New York State legalizes same-sex marriage

[dgs49]

If marriage is a "contract," and one party breaches, how do you measure "damages"?

No amount of money can place an aggrieved spouse in the same position as s/he would have been absent the breach. Marriage - ragardless of ones religious or non-religious beliefs - is PERSONAL COMMITMENT, not a contract. It is IMMORAL and UNETHICAL to break it, even if the other spouse also breaks it or "forgives" the cheating spouse.

The idea that marriage is a contract is sophomoric. An exercise in intellectual masturbation. It is incredible than an educated adult would seriously countenance such a shallow analysis of the institution.

[rubato]

Holy shit ...

I need to have a complete neuro workup.

yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

If marriage is a "contract," and one party breaches, how do you measure "damages"?

No amount of money can place an aggrieved spouse in the same position as s/he would have been absent the breach. Marriage - ragardless of ones religious or non-religious beliefs - is PERSONAL COMMITMENT, not a contract. It is IMMORAL and UNETHICAL to break it, even if the other spouse also breaks it or "forgives" the cheating spouse.

The idea that marriage is a contract is sophomoric. An exercise in intellectual masturbation. It is incredible than an educated adult would seriously countenance such a shallow analysis of the institution.

I agree that marriage is a personal commitment but no more so than any monogamous relationship. What separates marriage from other relationships is the legal side (this being the 'contract' in question). That's why there are laws against bigamy. There are no such laws against being in more than one relationship simultaneously outside of marriage so to state that marriage is only a 'personal commitment' is inane at best.

[Grim Reaper]

If marriage is a "contract," and one party breaches, how do you measure "damages"?

The same way the court does in any situation involving emotional damages.

No amount of money can place an aggrieved spouse in the same position as s/he would have been absent the breach. Marriage - ragardless of ones religious or non-religious beliefs - is PERSONAL COMMITMENT, not a contract. It is IMMORAL and UNETHICAL to break it, even if the other spouse also breaks it or "forgives" the cheating spouse.

No amount of money can replace a life, yet people still sue for damages from the loss of a loved one.

The idea that marriage is a contract is sophomoric. An exercise in intellectual masturbation. It is incredible than an educated adult would seriously countenance such a shallow analysis of the institution.

The government treats it as a contract and uses it as the basis for various rewards and benefits.

[Andrew D]

Marriage is a contract, whether dgs49 wants it to be one or not. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through every jurisdiction in the country, but here is the applicable law of his own State:

"Marriage." A civil contract by which one man and one woman take each other for husband and wife.

(Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Title 23, Section 1102.)

If dgs49 does not want marriage to be a contract, he should take it up with the Pennsylvania Legislature.

What is immoral and unethical is forcing two people to remain in a marriage which neither of them wants to remain in. Which probably explains why no State still does that. We have grown up.

[dgs49]

As I said, marriage has many of the same characteristics as a commercial contract. IN some ways it can be enforced as though it were a commercial contract. Indeed, a pre-nup is an attempt to make a particular marriage even MORE like a commercial contract.

I can't think of many commercial contracts in which a cardinal breach may not even involve the non-breaching party - s/he may be totally unaware of it and oblivious. In fact, the faithful spouse sustains no harm whatsoever, and yet courts would often seek to punish and even impoverish the breaching spouse, over something that does no discernable harm other than in the faithful spouse's head.

A curious "contract" indeed.

[Guinevere]

Not at all "curious." In Massachusetts every contract has an implied covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" and the breach of that covenant is a breach of the contract.

[Andrew D]

If both parties to an agreement decide that it is better that they dissolve the agreement than that they adhere to it, there is no broken promise.

A has obligations to B; B has obligations to A. A is perfectly free to relieve B of B's obligations to A, and B is perfectly free to relieve A of A's obligations to B. If A and B both choose to do so, neither of them has committed any breach of any promise to the other.

Why is that wrong?

To keep the issue straightforward, assume that the two spouses have no children and that neither has ever been unfaithful to the other. They simply decide that it would be better for both of them if they were no longer married.

