posted
Clearly a topic with very firmly held beliefs on this forum, but I'm interested to hear your views.
I stongly believe in marriage and marriage for life (richer, poorer, sickness and health). Moreover, I think the success of a marriage is more dependant on whether those it in *will* it to succeed that any other variable that could impact it.
I don't know why I believe so strongly in marriage. Something deep in me feels that making a committment to bind yourself to another and grow with them is an incredible adventure that has far more richness than the pursuit of individual happiness / contentment. I'm also probably petrified of dying alone and unloved.
I don't mind at all that other people see marriage as something more transient. Although, given my belief above I am sad for them.
I think SSM will happen in my lifetime and I think is is great that my society is finally overcoming it's prejudice that same sex unions are 'less' that mixed union.
I do wonder / worry how our tax and inheritance laws will have to evolve to keep up with more and more transient relationships. I can imagine two old ladies who have been great friends all their lives doing everything together with no relatives getting married to each other simply to avoid tax. And part of me thinks 'why should they?' and part of me thinks 'that's cheating?'.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about an old man and an old woman who decide to get married to each other simply to avoid tax?
Posts: 3801 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then why mention it in that way? Marriages of convenience have always existed and will always continue to exist.
Posts: 3801 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think marriage is a wonderful thing, but there are people that believe that there is no difference between highschool dating and marriage. These would be the same people that are trying to buck the system I guess imo.
They just don't hold the same values as other people and look as something as special as marriage to be all that important, but only use it to fullfill their selfish, and self centering needs.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why not mention it that way? It makes no difference.
Marriages of convenience have indeed always existed but if marriages become shorter and more transient then they gain even more power. Further, with more and more people writing pre-nups perhaps it would make more sense to remove the financial benefits of marriage.
Do you think our inheritance / tax laws will have to evolve? If not why not? If not how?
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last wekk a person I knew from school got married to someone that is in the military. Apparently he gets a little more money each month if he is married. She doesn't really care for the guy, doesn't see him anymore, and they plan on getting divorced once he comes back. There is no benefit to her (at least that she's aware of). She didn't change her name, doesn't wear the ring, and her life seems relatively unchanged. Her motive was quite simply that she was trying to be nice.
Obviously this isn't a typical wedding story, but it did make me rethink my perception of the attitude toward marriage in today's society.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to think of marriage as you do firebird - a serious life-long committment. I, personally, do not object to same sex marriage on the societal level (though my religious beliefs do not condone homosexuality, I think it unfair to impose my personal beliefs on those who do not share them).
I almost lean towards eliminating the social/financial perks of marriage, so that only people who really want to be married would be married (reinforcing marriage as a kind of committment, rather than a convenience). I've often wondered about changing the way taxes/inheritance/power of attorney/insurance/etc. work, to better accomodate transient relationships and situations of convenience, so that people don't "have" to get married to have those benefits.
posted
I feel that marriage is the most wonderful thing in my life, but it is also A LOT of work. For me marriage is based on three things: Love, Partnership and Dedication.
We can't judge if these things exist in a marriage, so we are forced to take a couple's word that they do. It is no different between same-sex couples and straight couples, we have to trust they mean it when they say their vows.
I think the idea of doing "marriage benefits" as explicit rather than implicit and something that can be done outside of marriage can be a good idea. For instance, I can picture someone at odds with their family but who has a very good friend and would trust their friend with medical descisions much more than their family. I think this should be a legal possibility that is fairly easy to accomplish.
Posts: 68 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A co-worker mentioned a case of a young man marrying his grandmother so his healthcare benefits would extend to her. It's difficult to argue with the heartstring tug you feel when you hear something like that.
What will marriage mean, if it's opened to all these cases? Is there a Platonic ideal of marriage? How far can a relationship deviate from that ideal (if there is one) and still fall under the umbrella? How do you deal with edge cases, relationships that are nearly marriages but not quite? It's a messy subject.
