# Is Marriage a Contract?



## Galt (Dec 30, 2011)

Most people I have asked believe that marriage is a contract; they view it as a contractual relationship wherein both parties have applicable obligations and rights.They believe that, as in any other normal contract, failure of either party to fulfill any of their obligations constitutes a breaking of the contract and its consequent destruction, with prejudice to be shown--- by any court---against the party having broken it.

Today, however, with "no-fault divorce", it seems that either party can terminate the marriage for no demonstrable reason but that they no longer wish to be married. Yet I continue to hear expressions used in discussing marriage (and divorce) such as, "the marital contract", "...contract established thru marriage", "...marital contractual partnership," and so on. 

I would like to ask anyone hear who can resolve this confusion this question: Is marriage still a contract? If it is, why does there have to be so much debate in divorces? It seems that if the answer to the above question is "yes", then divorce should simply be a process of determining which party has broken the contract and what measures should rightly be applied against this party.

Is marriage no longer a contract? If not, what is it? Can it even be described?


----------



## Adeline (Jan 24, 2014)

hmmmm, wouldn't that involve sitting down though and writing out the actual provisions beforehand? I mean, I guess there are some pretty basic assumptions... like being faithful. But everything else, unless it is laid out how can you say someone broke a contractual obligation? I never sat down and said ok, if you don't have sex with me at least once a week, then you will have broken the contract. Or you need to keep the house a certain way. Or maybe that is more common to do than I think haha, but I certainly didn't and know many people who also did not. However... I kind of see the wisdom in doing that now...

Maybe it is better to see marriage as a contract in some ways. But I guess I would describe the average couple entering into marriage as people who view it more as a commitment rather than a contract. More as a declaration of love. So if one person just stops feeling that love as you described, they then want out of that commitment. "I'm committed to you as long as I love you."


----------



## Revamped (Jun 19, 2014)

It's the difference between a moral contact and a legal one.

Courts don't decide what is moral or just. The legality of no fault is the only jurisdiction that's warranted in the Court's eyes.


----------



## Married but Happy (Aug 13, 2013)

Marriage has become a contract where you have obligations, but no (or few) rights.


----------



## lenzi (Apr 10, 2012)

It's a contract. A business contract. 

To break the contract you have to pay.

How much you pay depends partially on how good an attorney you have, the mental stability of both parties, and how well you play the divorce game. Plus a host of other possible factors including but not limited to how your particular judge views your particular situation and how bad one of the two parties wants out of the contract.


----------



## sidney2718 (Nov 2, 2013)

Galt said:


> Most people I have asked believe that marriage is a contract; they view it as a contractual relationship wherein both parties have applicable obligations and rights.They believe that, as in any other normal contract, failure of either party to fulfill any of their obligations constitutes a breaking of the contract and its consequent destruction, with prejudice to be shown--- by any court---against the party having broken it.
> 
> Today, however, with "no-fault divorce", it seems that either party can terminate the marriage for no demonstrable reason but that they no longer wish to be married. Yet I continue to hear expressions used in discussing marriage (and divorce) such as, "the marital contract", "...contract established thru marriage", "...marital contractual partnership," and so on.
> 
> ...


The problem is that the determination of which party broke the contract will probably involve a trial and enormous legal fees for both sides. Witnesses will be called, incidents long forgotten will be brought up, extenuating circumstances produced, and in the end, after all that money, you might not get the decision you want.

Which is why no fault was introduced in the first place.


----------



## jld (Dec 1, 2013)

sidney2718 said:


> The problem is that the determination of which party broke the contract will probably involve a trial and enormous legal fees for both sides. Witnesses will be called, incidents long forgotten will be brought up, extenuating circumstances produced, and in the end, after all that money, you might not get the decision you want.
> 
> *Which is why no fault was introduced in the first place.*


:iagree: Very practical.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Legal contracts have specific termination provisions. Contracts can be terminated for cause, for convenience (without cause), automatically (term), or never (evergreen, or automatically renewed unless terminated otherwise).

Marriage is a legal contract with termination provisions spelled out in the states' laws. Marriages can be terminated without cause in most states.


----------



## bestyet2be (Jul 28, 2013)

Marriage is an adventure.


----------



## EMZED (Jul 29, 2014)

Yes, marriage is a contract.

