My, perhaps cynical, guess is that the insecure people you are thinking about will have nothing to do with this. It's an option, not a replacement, and the option does not meet their perceived needs. I'd guess that most of the term-limited marriages will be between people of disparate economic resources and that it will function like the pre-nup you need to sign if you are really hot and want to marry somebody really rich.
If Mexico had RTFA, it would have known the appropriate term is 7 years.
LICENSES
If Mexico had RTFA, it would have known the appropriate term is 7 years.
Or they could have watched the movie.
This legislation totally up-ends the insecurity aspect of marriage
It apparently replaces it with the prospect of a biennial conversation regarding whether or not we're happy enough together to keep going for another two years.
No, I knew about B's rant. Hers was so idealistic, and this is so immediate, that the ground-level implications seemed really different.
Er. Fix the spelling of the post's title? Licenses.
I did read 3.1 and had no idea it was correcting my spelling.
No lo puedo leer, Señor Insensible.
If I corrected the title now, think how confused everyone would be. ¡Que horror!
I might just fix the title myself. What do you think of THAT.
Wouldn't that be a merry face-off, if neb corrected my post errors and I introduced them into his posts?
13.last is missing a question mark.
14: Naturally my first move would be to strip you of the privileges that enable you to edit others' posts.
8: I thought I'd make it explicit.
It is interesting stuff, Heebie. I think I've heard about such temporary marriage arrangements in other places; not sure if there was a built-in two year arrangement to it. Maybe more like a contract with a number of years to be set by the couple, which doesn't necessarily seem less stressful to the couple's actual love relationship, but at least puts some limits on the extent of financial responsibility ... going forward.
Weird, actually.
Merry in haste, repaint at leisure.
Are you guys having a huge fight or something? Mostly it just seems like this isn't a bad spelling blog on its front page, so, you know. Fix and move on. ?
I have long felt a need to confess my love for Moby Hick, and now seems like as good a time as any.
I just finished painting my bathroom and I'm married, so it fit.
"licenses" was just a ruse to sneak "IMO" through.
Crap. I can't even misspell it if I try. "Lisences"
You failed to capitalize it, if that helps.
2: two years is the minimum; presumably a standard 7-year contract could be drafted.
||
I just rewatched Can't Stop The Music (1980). Although I have seen it many times, it has lost none of its power to baffle me.
|>
That "[stet]" in the post title brings little-bitchness to new heights.
29: I thought it was a good compromise position between leaving well enough alone and changing the spelling…
I think it's a good compromise. It serves as a sort of 'acknowledged' marker.
You might think it even serves as a sort of "let's leave this here" marker.
So you're saying I should really go fix the spelling now?
Yes, change the spelling from "stet" to "sic".
No, don't be absurd! I considered "sic" but "stet" is obviously the right choice, as what's at issue here is not the preservation, in another venue, of an error, but rather the letting stand, in the venue of its production, of an error.
From my unfinished dissertation:
'"Your [sic] going to site[site] more published work if you want to get you're [sic] proposal approved." (Committee Member, oral communication, March 2003).'
The second "site" would be sick if it knew how much pain it caused me for not being 'sic'.
No, don't be absurd! I considered "stet" but "sic" is obviously the right choice, as what's at issue here is not the preservation, in another venue, of an error, but rather the letting stand, in the venue of its production, of an error.
Uh oh.
Apo changed it in the database. That's what happened. I changed it back.
nosflow is apparently one of the mullahs.
Two years seems silly. 7 years is the perfect number.
Surely it should be "lisences licenses [stet]".
The romantics who believe in Twue Wuv will get the permanent option and regret it. The sensible types who realize that love is complex, shifting, subtle, fraught, and delicate will get the short term marriage contracts, renew them regularly, and die together at a ripe old age. Another set will use the shortest term contracts as a form of long-term quasi-prostitution, such a rich older man marrying a much younger woman under an arrangement in which he pays her university tuition in exchange for regular sex and performance as arm candy at business functions.
I'm not sure I understand what need the contracts fulfill. You can get a pre-nup that accomplishes the same thing, and if you do that, you get to maintain the fiction that you're married forever, which is often a desirable fiction for at least one of the parties involved. I don't foresee a lot of interest in this if it becomes available.
Something like this exist in Shi'a Islam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut%E2%80%98ah
2, 43: I know, right? And where's my gorram consulting fee, Mexico? Billy Wilder and I are not amused.
47: And trust those sneaky Muslims to have beaten us all to this eminently sensible idea. But they're all terrorists now, so it doesn't count. Still, big ups to Ja'fari jurisprudence.
||
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15244377
>
||
I'm texting back and forth with my mechanic, a guy who works on cars in his back yard. He's saying he couldn't find anything wrong, so no charge. I'm saying that he ought to be compensated for his time, and offered 2 hours at $30/hr, just off the top of my head. He's still declining.
How far am I supposed to push the issue?
|>
52: I agree right away when my mechanic says there's no charge. I assume he knows what he's doing, and that he'll get even with me on the next repair.
52: don't. Then give him your business next time.
Yep. He's (a) being honest and (b) building loyalty. Let him work his business plan.
People are terribly cynical about marriage.
Great! Sure, I'm happy to have loyalty being built with me.
People are terribly cynical about mechanics, but good ones exist.
People are terribly cynical about being pwned.
50: I'm not sure it is all that sensible in a context where divorce is readily available for men but difficult for women.
Wait, there are mechanics who only charge 30 an hour?
There are Heebies who didn't want to offer up $120 because she's cheap.
Wait, there are mechanics who only charge 30 an hour?
Cooter was the least realistic part of The Dukes of Hazzard.
c'mon, her shorts weren't that short.
I was still in my latency period when that show was on.
59; Yes, there was that mechanic in Chicago who drove me to the hospital after I was mugged. Good guy, but he didn't do that well fixing my car. I suppose there's only so much that a mechanic can do with a 1975 Plymouth Valiant.
The concept of dowery or mahr is a really interesting one for Muslims in the US. The man gets the divorce if he wants it, but he has to pay the deferred dowery. The woman cannot get a divorce unless the man concepts and then usually has to give up the dowery or mahr.
Today's standard issue shorts are about the size of Daisy's.
69: "the man consents"? It's pick on will day!
73: So Blume and Tweety have their Halloween costumes all set!
61: Sure it is. It would just be even more sensible if gender parity on divorce was in play. Sort of like how multicultural societies like the Ottoman Empire were a sensible idea, but societies that are multicultural and democratic are even more sensible.
I've decided that my white blob of a baby is going to be an Adipose for Halloween.
(I sometimes wonder how much of world history would be different had The Mysterious Orient and The Ravenous Occident spent less time arguing about whose ancestors could beat up whom, and more time recognizing that hey, everyone's ancestors had some pretty neat ideas, and let's look at that.)
77: That holds true only if you can somehow maintain that the rules of marriage are independent of the gender disparity. And that the multicultural nature of the Ottoman Empire was somehow independent of it not being democratic. The Ottoman Empire was multicultural only because they conquered multiple cultures.
52: Anthropologically, the gift economy preceeded the money economy, and it remains superior in many ways, especially for the giver. If your mechanic charged you a small amount, he'd have a negligible profit, you'd be even with him and would have no reason to go to him next time. Since he gave you a gift, you owe him your next business, which is likely to be more profitable for him.
