Marriage should be replaced by an explicit partnership contract

1. 60

   ib radmastersposted 12 years ago

   The ultimate problem with two people wanting to have a loving long term relationship is MARRIAGE.
   
   Marriage is an implied vague and ambiguous contract that has been used forever. When the couple in the marriage decide to leave the marriage this implied marriage contract is useless. Divorce then becomes the fodder for the divorce lawyers to make a fortune off the tragedy of others.
   
   A Marriage Contract built much like a partnership contract would far better serve not only marriage, but those relationships where the couple wants what marriage offers but where they don't want to be marriage.
   
   The beauty of the partnership contract is that it would explicitly call out all of the conditions and terms of the partnership. So when the parties to this contract want to dissolve it, it becomes a contract issue, and not one at the discretion of the court, or even the lawyers. This contract then would reduce the problems found today in divorce court.
   
   In divorce court, the children are an entity as separate parties to the marriage. The protections for the children have been litigated and re-litigated forever. A state approved boiler plate to protect the children, and provide the custody provisions, child support and any other protections would be in the contract.
   
   The community property or just the property acquired by the couple could also have its distribution determined by the contract.
   
   To make this system work, there would have to be changes made at the Federal and the State Level. The Federal Government would have to replace the Marriage Status with the Partnership Status. The State Governments would have to also change the marriage status, each state could determine the constructs of the partnership contract.
   
   Here is the bottom line, the marriage status today is built on an implied, vague and ambiguous contract that is totally useless if the marriage is dissolved. Also the use of the marriage status for taxes is unfair, and it need to be replaced by the partnership contract. There are already tax structures for partnerships and corporations so that wouldn't be a big problem.
   
   A marriage ceremony could still be made for religious purposes, but not for the litigation of the partnership contract.
   
   Also, this would put homosexuals and heterosexual partnerships on a equal standing. Currently, even same sex marriages, still leave out couples that don't want to be married.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      gregasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What the hell is the difference what you calli? If there are two people in love, that is all that should matter to ANYONE. By all rights, marriage is just a word. Why do people place so much emphasis on that word? My opinion, Greg

      replyreport
      1. 60

         SomewayOuttaHereposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         well greg...i was married for a long time...i liked it...now he is dead unfortunately...i'm glad i was married...that's just me i guess...but it made sense for me...i'm proud that i was married...it wasn't just a word for me, it was much more than that and it still is...my 2 cents
         
         as for marriage ever again - no...it won't make sense anymore...does that make sense...probably not.
         
         i think if folks want to marry - go for it...i don't care what you're gender is, etc. etc.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         ib radmastersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Gregas
         
         You didn't respond to the forum topic, if you want to continue with this mantra do your own forum

         replyreport
      3. 41

         taheruddinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         marriage has meaning to people who know and practice the right concept. But people who think it just like a cap on head that is totally optional or any time can be changed - are not included in civilized being. Animals do not require a faithful relationship but human being should not try for it.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      dragnhazeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Whether marriage stays as marriage or becomes a partnership contract, (which imply the same thing, in my opinion, with the difference that the partnership contract would allow for same sex to enter into the contract) you will still have the lawyers making a killing over those who decide to terminate the contract... You will still have the battles in court... You still have the children torn between, as it is a contract all the same and you can take the other party to court for breaking the contract. 
      
      What you said about the children being an entity separate from the two parties, they already do in family court, it's called appointing a legal GAL, but does the legal GAL really consider the children's best interest? No, because then the Family / Civil Courts would no longer be a multi billion dollar industry.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         ib radmastersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You missed the whole point of my suggestion, and it appears you didn't understand it.
         
