No fault divorce, the biggest idiocy of all times ?

[DaveC426913]

To be determined on a case by case basis.

Thannng qew. That's all I needed to hear. You grant that it is not unilateral.

If it's agreed before, then it should be put in a prenuptial. Like, you get X amount of currency for each year spent with me. The family laws shouldn't not generalize any kind of wealth division and ex-spouse support. The law should provide no provisions for those altogether, IMO.

I believe this is a view of the marriage which doesn't work very well in today society. As I said, nowadays a marriage is a coin toss. Head or Tails. The promise of a life together doesn't hold much water in practice nowadays.

...and you believe that it should have to be this way? Whether the couple want it or not? You believe that everyone ought to believe
the same thing you believe?

 

[DaveC426913]

I find it odd that you seem to assume that only women would get alimony, Dave.

I'm not assuming anything. It is simply that "He or she" is difficult to write/read everytime.

 

[Char. Limit]

I'm not assuming anything. It is simply that "He or she" is difficult to write/read everytime.

Usually when I have to write something cumbersome many times, I use the copy-paste keys. It makes it so much easier.

Just a tip.

 

[DanP]

Thannng qew. That's all I needed to hear. You grant that it is not unilateral.

You are welcome, but I was only referring to the fact that you assumed faithfulness in any marriage.

...and you believe that it should have to be this way? Whether the couple want it or not? You believe that everyone ought to believe
the same thing you believe?

Of course not. Everybody is entitled to his way to see life. This is why politics exist. So we can impose our ideas and our ways to be on others who don't agree with us.
And yes, this is how it should be. This way no one would be entitled after 5 years of marriage to the wealth produced unilaterally by the other spouse. This is how a normal world should work. But yeah, everybody would be done a great favor if we have the family laws changed drastically. Give it time. In my opinion we will get there. The "for life, in good and evil" view of marriage is deprecating everyday right before our eyes. Laws will follow sooner or later.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If it's agreed before, then it should be put in a prenuptial. Like, you get X amount of currency for each year spent with me. The family laws shouldn't not generalize any kind of wealth division and ex-spouse support. The law should provide no provisions for those altogether, IMO.

No. Any contract requires a certain level of assumed obligation and duty, regardless of any added specifications, otherwise the contract may as well have never existed. In a No Fault divorce any argument that one spouse or the other did not live up to their responsibilities and obligations as party to the contract are given up. So all obligations, as assumed by contract, are considered to be in force.

I believe this is a view of the marriage which doesn't work very well in today society. As I said, nowadays a marriage is a coin toss. Head or Tails. The promise of a life together doesn't hold much water in practice nowadays.

Then you are no longer talking about marriage since marriage, by definition, is a life long contract. If you have issues with a life long contract then do not enter into one. You can not simply up and walk away from a contract and there by erase all obligation to the other party. Again, with such an interpretation, there may as well have never been a contract in the first place.

To be determined on a case by case basis.

That would be an At Fault divorce. In No Fault there is no determination of whether or not either spouse lived up to expectations.

 

[DanP]

Then you are no longer talking about marriage since marriage, by definition, is a life long contract. If you have issues with a life long contract then do not enter into one. You can not simply up and walk away from a contract and there by erase all obligation to the other party. Again, with such an interpretation, there may as well have never been a contract in the first place.

By this logic, we finished talking about marriage several centuries ago then. The moment when divorce was wrestled from religious authority to the civil authority where it belongs.

Marriage is not a life long contract. Not anymore. The sate does recognize divorce. And this is all it needs to be said regarding your point on marriage as lifelong contract.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

By this logic, we finished talking about marriage several centuries ago then. The moment when divorce was wrestled from religious authority to the civil authority where it belongs.

Marriage is not a life long contract. Not anymore. The sate does recognize divorce. And this is all it needs to be said regarding your point on marriage as lifelong contract.

Of course marriage is still a life long contract. Just because you are legally allowed to break it or dissolve it does not change that the contract unbroken will be in effect for the rest of your life with no need of renewal and no expiration other than the death of one of the parties.

I can enter a two year contract with my phone company and then break from contract after a year if I so choose. That does not mean that it was not a two year contract and that I have no further obligation to the party whom I was in contract with. The fact that many people break from contracts with their phone companies does not change the fact this was a two year contract either.

 

[DanP]

Of course marriage is still a life long contract. Just because you are legally allowed to break it or dissolve it does not change that the contract unbroken will be in effect for the rest of your life with no need of renewal and no expiration other than the death of one of the parties.

If you refer to this particular legal aspect, it's called undetermined length contract, not life long contract. The wording is important. A "life long" contract is a determined length contract, for the life spawn of the parts. It was a life long contract when the church was prohibiting the divorce.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

If you refer to this particular legal aspect, it's called undetermined length contract, not life long contract. The wording is important. A "life long" contract is a determined length contract, for the life spawn of the parts. It was a life long contract when the church was prohibiting the divorce.