(paraphrased from a recent discusion of Debt: the First 5000 Years, possibly on Crooked Timber. )
my white blob of a baby is going to be an Adipose for Halloween
Ha! We were just yesterday trying to convince some friends that their baby should be a Dalek.
82: Yay! Well, I've already picked out your costume for you! You get to wear a kicky shirt dress! Tweety's short-shorts, on the other hand . . .
I've decided that my white blob of a baby is going to be an Adipose for Halloween.
White blob of baby should be a bottle of Newman's ranch salad dressing.
80: That holds true only if you can somehow maintain that the rules of marriage are independent of the gender disparity.
I believe that not only can I so maintain, but also that it is possible to assess more- and less-sensible versions of marriage laws that contain fundamental elements we might find disagreeable.
The Ottoman Empire was multicultural only because they conquered multiple cultures.
Not true in the least. There are a fuck-ton of historical empires that conquered multiple cultures without becoming multicultural. The Ottomans or, say, the Achaemenid Persians were multicultural in ways the empires of the Diadochi just weren't, despite ruling equally diverse populations.
85.1: When you make it easier for men to end a marriage than you do for women and you have a society were women are required to be attached somehow to a man, a temporary marriage is merely another component of gender disparity. It keeps them in a more precarious situation.
85.2: The Ottomans were, in their day, very good at running a diverse empire. But I don't see how that relates to the modern concept of a multicultural democracy. Outside of the force of empire, there was no way for the cultures to function together. It wasn't a pluralist political system. It was an empire that realized how to run things more efficiently by not dicking with people so much. There was never any notion that the other cultures were to be respected as cultures. Their whole army was based on kidnapping from those other cultures.
86.1:
that is the beauty of mahr. You set the amount high so that it is too costly to leave her.
86.2: But I don't see how that relates to the modern concept of a multicultural democracy.
That would be why I'm pretty sure I said it only relates to the concept of multiculturalism, and I'm pretty sure I didn't say to the "modern" version thereof. The Ottomans were one (of a number of) Middle Eastern empires that hit on the idea of having specific institutions to cater to specific populations under their rule. (An idea to which modern "pluralistic" societies in the West are actually relative latecomers.) Ths concept made empire possible because it reduced reliance on "the force of" empire.
There was never any notion that the other cultures were to be respected as cultures.
Strictly-speaking, there was, actually. Or rather, other confessional traditions were to be respected as such (foundational in the Qur'an). Of course practices like devshirme complicate that picture -- multicultural is not the same as what moderns would accept as humane* -- but then the devshirme itself, which started as a form of enslavement by the conquered, developed into something way the hell more complicated than just "kidnapping." It was the establishment of an entire elite political class from a subordinate culture as part of the Sultans' bid to centralize authority.
(And OTOH, let's not us "moderns" be too quick to pat ourselves on the back, since we tolerate and often tacitly profit by institutions that will surely seem just as bizarre to our descendants -- ever wonder what posterity will make of the "guest worker," for instance?)
Of course practices like devshirme complicate that picture
That's one really big complication.
86.1: a temporary marriage is merely another component of gender disparity.
I don't see how that's supposed to follow at all. The woman isn't required to enter into a temporary marriage, and if anything has more control over its ending and thereby the planning of her life than one entering a "permanent" marriage. Even given the gender disparities -- on which issue, frankly, laudable as their concern might be, Westerners talking about Islamic law often seem to be arguing about a cartoon version -- the arrangement would seem perfectly well-suited to an economy with large numbers of people who move relatively frequently over long distances for work and school. And therefore even more sensible and workable as an arrangement without gender disparity.
90: It's complications within complications.
My very limited understanding of basic Islamic law is that:
1. The man can end the marriage without wife's consent.
2. The woman cannot end the marriage without man's consent.
3. The woman gets a large deferred dowry or mahr if husband leaves her or dies.
4. Each person keeps what they have earned during the marriage.ie no sharing or equitable distribution of assets.
5. Wife is not required to "serve" husband.
These concepts and the agreements that get entered into are very interesting and cause all kinds of problems when couples divorce in the US.
91: I suppose it does give her more control over the ending than a regular marriage. However, the fact that a woman's choice is between a temporary marriage and a regular marriage that she cannot exit at will but her husband can means that any choice the woman makes about marriage is contingent on being at a disadvantage.
94: I suppose it does give her more control over the ending than a regular marriage. However . . . any choice the woman makes about marriage is contingent on being at a disadvantage.
No shit, Buckwheat! It's almost like "it is possible to assess more- and less-sensible versions of marriage laws that contain fundamental elements we might find disagreeable."
And like gender disparity would not be necessary to a temporary marriage arrangement, and would be even more sensible in contexts without such disparities. Right?
re: 83
Tweety's going as Amy Pond?
95: I think the whole temporary marriage thing is a stupid way of dealing with what should be done with reasonable divorce laws.
I was tempted to write a huge comment about how different the entire idea of "multiculturalism" was in the days before the nation state, but fuck it.
The Mexico City idea is great. According to the article, the divorce rate is 50% there. That means than half of the marrying population will have to deal with dividing up kids and assets based on rules they never thought about for a minute before tying the knot. At a minimum, this forces a conversation about how to divide up assets and kids instead of just entering into a contract with a whole bunch of default terms that no one thinks about because the contract signing ceremony is wrapped up in true true love.
It's interesting that the response to the high divorce rate in Mexico City was "temporary marriage", while the response in a few U.S. states was "covenant marriage". Does anybody know how that "covenant marriage" thing is working out?
97: And I think it's foolish to be that sanguine about divorce, no matter how "reasonable" the laws surrounding it, if there are sensible options at hand for preventing or pre-empting.
99: Well, if there's one thing the American religious right is known for, it's well-thought-out social policies.
Yes, 97 is wrong. You'll always have problems when marriages end, but the more decisions you can front load, the less awful the divorce process. it's why LLC agreements are so long.
100: As I stated the first comment, I don't think temporary marriage will do much at all to slow divorce.
103: That doesn't seem to me to be what 1 says at all, actually. But at any rate I wouldn't know what you were basing either opinion on. Is your guess about economic disparity any better thought-through than your guesses about gender disparity were?
I'm all about think through disparities properly.
51: Clare Hollingsworth's editor, supposedly, didn't believe her and told her over the (then unimaginably, private-jet expensive) international phone that it was all deception and the tanks were wooden dummies. She stuck the receiver out of the window so the newsroom could hear them grinding and revving by...
105: Oh, me too. I'm like, Mister Disparities.
My contention is that for marriage law in a society with broad inequalities (whether based on gender or on gender and wealth), the disadvantaged group is likely to be hurt by anything that makes a social contract more contingent. The ideal of a marriage as a permanent bond, regardless of how unempirical it is as an idea, provides a great deal of leverage for the economically or politically weaker party in a marriage. If every marriage becomes a contract to be negotiated, I would expect that economic outcomes for women would decline because the "default*" would no longer be a split 50/50 on divorce.
*I realize pre-nups have already altered this somewhat.
