8 ms·

<Ctrl-f>divorce Hmm.. no mentions in the entire article? I think the author has something to address. Keep in mind when you get legally married you are signi

• jarsin 8y ago
  > Keep in mind when you get legally married you are signing a legal contract that entitles that other person, in most states, to half of everything you earn during the marriage. And keep in mind through the magic of commingling they will probably get half of whatever you had before the marriage too. Good luck keeping it's status as separate property.
  • 01100011 8y ago
    Depends on your forensic accountant... but did I mention how much forensic accountants cost? :) Basically in a divorce you are fucked unless you can keep everything amicable and do it via mediation. Otherwise you will either lose all your money to the other party or to the legal system. That was my choice - I could have paid less alimony but I would have had to spend $100k in legal fees for a chance that I'd get a sympathetic judge and things would go my way.
    • lwhalen 8y ago
      In a divorce, if you are a man, you are fucked. Especially in CA. Important distinction, just saying ;-)
    • mirimir 8y ago
      I guess that I've been lucky. I've been divorced twice, and the idea of alimony never came up. So I at least chose well enough to avoid that pitfall ;) Honestly, if my wives (and near-wives) hadn't raised the issue of marriage, I would have never considered it. But then, I've never wanted kids. Edit: clarification
      • poulsbohemian 8y ago
        I'm curious what country / state you are in, as many places have mandatory guidelines for this kind of thing.
        • mirimir 8y ago
          This was in the US. But I'm not going to say what state ;) As I recall, they were both no-fault divorces. And they were some decades ago. The first was in the late 70s, and the second in the mid 90s.
• toomuchtodo 8y ago
  While I'm not suggesting it to anyone, your passport still work as long as you have no outstanding child support judgements.
  • 01100011 8y ago
    Oh man the thought crossed my mind many times during the divorce process. Especially as a programmer who, at the time, had a boss who mostly had business in India and would have loved a programmer in Asia. (Un)Fortunately I met a girl I plan to marry(haha yeah I don't learn) so I'm trying to stay legal and not forfeit my ability to freely return to the US. If, for some reason, the second marriage goes south I'm not divorcing. I'm just leaving. I've already discussed it with my girlfriend and she gets it.
    • sofon 8y ago
      Could you not get a prenup?
      • mirimir 8y ago
        How enforceable are prenups?
        • sib 8y ago
          Extremely assuming they are done by good lawyers and that both parties are represented. (YMMV depending on jurisdiction, of course.)
          • 01100011 8y ago
            Yeah that's the key. Both parties must have representation.
  • stouset 8y ago
    The thing you're not implicitly suggesting isn't even really helpful since your assets are likely held in American institutions that will respond to legal claims against your holdings there. You might be able to flee overseas, but that doesn't help if your money is still here.
• HiroshiSan 8y ago
  Man, I'm so sorry.
• cabaalis 8y ago
  (Disclosure: I got divorced in the past year) I don't see why marriage is not treated just the same as other contracts. Clearly defined partnership agreement, defined renewal periods, defined termination clauses and definitions of cause. You could still protect both parties by requiring the partnership to include an equitable asset distribution clause. The state currently grants marriage licenses, so they have a clear hand already in this process. They could replace the whole licensing process with requiring a written partnership agreement that meets basic requirements. No, instead we have this weird situation of basing everything upon some agreed "permanency" based solely upon trust when we all know there is nothing of the sort going on. This process could still handle the religious ideas of marriage too--just renew your contract!
  • sib 8y ago
    This is exactly the reason that "normal people" (not just celebrities and the super-wealthy) sign pre-nuptial agreements. As a lawyer will tell you, if you don't make those decisions with your partner, the state will make them for you, and you may not like how they are made.
  • roenxi 8y ago
    > defined renewal periods My preface is that that sounds like a really reasonable and prudent approach that combines all sorts of good ideas and principles. It has given me something new to think about. The flip side is that children do change things quite significantly. My memory is we already exclude children from personally entering in to contract law because they don't really make good decisions; and in a messy marriage breakdown they could quite reasonably be expected to be caught in the crossfire. There are bound to be issues here that separate what is needed in family law from ordinary contract law.