You seem to be confused about what a contract means, though. The way you've explained it, it seems like you think the only way to dissolve a contract is for one person to violate the terms of the contract, and then be duly "punished" for it.

In reality, contracts can be dissolved if both parties wish it, and the remaining assets divided in a mutually satisfactory way. This goes for business and marriage.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Marriage has morphed into a contractual monster.

We think we have an agreement when we say our vows. We make certain promises to each other. These used to be binding terms, and were grounds for divorce. Absent a violation of the vows, divorce was not legally allowed.

But now the only contract is whatever is written in state laws and as interpreted in court. Your vows mean nothing legally. Your actual contract changes if you move to a new location. The contract changes when the state changes the law or a court sets a new precedent. Most people don't have a clue what the actual contract is they are signing up for when they get married, and even if the do it can be changed by the state without notice or agreement.


----------



## Prodigal (Feb 5, 2011)

Galt, I would love to respond to your question. I spent two semesters boring myself nearly to death studying contract law.

However, today I spent too many hours dealing with election law during a primary election cycle. And, believe me, there are many laws to address when it comes to elections - illegal and dead voters aside!

Will return later. Going to collapse in front of the tube now.


----------



## Galt (Dec 30, 2011)

_Originally Posted by sidney2718 
The problem is that the determination of which party broke the contract will probably involve a trial and enormous legal fees for both sides. Witnesses will be called, incidents long forgotten will be brought up, extenuating circumstances produced, and in the end, after all that money, you might not get the decision you want.

Which is why no fault was introduced in the first place. 

Very practical. _


This is the most stupid post I have ever read. If it cannot be determined who broke the contract why, then, not simply nullify the marriage without any monetary "settlement" at all? To transfer assets from the party with the greater amount of them, to the opposite party--and without investigation of any responsibility for the marriage breakup---invites and rewards legalized theft!


----------



## AliceA (Jul 29, 2010)

A promise to grow, learn and mature alongside your partner, to gain wisdom and understanding from hardships experienced together to create a strong, unbreakable bond that will last until death.


----------



## Big Tree (Jul 25, 2014)

Galt said:


> _Originally Posted by sidney2718
> The problem is that the determination of which party broke the contract will probably involve a trial and enormous legal fees for both sides. Witnesses will be called, incidents long forgotten will be brought up, extenuating circumstances produced, and in the end, after all that money, you might not get the decision you want.
> 
> Which is why no fault was introduced in the first place.
> ...


Get a pre-nup


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Where is the green font?



Galt said:


> This is the most stupid post I have ever read. If it cannot be determined who broke the contract why, then, not simply nullify the marriage without any monetary "settlement" at all? To transfer assets from the party with the greater amount of them, to the opposite party--and without investigation of any responsibility for the marriage breakup---invites and rewards legalized theft!


I like how you got directly to the point. It is all about the money.

Your issue is that despite wanting marriage to be viewed as a contract, you also want, for monetary purposes, for it to be viewed as two separate individuals. 

When you get married, the assets (certainly those gained during the marriage) are generally owned by both and so would be split. Yet your instance that to do so would be legalized theft demonstrates that you want to keep what you earn and her to keep what see earns. You also ignore anything that did not bring money into the marriage. So if a man stays home to raise the kids, he is entitled to nothing, even though he saved them money on child care costs and allowed her to pursue her career.

I fail to see how your unique view is a better "contract" than what we currently have, other than that it would have resulted in you getting more money.


----------



## Big Tree (Jul 25, 2014)

:iagree:


Tall Average Guy said:


> Where is the green font?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Unique Username (Jul 6, 2013)

yes

That's why they call it a marriage contract and it takes cash and court to get out of it


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Legally, yes it is a contract.

It is also usually a social contract whereby one party agrees exclusive somewhat free access to their sexuality and romantic emotions.

But not always.

It's why such expectations are best agreed to before marriage, and revisited every once in a while.


----------



## richardsharpe (Jul 8, 2014)

Good afternoon all
I think that while the laws (in any particular jurisdiction) are the same for all marriages, the marriages themselves are effectively very different. So different that I feel like there should be a number of different legal contracts that couples can choose. 

Some marriages are basically arrangements where one person works and provides financial support. The other takes care of the house and raises the kids. Sex is assumed. In a marriage like that the stay-at-home spouse could be in a very unfortunate situation if the working spouse got a divorce. So there is child support, alimony, etc. 