That is, outcomes for women would decline to the extent that women have less economic power than men. The more equal society becomes, the less of a problem this is.
That's not an insane point, but it doesn't have much to do with modern society or (most likely) the situation in Mexico, where you would have a range of civil law contracts to choose from, not an endless choice. At this point in time the problems of not thinking through sane exit strategies is (IMO) much more serious than the need for a paternalistic enforcement of default rules. And one benefit to even less economically empowered women would be the ability to exit the marriage under clear rules and a sense of one's options.
In other words, if you're at a 50% divorce rate in a world where women work, you're probably not in a world where you need a paternalistic uniform marriage contract with no option to contract around it.
108: My contention is that for marriage law in a society with broad inequalities (whether based on gender or on gender and wealth), the disadvantaged group is likely to be hurt by anything that makes a social contract more contingent.
I'm afraid don't see how this fits either with your previously stated views on divorce or indeed with any part of the rise of women's liberation as a force in Western societies, a fairly integral part of which has been the making of the social contract of marriage more contingent via no-fault divorce.
I'm like, Mister Disparities.
Mista Disparities, Mista Bob Disparities.
No-fault divorce doesn't make it possible for somebody to sign a one-sided contract at 21 and get divorced without an equitable distribution of whatever assets are in the marriage at 28.
Well, right, and it also doesn't tell you what an "equitable distribution" is or what situation you'd realistically be in if the marriage ends.
115: And where are "one-sided contract" and "without an equitable distribution" coming from, exactly? Are you actually conflating the concept of temporary marriage with what you think Ja'fari jurisprudence is? Please tell me that's not it.
I'd thought we'd switched off Ja'fari jurisprudence.
114: My Disparities indeed make more niggaz bleed, so swift, nekkid eye couldn't record the speed.
118: So did I. So again, where are "one-sided contract" and "without an equitable distribution" coming from, exactly?
My point on Shia marriage was that the different requirements for divorce by gender create a disparity so large that other issues don't matter. I think I was very clear on that.
My point on Shia marriage was that the different requirements for divorce by gender create a disparity so large that other issues don't matter.
Which I think is quite wrong, as it happens, but I continue to be curious about the answer to the question in 117.1 and 120.
120: My expectations as to one-sided contracts and distribution at the dissolution of a marriage stem from what I read about how pre-nups are used in the modern American context. That is, to protect the assets of the wealthier party. Which is perfectly understandable, but I'm not in the habit of helping wealthier people preserve assets. Maybe I should reconsider that as it probably pays better.
On the Shia marriage point, I don't think it's a very useful analogy to whatever is or isn't being done in Mexico City -- if you have a regime in which divorce is religiously-bounded an noncontractual, with a set of rules designed for a premodern agrarian world, you're just in a fundamentally different marriage regime than modern western law.
123: Okay, but that seems like question-begging to me. Why is a pre-nup the relevant analogy?
Well, there are huge gains to a discussion about the terms of separation that go well beyond some stereotype of a rich old guy and young hot girl.
Periodic renegotiation is an effective way to deal with changing interests in any long term relationship -- if you reach a point where you decide that one party will stop working and stay home with the kids, that may call for a different division than you would have with both parties working. Or treating different assets differently. Peoples lives are complicated, much more so than the default terms of a marriage contract would permit.
In general, anything that gets people thinking abouttheir marriage as a series of ongoing choices, and let's them come together to discuss it's terms and how things might work upon the marriage ending, is a good thing.
(I mean, further to 125, I can see people being tempted to try to use it as an entry strategy to a more permanent marriage, if they were the sort of individual who, while not a gold-digger, is nevertheless not messing with any broke individuals. OTOH I don't see why it wouldn't apply to, say, a class of fairly mobile urban professionals who tend to cycle through jobs and school in a variety of locales, of the type that often posts to this blog for example. Why is one model supposed to be more likely than the other?)
Orson Scott Card had this in one of his books - a society where term marriage was the only option, and renewing it every time was seen as a sign of above-average mutual attachment. Of course, given what he's made of himself since...
129: Well, a stopped Card can still be right twice a day.
Why is one model supposed to be more likely than the other?
I have no good guess as to which is more likely. However, the class of fairly mobile urban professionals has (or is more likely to have) a whole host of resources to employ in handling their personal relationships. And they are less likely to feel social pressure to marry in order to cohabitate. They are less likely to need to be married to get health insurance.
The young, relatively poor couple getting married at 20 is unlikely to have the life experience necessary to think things through properly and the default marriage does not present them with the option to sign away protections.
Right, but it does allow them to renegotiate after 2 or more years without the devastating consequences of divorce under unclear terms. For couples getting married at 19 or 20, particularly where neither one is well off at the time, that's a powerful and important thing. I think you are letting a stereotype about the prenup run away with you.
Aren't the huge problems associated with divorce either because of children and/or a house? How would a temporary marriage fix this?
By allowing re-contracting on a periodic basis, perhaps before the decision to have kids or buy the house is made. I.e., instead of just defaulting into "we are married, so who gets the house will be determined by laws of State X of which we are totally unaware" you might actually have to have a conversation about who has the house. Or, if there are kids, about what kind of custody arrangement would be appropriate in the case of a split. I presume that the temporary marriage contracts would not allow anyone to contract out of providing child support.
The beauty about a good prenup process is that it forces both of them to think about issues and not just assume that they both have the same expectations for the future.
If you have a two year marriage, then a house purchase would raise some issues about what happens after the marriage ends.
Pre-nups, as well as divorce proceedings, are expensive, yo. Prohibitively so, for many.
Also true, which is why a range of default marriage options (which is what Mexico City is doing) is better for a number of reasons than just allowing people to pay lawyers to draft prenups.
I mean, sorry, what am I saying. People should totally pay lawyers to draft prenups. Sorry Will.
Just FYI though, I checked and LegalZoom.com will put together a prenup for you for about $800. Which may make sense for a lot of folks. No idea about how the LegalZoom prenups have held up in Court. Sorry again Will.
138: The article just says, "The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits." It says nothing about what those provisions would be and I had assumed they were being negotiated by the couple.
134: This is an available option today. The fact that too few people avail themseves of it suggests that they don't want it.
A prenup should not be a standard document. People need to have discussions about the terms so that they understand the options. Too often, people say "just whatever is standard."
142: It may also suggest that they don't know about it.
This is an available option today. The fact that too few people avail themseves of it suggests that they don't want it.
You cannot contract away child support. In fact, even if you give someone the equity in the house in exchange for not paying child support, they can still go to court and get child support.
142 -- There are big problems with prenups (mostly, having to do with stigma, but also, as Parsimon says, having to do with cost and with the ability to select some pre-defined options) that can be alleviated by a less uniform marriage regime. Which is why, go Mexico City.
141 -- Civil Law countries have very different contract and family law regimes than common law countries -- almost by definition, the range of available marriage contracts will be from a menu of options made available by the state, most likely with the couples having the ability to negotiate over certain terms (i.e., percentage of ongoing spousal support, within a range) but not the form of the contract.
Good lord, what is the point of getting married at all, again? It begins (ha) to sound like not much more than a contractual relationship, which I at least run screaming from in matters of love.
Good lord, what is the point of getting married at all, again?
Sex without eternal damnation.
