6 ms·

I Now Pronounce You Legally Null and Void

57 points by Petiver 8y ago

lostmsu 8y ago
This is about marriage history.
ddtaylor 8y ago
I feel click baited by the title.
- optimuspaul 8y ago
  I did not, my mind went straight to marriage/divorce when I read the title. I don't think the title was at all click bait.
  - ddtaylor 8y ago
    For some reason I expected someone with the last name Null to get married to someone with the last name Void or some kind of benign database error to produce a marriage certificate with said surnames.
belorn 8y ago
The article points to many historical connections between the women's rights movement and marriage laws, through I wish it would have connected the dots to the current day. Looking at here in Sweden a lot of laws in regard to marriage was abolished in the time around 1960-1980, through the feminist movement was split on the issue and has since not really continued to abolish them. The US for example still have alimony as a concept which backs from the 1700s world view that alimony to wives was paid because it was assumed that the marriage, and the wife's right to support, would have continued but for the misbehavior of the husband. A lingering view of marriage is the idea that the two individuals are now a single entity and should be treated as such by the government and companies. From a 21th century perspective this doesn't make much sense. Historical a loan might have been given to a family, and if it defaulted the debt transferred to the other family members. Today that is no longer a practice. Welfare is usually on a per-person basis with some minor exceptions. The biggest exception here in Sweden is insurance which still has some "family" aspect attached in both cost and coverage.
poulsbohemian 8y ago
This is something that has been on my mind a lot over the past few years, having gone through an ugly, costly divorce and having watched friends stay in rotten marriages. Relationships come in a lot of forms, and we lack vocabulary, laws, and social acceptance for many of them. My mother's partner of more than ten years is still legally married to someone else, because to divorce would set off financial destruction for both parties. My "partpanion" and I call each other that because partner is so clinical, companion so incomplete, other terms like "significant other" a strange twist of the language. Can a seventy-year old really be a "girlfriend / boyfriend"? We will likely never marry, and to make things odder, "domestic partnership" can now only be made legally binding here for older people, presumably for the purpose of making it easier to deal with things like medical-power-of-attorney in the event of poor health. And then there are all the people I know who stay in terrible marriages either because of kids, money, religion... I kinda like some of these examples from the article that are so "live and let live" accepting of humanity, so long as we are good to each other and providing nurture to any children produced. Until that time, the lawyers sure make out like bandits.
- Thlom 8y ago
  In Scandinavia we have the term "kjæreste" which roughly translates to "most beloved". When I think about I believe it's only in Norway and Sweden we have that word. In Sweden they have the word ælskling which means much the same thing. Both used in much the same way as boyfriend/girlfriend, but without the gender and without the implied youth so can be used by both young and old.
  - poulsbohemian 8y ago
    Love it! I think this moment is the birth of a new English loanword.
    - therein 8y ago
      It would be if `kjæreste` didn't have `æ` in it and were easy to pronounce for an English speaker.
matte_black 8y ago
I don’t know how others on HN may feel, but given stories I have heard I personally have no desire to be legally married until men are treated a bit more favorably by marriage law. As it stands, a man who has accumulated significant assets and net worth as is common in the tech industry, would be easily ruined by a divorce to the wrong woman. Prenuptials do not always save you.
- DanBC 8y ago
  You fundamentally misunderstand what marriage is.
  - matte_black 8y ago
    Now I’m curious as to what you think marriage is.
    - User23 8y ago
      The traditional definition is that marriage is a covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. The more cynical modernist take is that it's a mix between a tax break and privatized welfare that should be abandoned as soon as it stops feeling good.
  - deathanatos 8y ago
    Perhaps, then, you could explain where the commenter you are responding to's misunderstanding lies, for the benefit of him/her and the rest of us?
    - DanBC 8y ago
      The point of marriage is to pool money to provide for each other and your potential children. Once you get married it's not "your" money any more, it belongs to both of you. That's from the States PoV, and since they make the laws that govern marriage it's a reasonable position to take. All the other stuff (eg religious baggage) that comes along are optional extras.