Others are completely symmetric, both work, no kids. In a marriage like that a split has no large financial impact on either. 

Some people marry for practical reasons, so for purely emotional ones .


----------



## DoF (Mar 27, 2014)

I do not like when people that approach RELATIONSHIPS from Business perspective.

Marriage is a relationship, NOTHING is 100% or perfect. 

"breaking a contract" can be just about anything one person can justify.....just seems so ridicules.


----------



## SpinDaddy (Nov 12, 2012)

Not a contract but rather a covenant between you, your god, your spouse, your society and your family. While similar, and notwithstanding any religious conventions, the chief distinction between a contract and a covenant is a higher standard of duty and obligation upon the parties. A covenant implies certain on-going duties and obligations regardless of what the other party is doing. In a contract, not playing by the rules is a breach and grounds for dissolution of the agreement.

The best illustration I can think of is the context of a divorce where there are young children involved. In spite of all the ugly facts and circumstance, there are on-going covenant based commitments that each spouse has made to the marriage with regard to the children and eachother. Those duties and obligations remain intact – despite the contract based remedy of marital dissolution.

It is far too easy and not germane to wholly analogize the context of a marriage to a simple business contract. In business, restitution and cure is far more easily quantifiable and remedy is more easily “Ordered” but no court or rule of law can fully quantify, remedy or cure the deeper obligations inherent in a marital covenant.


----------



## BradWesley (May 24, 2013)

After reading the comments here, it's not surprising why the millenials are opting out of marriage.

Personally agree that's it's the right and smart move.


----------



## tulsy (Nov 30, 2012)

SpinDaddy said:


> Not a contract but rather a covenant between you, your god, your spouse, your society and your family. ....


It's still a contract. 

In 2014, marriage is a contract. It's one of the most important contracts, but still a contract nonetheless.


----------



## xakulax (Feb 9, 2014)

marduk said:


> Legally, yes it is a contract.
> 
> It is also usually a social contract whereby one party agrees exclusive somewhat free access to their sexuality and romantic emotions.
> 
> ...




Exactly


----------



## SpinDaddy (Nov 12, 2012)

*


SpinDaddy said:



Not a contract but rather a covenant between you, your god, your spouse, your society and your family. . . .

Click to expand...

*


tulsy said:


> It's still a contract.
> 
> In 2014, marriage is a contract. It's one of the most important contracts, but still a contract nonetheless.


Agree that “contract” would be the contemporary parlance but 

Calling a cow’s tail a leg does not mean cows have five legs;

and most legal jurisdictions, recognizing the distinction, adjudicate “marital contracts” out of a specialized “family court” rather than a general civil court where business and contract disputes are heard.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Covenant and contract are synonyms.

cov·e·nant
ˈkəvənənt
noun
1. an agreement.
synonyms:*contract*, agreement, undertaking, commitment, guarantee, warrant, pledge, promise, bond, indenture; More
LAW
a contract drawn up by deed.
synonyms:	contract, agreement, undertaking, commitment, guarantee, warrant, pledge, promise, bond, indenture; More
LAW
a clause in a contract.
THEOLOGY
an agreement that brings about a relationship of commitment between God and his people. The Jewish faith is based on the biblical covenants made with Abraham, Moses, and David.


----------



## Dad&Hubby (Aug 14, 2012)

Galt said:


> Most people I have asked believe that marriage is a contract; they view it as a contractual relationship wherein both parties have applicable obligations and rights.They believe that, as in any other normal contract, failure of either party to fulfill any of their obligations constitutes a breaking of the contract and its consequent destruction, with prejudice to be shown--- by any court---against the party having broken it.
> 
> Today, however, with "no-fault divorce", it seems that either party can terminate the marriage for no demonstrable reason but that they no longer wish to be married. Yet I continue to hear expressions used in discussing marriage (and divorce) such as, "the marital contract", "...contract established thru marriage", "...marital contractual partnership," and so on.
> 
> ...


It is still a contract. Some people see that piece of paper as a holy grail level of importance while others might compare it to toilet paper. The strength of the contract is 100% wholly linked to the integrity of the two people involved in it.


----------



## jaharthur (May 25, 2012)

marduk said:


> Covenant and contract are synonyms.
> 
> cov·e·nant
> ˈkəvənənt
> ...