That a contract can be broken or dissolved does not mean that it is of an undetermined length. As I noted there are obviously contracts of determined length that one can back out of before the expiry.

 

[DanP]

That a contract can be broken or dissolved does not mean that it is of an undetermined length.

It is not the fact that it can be broken or dissolved which gives this particular aspect. It is whatever the contract is determined in time or not.

 

[Evo]

Surprisingly, a legal marriage is not legally a contract. It's one of those weird situations in that you don't know what you can legally be held responsible for until you try to dissolve it.

What is a marriage contract?

A marriage contract is a legal agreement, very much like any other type of contract. It’s a written document between two people. It can be between two people who are already married, or two people who are planning to marry (called a “pre-nuptial agreement”) to take effect on the date of their marriage. A marriage contract identifies who you are and usually makes some statement about the purpose of the agreement. Then it sets out a series of promises that you each make to the other.

http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/162.aspx

 

[DanP]

Surprisingly, a legal marriage is not legally a contract. It's one of those weird situations in that you don't know what you can legally be held responsible for until you try to dissolve it.



http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/162.aspx

This is a great point. Interesting enough, it produces a lot of legal effects though.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It is not the fact that it can be broken or dissolved which gives this particular aspect. It is whatever the contract is determined in time or not.

I am unaware of any definition of marriage that does not at least imply a life long commitment. People generally do not marry as a temporary state of affairs and usually marriages that are for temporary purposes (ie, gaining citizenship) are not considered legal.

Surprisingly, a legal marriage is not legally a contract. It's one of those weird situations in that you don't know what you can legally be held responsible for until you try to dissolve it.



http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/162.aspx

http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/marriage/
Perhaps they have oddly worded definitions in TX. As far as I understand a contract is any agreement between two parties, either express or implied, which meets certain criteria.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/contract-law/
Perhaps TX treats the contract as implicit and terms "marriage" as any so-called union legally recognized and binding or not.
I only mention TX since you seem to reference experience and I assume you were divorced in TX?
Note that I am only

 

[DanP]

I am unaware of any definition of marriage that does not at least imply a life long commitment. People generally do not marry as a temporary state of affairs and usually marriages that are for temporary purposes (ie, gaining citizenship) are not considered legal.

The problem is that this idealized model in inherited from the times when the church enforced a true "life long" marriage.

Such Definitions are getting obsolete nowadays. The practical reality of the world doesn't give a dime of wording implying life long marriages. The fact is almost half of the marriages are doomed and end up in divorce or legal separation. 10-20 years ago you could not talk about marriage between 2 same sex persons. You would have been called insane to imply that 2 same sex persons can get married. The church still goes insane when it hears such things. Yet the society changed this, and rightly so, in many places of the world. Today we allow gay persons to get married. It becomes a more and more widespread fact. Wordings are to be changed with social pressure.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The problem is that this idealized model in inherited from the times when the church enforced a true "life long" marriage.

Such Definitions are getting obsolete nowadays. The practical reality of the world doesn't give a dime of wording implying life long marriages. The fact is almost half of the marriages are doomed and end up in divorce or legal separation.


10-20 years ago you could not talk about marriage between 2 same sex persons. You would have been called insane to imply that 2 same sex persons can get married. The church still goes insane when it hears such things. Yet the society changed this, and rightly so, in many places of the world. Today we allow gay persons to get married. It becomes a more and more widespread fact. Wordings are to be changed with social pressure.

Regardless, when two people get married they typically do so with the understanding that it is a life long commitment. That it is statistically unlikely to be so is irrelevant. It is not legal to enter into a contract with express or implicit terms and then turn around and say "You didn't really Believe that, did you?"

 

[DanP]

It is not legal to enter into a contract with express or implicit terms and then turn around and say "You didn't really Believe that, did you?"

But it is very legal to use legal means to get out of a marriage. Such as divorce.

Easy(er) divorce exists because some enlighted minds recognized the futility of calling marriages "for life". As I said, close to half of contracted marriages are failing. This is the reality. The "till death do us part" is obsoleted by reality. Already.

One has to realize that the wordings from matrimony vaults are not interpreted literally by family law. Else you would not be permitted any form of divorce.

 

[mheslep]

Sorry, I don't buy the religious part. Marriage it's a civil contract.

Not if one gets married in a church. Then it is both civil and religious.

 

[DanP]

Not if one gets married in a church. Then it is both civil and religious.