It is worse if you arent married. There arent very good rules for dividing up jointly owned property. You still have to pay child support. And, there is no spousal support for the person who gave up career to raise the child.
the point of getting married
You invite enough people and you might end up with a full set of matching dishes.
It begins (ha) to sound like not much more than a contractual relationship
Of course, it's way more than a contractual relationship, but when it comes time to get a divorce it is a almost purely a contractual relationship, and you didn't set (and are most likely completely unaware of) the terms of the contract.
147: A wedding, aside from bowling and skating, is pretty much the only way to have a socially sanctioned reason for rented shoes. That only men can rent the shoes goes to my gender disparity point.
It begins (ha) to sound like not much more than a contractual relationship, which I at least run screaming from in matters of love.
The contractual relationship isn't so much about dealing with the love end of things (though, would that such a thing were enforceable: "Look, honey, section IV, paragraph 13.1 -- you are required to provide empathy and encouragement in anticipation of, during, and for a reasonable period following all encounters with my parents..."). The contract part comes in rather handy with respect to the distribution of assets in the event the love thing doesn't work out. But for the contractual aspect of a marital relationship, UNG might not have had a claim to much at all of the marital estate. And while there may at the time have been a certain appeal to imagining a scenario in which his sorry ass was kicked penniless to the curb, the truth of the matter is that such a thing would not have been equitable.
A commitment is not a prediction that we will always feel about each other as we do today. A commitment is an acknowledgement that some things last and a game consent to give it a go.
"Marriage is a beautiful mistake which two people make together." --Madame Colet Trouble in Paradise
The pact that we made was the ordinary pact
of men & women in those days
I don't know who we thought we were
that our personalities
could resist the failures of the race
Marriage a big deal with regards to death benefits in govt. jobs. If I die in the line of duty my spouse gets a monthly check of 38 percent of my salary. After we retire she still gets 65 percent of my retirement after I die.
And the plot for the noir thriller/mystery writes itself.
156: What if you are in the line of duty and she kills you?
A commitment is not a prediction that we will always feel about each other as we do today. A commitment is an acknowledgement that some things last and a game consent to give it a go.
OK. Why not talk about how you'll handle the money and kids in case things work out, and know that ahead of time?
Despite or because of not being able to enter into a marriage or legal co-parenting agreement applicable to my current life, I'm appreciating seeing others' takes on all this. (And who knew that Shi'i jurisprudence was what it took to get Moby going? I'd have brought it up years ago!)
160: I'm dealing with a bunch of reviewers and that is probably more likely to account for my mood than Shi'i law.
However, I do dislike arguments that involve saying "this aspect of a temporally and culturally different society was great so I'm going to discuss it isolation to condemn our present society."
I do dislike arguments that involve saying "this aspect of a temporally and culturally different society was great so I'm going to discuss it isolation to condemn our present society."
amen.
159: There have been various proposals to require people getting married to sit down and talk about that kind of stuff, haven't there? You way would be different because you want them to talk about what happens if the marriage goes boom and the typical reformer wants them to talk about that stuff so that the marriage doesn't go boom.
162: I'm not sure I'll have enough room on the I HEART MOBY HICK sampler I'm embroidering to include that quote, but I'll try. Or I would if I were telling the truth about the sampler. Like band names, I prefer my embroidery to be imaginary.
159 -- I don't practice in this area, at all. But it certainly strikes me that a 26 year old groom might have pretty different feelings about his relationship to his as yet unborn children than the 35 year old father of a 5 year old. Just as a 26 year old bride might not have the same objection to her intended spending a bunch of unsupervised time with her as yet unborn child, as she might have after having watched her 35 year old soon to be ex-husband interacting with their 5 year old.
Obviously vice versa, gender roles reversed.
That is, I can see that a prenup is a fine exercise wrt pre-existing, or foreseeable, wealth disparities, but I don't see how the important questions with respect to parenting can really be answered. And if an agreement is made, even though it might not be totally binding, surely it becomes leverage as the split is negotiated/litigated.
164 -- I think, personally, that talking about what happens if things don't work out is an important part of making things work out.
But even if that's not true, the Mexico City proposal still making the end of marriage much more tolerable, and the division of assets more intentional, in a society where the norm is that 50% of marriages end in divorce.
And the specific proposal under consideration is, in essence, a provision for a mandatory periodic reassessment of the marriage contract. In a place with a high divorce rate, or a lot of folks getting married early, that's a good thing.
I don't practice in this area, at all. But it certainly strikes me that a 26 year old groom might have pretty different feelings about his relationship to his as yet unborn children than the 35 year old father of a 5 year old. Just as a 26 year old bride might not have the same objection to her intended spending a bunch of unsupervised time with her as yet unborn child, as she might have after having watched her 35 year old soon to be ex-husband interacting with their 5 year old.
Right. Which is why the periodic marriage term thing is a good idea.
168 -- I'd rather the prenup expired.
You cant put custody or visitation provisions in a prenup. They are meaningless.
As for your comments, you often see people objecting to leaving the kids with the exspouse unsupervised two months after they used to leave the kids with the then-spouse unsupervised. Suddenly, it is a problem.
167: I had wondered about the statistics in the article. It says, "Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years." I'm wondering what they mean by "usually" and if the statistics are accurate. I guess I've always thought the U.S. was as divorce-prone as it gets. If "usually" means more often than not, they are talking 25% of all marriages in Mexico city ending within two years.
(I'm going to trial, next month, employee side, on a non-compete. So, you know, not feeling finality of contract . . .)
173: Until the revolution, we have to call them "job creators".
Suddenly, it is a problem.
I'm sure there's tons of bad faith, but one can certainly construct a scenario where there isn't bad faith.
Do pre-nups typically expire? I'd heard that in California after so many years, it all goes to community property. However, I read that in reference to some star getting a divorce and not in a legal journal or anything.
It says, "Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years."
At a guess, this means that people get married young (too young).
171 -- One wonders about stats like that. How likely is a couple married in their hometown to get divorced in MC, where they moved for work? How likely is it for one member of a separating couple to move to MC, and, assuming a mandatory period, file there?
It is surely easier to undo a shotgun wedding out of range.
I have, frankly, never understood the youngish friends of mine who have, years ago now, gotten married (impulsively, it seemed) at age 23, in a scenario in which no one was the least bit surprised that they were divorced 2 years later.
That wasn't about supporting intended children or jointly held property: they just thought it was awesome to declare that this was how much they loved one another. Something like that.
I don't know what the demographic or income situation is in Mexico City, but there are surely populations among whom either a similar perspective obtains, or else it's simply difficult or unthinkable to be unmarried past one's mid-20s.
I've lost track of my point, however.
178: The Reno-effect. Except, Mexico City is vastly more populous relative to Mexico than Nevada was relative to the rest of the U.S. during the 50s.
179: I think you're considering a law that no one under 25 or so can get married.
Do pre-nups typically expire? I'd heard that in California after so many years, it all goes to community property.
Not my area, at all (I am a customer, not a service provider in this zone of the law) but I believe that this is not the case. I think you could draft one with an expiring term if you wanted to.
Lots of people get divorced without getting married "too young" and lots of "too young" people stick together.
