Taking Marriage Private? I Think Not
Half of all Americans aged 25 to 29 are unmarried, and many of them already have incurred obligations as partners, parents or both. Almost 40 percent of America’s children are born to unmarried parents. Meanwhile, many legally married people are in remarriages where their obligations are spread among several households.
You want legal protection, get married, otherwise live with the fact that you decided to have unprotected sex with a person that can not afford to pay your way in life. Those 40% of children born out of wedlock are protected by the states, it is called welfare and child support. Our state calls it Friend Of The Court.
Using the existence of a marriage license to determine when the state should protect interpersonal relationships is increasingly impractical. Society has already recognized this when it comes to children, who can no longer be denied inheritance rights, parental support or legal standing because their parents are not married.
As Nancy Polikoff, an American University law professor, argues, the marriage license no longer draws reasonable dividing lines regarding which adult obligations and rights merit state protection. A woman married to a man for just nine months gets Social Security survivor’s benefits when he dies. But a woman living for 19 years with a man to whom she isn’t married is left without government support, even if her presence helped him hold down a full-time job and pay Social Security taxes. A newly married wife or husband can take leave from work to care for a spouse, or sue for a partner’s wrongful death. But unmarried couples typically cannot, no matter how long they have pooled their resources and how faithfully they have kept their commitments.
Anyone can be denied inheritance rights. In those 19 years, it never occured to them to get married to protect her when he is gone? Tough luck…it’s called a choice. They had a choice to be married and protected for 19 years,or to live together, unprotected, for 19 years.
Possession of a marriage license is no longer the chief determinant of which obligations a couple must keep, either to their children or to each other. But it still determines which obligations a couple can keep ” who gets hospital visitation rights, family leave, health care and survivor’s benefits. This may serve the purpose of some moralists. But it doesn’t serve the public interest of helping individuals meet their care-giving commitments.
Not true. Just because people chose to not marry does not invalidate why laws are written the way they are. From the feminist slant of this article, one would wonder why we don’t have more self reliant woman..I noticed a great deal of reliance on the man..didn’t you?
November 26, 2007 - 08:14 PM on November 26th, 2007
November 26, 2007 - 10:10 PM on November 26th, 2007
While I have to admit that if I found the right woman, I would get married again, I think that people need to reexamine what marriage is and isn’t. While a sexless, loveless marriage is legal unless it’s for convenience (i.e. Green Card) it still confers legal rights that being unmarried people don’t have. It also incurs certain responsibilities that make no sense. If a woman is able to work but has chosen not to do so throughout the marriage, why should the man who has been supporting her for years be required to continue to do so? Why should the man be required to keep her in the manner to which she’s become accustomed while being forced to work a second job to keep any roof over his head? It’s ridiculous. My ex-wife worked little outside of the home, and the same or less in it. Yet I was expected to work 90 hours a week to support her.
I’m starting to think that my recent observation about gays wanting to be married applies to straight people as well. I think they all must be crazy. Think about it. If you have to be committed to a marriage, and marriage is an institution, don’t you have to be crazy to want to be committed to an institution?
November 27, 2007 - 07:43 AM on November 27th, 2007
2- “My ex-wife…”
(Quote from “Hot Shots! Part Deux”, while the torturing of the Colonel):
Iraqui torturer: I can see you’re no stranger to pain.
Col. Denton Walters: I’ve been married.
Iraqui torturer: Ah.
Col. Denton Walters: *Twice*.
Iraqui torturer: Oy!
November 27, 2007 - 12:22 PM on November 27th, 2007
The idea of marriage is to protect family assets and women who might have replaced careers with maintaining a household and raising children. The state is in the ‘business’ in order to enforce these ideas from a legal perspective.
Whether a maried woman deliberately chooses not to work is another matter. But so is the woman whose live-in boyfriend gets her pregnant and then skips town.
November 28, 2007 - 10:08 PM on November 28th, 2007
There is also an argument going around that unless you’re a woman, you don’t have the right to comment on the abortion issue too. My thoughts on it are that if I’m going to have to support the child until he/she reaches 18, I have the right to state my opinion about abortion. Personally, I think ADOPTION is probably the single most under advocated option when it comes to unwanted pregnancy. As one local commentator puts it ” With the waiting lists to adopt in this country, there are NO unwanted children, only unwanting parents.”
While I can see that a parent should support their children, I don’t see why that should be extended to supporting adults who are perfectly capable of getting a job on their own. I have to agree that a Doctor or Attorney who was supported by their spouse through medical or law school has an obligation to help the spouse get on their feet, but that is because they received help first. That is not the case for women who simply refuse to work once the “I dos” have stopped echoing off of the wedding chapel walls.
November 28, 2007 - 10:37 PM on November 28th, 2007
FAO, I see your point on spousal support..If there was an agreement that either the wife or hubby stayed home to raise the kids(as they agreed this was in the best interest of the kids and they both agreed) ,while the other spouse worked, that is where spousal support comes in..to sit at home while the other spouse works 2+ jobs just to keep the bills paid, while the other spouse refuses to work, does not entitle a person to spousal support, imo.
November 30, 2007 - 07:05 AM on November 30th, 2007
My opinion on whether a woman stays home or works depends on how many kids there are, if there is extended family members. In this country there is a huge need for quality day care. If a family has several children, and both parents work, one of adults is working for day care and the government, so it does not really pay off.If however the woman and the man have no children, well she should have some kind of job. Who wants to totally depend on some one else to feed and cloth them. Children do……… Thats another problem when woman choose to stay home, (even if it benefits everyone)men treat them like children. In our society if a woman stays home to take care of the family she can expect to be treated inferior to the rest of the working mother’s, and to her spouse. The stay at home mother get no respect and is looked down upon. If there is no contribution to society (working) a woman is pretty much useless, in the eyes of the majority.
November 30, 2007 - 08:45 AM on November 30th, 2007
7- Carey, I think you are misinterpruting what is being said…FAO is talking about his own private life in which he had a wife that said I do, but after that, there is no evidence that she did anything any longer….He had a rather cantankerous custody battle, and it should be brought up…
I agree with Carey that women are looked down upon as “non-workers” for staying home and raising kids, and that is just plain wrong..My sister has 4 kids under 10, the youngest will be 3 in 2 weeks. 3 of the kids are in school, and sis helps out at their schools, which helps the school system. Parents volunteer to work an hour here and there, and it cuts costs and gives the parent a chance to see how their kids are being taught…that to me is a plus…
FAO, like many other men with children and divorce, is in a situation where the courts automatically assume that the mother is the best choice for the kid and dad’s have no rights..it costs them $1000’s to be told they have limited rights, and by the way, you owe this everyweek…
I side with FAO in his situation. He did not have a child with specil needs, therefore, the ex does need to get out and get a job to help support the kid(s)..yes he should pay child support too,but it should be a fair and equitable deal set up by the court.
Stick around, I think that most of us feel that it is in the best interest of a child to have a parent at home…we split hairs at the area where it should be a productive parent at home..one attempts to keep the housework up and works with the kids..not a parent that sits around all day ignoringthe kids and the house, bt can tell you all about Oprah and Maury…