Well personally, I think the vows you make when you marry should be treated as a contract. I mean it sounds as much like a verbal contract as can possibly exist. Which would make the person who breaks the contract the person at fault.
You may as well say we should get rid of all contracts in general instead of trying to find someone to blame in the event of breach. A noble sentiment, but not particularly practical.
It just seems like a lot of work for courts to try and find out which partner made the personal relationship such that it ended, how much of it was from which partner, what was the real personal life of a couple and so on. Just seems a bit ludicrous for a court to be dealing with.
Not all contracts are made equal. But I guess a simple fix would be to have “until one side wants to end the partnership” in there. Though I think isn’t that what the law already says?
It’s all comes down to money and assets. The way it works in the US is, broadly, they get half of your shit unless you signed a prenup.
This is ironically a callback to old school patriarchal structures where a woman divorcing her husband often did not have any marketable skill sets because they were housewives. The courts saw fit to have the husband continue providing for them until they are self supporting- conceptually.
So… just to be clear, if a woman really did not want to be in a marriage with you, you are saying that you would do everything in your power to force her to stay?
So you are saying that if you turn out to be such a bad spouse that you make your partner so miserable that they absolutely have to leave the marriage, then you should get to keep everything and they should get nothing?
Why would you marry a bad spouse? You should figure that out before you marry them.
How about this, what’s the point of marriage? If it can be discarded at a whim, what does it mean in the first place?
I mean the problem with this entire discussion is marriage has no standard meaning anymore. Traditionalists think of it as a sacred vow, taking till Death do us part very seriously. Others think of it as some irrelevant social construct and an excuse to have a party.
I’m in the camp of it’s forever or it it’s pointless. Life is change. People change. The work that goes into marriage is the work of ensuring you grow together, not grow apart. I wouldn’t marry anyone that didn’t agree.
I guess that’s the bottom line. Make sure you both define marriage the same way before you get married. Which sounds obvious but… ::gestures around::
Well personally, I think the vows you make when you marry should be treated as a contract. I mean it sounds as much like a verbal contract as can possibly exist. Which would make the person who breaks the contract the person at fault.
You may as well say we should get rid of all contracts in general instead of trying to find someone to blame in the event of breach. A noble sentiment, but not particularly practical.
It just seems like a lot of work for courts to try and find out which partner made the personal relationship such that it ended, how much of it was from which partner, what was the real personal life of a couple and so on. Just seems a bit ludicrous for a court to be dealing with.
Not all contracts are made equal. But I guess a simple fix would be to have “until one side wants to end the partnership” in there. Though I think isn’t that what the law already says?
It’s all comes down to money and assets. The way it works in the US is, broadly, they get half of your shit unless you signed a prenup.
This is ironically a callback to old school patriarchal structures where a woman divorcing her husband often did not have any marketable skill sets because they were housewives. The courts saw fit to have the husband continue providing for them until they are self supporting- conceptually.
So… just to be clear, if a woman really did not want to be in a marriage with you, you are saying that you would do everything in your power to force her to stay?
No I’m saying the person who ends the marriage shouldn’t get anything. And I’m saying you shouldn’t marry someone you would leave.
So you are saying that if you turn out to be such a bad spouse that you make your partner so miserable that they absolutely have to leave the marriage, then you should get to keep everything and they should get nothing?
Why would you marry a bad spouse? You should figure that out before you marry them.
How about this, what’s the point of marriage? If it can be discarded at a whim, what does it mean in the first place?
I mean the problem with this entire discussion is marriage has no standard meaning anymore. Traditionalists think of it as a sacred vow, taking till Death do us part very seriously. Others think of it as some irrelevant social construct and an excuse to have a party.
I’m in the camp of it’s forever or it it’s pointless. Life is change. People change. The work that goes into marriage is the work of ensuring you grow together, not grow apart. I wouldn’t marry anyone that didn’t agree.
I guess that’s the bottom line. Make sure you both define marriage the same way before you get married. Which sounds obvious but… ::gestures around::