Really ? The law couldn't care less if you get married in a church , or in a god forgotten Vegas brothel with an Elvis lookalike as your "priest", or that you decide to marry another same sex person. The civil effects produced by the marriage are the only one important. If you marry in a church, the priest is legally empowered by the state to marry ppl. He can't doit on the basis on his religious authority alone. And that's the key. The priest's authority to marry ppl flow from the state, and not from the church. Priests are still allowed to marry ppl in the virtue of their historical role in this affair.

I couldn't care less what religious persons are thinking about what marriage should be. I hope that the current of liberalism in marriage (like same sex marriage) will once and forever crush the remnant religious opposition and church involvement in marriage (and generally, in civil society, the church is a burden).

 

[mheslep]

Really ? The law couldn't care less if you get married in a church , or in a god forgotten Vegas brothel with an Elvis lookalike as your "priest", or that you decide to marry another same sex person. The civil effects produced by the marriage are the only one important. If you marry in a church, the priest is legally empowered by the state to marry ppl. He can't doit on the basis on his religious authority alone. And that's the key. The priest's authority to marry ppl flow from the state, and not from the church. Priests are still allowed to marry ppl in the virtue of their historical role in this affair.

I couldn't care less what religious persons are thinking about what marriage should be. I hope that the current of liberalism in marriage (like same sex marriage) will once and forever crush the remnant religious opposition and church involvement in marriage (and generally, in civil society, the church is a burden).

Interestingly, I think I'd take the opposite view in every single sentence above. Ministers and priests need no authority whatsoever from the state to bestow the blessing of marriage on a couple; as it happens they wear another legal hat that is granted by the state. In my view the government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage. I say resign the government to issuing civil union contracts for tax purposes perhaps and nothing more, and then the entire issue of same sex 'marriage' would vanish at a stroke. And generally speaking government involvement in society is a burden, as the US founders recognized. Unfortunately we need some government to live together, but it should be kept to a minimum as it is a dangerous construction.

 

[DanP]

Interestingly, I think I'd take the opposite view in every single sentence above. Ministers and priests need no authority whatsoever from the state to bestow the blessing of marriage on a couple; as it happens they wear another legal hat that is granted by the state. In my view the government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage.

In practice, nowadays, you are not considered married without being married by someone who is empowered by the sate to marry ppl. The "power" of the church is symbolic and vestigial.

And yes, ministers and priests need a central authority, from the state in this case. There are tenths of cults in a country so big like USA. What, you will forbid two ppl of different faiths to get married ? The church does. Fortunately, the state overrides the church.

I say resign the government to issuing civil union contracts for tax purposes perhaps and nothing more, and then the entire issue of same sex 'marriage' would vanish at a stroke.

This is why governments needs to exist. To enforce protection of a minority, the gay minority in this case, from the persecution of the church.

Yes, the church would vanish the same sex marriage in a instant. The church is conservative, limited, old, with no imagination and full of discriminative practices against women, other confessions and some minorities.

In a civilized world, the church will be stripped of any power whatsoever. It's influence in governments must be shattered. (creationist propaganda, discrimination lobby, and so on ). It must exist only as a option for religious humans to exercise their right to their beleifs.

And generally speaking government involvement in society is a burden, as the US founders recognized. Unfortunately we need some government to live together, but it should be kept to a minimum as it is a dangerous construction.

A necessary evil. But between church and governments, I choose the big brother.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Really ? The law couldn't care less if you get married in a church , or in a god forgotten Vegas brothel with an Elvis lookalike as your "priest", or that you decide to marry another same sex person.

I don't see how this is related to what mheslep said. Sure, the law doesn't care. It's a civil contract, as both you and mheslep say. But mheslep says that under certain situations, it's a religious contract as well as a civil contract. You appear to deny this. And just as the law doesn't care whether the marriage is officiated by a priest or a judge, on presumes that a religion doesn't care that the priest has state authority.

Actually, I don't see why you'd be bothered by mheslep's statement. If religion means nothing to you, then wouldn't "a civil and religious" contract mean precisely as much to you as a civil contract?

Say I don't accept the statehood of the micronation of Avram. Wouldn't I consider a marriage recognized by Australia and Avram to be precisely the same as one recognized by Australia?

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes, the church would vanish the same sex marriage in a instant. The church is conservative, limited, old, with no imagination and full of discriminative practices against women, other confessions and some minorities.

In a civilized world, the church will be stripped of any power whatsoever. It's influence in governments must be shattered. (creationist propaganda, discrimination lobby, and so on ). It must exist only as a option for religious humans to exercise their right to their beleifs.

This is just bashing.

 

[DanP]

This is just bashing.

No, its a political stance. It is my view of the church.

 

[DanP]

I don't see how this is related to what mheslep said. Sure, the law doesn't care. It's a civil contract, as both you and mheslep say. But mheslep says that under certain situations, it's a religious contract as well as a civil contract.

