6 ms·

I can't read this article, or others like it, without feeling like something is wrong. What kind of society would force someone to travel from Paris to New York

I can't read this article, or others like it, without feeling like something is wrong. What kind of society would force someone to travel from Paris to New York to Sioux Falls, where they have to take up residence for 90 days, so they can maintain their own love life? Even today, divorce is usually fraught with emotional turmoil. Months and years can be dedicated to equitable financial separation, child custody, living arrangements, etc, etc, etc. The toll it takes on a family is often irrevocable. Then of course there's all the discrimination throughout history, starting with women but then of course moving to polygamy, miscegenation and gay marriage. All of it makes me think that marriage laws themselves are a huge mistake. Couples who want to make their relationship legally binding should have to draft a civil contract that defines their relationship - stating clearly what's expected of both parties and how the relationship is fairly dissolved. Basically, what we tend to call a pre-nuptial agreement should simply lose the "pre".

vijayr 11y ago
A lot of things in life shouldn't be painful, but they are (legally speaking). Starting a business, getting divorced, moving to another country for work, becoming a citizen of another country, getting an abortion, adopting a child - all of these are painful (unless of course one is rich) in terms of legal/paperwork/bureaucracy. This is assuming that one is clean with no baggage, has proper paperwork etc. If a person has criminal history (even a non violent one), it gets much worse. For all the amazing advancements humans have made - it is sad that we can't make the absolute necessities of life easy and smooth. We have weird laws, we impose our opinions/ideas on others for no reason instead of letting them be - we are really a weird species.
- eevilspock 11y ago
  No, some things should be "painful". Having a child shouldn't be frictionless; It's a serious commitment that people must not enter into lightly. Likewise in a marriage there is often one party who is taking advantage of the other, and there should be just enough friction to make sure there is time and consultation for fairness. But I agree that Kafka-esque type bureaucracy and idiotic rules or rules that impose the values of a specific religion are bad.
  - vijayr 11y ago
    One of my friends tried to adopt, it was a nightmare. It is one thing to have proper rules in place so nobody is taken advantage of, but it is totally another thing to have so much bureaucracy that the only purpose it serves is to employ the bureaucrats involved. I am talking about the latter case here. Another example - filing taxes. Why should it be so confusing? Who does it serve other than the middlemen who "help" you file taxes?
    - mikeash 11y ago
      > Who does it serve other than the middlemen who "help" you file taxes? Turns out those middlemen are the ones heavily lobbying against any simplification for tax filing.
pjc50 11y ago
Remember that all this pre-dates the sexual revolution. Patrilineal inheritance + no DNA testing + no effective contraception + no effective anti-VD measures + extremely dangerous abortion + no employment prospects for pregnant or childrearing mothers + no social security = patriarchal society where maintaining your own love life is almost impossible. It's not a coincidence that people who are opposed to one of those enablers of female freedom I've listed are more likely to be opposed to others. Traditional marriage is a contract that defines the relationship - that's what the vows are - but it differs from other contracts in that it's also at least partly for the benefit of children who are not born at the time it is contracted.
- dorfsmay 11y ago
  Traditional marriage is one the cheapest and most resilient contract. I have weirdos in my family who make a living of going after other family members' inheritances, and found that getting married was the simplest, strongest and in fact cheapest way to protect my spouse and children. Unfortunately this only apply if you intend to have a traditional marriage, heterosexual, a couple, and no intention to brake it. Marriage was invented by religious people back when they were the custodians of the laws. Because of this a lot of people are very strongly attached to that notion. Secular societies should invent a new word, and new contracts more suited for modern society.
  - e40 11y ago
    I have weirdos in my family who make a living of going after other family members' inheritances I would love to hear more about how this is done. I don't immediately see how it would be.
    - dorfsmay 11y ago
      Send paperwork to be signed to "help with sorting out with clearing all the administrivia related to a recent death in the family", which is in fact legalese that says that you accept to give your part of the inheritance to them. Challenge wills in court to get a bigger portion. I exaggerated by saying "making a living" (not enough money around) but very annoying at a time you normally focus on grieving, and definitely something I don't want my spouse and kids to have to go through.
wtbob 11y ago
> What kind of society would force someone to travel from Paris to New York to Sioux Falls, where they have to take up residence for 90 days, so they can maintain their own love life? I'll counter with a different question: what kind of society would destroy families on the slightest pretext, or without any pretext at all? And why is 'maintaining [one's] own love life' worth destroying a family? > The toll it takes on a family is often irrevocable. Which is why it used to be so rare: because folks realised how terrible divorce really is. The only good thing I can see about no-fault divorce is that it's reduced the number of spousal murders. I agree with you that the marriage laws no longer make any sort of rational sense, and that civil marriage should be a civil contract, although from a different angle: the sacrament which united my parents together has absolutely no resemblance to the legal fiction abused by, say, Kim Kardashian. > stating clearly what's expected of both parties and how the relationship is fairly dissolved Seems to me that 'til death do us part' is a pretty big item in most marriage ceremonies…
- icebraining 11y ago
  If the marriage is only holding due to a contract, the family has already been destroyed. Your next phrase actually shows this: murders of passion are the peaks in a curve of harm that people do to each other. For each one, there is an order of magnitude more couples harming themselves. I'm very glad my (unmarried) parents could separate themselves when time came and remain friends throughout my childhood, instead of developing the bitter contempt that is so common among divorced parents. Which is why it used to be so rare: because folks realised how terrible divorce really is. And people stopped realizing because? Unless you have a good reason beyond "people were just more sensible in the good old days", I find your argument unpersuasive. What was more terrible were the conditions for divorced women, who struggled to earn any kind of decent income. State laws granting sole control of marital property to the husband were only struck down by the SCOTUS in 1981.
  - wtbob 11y ago
    > I'm very glad my (unmarried) parents could separate themselves when time came and remain friends throughout my childhood, instead of developing the bitter contempt that is so common among divorced parents. If people can be friends, why can they not remain together? > And people stopped realizing because? Because folks got more selfish, preferring to satisfy themselves than to work hard for others.
frenchy 11y ago
A lot has improved in the last century as a result of feminism, and the necessity of marriage laws is not as significant as it used to be. Still, I think they serve an important purpose. A simple civil contract is not good enough for several reasons. First, people tend to make bad decisions when they are in love, and especially in situations where one party has fallen in love harder than the other, this would be very open to abuse. The second problem is that marriages often produce children. And children are not property in the traditional sense, and I think it is not in any way reasonable to handle child custody with a pre-nuptial agreement. The third problem is much more subtle and subjective, and I'm afraid I will have to do a bit of editorializing, but I think it is still quite important. The economy works well when everyone chiefly looks out for themselves, families and friendships work well when everyone chiefly looks after each other. Your mother didn't hand you a rental agreement the moment you were born, and while you may have had certain ad-hoc "I'll give you $20 if you mow the lawn" agreements with them, their desire for your well-being was based on much more than any potential value you might bring them in the future. A marriage is a lot more like a family than it is like an economy.
solidsnack9000 11y ago
Marriage at one time encompassed a range of duties: work in the maintenance of the home, maintenance in retirement, medical care (especially in old age), and care for children (and later responsibility for them). Seen as an economic institution, it actually has a fairly large footprint. If we allow that marriage was never entirely about love -- I'm not sure people would have cared that much if it was -- then we can understand why the dissolution and redefinition of marriage has occasioned so much conflict. Ultimately we still lack a sound alternative for describing and enforcing the obligations that surround care for children. People have children in ways that are sometimes impulsive; and they are inclined to abandon them and their spouse in the same way. Marriage is a countervailing force, since it attaches penalties to abandoning the family and also makes it hard to start a new one without some resolution with the old one -- so people's energies are less easily redirected.