         The contract limits what a lawyer and a court can do compared to the open ended system of the implied marriage contract.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            dragnhazeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Actually I understood it quite well, but I believe you missed the point that I was trying to make which is, no matter if there is a contract stating what can and can't be done in the partnership, when the contract is broke it will still end up in a Civil court (as it would be a civil issue) which is the family court which is a multi billion dollar industry.  Why would they want to change a system that is working so well for them?

            replyreport
   3. 0

      Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The sanctity of marriage should be protected always. It is a comitment between man, woman, and God. And whatsoever God has joined togeather let not man cast asunder. But because of the hardness of your hearts he allowed that the people could be divorced, but it was not the intention of marriage from the begining. It is because of selfishness, and unholiness that people revile the sanctity of marriage, and if you wish to invent a god who is ok with man made inventions for happiness go right ahead, but it doesn't make it true.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Excellent response. I wish I had worded my response as well as you did. Thank you.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks dude. Yours was right on target as well. I think it's a little silly to suggest on a religion thread that marriage is bad when the two go hand in hand.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Marriage is between two people who want to share their lives together. If it doesn't work out, well it doesn't work out. Life is short and it goes on. It's what a couple makes of it whether they are straight or gay. Gone are the days where marriage was between a man, a woman and a man made god. Get with the times.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Sorry dude but you can not simply erase God from existence with an edict. The times change as do the policies, but God is, and always will be the constant. All people will have to stand before him and give an accounting for their deeds and misdeeds, and he will hold accountable those who have perverted his ways in society and made the evil things acceptable.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Paul Wingertposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     God can be very eaily erased from existence. God was created by man and can be easily deleted by man.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Actually Man as well as the entire universe was created by our loving father in heaven.

                        replyreport
                  2. 59

                     A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     

                     replyreport
2. 75

   Anti-Valentineposted 12 years ago

   I actually read an opinion piece about this a while back, where someone suggested the same thing: a marital contract. It would last 7 years.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      ib radmastersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I don't understand what would last for seven years.
      The marriage contract would last, but human nature and the people involved in the contract wouldn't change.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Anti-Valentineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Ever heard of the 7 year itch? It was a reference.

         replyreport
3. 0

   Larry Wallposted 12 years ago

   The answer is no.
   A marriage is more than a contract, for many of us it is a commitment to our spouse and to God. It is a commitment to work problems out with God's help. If a couple wants a per-nuptial agreement to protect assets in the event of divorce or the death of one member of the couple, that is fine. A person who has been married and has children has responsibilities to the children and the spouse. If the spouse dies and the person remarries, the per-nuptial agreement is proper to assure that the offspring of the first marriage are provided for should the remaining natural parent die.
   
   My wife and I have been married for 32 years. We were married in a Catholic church with two priests and a Baptist minister taking part. It was a celebration for us and for our families.
   
   Signing a document in a lawyer's office would not be a marriage. It would just be a document that would have some loopholes in it. Marriage is a commitment. A contact is a piece of paper, easily changed and easily disposable.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Baloney. Two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together has nothing to do with gods, any gods, not just yours.
      
      Funny how what you say doesn't really support the very high rate of Catholic and Baptist divorces.
      
      
      
      And, those loopholes are what, exactly?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I believe in God. If that offends you, I am sorry. I would never want to reduce my relationship with my wife to a legal document that is executed by a lawyer.
         Catholics do get divorces. Catholics are people with flaws and often make mistakes or do not try hard enough to sustain a marriage. I would never trade the memories of our wedding for a legal contract--if you do not like governmental intrusion into your life, you certainly do not want your marriage to be reduced to a contract.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            That's nice, but I still don't see what that has to do with marriage.
            
            
            
            I'm sure the vast majority of married people would agree with you.
            
            
            
            So much for their commitments to God, then.
            
            
            
            Again, I still don't see what that has to do with God. People get married because they want to be together, not because of a legal document or commitments to gods.
            
            Have you noticed that nothing you've said supports those facts?