Yeah, for religious humans. However, the state does not recognize the religious contract.
The marriage formalities are only recognized when are executed in concordance with family laws.

 

[Evo]

I don't see how this is related to what mheslep said. Sure, the law doesn't care. It's a civil contract, as both you and mheslep say. But mheslep says that under certain situations, it's a religious contract as well as a civil contract. You appear to deny this. And just as the law doesn't care whether the marriage is officiated by a priest or a judge, on presumes that a religion doesn't care that the priest has state authority.

Actually, the marriage is not legal until the religious officiator files the legal paperwork with the proper legal jurisdiction, usually the county clerk's office and is signed by the local judge/justice of the peace, etc... The priest/pastor is only authorized to prepare and file the legal paperwork on behalf of the couple. A religious marriage is just a ceremony, it is not itself legally recognized.

 

[DanP]

Actually, the marriage is not legal until the religious officiator files the legal paperwork with the proper legal jurisdiction, usually the county clerk's office and is signed by the local judge/justice of the peace, etc... The priest/pastor is only authorized to prepare and file the legal paperwork for the couple. A religious marriage is just a ceremony, it is not itself legally recognized.

Yeah, this is exactly what I am saying.

 

[DaveC426913]

Actually, the marriage is not legal until the religious officiator files the legal paperwork with the proper legal jurisdiction, usually the county clerk's office and is signed by the local judge/justice of the peace, etc... The priest/pastor is only authorized to prepare and file the legal paperwork for the couple. A religious marriage is just a ceremony, it is not itself legally recognized.

I can personally attest to this. Our papers did not get filed, and sat in the trunk of our pastor's car for who knows how long. There is a non-zero chance that my wife and I are not legally married these past 18 years.

 

[CRGreathouse]

This is just bashing.

No, its a political stance.

1. DaveC: "X is bashing."
2. DanP: "No, X is a political stance."

Why would #2 preclude #1? You're just talking past each other.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Yeah, for religious humans. However, the state does not recognize the religious contract.
The marriage formalities are only recognized when are executed in concordance with family laws.

Actually, the marriage is not legal until the religious officiator files the legal paperwork with the proper legal jurisdiction, usually the county clerk's office and is signed by the local judge/justice of the peace, etc... The priest/pastor is only authorized to prepare and file the legal paperwork on behalf of the couple. A religious marriage is just a ceremony, it is not itself legally recognized.

I don't see how either of these speaks to my statement. A religious ceremony has no civil standing. Civil proceedings have no religious standing.

 

[DanP]

1. DaveC: "X is bashing."
2. DanP: "No, X is a political stance."

Why would #2 preclude #1? You're just talking past each other.

Because you open a whole can of worms otherwise. Next a republican will say something against Obama, Ill say is bashing. Ill say something liberal, they'll say is bashing.

We are all biased towards our political views. So its better to leave it at the level of difference in opinion on a forum.

 

[DanP]

I don't see how either of these speaks to my statement. A religious ceremony has no civil standing. Civil proceedings have no religious standing.

Because the courts of law , family law, civil law, juridical effects of marriage will not recognize the religious standing. You are not married through religious ceremony in the eyes of society at large.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Because the courts of law , family law, civil law, juridical effects of marriage will not recognize the religious standing. You are not married through religious ceremony in the eyes of society at large.

Yes. That's as it should be; is anyone disagreeing with that?

Similarly, a church would presumably not recognize civil marriages. I don't think you or anyone else would say that they should be forced to recognize them.

Remember, the statement you're disgareeing with is mheslep's "Not if one gets married in a church. Then it is both civil and religious.".

 

[CRGreathouse]

Because you open a whole can of worms otherwise. Next a republican will say something against Obama, Ill say is bashing. Ill say something liberal, they'll say is bashing.

Aren't many political threads closed because they degenerate into bashing?

(Notice, I have taken no issue with your thread -- only with your apparent claim that expressing a political opinion means you are not bashing.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Next a republican will say something against Obama, Ill say is bashing. Ill say something liberal, they'll say is bashing.

Bashing is when you're not offering an arguable case, you're just venting personal, emotional and highly negative feelings about something. It adds nothing to the discussion and is not constructive to the discussion in any way.

And we're not in a political open floor in public here. We're in a private forum, for the purposes of discussion.

Because you open a whole can of worms otherwise.

Yeah, I'll bet you don't want anyone else holding that can of worms but you. You wanted to get your bashing out there under the guise of "political view" without being called on it being just bashing.

 

[DanP]

Remember, the statement you're disgareeing with is mheslep's "Not if one gets married in a church. Then it is both civil and religious.".

Perhaps in your eyes, or in the eyes of a member of your particular cult. You can't really expect someone who doesn't believe in church/religion to recognize a religious aspect.