Marriage, rip it up and start again!

[Gob]

Marriage, as we know it, has run it's course.

It was nothing more than a religious codification of relationships, which has become controlling, punitive and unnecessary.

It's strictures create failure, its biases create unfairness, it's status in society is over valued.

Lets rip it up and start again.

Marriage should be a civil contract.

It should not automatically be for life.

It should place equal rights and responsibility on each person.

It should be between two people, gender should not enter into it.

Clauses and sub clauses should be legal overt and agreed from the start.

Any children resulting from a marriage should be given over to the care of the best parent, should the marriage dissolve.

Go for it...

[dales]

We're pretty much there now where I live.

The "contract" is not legally binding for life.

We have divorce courts (took less than 10 minutes).

Custody arrangements were per agreement.

My salary was garnished and I surrendered half my pension. (per state statute).

The point I'm trying to make is that the state is already part of the marriage business.

We had to get a marriage license from the county.

Medical people licensed by the state performed the required blood tests.

We have "no fault divorce" here in CA and have had since 1972.

In my opinion, less than half of marriages "last for life".

[@meric@nwom@n]

My main reason for finally buckling and getting married was to be assured that I would have medical say so if he got sick and vice-versa. I did not want his dipstick kids putting him on life support if it came to that and I felt it was a bad idea.
I have no kids so it would be some dipstick deeply conservative sibling making my choices. Marriage was the best way around all that. Besides that I like the guy and really can't see being with anyone else.

[Sue U]

Besides that I like the guy

Well, there's that.

It was nothing more than a religious codification of relationships, which has become controlling, punitive and unnecessary.

It's strictures create failure, its biases create unfairness, it's status in society is over valued.

Huh? What about mariage is controlling and punitive? What about it is inherently or necessarily religious? What strictures create failure? What biases create unfairness? What do you mean by over-valued? (As to this last, there are plenty of people who greatly desire a marriage relationship, but are being denied it because of gender; are you saying they are "over-valuing" marriage?)

Marriage should be a civil contract.

It is.

It should not automatically be for life.

It's not. But do you think there should be an automatic expiration date?

It should place equal rights and responsibility on each person.

Doesn't it already? And of course, you can allocate rights and responsibilities however you want in a contract.

It should be between two people, gender should not enter into it.

Agreed.

Clauses and sub clauses should be legal overt and agreed from the start.

Like what?

Any children resulting from a marriage should be given over to the care of the best parent, should the marriage dissolve.

The standard here is "best interests of the child." Isn't it the same in Oz?

[Guinevere]

I agree that the religious institution of marriage should be left to those who want to subscribe to particular religious beliefs, and civil marriage should be the only legally binding marriage -- but that's about where we are in this country anyway, since you need a marriage license from the state in the first place.

[Scooter]

Except we're not there, really. The U.S. and Canada probably have the worst of both worlds, in a sense. Ministers of religion are licensed to perform marriages recognized by the state. This means that (a) religious marriage ceremonies are recognized as legally contracted, and (b) ministers of religion are legally prohibited from performing marriage ceremonies in accordance with their own faith tenets if that marriage cannot be legally contracted. So we have religious rites getting legal recognition, and we have the state interfering in the performance of religious rites. Both should be a no-no.

[Miles]

Perhaps a marriage license should be like a drivers license, renewable ever 4 to 6 years. After all isn't a license to drive a contract between you and the government issuing department? They aford me the right to drive and I agree to obey the traffic laws.

If I break the rules they can suspend or revoke my license. If I break my marriage vows the penality can be divorce, which will cost plenty. If the license is renewable just let it expire and be done with it.

[Gob]

That's what i was getting at in the OP Miles, I agree with you.

Real marriages of love and mutual respect would have no problems with that.

Those who have made mistakes in getting married would have a clear legal get out, and the whole thing could be done on a contractual basis, tailored to each individual couple.

Sure there's scope for abuses, but what contract doesn't have that?

[alice]

Gob wrote:
Any children resulting from a marriage should be given over to the care of the best parent, should the marriage dissolve.

The standard here is "best interests of the child." Isn't it the same in Oz?

I don't know how you determine "best interests of the child", in your country SueU. In Australia it's been quite a difficult determination and they're still struggling to get it right.
The previous governemt did an overhaul, and there are further overhauls planned for the Family Courts soon.
Essentially, the perception used to be that the system was biased toward the mother in the event of a marriage breakup. Then the previous govt attempted to bring in a sort of 50/50 arrangement for care of the children, deciding that it was in their best interest to have equal time with both parents. That created a whole different set of problems. A more radical overhaul is being discussed, but that'll be quite a while in the wind before any changes are made.

I wish it was as simple as the child going to the 'best parent', Gob[b/], but who gets to make that determination and how do they make it? The trouble is that in many circumstances neither parent will willingly 'give up' their time with the child/ren, and because of that neither parent will concede that the other is a 'better' parent. And many parents, get very emotionally confused, understandably, over the difference between what is truly in the best interests of the child, and what really is in the best interest of them as a parent.
And sitting in as an impartial judge in the Family Court trying to make a ruling on the basis of emotive statements and psychological evaluations (that in themselves create further stress for the children) has not been an ideal solution to date.

