3 ms·

A marriage is very much like a partnership, legally. Both partners are held to be answerable to each other, share joint ownership of assets, be jointly responsi

by patmcc 8y ago

A marriage is very much like a partnership, legally. Both partners are held to be answerable to each other, share joint ownership of assets, be jointly responsible for children, etc. Joining with a bad business partner can ruin you completely. Dissolution of a partnership may mean one partner is disadvantaged in favour of the other partner (depending on the partnership agreement). Marriage is a special type of partnership where we have a default partnership agreement, by statute and/or common law, because it's in the best interest of society, but you can override that with a contract if you like. If you live in a sensible jurisdiction (maybe not, you're likely in the US) family law is already gender neutral. If you don't like the idea of marriage, fine, but the problem is only marriage law if your marriage law is lousy.

fvdessen 8y ago
The difference is that business partners are completely free to set the terms of their partnership. Whereas in marriage, the terms are fixed by the state. No business partners would enter a deal with equal shares if one brings 1M in assets and the other zero. A marriage forces them to.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lazyasciiart 8y ago
  In the US it usually doesn't, where did you learn about marriage property? > generally speaking, Separate Property includes: •Any property that was owned by either spouse prior to the marriage; (random link with explanation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/04/12/understanding-how-assets-get-divided-in-divorce/#3b1963652b66 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/04/12/understa...)
- patmcc 8y ago
  Three things with that: 1) Prenuptial agreements exist, you can alter the terms of the partnership. 2) As someone else mentioned, pre-marriage assets are generally kept separate. 3) Business partners enter into all kinds of arrangements - maybe one parter brings in less money but has more expertise, connections, or will work more hours over the life of the partnership.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The difference is that business partners are completely free to set the terms of their partnership. They are not completely free; the law has bounds. > Whereas in marriage, the terms are fixed by the state. That's not true, there are default terms set by the state and, within the bounds of the law, they can modify them. Hence pre-(and post-)nuptial agreements. > No business partners would enter a deal with equal shares if one brings 1M in assets and the other zero You can probably find examples showing that that generalization is overstated, but, sure, that would be unusual. > A marriage forces them to. No, even in a “community property” state, it doesn't, even in the absence of a special agreement between the parties. Community property is generally that property acquired during the marriage; assets brought in at the formation remain separate property, in general.

by patmcc 8y ago

fvdessen 8y ago

The difference is that business partners are completely free to set the terms of their partnership. Whereas in marriage, the terms are fixed by the state. No business partners would enter a deal with equal shares if one brings 1M in assets and the other zero. A marriage forces them to.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
lazyasciiart 8y ago
In the US it usually doesn't, where did you learn about marriage property? > generally speaking, Separate Property includes: •Any property that was owned by either spouse prior to the marriage; (random link with explanation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/04/12/understanding-how-assets-get-divided-in-divorce/#3b1963652b66 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/04/12/understa...)
patmcc 8y ago
Three things with that: 1) Prenuptial agreements exist, you can alter the terms of the partnership. 2) As someone else mentioned, pre-marriage assets are generally kept separate. 3) Business partners enter into all kinds of arrangements - maybe one parter brings in less money but has more expertise, connections, or will work more hours over the life of the partnership.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The difference is that business partners are completely free to set the terms of their partnership. They are not completely free; the law has bounds. > Whereas in marriage, the terms are fixed by the state. That's not true, there are default terms set by the state and, within the bounds of the law, they can modify them. Hence pre-(and post-)nuptial agreements. > No business partners would enter a deal with equal shares if one brings 1M in assets and the other zero You can probably find examples showing that that generalization is overstated, but, sure, that would be unusual. > A marriage forces them to. No, even in a “community property” state, it doesn't, even in the absence of a special agreement between the parties. Community property is generally that property acquired during the marriage; assets brought in at the formation remain separate property, in general.