As a lawyer, I disagree.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

jaharthur said:


> As a lawyer, I disagree.


Could there be variations on the definitions in different countries? This was google's definition.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

I think there is a higher level of moral obligation than just a legal contract when people get married. That is what the vows are all about. But legally there is certainly a contract which has nothing whatsoever to do with the verbal contract we made in the wedding ceremony. The legal contract is what the state makes in all the laws and courtrooms.

I don't understand how the vows are not a legally binding contract, as it is a verbal agreement made in front of many witnesses. But there it is. We have a personal covenant made between us at the wedding ceremony which means nothing legally, yet we have a legal contract imposed by the state, changeable by the state at any moment, which we have no control over whatsoever.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Thor said:


> I don't understand how the vows are not a legally binding contract, as it is a verbal agreement made in front of many witnesses. But there it is. We have a personal covenant made between us at the wedding ceremony which means nothing legally, yet we have a legal contract imposed by the state, changeable by the state at any moment, which we have no control over whatsoever.


Let's assume it is a legally binding contract. Then what? Should we require that the spouse wanting to leave must in fact stay? If we allow that spouse to leave, should they be penalized? If so, how?

My issue with Galt (based on past posts) and others is that any penalty requires an interpretation that the marriage is not a union. They want all income (for example) to revert back to the person who earned it. So the guy that decides to stay at home to raise the kids while his wife works is out of luck, because he did not earn anything. So if he wants out (because cuts him off and tries to humiliate him in front of friends), he is out of luck.

Of course, Galt's issue is that he earned the money, so even though they were married, he wants to be treated as if they were roommates the entire time. I have a hard time seeing that in any marriage contract I have ever seen.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Let's assume it is a legally binding contract. Then what? Should we require that the spouse wanting to leave must in fact stay? If we allow that spouse to leave, should they be penalized? If so, how?


There would have to be grounds to dissolve the contract. One person would have to violate the terms. In the old days this led to trials in order to prove there were grounds for divorce, even if both parties wanted the divorce. That is dumb really.

But if one person does not want to dissolve the contract it should stand as a contract until a negotiated termination.

But here's the thing. I don't think that after a contract is ended that there is any further obligation on either side to perform anything. i.e. Alimony would not exist in many cases.

If I fail to make my car payments I violate the contract and the dealer ends his obligation of letting me possess the car (he repossesses the car). Neither one of us has any further obligation once the contract is officially ended.

Alimony would not be paid to a cheater. A cheater would be obligated to pay alimony if it could be determined the BS was harmed. That is, a SAHM who cheats would get no alimony, but if the SAHM was the BS then she was harmed by her husband's infidelity because she loses her financial support, and thus she would get alimony.

Where it would be difficult is if there are other forms of failure to perform. How does one prove failure to love, failure to respect, failure to honor? I guess this is where legal separation comes into play, where one spouse officially states they are breaking their side of the contract by separating.

If both spouses agree to a divorce then there is no reason for a trial and the divorce is granted. I'm happy with their being a no-fault uncontested option.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Thor said:


> There would have to be grounds to dissolve the contract. One person would have to violate the terms. In the old days this led to trials in order to prove there were grounds for divorce, even if both parties wanted the divorce. That is dumb really.
> 
> But if one person does not want to dissolve the contract it should stand as a contract until a negotiated termination.


Of course, then you are left in situations where you force a person to stay married. Is this result desirable?



> But here's the thing. I don't think that after a contract is ended that there is any further obligation on either side to perform anything. i.e. Alimony would not exist in many cases.


Recognize that the unintended consequence will be both spouses working. Only a fool would stay at home to raise kids.



> If I fail to make my car payments I violate the contract and the dealer ends his obligation of letting me possess the car (he repossesses the car). Neither one of us has any further obligation once the contract is officially ended.


actually, the dealer can come after you for the difference between what you owe and the value of the car. Normally, it is not enough to pursue, but sometimes it is. So I don't think this example supports you point.



> Alimony would not be paid to a cheater. A cheater would be obligated to pay alimony if it could be determined the BS was harmed. That is, a SAHM who cheats would get no alimony, but if the SAHM was the BS then she was harmed by her husband's infidelity because she loses her financial support, and thus she would get alimony.
> 
> Where it would be difficult is if there are other forms of failure to perform. How does one prove failure to love, failure to respect, failure to honor? I guess this is where legal separation comes into play, where one spouse officially states they are breaking their side of the contract by separating.