Those who have made mistakes in getting married would have a clear legal get out, and the whole thing could be done on a contractual basis, tailored to each individual couple.

Sure there's scope for abuses, but what contract doesn't have that?

Again, there is a system whereby the parties have a settlement after a divorce. This is supposed to be a formal ruling made through the Family Court, and is intended to fairly divide all the assets etc, taking into account the individual circumstances - what each had before marriage, contribution to the marriage, etc. In theory it is the equivalent to what you're saying. Thanks to the bogdown legal system we have, and the presence of very expensive lawyers (somewhat necessary, because of the legalities and emotive nature of the cases, but usually creating their own extra complications and very much involving huge additional expense for both parties) - it doesn't seem to work as well in practice as it is meant to in theory. And the huge scope for abuses mean that there are often people who are financially crippled by the simple act of a marriage ending.

And sometimes people stay in very awful marriages because they aren't emotionally ready for the bunfights, many years long, over the assets and over who gets the kids and when they get them etc., or can't afford the legal fights it would take to leave the marriage.

(I work in an area that gets some of the fallout from this sort of thing. I'm used to hearing a lot of the emotional stories from both sides, and used to wearing, often, some of the frustrations from one or both sides)

[Gob]

I wish it was as simple as the child going to the 'best parent', Gob[b/], but who gets to make that determination and how do they make it?

Hi Alice.

I think not making the automatic assumption that the mother is the best person to raise the kids would be a start.

Today, the Sunday Herald Sun exposes such a case. A mother, found by the Family Court to be violent, untruthful, lacking moral values and responsible for emotional and psychological abuse of her children, has been given custody.

Their father, described by a judge as "intelligent" and "courteous", was falsely accused by his former wife of sexual abuse of his daughters and has not had regular contact with the children since August 2005.

The Family Court ruled that the father was no threat to his daughters, but found that because of the time he spent apart from the children, it was best they not see each other.

The judge added: "It is a sad fact in the family law jurisdiction that a determination which is most consistent with the best interests of the children can appear to reward bad behaviour on the part of one parent and work in apparent injustice for the well-motivated, best-performing parent."

http://www.f4joz.com/news/newspage.php?yr=10&id=104

While the court's decision is understandable, it surely raises questions about the need for safeguards to prevent a parent being wrongly tagged as violent or abusive.

The system needs to be refined under the guiding principle that men and women should have equal opportunities to develop loving relationships with their children. It must protect and nurture all parties in a divorce. It must aim to be both compassionate and fair.

[alice]

Hi Gob.

The homepage for that link you provided states:

Since then [2004], changes have been implemented by the government and private organisations to, on the face of it, give a fairer deal to children and families alike, through more equal and balanced parenting arrangements and settlements. Although in the right direction, greater changes are still needed in the form of preventative education, support and rehabilitation for separated families, from the unnecessary emotional pain and financial loss, most families incur post family separation.

I fully agree with what they're saying here.
And it's very positive and commendable to see a group whose 'cause' is lobbying on behalf of fathers, making statements promoting fairness for everyone in the event of a separation/divorce. Some of the lobby groups get a little bit over-passionate on behalf of the particular group they represent, and don't always balance it with a fair picture of the situation as a whole.

The page you linked states, in relation to that case:

The judge added: "It is a sad fact in the family law jurisdiction that a determination which is most consistent with the best interests of the children can appear to reward bad behaviour on the part of one parent and work in apparent injustice for the well-motivated, best-performing parent."

While the court's decision is understandable, it surely raises questions about the need for safeguards to prevent a parent being wrongly tagged as violent or abusive.

The system needs to be refined under the guiding principle that men and women should have equal opportunities to develop loving relationships with their children. It must protect and nurture all parties in a divorce. It must aim to be both compassionate and fair.

The law will never be perfect. But it can be better.

I'm not familiar with that case, so don't know enough of the detail to comment on it. But Fathers4Justice appears to think that it is an 'understandable' decision. They are a lobby group and I imagine would be very quick to state if they didn't think the decision appeared reasonable given the individual circumstances of the case, and in consideration of the best interests of the children.
I agree with their assertion that there needs to be more safeguards to protect parents - usually fathers but sometimes mothers - from being wrongly tagged as abusive etc. It's far too easy for allegations to be made, and to stick.
Re their next paragraph: again I agree, and again it's commendable that this lobby group is looking at the interests of all 'sides' in their discussions. The equal opportunities for developing relationships with the children was the principle behind Howard's reforms. It was a very good aim and correct in theory, but the particular reforms put into place have not always worked in the best interest of the children in practice. There are plans for more reforms discussed, but nothing started as yet.
The difficulty with the after effects of a divorce is trying to balance the best interests of the children and also of each of the parents. It's a very emotional and difficult balancing act, and I don't know if there ever will be a really satisfactory solution.

[Gob]

I agree Alice, but it's still nice to have a reasoned debate here on it!