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               The only facts in this discussion is the proposal that the sacrament of marriage be replaced with a legal document. By the way, remember all marriages require a marriage license to be legal. Do we really need any additional intrusion into our lives. The facts are you disagree with me about the concept of replacing the institution of marriage with a civil document. Since you disagree with me you dismiss everything I say and claim I have said support what you call "facts" which are at best your opinions.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  There is only one difference and that is the intrusion of your imaginary God into marriages. If there was any credibility or validity in a "sacrament" of marriage as you assert, there would be no divorces amongst those who would honor it.
                  
                  The institution of marriage is based on the people wanting to spend their lives together and the legality required thereof.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     My God is not imaginary, he is very real.
                     People are not perfect, they make mistakes. They sometimes confuse passion with love. Passion is temporary, love endures. Love is a covenant with God. It is not a document you file with the Clerk of Court.
                     
                     If people make mistakes and the marriage ends, they do not burn in hell. They are forgiven by the loving God that created them and gave them free will to chart their own course through life, making course directions as needed.
                     
                     Apparently you do not believe in God. That is regrettable. Thus you will never understand believers in god.
                     
                     I am never going to agree with you--that is apparent.
                     
                     You are never going to change my views, so you might as well give up and move on.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        If your God was real, we would all know about it. So, don't try to pull the wool over our eyes with your irrational beliefs.
                        
                        
                        
                        Pure baloney. Those who say such things cannot be trusted and know very little about love.
                        
                        
                        
                        “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate”
                        
                        “‘I hate divorce’, says the Lord God of Israel, "and I hate a man's covering himself with violence as well as with his garment," says the Lord Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith.”
                        
                        "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord."
                        
                        
                        
                        Oh yes, I understand believers. Most have been indoctrinated into their religions because of their parents and peers and where they were born. Had you yourself, for example, been born in the ME, you'd be a Muslim.

                        replyreport
                     2. 52

                        Hollydeiposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                        I just searched marriage vs. partnership agreement due to a foiled 21 year marriage as a devout born again Christian woman who tried everything to make her marriage with a gambling irresponsible purportedly Christian adulterous man work.  He needed the proverbial brick on the head divorce to get that his ways were flawed.  Here's what I think about what god says in the bible about marriage.  If one were  to amplify "because of the hardening of ones heart god grants divorce" sometimes one spouses head and heart are so thick skilled that a divorce is necessary.  Put that into practical terms you have god saying that divorce is an option to end a marriage.  But with no paragraph as to how it's supposed to terminate, one needs to negotiate child custody, property splits and more and may the most expensive lawyer win.  This is flawed.  Any good contract will have termination language in it at the onset, not after years have been invested into a bum marriage.  Yes a prenup would cover this, however it has the reputation of  being un-romantic.  A partnership agreement  with a ceremony for religious purposes would be far better in my view.

                        replyreport
      2. 0

         Larry Wallposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I respect your right to disagree with me. Your attitude is anything but Civil. You may not believe in God, the one true God, creator of the universe and that is your right. People do put their faith in God. They do not get married because of God but they let God be a part of their marriage. I have been married for 32 years. I knew the moment I met her,I was going to marry her. We have not needed a civil contract. As I said in response to someone sometimes a pre-nup is advisable and necessary--not because the marriage might not last, but to protect the rights of any children that either party had from a prior marriage. Good marriages are built on trust. What would you put in the contract, who would do the laundry, how many children would you have--I see no point or purpose to this proposed agreement.
         
         Catholics are human. They make mistakes. Sometimes they get divorce. Faithful Catholics will go through the annulment process provided by the Church if they wish to remarry. If the do not remarry, nothing has changed regarding their relationship with the church.
         
         It appears you do not believe in God, do not like the Catholic church and have no respect for the opinions of others. If I am wrong, I apologize now. If I am right, I will add you to my prayer list.

         replyreport
         1. 59

            A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Odd that something that has never been shown to exist is part of a marriage. You're probably just referring to the Bible being part of their marriage.
            
            
            
            So, does that mean you're not legally married?
            