• shadowfiend 8y ago
  This is a perfectly reasonable setup for these agreements. If your spouse is not working and you are married, it is either through mutual agreement or inaction. Fundamentally a marriage is about mutual navigation of life. If you are failing at this, a divorce is an option, as are other avenues (marriage therapy, etc). The point of a* marriage contract working this way is exactly the flip of it: to go extreme, if you are abusive in the relationship and will not let your spouse out of your joint home, and they eventually manage* to get a divorce, they are now attempting to operate without the last N years of work history. How does your spouse get back on their feet now? The person who is taking advantage of the marriage can be the breadwinner, and the breadwinner (if there is only one) provides the means of survival. Marriage is a life plan. You say that jointly and indefinitely, you will navigate life together. This means both of you are (should be?) planning with both of your current and future states in mind. If one isn't working, they are planning on the other's income to continue life. It's perfectly reasonable for the baseline of a marriage contract to be shared income and a reasonable time to adjust to the loss of shared income should you get divorced (and that this reasonable time grows the longer you are married). You might say, half of the duration is too much! Then propose something better, and adjust the contract accordingly. You might say, that jeopardizes my wedding, it seems like I don't love my future spouse! If this is important to you, that is something you must work through. Now, it's also an emotional thing, so it can be hard to abandon ship and get a divorce when it's clear your life plans have utterly diverged; I'm not trying to trivialize that decision. But for the default case of marriage to be “you have understood your mutual obligations and the fact that you are embarking on a mutually navigated life” seems perfectly reasonable to me. As for kids… Kids cost money and time, which our society for better or worse equates with money. So of course kids add to the number. Engineers who make big bucks and “let” (!?) their spouses stay home or pursue careers as ‘”artists”’ (?!?) are making that choice, either explicitly or by not having the conversation. If you don't steer your life, you let your life happen to you. And if you let your life happen to you, sometimes it will happen poorly. If they are having the conversation, then there's mutual agreement that this is what's best for the family, and no one is letting anyone do anything. It's absurd to talk about anyone “letting” their spouse stay home as if they have some sort of ownership over them, or passing judgement on the value of an artistic career choice from the outside. Is there a human aspect to this, a fuzziness to it all? Of course. But feeling incensed on behalf of others because their marriages are operating in a way you don't approve of because of how you got burned… I don't know how useful that is.
• poulsbohemian 8y ago
  Sounds a lot like my situation brother; mine was a two year legal battle finally concluding this spring. The State has seemingly determined that in order to be “fair” to whomever is sees as the weeker party (always the female) that it will utterly bankrupt and ruin the life of the perceived stronger. I asked several lawyers what happens in homosexual divorces and got a big cup of “dont ask, we don’t know, but it can’t possibly be applicable to you.” Look, I didn’t want to screw over my ex - I just didn’t want to get screwed in the process. This whole business, including the child support insanity, needs to get fixed as it is an antiquated, vindictive system
• bigbadgoose 8y ago
  > I have a girlfriend who is half my age Cool detail, bro
  • cm2012 8y ago
    This is perhaps inarticulatedly stated, but the line really does paint the OP in a (IMO deservedly) bad light. Trying to gain a few status points with online strangers while complaining bitterly about your ex wife? Not very classy.
    • 01100011 8y ago
      I'm just trying to say that it's not like my life completely sucks now. Dating someone half your age carries burdens too. People probably think I'm a creep or that I set out to ditch my wife for someone younger. I felt embarrassed for a while but now I got over it.
    • bigbadgoose 8y ago
      Yeah, agree that it was brusquely stated. Basically, anyone who thinks you're cool because your girlfriend is half your age is a probably a redpill, and definitely a tool. It's a detail that screams, "Look at me! This guy fucks!"
• rayiner 8y ago
  Whenever I read people tirade about divorce my first thought is: well, didn't you know the rules going in? The marriage contract is designed to fit a typical relationship. E.g. a man who makes $45k whose wife makes much less or who doesn't work but does most of the child rearing (labor that, in the open market, is worth a lot more than the $45k the man makes). The rules of property division make quite a lot of sense when applied to cases like that. Marriage is, first and foremost, a legal relationship concerning the ownership and division of property and the paternity of any children. If your relationship is in the minority of relationships that don't fit into this mold (especially if you don't have kids), why the heck are you married?
  • harryh 8y ago
    why the heck are you married? "Some people are bigger than society. Most of us are not. For most of us, society’s rules are our rules, and as you and your person walk down your blue balance beam, you can feel the walking space melt away around you. It’s time to make The Decision."