If my wife stays at home and allows me to work the hours necessary to make my career successful. She does this for 20 years without any issue. She then cheats once and would get nothing, as it would erase all the good she did prior. But if instead she was cold, loveless and verbally abusive during the last 15 years, I would be stuck?

I don't see how that works or is fair. 

How would you address division of assets from the marriage?


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Of course, then you are left in situations where you force a person to stay married. Is this result desirable?
> 
> Recognize that the unintended consequence will be both spouses working. Only a fool would stay at home to raise kids.
> 
> ...


We don't force people to stay married. One of them files for separation, which is a declaration that they are breaking the contract. But this makes them the one who is ending the marriage, which then plays into possible settlement details.

Staying at home is not foolish at all. It is a deliberate tradeoff between family and income. But, it does then play into future risks. If the SAHM cheats she will not have a safety net of a good career. If the working husband cheats he will be on the hook to financially support the SAHM after a divorce for some time.

A dealer can come after me for some amount of money, but once it is settled it is done. Just like division of assets in a divorce. Once the assets are split there is no further claim on the other person's assets. The only exception would be alimony, which would be awarded as damages. If a person subjugated their earning potential for the good of the family, e.g. SAHM/SAHD, or chose not to go to college to support their spouse through college/med school, then they suffer damages if their spouse cheats or leaves the marriage. In such cases alimony is awarded in reasonable proportion.

Yes it would not always be fair. If your cold heartless SAHM wife didn't cheat and didn't want a divorce, you'd be on the hook for alimony. But, the lesson is to not stay in such a marriage. This would be motivation to end a bad marriage sooner rather than later.

Note, too, that this is motivation for your wife not to cheat because she'd lose alimony. It is in her interest to try to fix a bad marriage.

Ultimately I think this is a lot more fair than either a blanket no-fault no alimony system or a mandatory alimony system. In my state it is mandatory alimony. The cheater gets lifetime alimony! That is a lot less fair than anything I can think of.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Thor said:


> We don't force people to stay married. One of them files for separation, which is a declaration that they are breaking the contract. But this makes them the one who is ending the marriage, which then plays into possible settlement details.
> 
> Staying at home is not foolish at all. It is a deliberate tradeoff between family and income. But, it does then play into future risks. If the SAHM cheats she will not have a safety net of a good career. If the working husband cheats he will be on the hook to financially support the SAHM after a divorce for some time.
> 
> A dealer can come after me for some amount of money, but once it is settled it is done. Just like division of assets in a divorce. Once the assets are split there is no further claim on the other person's assets. The only exception would be alimony, which would be awarded as damages. If a person subjugated their earning potential for the good of the family, e.g. SAHM/SAHD, or chose not to go to college to support their spouse through college/med school, then they suffer damages if their spouse cheats or leaves the marriage. In such cases alimony is awarded in reasonable proportion.


"Reasonable" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Want to wager on someone like Galt thinking that anything other than the primary wage earner (him) getting at least 90% would be unreasonable?



> Yes it would not always be fair. If your cold heartless SAHM wife didn't cheat and didn't want a divorce, you'd be on the hook for alimony. But, the lesson is to not stay in such a marriage. This would be motivation to end a bad marriage sooner rather than later.
> 
> Note, too, that this is motivation for your wife not to cheat because she'd lose alimony. It is in her interest to try to fix a bad marriage.


Perhaps, but I tend to think you will end up with a lot of unintended consequences. Like a SAH spouse being stuck trying to fix things while the working spouse has the incentive to end things as quickly as possible.

Add to it that there is now every incentive to paint your spouse as a cheater. Every instance of inappropriate conduct (real or imagined) becomes fair game.



> Ultimately I think this is a lot more fair than either a blanket no-fault no alimony system or a mandatory alimony system. In my state it is mandatory alimony. The cheater gets lifetime alimony! That is a lot less fair than anything I can think of.


I actually would be willing to cut life time alimony, but am curious how this would work in your example above, where a wife works to support her husband through medical school, then stays at home to raise the kids and allow him to pursue his career. You seemed to indicate that alimony was acceptable. Any thoughts on how you see that working?


----------



## ocotillo (Oct 17, 2011)

marduk said:


> Covenant and contract are synonyms.