            
            
            The legality of marriage has nothing to do with laundry and more to do with the offspring in that who will be the rightful heirs to the parents estate.
            
            
            
            Except, they have sinned in the eyes of their God and will burn for an eternity.
            
            
            
            Please don't add me to your prayer list and please don't assume a lack of respect for opinions. Yours are not opinions, they are irrational beliefs in an imaginary god. Huge difference.

            replyreport
            1. 65

               aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I see this working beautifully in gay marriage.
               
               You know, with all their offspring, and all.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  First of all, that was what marriage contracts were initially about and secondly, gay people can adopt.
                  
                  Anything else?

                  replyreport
                  1. 65

                     aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     For a guy who's a stickler for detail and meanings of words, you fell over on this one.
                     
                     Adopted children will never be their offspring.
                     
                     Very evolutionary, too!

                     replyreport
                     1. 79

                        Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Do you feel that about all adopted children? While not technically offspring, they are the children of that family and will always be noted as such.

                        replyreport
                        1. 65

                           aka-djposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           Who invited you?
                           
                           
                           
                           Just kidding!
                           
                           I love kids, adopted or otherwise. I merely "defined" the word to one who loves to split hairs on such matters!

                           replyreport
4. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   I think, whatever forms you signed; agreements would become obscured as the relationship imploded. You can't possibly prepare for every contingency and starry eyed lovers have nothing in common with the hurt and jaded people exiting what devolved into a bad marriage.
   
   How many of us would expect the apple of our eyes to cheat on us? The mate who worships the ground the other walks on to abuse them physically, or emotionally? Your best friend to grow to be a distant stranger? Since you can't fathom it, you'd never include such contingencies in the contract. If you can fathom it....are you truly in love?
   
   No. Starry eyed and naive love is the heart of romance. Most of us would never look at the union of two lives as a business arrangement.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      gregasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      People can get married and fill out a seperate contract. They're called prenups. I'm sure a couple could say whatever they want in the contract and they would still end up in a court argument. Greg

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I agree. Most divorces that turn ugly are due to emotions overriding reason. It doesn't matter what was signed, people are going to argue anyway. And the lawyers will find a way to take advantage of that.

         replyreport
      2. 60

         ib radmastersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Gregas
         
         My point goes further than prenups, I am suggesting that marriage be separated from the status of a couple.
         
         A couple of any kind can be given rights over each other as marriage does with its implied contract. But this would be an explicit contract and it wouldn't be limited as is marriage.
         
         So the marriage status on your 1040 tax form would be replaced by your contracted relationship which would be similar to that of a partnership.
         
         This would remove the attack on traditional marriage by the same sex advocates.
         
         Marriage shouldn't in my opinion be a class for tax purposes.
         Thanks

         replyreport
5. 65

   aka-djposted 12 years ago

   Most marriages already have (had) contract like wording, which the partners exchanged as life long commitments.
   
   Our issue today has been one of breaking those words (vows) for whatever reason. Some justified, some not.
   
   Welcome to the real world!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      ib radmastersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This is an implied contract with vague, and ambiguous terms. An explicit contract has specific terms and conditions that if breached are matters of the law, and not equity as is the implied marriage contract.

      replyreport
6. 0

   Larry Wallposted 12 years ago

   Everyone who will open their minds and heart will know that God is real.
   
   Love is covenant with God. In fact in my home state, when you apply for a marriage license, you have the option of vying for a covenant marriage that places more restrictions on separations and divorces so that the couple can take steps to save the marriage through proper counseling. I do not know how you measure what someone knows about love. If it is an arbitrary guess, I would say you have a lot to learn.
   
   What God has joined, let no man separate--not the exact working, but the meaning is there. In the Catholic church, civil divorces are recognized. However, a Catholic is not allowed to remarry in the Catholic Church until the annulment process is completed, which seeks to determined if the couple had made a real commitment to the marriage vows. You will call it a loophole. But it is a church practice.
   