181: How extreme. Maybe a law that no couple that hasn't already cohabitated for, um, one year? Two? Can get married.
Lots of people get divorced without getting married "too young"
Well, you can only protect people from their own stupidity for so long.
lots of "too young" people stick together.
Those people will just have to wait a little longer to get married which will make it all the sweeter.
183 -- bleh. How about the state giving people more options, instead of doubling down on controlling their lives?
184 -- that better not be you, parsi.
There's been a great deal of posting unsigned, non-spammy comments lately. I don't know why.
183: What? I was just reaching the logical conclusion of your argument!
I thought you would support the idea, even if I didn't!
The cohabiting idea is ok, except for the existence of religious people that frown at sex outside of marriage.
But, I'm thinking those people won't like the temporary marriage idea either.
I heard that Cortez shot a man in Tenochtitlan just to watch him die.
Halford, I'm joking! I do think people should wait a bit longer in some cases before getting married -- that's the point of a long engagement, I thought -- but I sure as hell wouldn't try to legislate that. Are you kidding?
I favor the Mexico City proposal, but if it's just supposed to be an answer to marriages that were unwise in the first place (i.e. end quickly in divorce), well, duh, maybe hold off on the marriage in the first place. Perhaps we can view the 2-year marriage contract as a 2-year engagement. That works for me.
184 was me. Want to make something of it, halford?
Why not have a state-administered marriage test, evaluating compatibility? Perhaps, given statistical evidence, we could even prohibit people from certain groups from marrying one another, given their increased likelihood of divorce? Surely, people should be required to pass such a test before having children. Or voting.
Oh -- dunno who the unsigned comments are from. Not me.
184 -- if it was you, you are a passive-aggressive dick. But you've proven that countless times previously.
182: Something happens after the 10-year mark in CA marriage law. I don't remember! (Googles.) Aha! All right, here is Gigi Grazer coining the term "getting Cruised" for getting dumped at the 10-year mark (as Tom did to Nicole). Says Gigi: ""In California, after the 10-year mark, the alimony can be lifelong, so the men get scared of losing their money," explains Gigi, who had been with Brian for 16 years and was three months away from their tenth wedding anniversary when he terminated the marriage--his third."
Man, I'm lagging behind in reading this thread.
Is 192 to 190? Honestly, Rob, I don't endorse anything remotely like that.
196 -- that's the default rule in the absence of a prenup. Spousal support gets based on the length of the marriage, subject to a bunch of default rules that no one (except for celebrities or the very rich) know about.
196: I was trying to pretend I hear it in a different context but that is what I was thinking of.
193: I already admitted to 184, ok?
No need to fight!
It was just peep failing at being funny. Again!
199: "hear" s/b "heard". I blame some disparity.
Sorry, I didn't mean to derail the thread. I have a personal beef with peep and find his particular "I will pretend to be a little wuss so I can say whatever dickish comments I want" style extremely grating. I am probably oversensitive to being annoyed by that particular move. But that shouldn't derail the rest of the blog.
I'm perhaps oversensitive to people who are sensitive to people pretending to be a wuss, but I think we call all agree that thinking about 18 year-old Mexicans is a good way to pass the afternoon.
203: I have a personal beef with peep
Oh! I thought you were over that. I was just trying to have a little fun on a boring Monday afternoon. I won't engage with you further.
I can't tell if 205 is brilliant or not.
We should have a thread about jokes and how it can be hard to tell when someone is trying to be funny.
I had no idea peep was ever serious. Or is peep not serious, and halford's crazed from too many antelope livers?
On reflection, I may have answered my own question.
205, 207: I divorce you. I divorce you. I divorce you.
On preview, mega-pwned by 208.
No, I'm undoubtedly crazed, but we have a beef from way back. No worries or effects on others, sorry to let it shine through.
Isn't the liver the best part of the antelope? The rest of it would be dry, I'd think. Unless you mixed it with some bacon or something.
Hey, antelope liver, corn nuts, cocaine: anything good'll make you crazed if you overdo it.
Strangely, I 100% honestly had some antelope meat (not liver) last night, at this place. Maybe that's the problem.
at this place
Your link is broken, but I'm about 99% sure I know what place you mean, and that place rules.
No, I'm undoubtedly crazed, but we have a beef from way back.
I hope it's grass-fed, at least.
No, no that's a different place, which also rules.
Nope, I was wrong. I'm sure the place you went is fine, too.
The antelope meat was not dry, and it was delicious. Probably non-paleo elements in the sauce, though. I actually wanted to order something else but felt I had to live my principles.
I had assumed Rob was talking about Animal.
He clearly knows what he's getting into, so I guess it's okay Halford had an antelope.
I do not understand why 184 is dickish.
Maybe I am just too used to people screaming at me and telling me I am wrong. (judges/lawyers/women...)
Elk meat is pretty good.
[P]eople screaming at me and telling me I am wrong. (judges/lawyers/women...)
I hear you, Tiger, but Gloria Allred has a place in the ecosystem because America's scorned bimbos and trollops need representation, too.
Gloria Allred has a place in the ecosystem because America's scorned bimbos and trollops need representation, too.
Is Halford Allred, a bimbo, or a trollop?
A lady never asks and a gentleman never tells.
I actually also have a personal beef with Gloria Allred! The circle of life completes itself.
I've never seen Gloria Allred and peep in the same place at the same time.
231: Please tell us that she speared the last antelope medallion off the platter, because I like that image.
Also, I realized a few months back that the only personal beefs I have in the world originated here. (Would you like to hear more about me? I'm fascinating!) That was around the time that I stopped snorting powdered antelope livers before going online.
Halford: how can you remember all of these grudges!?!?
I only bear grudges against a 3 lawyers and one innocuous-seeming Unfogged commenter. And an old landlady. And against bread, rice and quinoa.
Who keeps the Unfogged friends v. enemies chart?
It would be very helpful for me to know when people are joking with each other and when people are intentionally being mean.
I have beefs you people will never know.
(Fades spookily back into the mist.)
And against bread, rice and quinoa.
One of those has sentimental value for me.
236:
But no Unfogged commenters who are lawyers? Whew!
I'm ok with grudges against Allred and Nancy Grace.
I think I have more crushes than grudges.
There's no half plus seven rule on grudges, is there? Or is it unseemly to carry on a grudge against a kid?
Sometimes a grudge is the only possible response to a kid.
We should have a double blind day where everyone comments under the pseudonym/in the style of someone against whom they hold a grudge. That would be fun!
I do think people should wait a bit longer in some cases before getting married -- that's the point of a long engagement, I thought
There is nothing I so abominate for young people as a long engagement.
Half plus seven came up on a teen drama the other day and Rory asked, incredulously, if it is really a rule. I can't help but wonder if such a rule, or some variation thereon, should be extended to things like years in school or gross annual earnings.
I think I have more crutches than grinches.
Ahaha. The other error wasn't intentional.
I like everyone here, which is clear evidence of my moral and spiritual superiority. I don't love everybody here, because that would be vulgar.
I can't help but wonder if such a rule, or some variation thereon, should be extended to things like years in school or gross annual earnings.
Just like the larger-scale forms of resource extraction, any rule gets bent to allow for gold-diging.
Jesus loves every Unfogged commenter.
