Do you think MARRIAGE should require a written test to get licensed?

1. 72

   Brinafr3shposted 8 years ago

   Do you think MARRIAGE should require a written test to get licensed?
   
   And a yearly certification to remain updated. . . .
   
   

   replyreport
2. 69

   lisavollrathposted 8 years ago

   No, but I definitely think parenthood should require a written test, and some sort of certification.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Brinafr3shposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, parenting and pre-marriage training should definitely be a college class, or taught in high school.

      replyreport
3. 51

   bradmasterOCcalposted 8 years ago

   
   
   I think that the historical idea there is a marriage contract should be changed. There are no real legal causes and condition in the "marriage contract". The proof of that is found during dissolution proceedings in family court.
   
   Originally, the idea of family court was a court of equity, as opposed to a court of law. The reasoning being that the law can be harsh, and it may not cover a legal remedy for an inequitable problem. So in the court of Equity they had the discretion to make better decisions for divorce.
   
   In theory, this seems to make sense but in practice it didn't work. Over the course of time the Equity Court merged into the Court of Law. There are still some legal remedies like Specific Performance on contracts.
   
   The family law courts especially before 1970 where divorce had to have a bad person, like an adulterer, were taking the side of the women. I guess it was left over from the code of chivalry.
   
   Men before 1970 had an uphill battle.
   
   1970 the marriage contract takes another hit. Now, like At Will Employment Contracts, dissolving a marriage just takes the will of one party. Dissolution can be made based on one party wanting a divorce. No guilty party, just get out of the divorce.
   
   Here is what the lack of any concrete clauses and conditions in the "marriage contract" is the problem. The Family Court not having these details uses the presumptions of the state as to how to handle the couple, their children and their property.
   
   Before 1970, it was winner take all, and most of the time the winner was the woman. After 1970, it was more equitable but still at the mercy of the judge.
   
   Not all states had community property laws, some had dower rights. The latter gave the woman 1/3 instead of 1/2.
   
   So much for the background.
   If couples that want to get married actually get a legal contract similar to a business partnership, then the court can only judge the terms of the contract. Which should have all the conditions and clause to take care of most situations. Including what happens when they dissolve the marriage. Of course there will be legal limitations concerning the children, but it has to be better than the presumptions of the state.
   
   Going one step further, if the IRS would treat marriage like a partnership for tax purposes it could include any legal combination of people regardless of gender. It would also remove the need to treat marriage any different than current limited partnerships.
   If that dn answer ur ? pleas delete my comment.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Brinafr3shposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Dashingscorpio, true, women will put up with less in a marriage and rather file for divorce instead. One major reason is because husbands need necessary COMMUNICATION skills in his marriage.
      
      True some woman leave when they're financially stable

      replyreport
4. 72

   dashingscorpioposted 8 years ago

   
   
   Since everyone has their own "must haves" list of traits (they) want in a mate it would be impossible to come up with a test everyone would agree upon to satisfy requirements. Essentially there is no such thing as a (universal) "deal breaker".
   Whatever you or I might deem to be "deal breaker" there is someone else who is living under those conditions who has no plans to ever walk away. One person's trash is another's treasure.
   I'm a huge proponent of finding someone who shares your same values, wants the same things for the relationship you do, naturally agrees with you on how to obtain those things, and last but not least have a mutual depth of love and desire for one another.
   Compatibility trumps compromise in my opinion.
   Like attracts like and opposites attract divorce attorneys!
   However I have come across people who have stated that they would be bored to death! They want a mate who will "challenge them" or "force them to grow". Peace & serenity be damned!
   I recently saw a dating show where one woman confessed she is drawn to "thugs" and "bad boys". She later went onto say that there are no "good men" without acknowledging the fact that she doesn't feel attracted to good or nice men!
   Who people date/marry is less important than who they choose to have children with. Unfortunately children don't get to choose their parents! There would be a lot of childless couples!
   Odds are if there was a marriage exam certification process people would figure out a way to cheat in order to pass the test.
   There would also be a bunch "schools" offering weekend "crash courses" for $199 guaranteeing you pass or retake the course for free. There might be a black market for selling answers.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Brinafr3shposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I think it's worth it, dating the person for a one week can be a part of the class, of course. Other assignments can be compatibility, anger test, etc. I'm just guessing. MARRIAGES need to last longer than they currently are these days.

      replyreport
   2. 72

      dashingscorpioposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      In the U.S. it's reported that (women) initiate 66% or 2/3rds of all divorce filings! The belief is better career opportunities & higher pay for women has something to do with it.
      The more options one has the less crap they will put up with!

      replyreport