As for inheritance/tax laws, I haven't given it much thought. I don't know what the government's incentive in marriage lies (versus parenthood, where I think the government's incentive is pretty clear). Should married citizens be entitled to tax/inheritance benefits unavailable to unmarried citizens and if so, why? My only thought is that marriage results in a stability that benefits the government in an abstract way, so the government has an interest in promoting it (though benefits). I'm not sure; it's not very clear to me.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Married couples who both work are actually penalized for it, so it cuts both ways. Also, in my work for the federal government, I saw one half of a gay couple get needs-based disability benefits even though his partner was extremelyy wealthy, because they *couldn't* be legally recognized as an economic unit.
Theere will always be loopholes, and people will always use them.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Camus, is she mentioned on his life insurance, that could be a benefit for her. If not, imho she's being too nice, or at least nicer than I would be.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that marriage should be "based on three things: Love, Partnership and Dedication" and I think most people would agree with that.
But as I think more about this, how long has marriage been viewed that way? It seems that only in recent times has marriage been based on love. Within even a hundred years ago many marriages were based on convenience and social benefits instead of love. Sure, couples may have loved each other, but the dominating factors (like power, money, social standing) usually completely disregarded the individual feelings.
For a brief time society flirted with the idea of marriages based on love but then quickly decided that love is overrated, and then society started trending back towards marriages of convenience. And then society decided they need to make up for the lost 100 years spent on sweet lovin' by increasing the number of convenient marriages per person as the divorce rate suddenly skyrockets.
In any case, it seems like the marriage arrangement is going back to the way it was viewed for many centures. I don't like that, but I don't think we can do much to stop that.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
breyerchic, The life insurance was the first think I thought of, but honestly, I don't think she even thought about that. And yes, she does have a habit of being maybe a little too nice in regards to her relationships. Either way, I think it comes down to her view of marraige, which she apparently doesn't view as very sacred.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Is it possible that by separating all the legal (kids etc) and financial benefits from a 'marriage' it would actually increase the sanctity of marriage?
If we had grades of 'marriage' 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, LIFE-LONG. Would people chose more appropriately which type of relationship they were in? By choosing more appropriately would the divorce rate lower? Would being able to differenciate clearly between the types of relationships that are transient and the commitments that are life long lead to a better understanding of how to choose a life long mate?
Over time would this increase the sanctity of the LIFE-LONG marriage?
posted
camus-maybe, if it was well thought out. If there were shorter term marriage contracts, it should be much harder for the life-long marriages to be ended. Also that could open it up to madnatory counseling- if a couple doesn't want the counseling, they could opt for a shorter term contratc and maybe complete the counseling at that time. As it is however, I think our society treats the supposedly life long commitment of marriage way too casually.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by firebird: If we had grades of 'marriage' 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, LIFE-LONG. Would people chose more appropriately which type of relationship they were in? By choosing more appropriately would the divorce rate lower?
Over time would this increase the sanctity of the LIFE-LONG marriage?
Isn't this being implemented in a Southern state? I can't remember details (don't make me use google), but I seem to recall a news story about marriage applications in Alabama or Luisiana or somesuch having a "life-long commitment" option. Does anyone know about this or am I just making stuff up?
My feeling is I doubt a significant portion of the population intends for their marriages to be temporary. Unless there are penalties for backing out (social or governmental) before the end of the contract, I doubt it would have much effect.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that separating the legal/financial benefits from marriage would better encourage marriage as something for people interested in it for committment, rather than convenience or economic gains. I don't know if this would make marriage more "sacred", but it would hopefully bring it more into line with what I, personally, think a marriage should be.
I don't know that I like the idea of "grades" of marriage, though being presented with that kind of choice would certainly be thought-provoking. Since I think of marriage as being a life-long committment, it doesn't make sense to me to make shorter set-duration marriages. I do think that somehow educating people to "differenciate clearly between the types of relationships that are transient and the commitments that are life long" would hopefully "lead to a better understanding of how to choose a life long mate". This is why I like to define marriage as a life-long committment. In my mind, if it's transient it isn't marriage, and also if it's a marriage, it isn't transient.