257: You just like to bring that up because you know that he loves you a little bit more than the rest of us.
I still don't like DS, but have totally made up with Halford.
We should have a double blind day where everyone comments under the pseudonym/in the style of someone against whom they hold a grudge.
A time when it would be better to be disliked than ignored.
253 -- beeves. Good enough for God and King James, it's good enough for you.
Just as a matter of interest, if I marry an 18 year old Mexican on a two year deal, does she qualify for a green card?
I just want to be sure that no two commenters are having an impersonal beef. That would be really sad.
In light of the thread above, I apologize for my stupidity, apologize to peep, and will now get offline.
I like everyone except Cyrus and I only dislike him because his comments to me have always been incredibly rude. I think everyone is okay with me except Halford might think I'm a troll because I like The China Study. Although maybe I have more enemies than I know of after that patent discussion...
No, no, I was kidding about that!
Phew! I'm in the clear. And tonight I'm having Cesar salad with salmon and no carbs, so we're good!
How can anybody not like DS? You're making shit up, is what I think.
And tonight I'm having Cesar salad with salmon and no carbs, so we're good!
No grapes either, I hope.
Back to the original post -- what does a two year marriage actually do for you? I doubt it does anything serious in terms of rights to assets -- for a time length like that, you'd want the rule to be that you leave with the same stuff you brought. Short of that, what else is there? Hospitals treat you like next of kin?
I can see a function for this in a world where it was really socially uncomfortable to cohabit, but we don't live in that world. What is it for?
Grapes don't last two years, so they're not really a marital asset.
271: I assume it has to do with raising children through the baby stage? An unplanned pregnancy and wanting to commit to the first couple years?
||
I was looking at the employment opportunities page for a non-profit where I had previously applied for a job. They've changed their application process and now require that you fill out an application as well. Two things I hate:
1.) You have to provide details on every month you've been out of work since leaving school (high school or college) and the reason why.
2.) They ask for a list of extracurricular activities and honors, but they want you to omit any which "reflects your race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status or disabilities." So, if you ran your college's wheelchair marathon club, you can't put that down?
271:
There are other aspects to marriage that don't have anything to do with assets (or, for that matter with sex).
Here's a case:
I have made a two year marriage with A. On day 729 of the marriage, she gets hit by a car crossing the street. The hospital calls me as next of kin and I authorize treatment. But I can't get home until day 731. The hospital then turns me away as unrelated?
There are interesting parallels with gay marriage/civil partnerships.
Asset distribution is not the heart of the contract. Gay partners have discovered that, with some ingenuity on the part of their lawyers, they can construct near simulacra of marriage.
It's the non-asset piece that's difficult.
||
This is why you eat their livers.
|>
I think I've told the story here about almost biking into a bear while riding off-road in Whistler, BC. It happened just like that. Except in a cedar forest in the Canadian Rockies and I didn't actually hit the bear. Still.
And that is why you should always wear a bike helmet.
That vid made me think of the cowgirl grizzly story I linked a while back. One of you folks has better connections than you've let on: she'll be on Letterman tomorrow night.
I'm surprised that "HOLY COW!" is an Afrikaner expression.
Lot of immigrants from the subcontinent, Ned.
That looked like it was premeditated on the part the antelope.
I got married at 25. I tell people it was on a whim, which is a bit flippant, but it was on short acquaintance. Almost 16 years and 4 children later we seem to be doing all right. Most people overthink this stuff!
OMG you guys, unfoggetarian: "pause endlessly, then go in" (9) has totally made out with halford!!!
286:
Ha, we were both 20 and are on our 15th year but only two kids you earth killer.
145
You cannot contract away child support. In fact, even if you give someone the equity in the house in exchange for not paying child support, they can still go to court and get child support.
Is this really true? Assuming of course that the other party remains fully capable of supporting the child by themself. Would an agreement to reimburse you for any child support you are ordered to pay be unenforceable?
Most people overthink this stuff!
Some people are working hard to suppress misgivings.
Denial so much easier than supressing misgivings.
287: And with me. Guess I was a little too kinky, sorry about that U:PETGI.
290: Uhhhh, you okay?
Oh, I'm fine. I was thinking of some friends who are really trying hard to convince themselves get married, and doing all sorts of mental somersaults along the way.
Insist they sign a pre-nup and get married next week.
If you cause them to integrate, they might name first derivative after you.
It's cheaper just to preen up. You know, really show off that engagement wing.
Diamonds are a gull's best friend.
The idea of a premade template for legally and socially acceptable temporary marriage seems like a good idea to me. Honestly, I'd probably go for it with my girlfriend right now. I'd like all aspects of marriage with her - having a ceremony to celebrate our relationship, co-ownership of property being the default, tax breaks and power of attorney and spousal privilege and all that - except for the whole "to death or messy painful divorce do you part" thing.
However, I don't know what she'd say to that, for what it's worth.
Unless you have kids or very disparate incomes, the tax breaks don't matter.
Different tax treatment, that's an effect I wasn't thinking about above. But if you're both employed, it's probably going to hurt more than it helps: marriage is a tax advantage for one-earner couples, and a disadvantage for two-earner couples.
Also, the divorce gets messy as soon as you have joint ownership of anything you're not willing to walk away from, and really messy as soon as there's kids. I don't think the term-limited nature is going to make the divorce neater in any way other than making it less surprising.
With a term-limited marriage, each member of the couple could get a set of stickers (say six or 10, but not more) to put on the things they like most and once the sticker is there, the item is yours should the marriage end. Cars, electronics, jewelry, and real estate excluded.
And pets. You need to tattoo the dog if you want the mark to stay.
It seems like parsimon's "what is the point of getting married at all?" needs a more intelligent answer before ideas like temporary marriage can even really be evaluated. Marriage is a weird thing in a secular society where both divorce and cohabitation are common. It does provide a bundle of useful rights, but that seems to be mostly a historical contigency, and if someone were planning things rationally today obviously it wouldn't look quite the same. Apart from satisfying some basically historical social expectations, what are we really trying to accomplish, when we marry?
If it's just supposed to confer some set of rights and obligations (which is of course arguably not all that marriage is supposed to do), then temporary marriages don't really seem to help anything. What you want is some easy way to opt into and later opt out of those rights and obligations. I suppose you could make some behavioral economics-type argument that forcing people repeatedly to affirmatively opt-into the bundle of rights might be better than allowing them to just continue on autopilot perpetually--maybe that default would get a lot of people out of unhappy relationships sooner than the current default, where people must take the initiative to end things on their own. But I'd need to see some evidence for that.
I think the beneficial thing would not so much be the option to go term or permanent, but the shift in social expectations such that regardless of how permanent an attachment a couple feels, it's the normal thing to go with a term marriage and know that there will be set points of reevaluation of the partnership. Permanent marriage should be seen as an admirable but risky leap of faith.
"Never, never doubt that we'll re-up in five years, and in ten, and fifteen, and twenty, and..."
(swoon) "Oh, Bevis!"
Permanent marriage should be seen as an admirable but risky leap of faith.
Absurd!
Permanent marriage should be seen as an admirable but risky leap of faith.
Why not just put marriage in that role, and let others cohabitate?