57 points by Petiver 8y ago

lostmsu 8y ago

This is about marriage history.

ddtaylor 8y ago

I feel click baited by the title.

optimuspaul 8y ago
I did not, my mind went straight to marriage/divorce when I read the title. I don't think the title was at all click bait.
- ddtaylor 8y ago
  For some reason I expected someone with the last name Null to get married to someone with the last name Void or some kind of benign database error to produce a marriage certificate with said surnames.

belorn 8y ago

The article points to many historical connections between the women's rights movement and marriage laws, through I wish it would have connected the dots to the current day. Looking at here in Sweden a lot of laws in regard to marriage was abolished in the time around 1960-1980, through the feminist movement was split on the issue and has since not really continued to abolish them. The US for example still have alimony as a concept which backs from the 1700s world view that alimony to wives was paid because it was assumed that the marriage, and the wife's right to support, would have continued but for the misbehavior of the husband. A lingering view of marriage is the idea that the two individuals are now a single entity and should be treated as such by the government and companies. From a 21th century perspective this doesn't make much sense. Historical a loan might have been given to a family, and if it defaulted the debt transferred to the other family members. Today that is no longer a practice. Welfare is usually on a per-person basis with some minor exceptions. The biggest exception here in Sweden is insurance which still has some "family" aspect attached in both cost and coverage.

poulsbohemian 8y ago

This is something that has been on my mind a lot over the past few years, having gone through an ugly, costly divorce and having watched friends stay in rotten marriages. Relationships come in a lot of forms, and we lack vocabulary, laws, and social acceptance for many of them. My mother's partner of more than ten years is still legally married to someone else, because to divorce would set off financial destruction for both parties. My "partpanion" and I call each other that because partner is so clinical, companion so incomplete, other terms like "significant other" a strange twist of the language. Can a seventy-year old really be a "girlfriend / boyfriend"? We will likely never marry, and to make things odder, "domestic partnership" can now only be made legally binding here for older people, presumably for the purpose of making it easier to deal with things like medical-power-of-attorney in the event of poor health. And then there are all the people I know who stay in terrible marriages either because of kids, money, religion... I kinda like some of these examples from the article that are so "live and let live" accepting of humanity, so long as we are good to each other and providing nurture to any children produced. Until that time, the lawyers sure make out like bandits.

Thlom 8y ago
In Scandinavia we have the term "kjæreste" which roughly translates to "most beloved". When I think about I believe it's only in Norway and Sweden we have that word. In Sweden they have the word ælskling which means much the same thing. Both used in much the same way as boyfriend/girlfriend, but without the gender and without the implied youth so can be used by both young and old.
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  Love it! I think this moment is the birth of a new English loanword.
  - therein 8y ago
    It would be if `kjæreste` didn't have `æ` in it and were easy to pronounce for an English speaker.

matte_black 8y ago

I don’t know how others on HN may feel, but given stories I have heard I personally have no desire to be legally married until men are treated a bit more favorably by marriage law. As it stands, a man who has accumulated significant assets and net worth as is common in the tech industry, would be easily ruined by a divorce to the wrong woman. Prenuptials do not always save you.

DanBC 8y ago
You fundamentally misunderstand what marriage is.
- matte_black 8y ago
  Now I’m curious as to what you think marriage is.
  - User23 8y ago
    The traditional definition is that marriage is a covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring. The more cynical modernist take is that it's a mix between a tax break and privatized welfare that should be abandoned as soon as it stops feeling good.
- deathanatos 8y ago
  Perhaps, then, you could explain where the commenter you are responding to's misunderstanding lies, for the benefit of him/her and the rest of us?
  - DanBC 8y ago
    The point of marriage is to pool money to provide for each other and your potential children. Once you get married it's not "your" money any more, it belongs to both of you. That's from the States PoV, and since they make the laws that govern marriage it's a reasonable position to take. All the other stuff (eg religious baggage) that comes along are optional extras.