody, there is still one "primary" parent and child support is still awarded to the parent so designated.


----------



## Mclane (Apr 28, 2016)

Chuck71 said:


> Something doesn't add up.


It's in the ground water.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Mclane said:


> Livvie said:
> 
> 
> > No. I said the presumption is SHARED CUSTODY, unless one parent is extremely unfit. All things being equal, it is 50/50.
> ...


Wow. I thought more states were like mine. My state believes it so intensely that it states right in the statues that the court believes it is best for children to be raised by both parents post divorce.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Wanted to add that I see a lot of divorced parents living really close to each other (same towns) due to the 50/50 arrangement. I know one family in which the divorced parents live next door to each other so the kids don't have to travel.


----------



## Mclane (Apr 28, 2016)

Livvie said:


> Wanted to add that I see a lot of divorced parents living really close to each other (same towns) due to the 50/50 arrangement. I know one family in which the divorced parents live next door to each other so the kids don't have to travel.


Good to see that, but realize your state is an exception not the rule.

Does the court base child support (or lack thereof) on the shared custody arrangement?

As compared to states that still require one parent to pay the other even if it's a true 50/50 visitation agreement.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Mclane said:


> Livvie said:
> 
> 
> > Wanted to add that I see a lot of divorced parents living really close to each other (same towns) due to the 50/50 arrangement. I know one family in which the divorced parents live next door to each other so the kids don't have to travel.
> ...


There isn't a table or formula for determining spousal support , but we have a child support table. You plug in how much each spouse makes and the percentage of time children are with each parent. It takes into account if one pays for med insurance or daycare on their own, that would reduce any child support payment due.


----------



## Mclane (Apr 28, 2016)

Livvie said:


> There isn't a table or formula for determining spousal support , but we have a child support table. You plug in how much each spouse makes and the percentage of time children are with each parent. It takes into account if one pays for med insurance or daycare on their own, that would reduce any child support payment due.


Now that's about as fair as divorce and custody law can possibly get.

I give most other states another 100 years to figure that out.

Do you know that in my state (NY), even if both parents agree on joint, shared custody; for child support purposes, one parent- usually mom- is considered primary and gets child support, the amount is the same whether the child is with her 50% of the time or 100% of the time.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Mclane said:


> Livvie said:
> 
> 
> > There isn't a table or formula for determining spousal support , but we have a child support table. You plug in how much each spouse makes and the percentage of time children are with each parent. It takes into account if one pays for med insurance or daycare on their own, that would reduce any child support payment due.
> ...


I have a friend who got divorced in NY. Does support continue through COLLEGE in your state? Did I remember that correctly?


----------



## Mclane (Apr 28, 2016)

Livvie said:


> I have a friend who got divorced in NY. Does support continue through COLLEGE in your state? Did I remember that correctly?


In NY State, child support is through age 21 regardless of whether or not the child attends college, although there are several "emancipation" factors which can cause child support to cease between age 18 and 21, one of which is if the child obtains full time employment and becomes self supporting.

IN NY State, courts can (and usually do) order divorcing parents to pay the entire cost of their child's college education.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Mclane said:


> Livvie said:
> 
> 
> > I have a friend who got divorced in NY. Does support continue through COLLEGE in your state? Did I remember that correctly?
> ...


That's insane...


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Be careful WHO you marry, and WHERE you divorce!


----------



## Mclane (Apr 28, 2016)

Livvie said:


> That's insane...


Certainly it's unfair and backwards.


----------



## *Deidre* (Feb 7, 2016)

Mclane said:


> Or, like me, they don't make the same mistake twice.
> 
> I don't understand why guys get married a second, or third time.
> 
> ...


lol yep

Think it's not so much that they keep marrying, but that they keep marrying toxic women. Some men like drama...look at some of the threads on here, where their wives are hitting them, berating them, verbally abusing them... and then they'll post the next day...''and the sex was hot that night!'' lol 

Some guys just don't think they deserve better.


----------



## Chuck71 (Nov 5, 2012)

Married but Happy said:


> Be careful WHO you marry, and WHERE you divorce!


I learned fast thanks to ReGroup's thread not to D in NY. Someone else D'ed in CA....

was very slanted. The OP even referred to it as "vaginamony." I never understood a year wait until D.

60 days in my state, 90 with kids. A year just gives the lawyers enough time to suck every 

penny from both parties.


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

I was raised in a society where marriage is viewed as the ultimate promise to another person. It could even be considered an elevation of status to many I think. That's why it's still popular as I think it's like the next step in 'life', a promotion from being a single person.

I think for those that keep that promise, and want to continue keeping it, the person they are with fits them and that person becomes more important than the idea of marriage itself.


----------



## Chuck71 (Nov 5, 2012)

*Deidre* said:


> lol yep
> 
> Think it's not so much that they keep marrying, but that they keep marrying toxic women. Some men like drama...look at some of the threads on here, where their wives are hitting them, berating them, verbally abusing them... and then they'll post the next day...''and the sex was hot that night!'' lol
> 
> Some guys just don't think they deserve better.


SteveK comes to mind....


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

rileyawes said:


> That is not true. The parents' salaries are considered, as well as which parent has the children more in child support determinations. Sometimes women end up paying child support to men. Perhaps what you're saying WAS true in the past, because women (especially once they become mothers) are generally paid less than men even now, if they even worked, and mostly had custody of the children with the fathers taking them on the weekend, the summer, or for short visits here and there, if at all.
> 
> The usual mode was for dad to get remarried and be present with his new wife (usually his old secretary) and new kids while the former SAHM brushed off her old secretarial skills and had sole custody of her newly-made latchkey kids while dad called every so often but didn't drop by much. The moms got custody because the dads weren't interested, and their low earning power necessitated both alimony (until/unless she remarried) AND child support.
> 
> It's not to "screw over" men. That's a patently silly thing to say. And obviously I grabbed all that from old stereotypes and it does not and did not apply to every situation, but it's pretty much a trope by now.


I'm afraid your impression of how divorce (and child support) actually works is quite inaccurate. Read the book at Real World Divorce: Custody, Child Support, and Alimony in the 50 States, then get back to us on how divorce doesn't screw men over.


----------



## tech-novelist (May 15, 2014)

DustyDog said:


> If you don't like the way the law will treat you, and you want it different, and your partner agrees, then execute a pre-nup. Or post-nup, it's possible to create such an agreement during the marriage, too.


Pre-nups are roughly as valuable in divorce as tissue paper is against a 16-inch shell. And they are completely irrelevant when it comes to child support, which is often disguised alimony.


----------