Or, conversely: if divorce is as easy as it is now, which presumably it would be, and the consequences of divorce are the same whether you're ending a temporary marriage or a "permanent" marriage, then why would permanent marriage be viewed as a risky leap of faith?
if divorce is as easy as it is now
Easy? Not sure that I would agree with that statement.
310: O.K., but I still think urple is right to question what the difference between a permanent and temporary marriage is if both operate with the same divorce law. Couples without property or kids or a desire to see each other dead can have a fairly easy divorce now. If the couple has any of those things, I don't see how an automatic ending after a set number of years is going to stop one or both from starting a big legal battle.
Because we need something in between cohabitation and marriage on the permanency continuum. Cohabitation, since it can end at any point, is unattractive to the committed, but marriage, being permanent-until-terminated, too often cannot notionally end other than in a "tragedy."
The benefit when they blow up would be that to the extent that there is automatic inclusion (by the very nature of its in-between-ness, as well as by social norms and possibly by accompanying administrative procedures) of provisions settling child/property issues beforehand, peaceful termination could be much commoner.
Make that "cohabitation, since it may end easily by separation at any point..."
Except that cohabition isn't ended easily if the couple share kids or property.
Though I suppose cohabitation is easier to end if the only source of conflict is a strong desire to hurt the other person.
Except that cohabition isn't ended easily if the couple share kids or property.
Or want to see one another dead, per the above.
Except that cohabition isn't ended easily if the couple share kids or property.
Quite true. To attempt to be clearer, I think it's not so much the "facts at issue" (o tempora! o lawyers!) that make the difference as the inherent nature of the partnership - at-will versus written down indefinitely at city hall - which is bound heavily influences what people see themselves as getting into.
I sort of like the idea of term-limited marriages from which no-fault divorces are not allowed. We're committing for 5 (or 7 or 10 years, whatever), and unless there's violence or other abuse, you're stuck with me for that long. (Obivously the state couldn't require the married couple to cohabitate if things really weren't working out, but it could require that divorce proceedings wait until the end of the term.) It would be especially nice if couples could choose in advance what constitutes "cause" for divorce (although I'd probably want abuse to be included and unwaivable). Some couples would include infidelity, others wouldn't. Etc.
I'm not sure we should allow such a thing to have a term longer than 10 years, though.
provisions settling child/property issues beforehand
Well, there's law that does that for marriages now -- it's a set of defaults that doesn't fit every marriage well, but provisions like that exist.
It would be especially nice if couples could choose in advance what constitutes "cause" for divorce
If those are public, since marriages are publicly recorded, I'm going to start a blog called "Til 'X' Do Us Part" listing the best self-selected grounds for divorce.
Yeah, I'd better not try to comment on what should be changed wrt defaults/customizability of separation arrangements. Really I think that term marriages as the norm would make people more likely to take more seriously the task of pre-specification - even if they're functionally identical to what can be done now through prenups etc.
I guess I could see an argument for allowing them to extend for 15 or even 18 years, to get through most of the kid-raising, although no one under 21 would be allowed to enter into one of those. Definitely more dangerous than drinking. (I'd prefer to make the minimum age 25 instead of 21, but I don't think I have the power to do that, constitutionally.)
I suspect that people's opinions regarding what constitutes cause for a divorce changes the longer that they are married.
324: well, that's why there would be term limits. People's opinions regarding a lot of things change over time.
This seems to be the thread to share that my brother caused a stir of family confusion yesterday by announcing via FB that he and his girlfriend are having a baby, probably not the best medium for that sort of announcement.
326:
Confusion? "We always thought that Stanley would be the one to knock a girl up!"??
How's this -- term marriages to be possible only if the parties enter into an individually tailored pre-nup listing all assets and their disposition at termination, to be updated yearly with any newly acquired assets, and with a fully worked out custody plan for any kids. That'd be different from a standard marriage, and would be a much easier divorce.
326: Will this be your first uncling?
I thought the proper term was avunculation.
I'm not sure I understand what problem 328 is trying to solve. Why would term marriages be more difficult to enter into than standard marriages?
Except that the fully worked out custody plan can't be binding -- shit happens affecting the best interests of the child that you can't plan in advance. But I don't see why it couldn't be used as evidence highlighting what the parents, when not blind with rage, want for their kids.
Because with a regular marriage, you've got reasonably high odds of not divorcing, so not preplanning for it isn't insane. (I can see the arguments for prenups and so on, but if you're going in with an express plan for a lifetime commitment, not having the exit strategy worked out makes a certain amount of sense.)
For a term limited marriage, you know the end is coming. So why would you let people get themselves entangled with each other, kids and assets wise, knowing that they're going to be disentangling themselves later, without a plan for it?
Oh, I get it, 328 meant no-divorce term marriages--is that it? All the annual updating seems unrealistic, and I don't like the advance planning w/r/t the kids.
That is, I'm not thinking of the required exit plan as a barrier to term marriage, I'm thinking of it as what makes term marriage more desirable than "Let's get hitched, and if we get divorced, we get divorced."
332: True.
334: Well, you'd still be able to get divorced early if you wanted (or at least I can't see why not), but you'd have the agreement to rely on.
I think the yearly updating would be essential, kids and jobs and assets change fast enough that a ten-year-old plan wouldn't be worth much.
334 w/o seeing 333. To 333, I see where you're going with it, but I don't actually think many people would enter term marriages knowing they'll be disentangling later. What's the point? I would think they'd be for people who just want to periodically be forced to gut check the relationship, and have to affirmatively re-commit (if they want to), rather than drifting along on autopilot.
What's the consequence for not making the annual update?
And, whatever your answer is, why couldn't someone who wanted that structure just mimic it right now with a standard marriage? It's a pre-nup plus an agreement to update the pre-nup during the course of the marriage (plus whatever consequence you're about to dream up for failing to do so). will's the expert, but I think that would be enforceable.
Will this be your first uncling?
It will.
What's the consequence for not making the annual update?
I was thinking about that. Marriage ends, and assets are distributed along the lines of the last update?
why couldn't someone who wanted that structure just mimic it right now with a standard marriage?
That goes right back to "what's the point at all"? I'm not sure there is a need for something between cohabitation and marriage, so maybe nothing. What I'm trying to do with the yearly-prenup update is come up with a structure that by default would end easily and cleanly, which is very different from current marriage. You could prenup your way to the same sort of ease of getting out of a standard marriage, but people mostly don't.
I'm in the process of talking to the lawyer friend who's going to represent me about how to understand my theoretical rights and responsibilities toward Mara if Lee and I were to break up. There's nothing we can do that would get me any real rights at this point, but we need to be very clear about the planning Lee and I did to go into this as full coparents and that Lee doesn't ever intend to view herself as sole parent despite the fact that the law will see her that way. It's really frustrating and annoying, but that's partly because I choose to be frustrated about it, I guess.
That said, we've also made a commitment that we've signed on to the family for the next fifteen years until Mara's eighteen. I'm not sure that either of us would want that to be legally enforceable, but we'd certainly consider it if it were an option available to us.
LB and urple, you are both self-blinkering by insisting on considering changes in law in isolation from changes in anything else. 337 is perfectly correct in that context.
Not that I know how to change social norms in my preferred direction. But it could serve as a nurturant to ban marriages other than term marriages for the under-thirty?