  • 01100011 8y ago
    Well in my case I decided to marry at 20 and was married at 21. Sure I was legally an adult but I had no clue what forever meant. I had no idea what to look for in a person. I basically married the first girl who touched my wiener. We had plans to have children, but due to her infertility which was exacerbated by poor lifestyle decisions and lack of self-care, we never did. At some point it became obvious that children weren't coming. I didn't ask her to stay home and raise my children though. On the contrary I invested quite a bit of time and effort into supporting her home-based businesses(textiles($6k embroidery machine for instance) and painting). Instead she made pot brownies for dispensaries under the table or worked 10 hours a week folding shirts for a t-shirt artist. She had skills from previous employment but chose a life of laziness. This was while I was working anywhere from 1-3 jobs, doing half the housework and spending weekends working on our house or taking care of her family.
  • dsajames 8y ago
    That labor is not worth more on the open market. Nannies aren't rich. Not even close. My wife stayed at home and for time watched children. Without question I was the better deal.
• rsyring 8y ago
  > <Ctrl-f>divorce When most people commit to love someone "for better or worse" they often only really mean "for better."
  • 01100011 8y ago
    What is 'worse'? Is it pain and suffering from a horrible disease or accident? Is it financial suffering and poverty? Is it the feeling of hopelessness that envelops you when you realize you made a mistake and married someone who won't contribute to the partnership?
    • poulsbohemian 8y ago
      >Is it the feeling of hopelessness that envelops you when you realize you made a mistake and married someone who won't contribute to the partnership? Did you marry my ex? ;-D In all seriousness... I've been looking for the words to impart to my children someday about this. There is a beauty in persevering despite financial hardships, medical hardships, and even just the mundane drudgery of everyday life. I firmly believe that is the true basis of this word love, where mutual partnership is formed in soldering through it together. That said, these commitment vows and frankly, the likelihood of financial ruin in divorce, keeps people in relationships long past viability. It's no different than watching someone on life support, knowing they aren't coming back but yet no one willing to pull the plug. I think what the parent commenter was really saying is, many enter into marriage with a misguided belief that it is all good times and romance, without the faintest understanding of the undertaking.
• cm2012 8y ago
  A lot of people consider how much their spouses make completely immaterial, for good reason. Especially since research shows household happiness doesn't really rise over the 100k income mark. Marriage is designed to be a team. I don't think who makes what should matter, and I don't mind the state treating it that way. Related story: My father's pension had a choice. 100%x if it stops after you die, 85%x if you want your wife covered if you die early. My dad obviously chose the latter. He had a coworker who chose 100% for himself and died two years after, ending the pension. I can't imagine what he was thinking, except that that he must have hated his wife and just been married out of habit.
  • derekp7 8y ago
    Or he did a calculation and bet that he would live long enough after retirement that as a couple they would be better off with the 100% payout. So his wife would only need to outlive him by 2 years for every 7 years he lives (assuming the extra 15% is put away, and if invested it could even be a better deal). So if he lived 28 years, his wife would need to live 36 years (or more, factoring in interest) for the 85% deal to be better.
• mirimir 8y ago
  Yes, I agree. I was lucky, but many people get screwed in divorce. Both women and men. Men because, as in your case, they get penalized financially. But it's important to remember that laws and legal precedent about support for former female partners came about because women often got screwed financially in divorce. Even if they could even get a divorce. And sometimes women still get screwed financially, and in other ways, by divorce. Child support is sometimes inadequate, or effectively not collectable. And women traditionally contributed unpaid labor, in the form of housework and childcare. And often, they were (and even now, sometimes are) more-or-less unprepared for decent jobs. Anyway, based on other comments, a key argument in favor of marriage, for long-term relationships, is clarification of intentions. That's especially crucial, obviously, if there will be children. Without a marriage, it's all subject to litigation. And if partners have resources that they want to protect, they can negotiate a prenup.
  • poulsbohemian 8y ago
    >Child support is sometimes inadequate, or effectively not collectable. And women traditionally contributed unpaid labor, in the form of housework and childcare. By my thinking, this is #metoo level stuff. If we're to have equality, then it is time to stop pretending that women are the only parents and that they can't also hold professional jobs. I would posit that equality cannot exist so long as we continue to hold these outmoded views on gender roles. And yes, I agree that means that it is imperative that men continue to step up to the plate, whether within marriage or outside. >Even if they could even get a divorce. I'm male. It took me two+ years of legal battles to get a divorce. Tell me how this is a female-only issue? Side note: I have my kids > 60% of the time, but pay out child support, as enforced by state law, as though she has them 100% of the time. I pay all of their various expenses - clothes, medical, camps, activities, etc, because despite what the divorce decree says and despite what I pay her in spousal support AND child support, she will just continue to whine that she has no money. She walked away with a net worth > $500,000, I walked away with a net worth of approximately negative-$100,000. So anyone that tells me how women get screwed... well I have some words for you.
    • mirimir 8y ago