Granted, I'm not a marriage expert. I've been married only 3.5 years, but when I got married I did it with not just a hope, but a determination that it was a life long committment. Though I did get married rather quickly (we got engaged after having known each other for about 5 months and were married a couple months shy of one year from the time we met), I took the decision of getting married very seriously. I'd always viewed marriage as a serious decision - not one to make lightly - so I agonized over it for a while because it was a life altering decision and not one that I felt could just be undone later if I changed my mind. Marriage is hard work, and I knew that, and was even a little afraid of it because of that. I don't know if other people see marriage that same way. I love my husband, I love being married, I love the relationship that we have, and I've never for an instant regretted my decision, even during rocky times. I intend to continue this kind of thinking and feeling for the rest of my life (and even past that ).
posted
hmmm, leasing your marriage mate? or having a marriage expiration date? I don't really like the sound of that.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I'm not understanding all the implications of having different grades of marriage, but to me it just seems like it's automatically saying that a marriage is nothing more than a simple business contract. I think there would be an increase of people choosing to get married for short time periods to "test the waters" so to speak. Now, people live together if they are unsure about marriage, with different grades there'd be no reason not to get married right away without really understanding what you're getting into.
It may increase the sancitity of life-long marriage, but I don't see how it would increase the sancity of the marriage arrangement itself
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj: I think what you're referring to is covenant marriage (I think that's what it's called) in which divorce is impossible.
camus: I also knew a guy in the military who almost married before he was deployed in order to earn more money. But why mention that she didn't change her name? I don't think that's particularly important to demonstrating commitment. Anyways, I don't think anything would stop marriages of convenience from occurring.
As for the 2, 5, 10-year etc. marriage...maybe that would work for some people. I've read a lot of science fiction in which marriage became structured like that. Personally, I'd be offended if my partner wanted to put a time on our marriage like that.
For me...well, I only want to be married once. I think marriage should be life-long and only between two people. But I definitely don't think it's a bad thing that divorce isn't near-impossible. People make mistakes. People cheat. People become abusive. Any number of unforseeable problems can occur in a relationship, and the chance of these problems popping up doesn't go away just because you wear a ring on your finger.
I do think that marriage is a lot of work. A lot MORE work than an unmarried relationship, certainly. I wish that more people understood that and didn't take off at the first sign of relationship trouble or unpleasantness.
quote:But why mention that she didn't change her name?
I wasn't really thinking about commitment when I said that. It was more to emphasize that she trivialized the marriage to the point that to her, her life one day previous to the marriage was no different than the day after the marriage. It was a day like any other to her. In fact, she was more deeply affected when her hair stylist cut off too much of her hair than when she got married. Some people feel that marriage is a significant part of their lives, others apparently do not.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Camus - thanks for the explanation. If the short contracts were no longer called marriages and only the life long version were, would that increase the sanctity?
pH - I would also be offended if I were offered a 5 year marriage ... but it would be a clear indication to me that my other half didn't put the same value on marriage as I did.
I guess I'm worried about the situation where one half thinks this is for life whereas this other person thinks this is for life while it is making me happy.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhh. I only mentioned it because the man I was going to marry was deeply offended that I wanted to keep my name, for some reason. I guess it's a male pride thing. Actually, it kind of looked to me to be a possession issue, and I don't think those kinds of things should be present in a marriage. I mean, if a woman wants to take her husband's name, that's fine. I have no problem with that. But she should do it because she wants to and not for any other reason.
Besides, my name sounded much cooler with my parents' last name than with his.
Marriage definitely should be considered a major event. How did her husband react to their marriage? Did he write her often or anything? Has he come back yet?
posted
Out of curiosity, do you think a lot of people enter relationships expecting them to end? Because that's what putting a time limit on marriage seems like, to me.
I mean, I can understad that kind of thing, say, in high school or something, when you know you guys might go off to different colleges and whatnot, but to enter a serious relationship with that kind of attitude seems kind of wrong to me.
posted
Just imagining the phrase, "Lame Duck Husband"
A marriage has five basic components.
1) Sanctity. To some people, the divine sanction of a marriage will always make it eternal--or at least life long. Any attempt to blatantly diminish this will be seen as an assault on their religion.
