What about people who really are unhappy? What about people who are downright miserable? I've never really known anyone who just "works" the system like you suggest.
Have you ever been married?
No under the current system one spouse can decide they are "unhappy" and walk away with half the assets, the children, and alimony/CS.
Under what strange contract law can one side unilaterally break the contract and be rewarded?
I wonder how many people would decide the were perhaps less "unhappy" if they walked away with nothing or very little?
The easier thing is, just don't let them marry. Problem solved, problem staying solved. AFT.
What about people who really are unhappy? What about people who are downright miserable? I've never really known anyone who just "works" the system like you suggest.
Have you ever been married?
OP, aside from this being a ridiculous idea that RESTRICTS people's freedom,
how do you account for the fact it's not always possible to prove physical abuse? And what about emotional abuse? I have a friend whose first husband brutalized and raped her but he never left any scars. In your world, she would have no right to divorce.
And what about a woman who murders the children and goes to prison for 5 consecutive life terms...the man cannot divorce her?
Prior to the no-fault divorce revolution, a divorce could be obtained only through a showing of fault of one of the parties in a marriage. This was something more than not loving one another; it meant that one spouse had to plead that the other had committed adultery, abandonment, felony, or other similarly culpable acts
What about people who really are unhappy? What about people who are downright miserable? I've never really known anyone who just "works" the system like you suggest.
Yea...another night without sleep. House is clean so I figured I'd solve the world's problems.
The main, if not only, objection to gay marriage is from Christian Conservatives like myself. We don't have a real, actual objection to it other than our deep rooted morals. So it seems pretty simple that if we can solve a major issue by relenting on a minor issue, us Christians would be more than happy to give in on gay marriage.
The major issue would be divorce. I don't think anyone out there would disagree that divorce is a huge problem. Why not allow gay marriage but put stricter divorce laws in place? Divorce would only be legal if one person was shown to have committed adultery or physical abuse. The offending partner would be liable for 100% spousal and child support. No exceptions. This would add consequences where right now there are none. It may not stop someone from cheating or beating but it may stop people from marrying the wrong person.
Please critique my attempt at saving the world.
You want to make it harder for people who, for whatever reason, no longer what to remain married to have the chance to better improve their happiness?
This idea is just incredibly stupid. Whether a couple is divorced or not, both are responsible for the welfare of any offspring of the marriage. Whether a couple is divorced or not, if there's only one wage earner, that person is responsible financially for both the offspring AND the spouse/ex-spouse.
So in your world how is marriage any different than having a live in bf/gf?
And I suggested an alternative "out clause" that levied penalties on the person who was "miserable" and wanted out. This is how any sane contract works.
And marriage is nothing more than a contract right?
Civil contract that allows for the splitting of assets that were mutually gained during the relationship, legal privileges that you would otherwise not have (such as being able to make medical decisions for your partner when they are unable to do so), family name, benefits like life insurance, shared responsibility, etc...
Are you arguing that in your world marriage is supposed to be something that forces people to live unhappy lives, often due to no fault of their own (examples already given in the thread, partner picks up a meth or gambling habit AFTER they are married)?
Why is adultery worse than financial ruin or even risk to the life of the kids or freedom of the partner?
And what other contract allows one party to unilaterally end the contract and continue receiving benefits from the other?
And you can get life insurance benefits without being married.
And some married couples no longer take the same name (although personally I believe this should be a requirement).
(1) How many 30 year olds just start using meth or crack?
(2) Felonies were considered grounds for an at-fault divorce.
Adultery is a violation of the marriage contract. Violation of a contract is always grounds for its termination. With penalties levied on the violating party (which as far as I know is not the case now)
Marriage is about the opposite of freedom. So I do not know why you are bring that up. If you don't want to drink milk then don't buy the cow
And risk to life or kids? Again abuse was explicitly given as a reason to allow divorce.
Basically, let Christians dictate our laws so that the World can be saved.
NO.
Since when did requiring people to honor their contracts equate to "restricting their freedom"
(1) Baring obvious exceptions, such as when a couple is divorcing, the concept of a husband raping his wife makes as much sense as wife stealing her husbands car.
Basically, let Christians dictate our laws so that the World can be saved.
NO.
So a woman can't say "No!" to her husband? And if he forces himself on her against her will, that isn't rape?
You're insane.