Covenants aren't invalidated by failure of one or more parties to keep their word. The Declaration of Independence is a secular covenant where fifty-six people mutually pledged their lives fortunes and sacred honor. Even if the majority had reneged on that promise, it still would have been in force for those who didn't 

Generally, contracts are contingent upon all parties keeping their word and in that respect, I tend to think of marriage as more of a contract.


----------



## SpinDaddy (Nov 12, 2012)

marduk said:


> Covenant and contract are synonyms.
> cov•e•nant
> ˈkəvənənt
> noun
> ...





jaharthur said:


> As a lawyer, I disagree.





marduk said:


> Could there be variations on the definitions in different countries? This was google's definition.


No not really. Your definition aptly describes a covenant as a formal agreement or promise and then provides the two general contexts in which a covenant is used. 

In the first context, as a matter of law, a covenant is frequently found in the law of contract either as a collateral agreement to a contract or as a contract itself. In this context, the covenant is a legally binding and enforceable agreement. 

To make this determination a court would ask: “Was a promise offered to someone”; “Did that someone accept that offer”; and “Was there consideration for that offer and acceptance – in other words ‘was something of value exchanged between the parties’”. In this context, assuming there was no illegal or unlawful purposes underlying the covenant, the notions of a covenant and a contract are essentially interchangeable and legally enforceable. It is the underlying premise of modern-day commerce and would only not be not recognized in the most primitive of cultures.

In the second context, identified as “theology”, the definition of a convent is again described as a promise but this time between a god and people. A Biblical example is given however the notion of a spiritual, philosophical, or moral promise is not limited to Judeo Christian beliefs. 

In this context, the notion of a covenant is not synonymous with a contract because it is not legally enforceable in a court of law. There are some exceptions – Islamic law comes to mind but in most contemporary legal societies the “theological” covenant would lack the element of “consideration” i.e., nothing of value was exchanged between the parties.

Does that help?


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I actually would be willing to cut life time alimony, but am curious how this would work in your example above, where a wife works to support her husband through medical school, then stays at home to raise the kids and allow him to pursue his career. You seemed to indicate that alimony was acceptable. Any thoughts on how you see that working?


I think a fairness test of some sort would work.

1) If you cheat, you are not entitled to receive alimony.

2) If you cheat, you could be liable to pay alimony for at least as long as the marriage lasted.

3) If you did not cheat, you are not liable to pay alimony long term.

4) If you are the lower earning or non-earning spouse, you might be entitled to either limited or lifetime alimony, as long as you did not cheat.
A) In a short term marriage (10 years or less, approximately) you would be entitled to a short term alimony designed to carry you over while you gain job skills. Up to the length of time you supported your spouse while he/she was in school, or long enough for you to gain a college or vocational skill.
B) In a longer term marriage you would be entitled to alimony to gain skills and get established in a productive field. Perhaps marriages longer than 10 years would be in this category. The acknowledgement is that your lifetime earning potential is lower due to your age and fewer years ahead, while your spouse has the monetary benefit of many more years establishing a career and earning.

The basic idea in all of this is that a bad actor should not benefit, while the innocent actor should not be penalized.


----------



## Galt (Dec 30, 2011)

Re: Thor

"...The basic idea in all of this is that a bad actor should not benefit, while the innocent actor should not be penalized." 

I agree. Unfortunately innocent actors, nearly always men, are punished daily in divorce courts by a combination of no-fault divorce and archaic law which assumes that all assets, which either party has, are the result of a collaborative partnership.

It is time to finally fix this situation by putting the burden of proof back where it rightly belongs: on the party wishing to receive assets presently belonging to the other party.

Further, ignorant politicians have no right to pass law overriding any provisions of a legal--albeit verbal---contract. This can only be done, and by a judge, if the contract is demonstrably unconscionable, requires illegal activity, or is against the public interest.

Could anyone disagree?


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

I disagree with the part about having to prove assets are not joint. When married, the assets (with rare exception such as inheritances) are legally joint. The couple agrees to be married, and agree to remain married, with whatever structure they have in the way of jobs, businesses, student status, SAHM/SAHD, etc. This arrangement is obviously acceptable if it is ongoing.

Assets prior to the marriage should not be considered joint. Ditto inheritances, disability awards, personal injury awards, and similar.