vijayr 11y ago

A lot of things in life shouldn't be painful, but they are (legally speaking). Starting a business, getting divorced, moving to another country for work, becoming a citizen of another country, getting an abortion, adopting a child - all of these are painful (unless of course one is rich) in terms of legal/paperwork/bureaucracy. This is assuming that one is clean with no baggage, has proper paperwork etc. If a person has criminal history (even a non violent one), it gets much worse. For all the amazing advancements humans have made - it is sad that we can't make the absolute necessities of life easy and smooth. We have weird laws, we impose our opinions/ideas on others for no reason instead of letting them be - we are really a weird species.

eevilspock 11y ago
No, some things should be "painful". Having a child shouldn't be frictionless; It's a serious commitment that people must not enter into lightly. Likewise in a marriage there is often one party who is taking advantage of the other, and there should be just enough friction to make sure there is time and consultation for fairness. But I agree that Kafka-esque type bureaucracy and idiotic rules or rules that impose the values of a specific religion are bad.
- vijayr 11y ago
  One of my friends tried to adopt, it was a nightmare. It is one thing to have proper rules in place so nobody is taken advantage of, but it is totally another thing to have so much bureaucracy that the only purpose it serves is to employ the bureaucrats involved. I am talking about the latter case here. Another example - filing taxes. Why should it be so confusing? Who does it serve other than the middlemen who "help" you file taxes?
  - mikeash 11y ago
    > Who does it serve other than the middlemen who "help" you file taxes? Turns out those middlemen are the ones heavily lobbying against any simplification for tax filing.

pjc50 11y ago

Remember that all this pre-dates the sexual revolution. Patrilineal inheritance + no DNA testing + no effective contraception + no effective anti-VD measures + extremely dangerous abortion + no employment prospects for pregnant or childrearing mothers + no social security = patriarchal society where maintaining your own love life is almost impossible. It's not a coincidence that people who are opposed to one of those enablers of female freedom I've listed are more likely to be opposed to others. Traditional marriage is a contract that defines the relationship - that's what the vows are - but it differs from other contracts in that it's also at least partly for the benefit of children who are not born at the time it is contracted.

