8 ms·
Is that not a good thing, though? Especially for the working class, breaking up via an expensive divorce, after an expensive marriage, seems objectively worse t
by koboll 8y ago
Is that not a good thing, though? Especially for the working class, breaking up via an expensive divorce, after an expensive marriage, seems objectively worse than breaking up a lengthy partnership, for all involved.
- mijamo 8y agoNot if you have kids or any valuable belongings. Then it can become incredibly messy.
- emodendroket 8y agoYeah. Divorce are messy and expensive in part because untangling a long relationship is complicated.
- bilbo0s 8y agoI think his material point was that dealing with custody matters for never married parents is no more, or less, messy than dealing with custody for married parents. So what's the benefit drawn from being married? I can tell you right now, if you go into a family court here in the US believing you will get more access to your children because you were married, you're liable to be disagreeably surprised. Whether married or unmarried, just protect your legal rights as best you can. And, no matter what happens, abide by the judgement of the court. Appeal later if you're upset.
- emodendroket 8y agoCustody maybe. But being married makes a difference when you're trying to end a relationship and you have to break up your shared assets
- gamblor956 8y agoThere are significant custody-related benefits that accrue only during marriage, like for example being allowed to pick your children up from school, medical decisions, etc., that automatically flow to married fathers that don't flow to the unmarried fathers who don't have the proper paperwork on hand. (As with all things related to domestic laws, this is highly jurisdictional.)
- emodendroket 8y agoDivorce proceedings offer protection to the lower-earning partner. But also a marriage usually means more pooled resources (which counts more if you don't have much) and a more stable environment in which to rear children.
- blotter_paper 8y ago>But also a marriage usually means more pooped resources Are you suggesting that marriages cause overeating? ;)
- Broken_Hippo 8y agoYes and no. It is rather unfortunate that splitting up costs so much. But at the same time, these folks lose all of the protections and benefits that the legal framework of marriage gives. For example, health insurance coverage will not extend to your loved one without the legal framework for it to exist. You might have raised your partner's child since birth or not long after their father/mother passed on, but you'll have no legal right to them if something happens. Even something as simple as taking care of school business for the children gets muddy. You, in general, will not get a say in their care during an emergency situation. Being low income also generally means you do not have the means to have such a legal paper put into place. It also means that you do not get any sort of protection or help with breaking up. No one is going to step in to say that you have to share the apartment until you save up money or that one should be the one to move out, let alone help to make sure that each of you gets to keep a vehicle if they were both in one person's name.