Not free, but it costs less than one flower arrangement on one table at the wedding reception. So close.
Weddings can be cheap. Very cheap. When I went to the county office to get a copy of my daughter’s wedding license, a couple got married right next to me, with one witness and conducted by the county clerk behind her cage.
And they weren’t even allowed to tip her.
This is even more interesting considering that divorce is economically disadvantageous to women.
From here.
When I got married, 39 years ago, there was no “death do us part” clause in there - and I suspect it isn’t in there now. We had a non-religious marriage, though.
I don’t know about you, but after my kids were about 2 they seldom woke me up. I got up for a long time to my alarm. Working interrupted my sleep far more than kids did. Now it is our dog. And my bladder.
I don’t know about your kids, but I never regretted for a day having my kids. I got to do lots of things thanks to them I never would have done on my own. They are both grown, happily married, and more than self-sufficient.
And I can’t wait to get up at 5:30 am again with my 19 month old grandson, to see his smiling face and open arms. There are some things a lot more rewarding then sleep.
Divorce does not automatically equally “rapey pot dealers”.
Everything in the first paragraphs is at least as likely to exist in a hostile marriage as in a civil divorce. Is money going to be tighter? Probably. Is that worse than a tense and hostile home? Not even close.
And I find the next sentence pretty dismissive & condescending, “crockery-throwing” and “adventure” - people should not stay in relationships in which they are miserable, and they certainly should not expose their children to such toxic environments.
I don’t understand this implication that divorce is akin to some pouty little whim.
Then I would guess you have some idea of a justified, civil divorce, and you believe this defines the norm for all divorces. I’m here to tell you that many divorces are as impulsive and poorly done as many marriages out there. And being that minors aren’t party to the proceedings, many divorces do represent nothing but the selfish whims and hard-headedness of the adults involved.
We really need to rethink Marriage, how we handle it and what forms it can come in. Problem is the religious types won’t hear of it and we fight for ever inch.
We’re going to need to treat them more like actual contracts, not vague binding agreements that the law tries to standardize but only to the extent that they’re presumed to contain completely different clauses and agreements in different jurisdictions. At some point nations will need to agree to honor written contracts which handle property, income, children, various personal terms - as written. Protection for individuals would be by outlawing certain clauses, such as ones requiring any form of personal slavery as part of the contract. Churches can then create their own standard contract that you can accept without paying a lawyer for. Hell (yup), they could even profit by charging a contract fee and/or requiring it to get married in the church. You want Rev. Brown to perform the ceremony in your church building, you agree to the Standard Southern Baptist Marriage Contract (Revision 3.41).
What problem are you solving?
nearwildheaven writes:
> . . . The American divorce rate actually peaked in the late 1940s . . .
Every source I’ve checked says that it peaked in 1981:
All the crap that goes along with divorce and establishing basic understandings between the parties of what marriage actually is. Rather than getting into court later, playing he said-she said, or jurisdiction shopping.
Seeing as how lesbians divorce at about twice the rate of gays maybe the problem isn’t just men not pulling their weight.
My understanding is that lesbian marriages have the highest divorce rates, followed by heterosexual pairings, followed by gay men marriages.
I think it is just due to social and biological factors, women demand more from a romantic pairing than men do. I think men are just lower maintenance in romantic pairings than women are, on average.
I saw a chart once that said even in non-marriage relationships, the women were more likely to be unhappy and more likely to consider leaving the relationship.
Point being, in lesbian couples both partners are responsible for housework. Same is in gay marriages. But the male gay marriages have much lower divorce rates than lesbian marriages.
So the idea that heterosexual divorce occurs because the woman is expected to do all the work doesn’t really add up. Lesbian marriages have twice the divorce rates of gay male marriages, and those relationships involve housework too.
Do you have any studies or statistics to back that up?
Divorce is not simple or easy, it turns one’s life upside down, and it exposes one to the ridicule and disapproval of the judgmental, so I will not accept unsupported statements that people do it on a whim.
I suspect that those who believe a divorce was sought on a whim are ignorant of - or just ignoring - many good reasons for the decision.
And you are not here to tell me anything.
You don’t think all of the things you mentioned will lead to all of these things? Do you think contracts don’t have all of these things?
The reason marriage laws exist is they are the culmination of thousands of years of societal attempts to codify what exists. If you struck them down, they would come back because they are what the society wants. People do not want to have to write up every last detail of what they will get if they marry. They don’t want to hire two lawyers to hash out every detail before the wedding. They want to pick up the package that has already been established, and they want people around them to know what that package means.
If you take that away, many more people would be unprotected because they do not have the right legal language in their contracts. They won’t not get married. They’d just get married and lack even the basic protections of the law. Then we’d get a situation like intestacy, where there is a legal default for what happens when there is no will. And then most people would decide that’s fine. Et voila.
The charts in the WaPo article I quoted in post #50 definitely shows a peak in the late 1940s (followed by a rapid drop-off), but that peak wasn’t as high as the peak in the early 1980s.
Let’s just talk about heterosexual marriages. Gay and lesbian marriages have their own sets of problems. Extrapolating to and from them doesn’t make for good analysis.
Well, I got married 6 1/2 months after I met my wife. We are still together 53 years later and pretty happy about it too. Our kids were not put off by marriage and have been married 25 years, 21 years, and 13 years and seem pretty happy with their choices too. So I guess it depends. Only my daughter (the one married 13 years) seemed reluctant to get married. But when she found the right guy she did, although they lived together for a couple years first.
Ours are about 1 and 3. Apparently there is a high correlation between divorce and having kids under 4.
Maybe you are some kind of super dad. But I would be lying if I said that my kids never cause me stress or cause stress in our marriage. But as you say, there is a lot of really cool stuff I get to do with them.
Do we know that for a fact? Seems like a pretty broad assumption.
Actually, the peak would have been higher had it been adjusted for population. The per capita rate in the late 1940s was about 16 divorces per 1,000 population, and in 1981 it was about 11 divorces per 1,000 population.
I believe that some of the decline in the divorce rate is tied to the fact that if a couple has a child, they DO NOT have to get married nowadays. Oh, they didn’t have to back then either, but as we all know, nowadays it’s VERY common for couples to have a child and get married later, if at all. One reason is because she would lose her health insurance if she married during the pregnancy, which is another discussion altogether. Pregnancy in itself is THE.WORST.REASON to get married.
The article to which I linked shows both per-capita (the first chart in the article) and absolute numbers (the second chart), and on both charts, the late 1940s peak is still lower than the early 1980s peak.