And that is not simply a self-centered decision on either side. The wife not only recognizes that she would be happier if no longer married to the husband; she also recognizes that the husband would be happier if no longer married to her, and she wants the husband to be happy.

What is the justification for forcing that couple to remain married?

[Lord Jim]

I'm having a hard time understanding this...

"It's a contract!"

"No, it's a commitment!"

argument going on here...

It reminds me of the old Miller Lite, "LESS FILLING!"..."TASTES GREAT!" commercials...

Marriage, (stealing from that classic SNL line) is " both a desert topping and a floor wax"

It is both a spiritual/moral commitment and a secularly binding legal contract...

It's not an "either/or" proposition...both are true...

[Andrew D]

Okay.

But the issue is whether its nature as a spiritual/moral commitment justifies requiring people to remain in the secularly binding legal contract. Does it?

[Sean]

No it doesn't. Neither should it.

Spirituality/religion should never be allowed to influence law or government. To think that it should is a ridiculous outdated notion.

[dgs49]

Maybe we are arguing around each other. All I am saying is that even the law - non-religious as it is - recognizes that the marital relationship is more than an simple contract.

People can treat it as though that's all it is; you get tired of each other and simply decide to move on. The state will facilitate that through "no fault" divorce laws and such.

But marriage is created by a solemn promise that speaks of more than a simple temporary arrangement of mutual convenience. You want to say that the promise evaporates if one or both of the promisors changes their mind, but it doesn't evaporate or become void. There is no "term," as there would be in a services or rental contract. Indeed,the states are free to establish defined-term marriages if they perceive marriage as nothing more than a contract - certainly that would be a logical extension of your concept - but NO state has ever done or even considered doing that. It is a lifetime commitment that brings about serious ramifications if breached.

And as I said above, a breach may be totally private and without any measurable harm to the non-breaching party. The non-breaching party may not even learn of the breach until well after the fact, and yet s/he can still bring a mountain of shit down on the breaching party (in most states).

If two people want to get out of it, that's up to them. But that's two breaches, not zero.

[Andrew D]

Yes, a marriage contract has special features not shared by other contracts. So do insurance contracts. So do real estate contracts. Etc.

It bears noting that not all marriage solemnizations include promises of perpetuity. And I am not aware of any State in which such promises are required.

If two people want to get out of it, that's up to them. But that's two breaches, not zero.

Breaches of what?

A breach is an unexcused failure to perform an obligation. If there is no obligation, then there can be no breach. If each party freely discharges the other from all obligations, then there are no obligations left. And that makes a breach by either party impossible.

[Sue U]

Would be "mutual rescission," not "breach."

Marriage has since ancient times been a contract, and particularly a contract involving payment of a bride-price with further pledges of support; the practice among my people for millennia has been the execution of a Ketubah, which formalizes the agreement and sometimes contains conditions and penalties for dissolution of the marriage.

Here's a standard-form fill-in-the-blank model:



although more decorative versions have always been popular:




The contract is traditionally written in Aramaic, which gives you an idea of just how old an institution it is.

[Sean]

I couldn't understand a word of it Sue. I thought it was written in legalese...

[Sue U]

Rough translation (eh, probably close enough):