I do agree with your comments about politicians overriding the verbal contract. I bet the vast majority of young people getting married have no idea the reality of the legal framework they are agreeing to. They are entering into a legal obligation which they have no idea exists or the terms of the contract.


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Thor said:


> I bet the vast majority of young people getting married have no idea the reality of the legal framework they are agreeing to. They are entering into a legal obligation which they have no idea exists or the terms of the contract.


I wonder if that's really the case. Many of today's young people grew up with divorced parents. I suspect they know a hell of a lot more about divorce than my generation did.


----------



## Jellybeans (Mar 8, 2011)

*Is Marriage a Contract?*

Sure is. 

_Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses _

Thanks, Wiki.

Sign your life on the dotted line, people.


----------



## Galt (Dec 30, 2011)

Jellybeans said:


> *Is Marriage a Contract?*
> 
> Sure is.
> 
> ...


Sorry, but this typically vague and circular definition is of no help to me. What is lacking here is a further refnement of the defnition of "union." Some people still believe that this union actually results in two persons becoming one. If this is true, though, how could this "one person" divorce himself?

Such ridiculous paradoxes are the inevitable result of the political determination to sneak traditional religious concepts into secular law, and to keep them there, even in the face of modern scientific knowledge about human psychology and the watershed changes in our way of life in the Twenty-First Century.

I will soon propose here that marriage and divorce law should be cleansed of politics and religion and should be preempted by the Federal Government. Only by standardizing it, among all fifty states, can the gold mine which has been created by the divorce industry---for its own profit---at last be shut down.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Galt said:


> I will soon propose here that marriage and divorce law should be cleansed of politiucs and religion and should be preempted by the Federal Government. Only by standardizing it, among all fifty states, can the gold mine which has been created by the divorce industry---for its own profit---at last be shut down.


I have proposed for years that the government have zero involvement in defining marriage or the terms of a marriage contract. Government should have no involvement in deciding how assets are split, whether or not people can get married or divorced, or obligating one person's labors to support another from whom they are divorced.


----------



## BostonBruins32 (Nov 2, 2013)

At the risk of sounding like a pessimist, marriage is an arrangement pushed by older relatives and the media. It's like anything else, it looks beautiful on the surface but involves some pretty heavy lifting behind the scenes. ; "oh look at that couple celebrating 35 years together" or the million movies about falling in love and marrying. We're told we're supposed to marry. 

It's not a contract. It's a label. "I'm married" <--oh you must have it together or you must be a catch. 

Truth is, labels can be changed pretty easy. I can be a teacher today and an accountant tomorrow. I can be a redhead today, and a blonde tomorrow. With obvious exceptions, contracts aren't to be broken (in theory).


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

Galt said:


> Most people I have asked believe that marriage is a contract; they view it as a contractual relationship wherein both parties have applicable obligations and rights.They believe that, as in any other normal contract, failure of either party to fulfill any of their obligations constitutes a breaking of the contract and its consequent destruction, with prejudice to be shown--- by any court---against the party having broken it.
> 
> Today, however, with "no-fault divorce", it seems that either party can terminate the marriage for no demonstrable reason but that they no longer wish to be married. Yet I continue to hear expressions used in discussing marriage (and divorce) such as, "the marital contract", "...contract established thru marriage", "...marital contractual partnership," and so on.
> 
> ...


I cannot believe that many people go into marriage thinking it will be easy or not willing to work at it. However, most people start their diet and exercise programme full of good intentions too. 

I have just had a legal separation. It is no fault. I worked by arse off for nearly two years and risked my health. No-fault does not really mean flippant.


----------



## Galt (Dec 30, 2011)

bostonbruins32 said:


> It's not a contract. It's a label. "I'm married" <--oh you must have it together or you must be a catch.


But exactly how should the thing be defined to which this arbitrary label ("married") applies?

If it is a contract, and particularly if it was made verbally and included language such as, "...'til death do we part," then it is negated by "no-fault" divorce law as soon as it is made. If it is, therefore, not a contract, then it must be in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires equal treatment of all people. Everything that happens in a divorce court involves different treatment of one party as compared to the other.

At this point I have decided that the best way to describe it may be as a sophisticated, multi level fraud, in which all participants profit and are happy with the outcome, except for the poor victim; he is left robbed of his kids, his assets and his dignity, wondering where he is going to find the money to pay the court ordered CS and alimony! Is it any wonder that many commit suicide?


----------

