|FROM ||Ruben Safir
|SUBJECT ||Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Death of Marriage
|From owner-hangout-outgoing-at-mrbrklyn.com Mon Dec 19 06:28:23 2011
Received: by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix)
id 4D5D354407; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:28:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix, from userid 28)
id 3A066100BA4; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:28:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mailbackend.panix.com (mailbackend.panix.com [188.8.131.52])
by www2.mrbrklyn.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E53E254407
for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:28:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [184.108.40.206])
by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6543A284FA
for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:30:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: by panix2.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 20529)
id 4BE3C33C7E; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:30:52 -0500 (EST)
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 06:30:52 -0500
From: Ruben Safir
Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Death of Marriage
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unknown-8bit
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
A New Yorker's Opinion: Pew Says Marriage Declining, Is the Legal
Quagmire Turning Us Off?
Getting Married? Why Bother?
Make Text Size Smaller
Make Text Size Larger
By Tom Dworetzky | December 17, 2011 12:21 PM EST
Nobody wants to die alone. But nobody wants to cough up half their
assets, if a marriage goes south, either. And thanks to the "legal"
aspects of marriage, it has become just about the highest-risk move a
savvy investor can make. It's like betting half your stake on a penny
stock you know nothing about until after you own it. Because no matter
how much you know about someone, marriage really does change everything.
Marriage declining in the U.S.
Marriage declining in the U.S.
Loan-Modification Blunders Bedevil U.S. Housing Recovery
Parliament Adjourned Over Chidambaram's Resignation
"Rudy" inspiration charged with securities fraud
It's not that I am against marriage, the drama-filled ceremony. I am
against the legal aspects of it. And, apparently, it is turning off a
lot of other folks, too, according to a recent Pew study.
I know, do it for the children. But, frankly, the children get
protection--or at least the same protection--whether you are married or
not. Paternity is not a "he-said-she-said" matter anymore. Child support
is already a matter for the courts, if you have children with someone.
And you will get the same--often lousy, sometimes great and caring--help
from your mate, regardless of the marriage contract.
That's a different conversation. I am all in favor of each parent paying
half the real cost of raising children, and providing half the care and
love, period. But we have this little thing called DNA testing now, and
unless you find yourself in front of a judge who is pretty much insane
or scientifically illiterate (I admit, that's a possibility), the matter
is more-or-less cut-and- dried (OK, that was an awkward metaphor).
In this photo, reviewed by a U.S. Department of Defense official, a
Guantanamo detainee's feet are shackled to the floor as he attends a
"Life Skills" class inside the Camp 6 high-security detention facility
at Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval BasNDAA 2012: But Who Will Guard the Guards
If passed, NDAA would allow the military to detain anyone on the
Internet who it believes "threatens" national security, including
activists and independent news sites.NDAA Bill Aims to Suppress Internet
U.S. President Barack Obama has broken numerous campaign promises since
he took officeIndefinite Detention Bill: Obamaâ€™s Trail of Broken
How to make money from gold investment
On top of that, there is all this crazy "defense of marriage-act"
business to contend with. As if the government wasn't already sticking
its nose into our bedrooms far enough! Get outta here, already!
And it's not just me and my own little personal life. The Pew study
shows that marriage is less popular than ever. Not relationships,
though, they are doing just fine. But the legal rigamarole is getting to
be as bad as taxes. And we all know what a nightmare that is. You can't
even figure out how to be honest with those anymore.
Frankly, I think people are "voting with their feet" on this one, and
just plain opting out of the legal and societal craziness associated
with the traditional, and ultra-legally-binding, unmanageably-open
contract called marriage.
This from Pew:
"Barely half of all adults in the United States-a record low-are
currently married, and the median age at first marriage has never been
higher for brides (26.5 years) and grooms (28.7), according to a new Pew
Research Center analysis of U.S. Census data.
"In 1960, 72% of all adults ages 18 and older were married; today just
51% are. If current trends continue, the share of adults who are
currently married will drop to below half within a few years. Other
adult living arrangements-including cohabitation, single-person
households and single parenthood-have all grown more prevalent in recent
Sure those sacred voiws, what the mean at least, about sharing and
honesty are important--in your love life, and in life in general. It's
also way more practical than being a lying, thieving cheat in the long
run. But marriage and laws about marriage and laws protecting the
sanctity of marriage--promoted by people like serial cheater Newt
Gingrich, just to name one of the hypocrites out there--really have
nothing to do with that. Call me crazy as Ron Paul, but I am a strict
libertarian when it comes to a person's personal life. I think we have
plenty of tools to protect the rights of partners and progeny these
days...ones that can have specific, clearly defined obligations and
rewards spelled out it them.
And we also have a new generation of adults, if you look at the Pew
study, who are educated, trained and conditioned to be equals,
regardless of gender. Holding a door may be a nice thing to do. And
ministering to your partner may also be appealing. But we don't need
laws for this. That's between two consenting adults.
And if you want a ceremony, a party, or a honeymoon, go for it. Don't
let me stop you. If you want to pool assets, there are these things
called contracts and these structures call partnerships that a lawyer
can arrange for you a lot cheaper and clearer--and a lot more
dissolvable--than traditional marriage contracts.
In fact, marriage contracts are about the dumbest contracts out there.
What other ones force you to pay thousands of dollars to fight over the
lawn furniture and other trivial assets. Buy a house together, fine, put
both your names on the paperwork and you are done. It's legal; you each
own half (or whatever).
The only reason to actually get married, legally, is the stupid and
arcane restrictions on "partners," when it comes to life-crises (like
visiting your mate in a hospital), and insurance and such. And those
laws and rules are changing, and should be changed. If you are committed
to someone, there is no reason that you should be denied these things.
But again, that is a different sort of limited contract. One that any
decent lawyer should be able to draw up for you.
But fighting over who owns which DVD? You are better off doing that
informally. Cause breaking up can be heart-breaking, but it shouldn't
lead to the poorhouse, and leave no one but your divorce lawyers with
any assets left. It would be much better, instead of fighting for the
rights of people, straight or gay, to marry, to just take the legality
out of marriage altogether and make it a ceremony, (or not), that two
people can decide about for themselves.
To report problems or to leave feedback about this article, e-mail:
To contact the editor, e-mail: editor-at-ibtimes.com
Follow us on LinkedIn Follow IBTimes LinkedIn LinkedIn