On the ______day of the week, the _________day of the month ______ in the year five thousand seven hundred and ______ since the creation of the world, the era according to which we reckon here in the city of _________________ that ________ son of _________ said to this (virgin) _________daughter of _____.
"Be my wife according to the practice of Moses and Israel, and I will cherish, honor, support and maintain you in accordance with the custom of Jewish husbands who cherish, honor, support and maintain their wives faithfully. And I here present you with the marriage gift of (virgins), (two hundred) silver zuzim, which belongs to you, according the the law of Moses and Israel; and I will also give you your food, clothing and necessities, and live with you as husband and wife according to universal custom." And Miss_____, this (virgin) consented and became his wife. The trousseau that she brought to him from her (father's) house in silver, gold, valuables, clothing, furniture and bedclothes, all this ________, the said bridegroom accepted in the sum of (one hundred ) silver pieces, and ______ the bridegroom, consented to increase this amount from his own property with the sum of (one hundred) silver pieces, making in all (two hundred) silver pieces. And thus said __________, the bridegroom: "The responsibility of this marriage contract, of this trousseau, and of this additional sum, I take upon myself and my heirs after me, so that they shall be paid from the best part of my property and possession that I have beneath the whole heaven, that which I now possess or may hereafter acquire. All my property, real and personal, even the shirt from my back, shall be mortgaged to secure the payment of this marriage contract, of the trousseau, and of the addition made to it, during my lifetime and after my death, from the present day and forever." _______, the bridegroom, has taken upon himself the responsibility of this marriage contract, of the trousseau and the additon made to it, according to the restrictive usages of all marriage contracts and the additons to them made for the daughters of Israel, according to the institution of our sages of blessed memory. It is not to be regarded as a mere forfeiture without consideration or as a mere formula of a document. We have followed the legal formality of symbolic delivery (kinyan) between ______the son of _______, the bridegroom and _______ the daughter of _______ this (virgin), and we have used a garment legally fit for the purpose, to strengthen all that is stated above, and everything is valid and confirmed.

Attested to________________________ Witness
Attested to________________________ Witness

[Jarlaxle]

If marriage is a "contract," and one party breaches, how do you measure "damages"?

No amount of money can place an aggrieved spouse in the same position as s/he would have been absent the breach. Marriage - ragardless(sic) of ones religious or non-religious beliefs - is PERSONAL COMMITMENT, not a contract. It is IMMORAL and UNETHICAL to break it, even if the other spouse also breaks it or "forgives" the cheating spouse.

The idea that marriage is a contract is sophomoric. An exercise in intellectual masturbation. It is incredible than an educated adult would seriously countenance such a shallow analysis of the institution.

From anyone EXCEPT Dgs49, I would think this was satire...but I know Dave/Mort is that unhinged. The idea that marriage is NOT a contract--whatever else it might be--is utterly moronic.

[dgs49]

Please provide an example of marriage vows, legal in any State, that include a FIXED TERM or some statement that it is only valid so long as the parties are happy with the arrangement.

Even an anecdote about a marriage anyone has attended in which the couple being married gave any indication whatsoever that the marriage was for OTHER THAN a lifetime commitment.

Elizabeth Fucking Taylor, each time she tied the knot, promised to remain married, "...until death do us part." Did she not?

I realize that in fact most contemporary marriages are in fact exactly the arrangement I describe, but when has this "marriage as simple contract" ever been formalized or legally recognized?

Inquiring minds want to see/hear/read it.

[Grim Reaper]

Quit being childish. Not every contract works the exact same way, that's why we have different contracts for different situations.

[Sue U]

Please provide an example of marriage vows, legal in any State, that include a FIXED TERM or some statement that it is only valid so long as the parties are happy with the arrangement.

Even an anecdote about a marriage anyone has attended in which the couple being married gave any indication whatsoever that the marriage was for OTHER THAN a lifetime commitment.

Elizabeth Fucking Taylor, each time she tied the knot, promised to remain married, "...until death do us part." Did she not?

I realize that in fact most contemporary marriages are in fact exactly the arrangement I describe, but when has this "marriage as simple contract" ever been formalized or legally recognized?

Inquiring minds want to see/hear/read it.

Your "inquiring mind" can then look to exactly the marriage contract language I posted above, valid and legally recognized in every jurisdiction. Where exactly does it say "til death do us part"? In fact, for the last half century the standard marriage contract in common use in the Conservative movement has specifically included a clause concerning divorce under both civil and religious law, expressly permitting a spouse obtaining divorce by a civil court to "invoke any and all remedies available in civil law and equity to enforce compliance" with the rabbinic court's ruling in respect of that divorce (i.e., to ensure execution of the formal bill of divorce for religious purposes).

Furthermore, there is no necessity for any presecribed "marriage vows" at all under civil law, let alone some unbreakable eternal pledge. All it takes is a license and an authorized person to sign off; you don't have to say anything other than indicating "I agree to this marriage." That is the sum and substance of the agreement, which like any agreement is subject to dissolution pursuant to the applicable laws and procedues of the jurisdiction.