There's nothing we can do that would get me any real rights at this point,
Moving to Pennsylvania would do it -- they have some law that I find generally really disturbing about the potential for an unrelated adult to acquire legal 'parental' rights to contact with a child over the parents' objections, but in your situation it makes sense and is appropriate. (This came to my attention in a thread here; a single mother acquaintance of JRoths was in a custody battle with an ex-boyfriend of hers over her kid, to whom the boyfriend was not biologically related.)
PA is an outlier, but I think as a cohabiting parental figure, you would have some legal rights in a number of states. Don't know about your home state, but it's not impossible.
Moving to Pennsylvania would do it
So not worth it for other reasons.
343: See, I think anything that encourages marriages to be viewed as less permanent is a really bad social change unless it genuinely makes them easier to get out of without litigation/bad feeling. If we've got these term marriages and we still need property settlements and custody hearings when they end, they suck.
346: That's close to the idea that I started with except phrased more clearly. Especially if you include equity/prevention of as many children in poverty as possible under the heading of "bad feelings."
What I'm trying to do with the yearly-prenup update is come up with a structure that by default would end easily and cleanly, which is very different from current marriage.
But what I'm not understanding is what would make someone want to choose the sort of arrangement you're describing.
Oh, moving to Indiana would work in terms of getting us second-parent adoption, but would then undo any chance to be a resource if any of Mara's siblings ever come into care, which is one thing that keeps us here. (Plus I never want to have to sell a house again.) I think if we wait long enough, even our state will come around to allowing same-sex couples to adopt. When we started the process, it was still something you could get judges to do as long as you were quiet about it, but the state supreme court closed that loophole.
Technically, there's no ban on same-sex couples adopting as couples in our state, but we wouldn't be able to get the state office to approve our homestudy and in fact got an annual update to it rejected because our worker accidentally listed us both instead of just Lee. And unless there's an approved homestudy, nothing else about the adoption process can proceed. We of course are not going to fight the system because our main concern is to get Mara out of foster care ASAP, which could apparently mean in the next two or three weeks.
Lee's going to formally waive her superior right of custody in favor of me, meaning that she acknowledges that she is not Mara's sole parent. That will give me standing to petition for partial custody should that ever become necessary. But at this point, that's the best we can do. Everything else is about documenting all the mom-type things I do in case we ever have to defend them. And poor Mara will get a hyphenated name that no one can spell or pronounce but that speaks to our intent to co-parent. Shit like that.
Plus I never want to have to sell a house again.
I've never sold one yet, but I suppose eventually it will come up.
348: Because they were entering into a relationship that they thought was likely to come to an end, and they wanted that end to be easy and peaceful, not as unpleasant as a standard-marriage divorce. It'd be more trouble than just getting married to get into, but much easier to get out of.
(I agree that there aren't a lot of people with the sense to opt for something like this, but I do think it would be sensible for many people.)
350: Don't do it! This wasn't even my house to sell and it was still dreadful. I shouldn't say that. It took less than a year and will pay off the mortgage on it and will be all done very soon.
they were entering into a relationship that they thought was likely to come to an end
What sort of relationship? And why are they getting married rather than just cohabiting? And, if they're being that sensible about things up front, why not just get a normal marriage (with an approporiate prenup) and then get divorced when the time is right? What does the term limit add?
I just really don't understand what problem this is trying to solve.
352: I'm going to buy a yurt in the country and live off the grid.
See, I think anything that encourages marriages to be viewed as less permanent is a really bad social change unless it genuinely makes them easier to get out of without litigation/bad feeling.
I think my solution would lead to that as well.
353: Well, me neither, really. But say there's some benefit to marriage where cohabitation doesn't cut it -- taxes or hospital visitation. If you wanted those benefits without a lifelong committment or a messy divorce, this would do that. But really, I mostly agree with you that it doesn't solve any problems.
term marriages to be possible only if the parties enter into an individually tailored pre-nup listing all assets and their disposition at termination, to be updated yearly with any newly acquired assets, and with a fully worked out custody plan for any kids. That'd be different from a standard marriage, and would be a much easier divorce.
I haven't read the entire thread, but my understanding is that the Mexico City proposal is intended to do something like this. Except that it would be more like a series of form contracts, rather than precisely individually-tailored. And with Di's caveat that (in the US at least) you can't permanently commit to any kind of child-rearing arrangement in a prenup, although a prior contract can have evidentiary value.
It's also not true that at the end of a two year marriage each spouse simply walks away with what was brought into the marriage. At least in California (and, presumably, in Mexico, from where California family law derives) everything that's put into the marriage during the two year period becomes community property. I.e., if one the wife comes into the marriage with a house, and then uses exclusively her earnings to do a bunch of improvements on the house, there would be a community interest in the improvements that would need to be paid to the husband. Plus there would be a requirement of support. So under the current rules there can be quite complicated property issues even for short marriages, even with no kids.
The term limit adds an easy divorce if the marriage doesn't work out in the short term, an option to continue the marriage, plus a streamlined and built-in program for dividing assets if the marriage doesn't work out. For a lot of people, it makes a lot of sense. Asking "what problem does this solve" is like asking "why don't all contracts have unlimited terms?"
Hey urple, I made what appears to have been a faulty inference about who you were based on what someone else said to you. And then I said something to you based on that assumption that must have been confusing. And then I found five dollars. Anyway, sorry.
It is my understanding that businesses often have binding arbitration clauses in their contracts, even in contracts where they aren't trying to screw the consumers. Why not do the same type of thing except for couples? Except with Thunderdome instead of an arbitrator.
360: We still haven't figured parsimon's "what is the point of getting married at all?", but I'm pretty sure the answer isn't "reality TV".
I'm not sure about binding arbitration for family law matters -- one potential problem is that it would run into problems with how to deal with kids, since the Court has ultimate jurisdiction to act in the best interest of the child.
Mandatory mediation provisions are very common in divorce settlement agreements here, including in mine.
360: What makes arbitration better than a court for settling differences? Often, I think it isn't.
Well, there's that, too. In the business world, a lot of companies have figured out that (except for screwing over consumers, where it is muy excellente) binding arbitration often costs just as much as court and ends up hurting them, sticking them with a bunch of unaccountable arbitrators and no right of appeal.
I don't think I agree with any clause or subclause of 358, but I'm tired of arguing about it.
And I have no idea what 359 is referring to, but now I feel like maybe I'm supposed to be offended about something.
There's no shame in not being the man Merganser thought you were.
I don't agree with 358 either.
362, 363, 364: I said Thunderdome instead of arbitration. The arbitrator was just what got me thinking about non-court methods of settle disputes.
You can view it as a kind of standardized prenup with a renewal term, if that helps.
"We don't need another law-yer,
We don't need to pay the court fee.
Only one will live beyond the Thunderdome."
Judge Kozinski from the US Ct of Appeals from the Ninth Circuit (a very famous, and very very good, albeit libertarian, judge) gives a stump speech in which he says that the essence of the legal system is described by Thunderdome.
I went to a meeting where he gave the talk and got the lawyers to chant "two men enter, one man leaves."
And here's a copy of the talk. It seemed funnier out loud.