   Finally, you said I was indoctrinated. I was born into a Baptist family and raised as a Baptist, as you would expect. I converted to Catholicism about 20 years ago on my own free will. God allows people to make choices. It is up to people to make the right choices.
   
   I do not believe that Catholics have exclusive rights to Heaven. I expect to see people of all faiths that believe in the teachings of God to be present. I am sure there are Muslims (those that have not corrupted their faith as a justification for evil) will also be there.
   
   Are there inconsistencies in the Bible? Yes there are. Is the central message evident throughout the Bible,? Yes it is.
   
   We are finished. I will not respond to any future posts on this subject. Therefore you can get the last word in if you must. I think I have answered all your points, but you refuse to accept my answers. You mind is closed to learning anything new.
   
   I hope someday, your attitude will change. You are obviously intelligent and something in your life has turned you against God. I hope you examine that event and eventually change your opinion.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No Larry, an open mind immediately questions the existence of your God from the get go. A closed mind would only accept your God as real.
      
      
      
      No Larry, love is something shared between people and has nothing to do with invisible super beings.
      
      
      
      That's rich, Larry.
      
      
      
      Actually, I would call that hypocrisy.
      
      
      
      Yes, you were indoctrinated into believing in a god regardless of whether you decide to change gods mid stride in your life.
      
      
      
      No Larry, there is nothing new in anything you've said, it is all based on ancient medieval myths and superstitions, which the open mind understands and the closed mind simple accepts without question.
      
      
      
      You make your conclusion based on a false premise, that I am against your God when in fact it has nothing to do with being against invisible gods and everything to do with your belief system and the claims you make about your God.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      ib radmastersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Larry
      
      This wasn't intended as a God issue, it is merely a replacement for the implied marriage contract. Replace marriage as a legal status with an explicit partnership contract. Then marriage would be solely a part of a religious ceremony.
      
      The implied contract of marriage today is used as a tax class, and that is doing double duty for no reason. A partnership with explicit terms and conditions is better for legal status. The government has no business messing with religion.

      replyreport
7. 61

   luckykarmaposted 12 years ago

   Explicit marriage contracts? How on earth can anyone make an "explicit" contract that will hold with any couple in any State or country? It just can't be done.  As for having the laws changed, we here in Australia have what is called "Civil Partnerships", whereby couples who wish to be legally recognised as being a couple without the marriage, regardless of sex can have a ceremony performed in our Registry offices.
   
   I myself am a marriage celebrant (I marry people) and for those who choose to tie the knot, it gives them that comfort of knowing that they have made a commitment before friends and family that they wish to live together in a civil manner without having that "living in sin" tag on them, or knowing that they now entwine their lives to each other and the children of that union will have a legal mother and father. 
   
   Marriage is a sanctury for some people, for others it is not, but why place heavy laws that can not and will not be abided to? Does anyone believe that when they take the marriage vows that they will stick with them in the years that follow? no, they don't, hence all the divorces.
   
   Those that do not believe in any God wish to have a civilized ceremony anyway, so hence celebrants were introduced. People believe what they want to believe, not what they are told. In my opinion, God didn't make religions, PEOPLE did, and for that reason I don't associate with them, I believe there is a higher power, and until the day comes where He stands before us I really can't say I know for sure that what is written in the Bible or other text books is true? If it is, how come there are no pictures or statues of our true God,we aret taught that Jesus is all three, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it's all made up as the years go along as to what "they" thought "He" Jesus looked like and where he died etc. No one can push down other people's throats what they themselves believe. People will always argue against what other say unless they are likeminded on the subject!

   replyreport
   1. 60

      ib radmastersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It doesn't sound like you are arguing against my premise.
      That premise is for an explicit contract to replace the legal status of marriage with a partnership.
      
      Marriage would then be a purely religious ceremony, but it would require the partnership agreement for any civil based action.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         luckykarmaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Not all couples believe in religion so that wouldn't work!

         replyreport