dorfsmay 11y ago
Traditional marriage is one the cheapest and most resilient contract. I have weirdos in my family who make a living of going after other family members' inheritances, and found that getting married was the simplest, strongest and in fact cheapest way to protect my spouse and children. Unfortunately this only apply if you intend to have a traditional marriage, heterosexual, a couple, and no intention to brake it. Marriage was invented by religious people back when they were the custodians of the laws. Because of this a lot of people are very strongly attached to that notion. Secular societies should invent a new word, and new contracts more suited for modern society.
- e40 11y ago
  I have weirdos in my family who make a living of going after other family members' inheritances I would love to hear more about how this is done. I don't immediately see how it would be.
  - dorfsmay 11y ago
    Send paperwork to be signed to "help with sorting out with clearing all the administrivia related to a recent death in the family", which is in fact legalese that says that you accept to give your part of the inheritance to them. Challenge wills in court to get a bigger portion. I exaggerated by saying "making a living" (not enough money around) but very annoying at a time you normally focus on grieving, and definitely something I don't want my spouse and kids to have to go through.

wtbob 11y ago

> What kind of society would force someone to travel from Paris to New York to Sioux Falls, where they have to take up residence for 90 days, so they can maintain their own love life? I'll counter with a different question: what kind of society would destroy families on the slightest pretext, or without any pretext at all? And why is 'maintaining [one's] own love life' worth destroying a family? > The toll it takes on a family is often irrevocable. Which is why it used to be so rare: because folks realised how terrible divorce really is. The only good thing I can see about no-fault divorce is that it's reduced the number of spousal murders. I agree with you that the marriage laws no longer make any sort of rational sense, and that civil marriage should be a civil contract, although from a different angle: the sacrament which united my parents together has absolutely no resemblance to the legal fiction abused by, say, Kim Kardashian. > stating clearly what's expected of both parties and how the relationship is fairly dissolved Seems to me that 'til death do us part' is a pretty big item in most marriage ceremonies…

icebraining 11y ago
If the marriage is only holding due to a contract, the family has already been destroyed. Your next phrase actually shows this: murders of passion are the peaks in a curve of harm that people do to each other. For each one, there is an order of magnitude more couples harming themselves. I'm very glad my (unmarried) parents could separate themselves when time came and remain friends throughout my childhood, instead of developing the bitter contempt that is so common among divorced parents. Which is why it used to be so rare: because folks realised how terrible divorce really is. And people stopped realizing because? Unless you have a good reason beyond "people were just more sensible in the good old days", I find your argument unpersuasive. What was more terrible were the conditions for divorced women, who struggled to earn any kind of decent income. State laws granting sole control of marital property to the husband were only struck down by the SCOTUS in 1981.
- wtbob 11y ago
  > I'm very glad my (unmarried) parents could separate themselves when time came and remain friends throughout my childhood, instead of developing the bitter contempt that is so common among divorced parents. If people can be friends, why can they not remain together? > And people stopped realizing because? Because folks got more selfish, preferring to satisfy themselves than to work hard for others.

frenchy 11y ago

A lot has improved in the last century as a result of feminism, and the necessity of marriage laws is not as significant as it used to be. Still, I think they serve an important purpose. A simple civil contract is not good enough for several reasons. First, people tend to make bad decisions when they are in love, and especially in situations where one party has fallen in love harder than the other, this would be very open to abuse. The second problem is that marriages often produce children. And children are not property in the traditional sense, and I think it is not in any way reasonable to handle child custody with a pre-nuptial agreement. The third problem is much more subtle and subjective, and I'm afraid I will have to do a bit of editorializing, but I think it is still quite important. The economy works well when everyone chiefly looks out for themselves, families and friendships work well when everyone chiefly looks after each other. Your mother didn't hand you a rental agreement the moment you were born, and while you may have had certain ad-hoc "I'll give you $20 if you mow the lawn" agreements with them, their desire for your well-being was based on much more than any potential value you might bring them in the future. A marriage is a lot more like a family than it is like an economy.

solidsnack9000 11y ago

Marriage at one time encompassed a range of duties: work in the maintenance of the home, maintenance in retirement, medical care (especially in old age), and care for children (and later responsibility for them). Seen as an economic institution, it actually has a fairly large footprint. If we allow that marriage was never entirely about love -- I'm not sure people would have cared that much if it was -- then we can understand why the dissolution and redefinition of marriage has occasioned so much conflict. Ultimately we still lack a sound alternative for describing and enforcing the obligations that surround care for children. People have children in ways that are sometimes impulsive; and they are inclined to abandon them and their spouse in the same way. Marriage is a countervailing force, since it attaches penalties to abandoning the family and also makes it hard to start a new one without some resolution with the old one -- so people's energies are less easily redirected.