The sanctity is also something that no law or government can control or enforce. It is up to each couple, each individual really, and to each church to promote and express the divine aspects of marriage in their religion, in their church, and in their individual and couple life.
SSM done in a church that respects homosexuality as just another facet of God's/Jesus's (or The Goddesses)love for us will contain that divine principle.
2) Romance. This creation of this ideal, begining in the chilvaric age but popularized due to hollywood may be one of the main reasons for the increase in divorce rates. It is the love a couple feels for each other. Unfortunately the ideals of chaste, pure, platonic love have been buried under sex and steamy monkey love. So too many people, enraptured by lust, get married only to fall apart when their hot lust cools down to everyday feelings. This is especially the case amongst teens marrying in a blur of hormones, only to regret it later.
Here is where your 2-5-10 year commitments might come in handy. Lease the cow for a decade, but be single again for that mid-life fling.
Marriage is not centered in the bedroom. Nor is it dependent on roses, big diamond rings, or the perfect wedding. Those are all romantic icing on the cake, if you are lucky.
Again, SSM has no shortcomings here. It can be just as faithful and just as passionate as heterosexual love. At least I have seen no evidence it cannot be, so I will take their word for it.
3) Financial. The ability for two people to live less expensively as one. Some of this comes from playing the system--whether its insurance companies or tax codes. MOre of it is having a couple work together for a common cause. Whether its the tradition of one spouce taking care of the home while the other works outside the house, or the combining of their incomes to create a bigger investment partnership, the financial benefits of a couple compared to a single are many.
Here is where many practical people suggest legal non-marriages to recognize homosexual couples. They would give them most of the same legal/financial advantages as marriage.
Unfortunately even that suggestion is fought by some in the anti-SSM camp.
4) Family. Giving birth and raising children is seen as one of the great reasons for marriage.
However, in the vows I took when I got married they were not mentioned. (I admit the first question asked at the wedding reception was, "Well, when are you having kids.") This fertile component of marriage seems to have vanished in the past 100 years.
Homosexuals can not have children. Neither can many heterosexual couples. They can raise them. There is some debate on whether homosexuals can raise children without undue trauma. Such debate also existed around racially mixed marriages, and around class mixed marriages. Such debates did not stop those marriages though.
If you put a fertility test on marriages (suggested by Heinlien in at least one of his books) then would all men be free of their wives once their wives reach menopause?
5) Society. This is the prime area of concern for the government, or should be. Unfortunately I have to tease you with this one, as I must run to a meeting. More this evening.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because changing one's name is the best/only way to show that one's life has changed? Right...
Of course not, which is why I listed it amongst other things. I honestly don't know her too well, so I don't have a lot of examples to give that show that her life is unchanged by what most people would feel is a rather significant event. I didn't mean to make any implications about the magnitude of changing one's name.
pH, I'm not sure about his reactions, although, I would like to know exactly how he proposed. And I don't think there has been any contact yet, but it's only been a week.
firebird, Yes, I think a different name would help to distinguish long term relationships and help to increase the sanctity of marriage. And I do think it's good for both people to have a complete understanding of what the other person is expecting in terms of long-term or short-term commitment.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Q. Do you think peopel woudl enter into short term marriages?
A. I never would, it doesn't appeal to me. But, I think some people I know would not find it distasteful and would like the idea that they weren't being trapped ... so it might appeal to others.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Q. Do you think peopel woudl enter into short term marriages?
A. I never would, it doesn't appeal to me. But, I think some people I know would not find it distasteful and would like the idea that they weren't being trapped ... so it might appeal to others.
My sister would love it-- kind of a "try before you buy" step in between living with her boyfriend, which is what she's doing now, and getting married permanently, which she is deathly afraid of.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: My sister would love it-- kind of a "try before you buy" step in between living with her boyfriend, which is what she's doing now, and getting married permanently, which she is deathly afraid of.
What would be the difference between being called "married for two years" and agreeing to live with your boyfriend for two years? The idea of a temporary marraige sounds silly to me. If you're not ready to make a life time commitment then don't. That doesn't stop you from making lesser, but still large, commitments like living together.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
