The Meaning of Marriage

Remove all ads!

I know for a fact that I won't get my kids if my wife tries for a divorce. Screw the money, I get screwed no matter how my economic quality of life goes up.

 

It's funny you mention "Eddie Murphy: Delirious". I was just thinking about that this morning in the shower. I have heard some people talking jokingly (but not so jokingly that they cover up their actual serious interest) about the whole mailorder-bride thing.

And from past experience with Philipino wives and their husbands (with whom I worked), I can understand the pre-nuptial deal. If I was considering a foreign bridge, I wouldn't get married without one. Probably at least a 15 year limitation clause. I would trust to my conscience to settle up if anything untoward became of it before then.

I agree with Rally. It's a risk. If you don't risk, you will never gain anything worth-your-while. You can minimize your risk, but the more you risk, the more you stand to gain.




As far as a relationship goes, anyhow. I've never cared much for slot machines...

 

Funny, I live in PA (apparently not a "community property" state), and I can tell you that is flat-out wrong. Here, it's 50% of total assets that get split, regardless of when they were attained. Hence why pre-nuptials are more important.

 

I'm sure it seems that way to you Rastor, but that isn't the way it works in Pa. Pa. isn't one of the 9 community property states (and it isn't Mississippi which is just, well, Mississippi) so it's an equitable distribution state. Here is a Pa. specific site:

Now, maybe the cases you have personal familiarity with resulted in a determination that the 'fair' thing to do would approximate a 50/50 split but the law doesn't ask for a 50/50 split. Indeed, apparently it says you can't presume this would be fair.

If you keep reading the link you'll see Pa also makes the distinction between maital and separate property and that separate property isn't considered in the split:

http://www.divorcesource.com/PA/ARTICLES/pollock1.html

http://www.divorcesource.com/PA/info/resources.shtml

 

It's funny (in a sick way) that this thread was about marriage and instead the main discussion is about divorce, pre-nups, wills and the law. Or something like: The meaning of marriage and the law in PA -- right. Tina Turner asked the qustion: "What's Love got to do with it?" Well, maybe nothing, then again maybe everything. The answer may say more about who is responding than about the meaning of marriage. Who says were not a nation of lawyers?

Let me frame the question again in a different way: Is the meaning of marriage just a piece of paper stuffed in some clerk's file cabinet, with a few names scribbled on it? Or is it a commitment that two people make between each other that is personal and private rather than public, which transcends the power of the State? Who would you trust more to describe the meaning of marriage: A lawyer, or a poet? And Chaucer's Wife of Bath doesn't count, even though she had been married at least five times, which probably makes her more qualified on the subject than any of us posting on this board -- even the lawyers (no offence intended, Sir Bel).

[ October 02, 2003, 07:10: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I think the piece of paper is actually worthless.
Maybe I'm just cynical from too much exposure to the fallout, through my involvement with Dads In Distress I've come to realise that the ceremony itself is a waste of money most of the time as too many people don't take the institution itself seriously anymore. So I guess that in my opinion defacto relationships are better 'value' because there's no cost for a ceremony when you 'marry' or 'divorce' therefore freeing up your finances to better pay for overpriced lawyers if a split occurs and it's hostile or, idealistically maybe, the money not spent on the wedding can be better put to use for day-to-day living costs.

I think I just got off-track once again so I'll shut up for now

 

Yes. Plus some you left out: accountant, philosopher, social services clerk, priest...

I think the reason the legal aspects of marriage and divorce are talked up is that they're verifiable. Also, the practicalities inspire a fear which make people approach the subject in a more practical manner than they used to.

 

It's just the piece of paper with names on it.

And don't start whining at me, as my opinion will not change.

 

This subject is a toughie for me right now, obviously. For some people, marriage is a melding of two minds, two souls, two lives in a beautiful union of love. That's how mine started out. I thought that love would last us forever. But I didn't take care of the relationship, and it withered and died. But take note -- for all the talk of increasing divorce rates, there are still many marriages that do work out, and the people in them are happy, content, and feel their lives are fuller because of the institution.

Given another chance, I will not let a day go by without SHOWING my wife how much I love her. I know lots of people who have very happy and fulfilling marriages. All it takes is hard work -- I've learned that the hard way.

 

I suppose there are some who may actually "fear" the pracitcalities of marriage. Although, I can't see why anyone would. The emotional factors of marriage represent a much greater investment than any of the legal bunk that comes with marriage. But I suppose there might be a few who actually take that stuff seriously (lawyers and wanna-be-lawyers).

Of course, the poet sees a few things that are "verifiable" about marriage. Let's look at the "Good Wife." She may speak of "the woe of marriage," but then she goes on to speak of how lucky Solomon was to have so many wives. "I would to God I could be refreshed half so often as he!" The word refreshed is an interesting choice for just saying "sex." That there is a strong link between sex and marriage really gives the Wife her interesting position (pardon the pun) on sex and marriage. For her, it may be about who's getting some and who isn't. That for her is "verifiable."

Of course, marriage is more than sex, but it is a big taboo to suggest that it is a part of the "ritual of marriage." Certainly, people have sex outside of marriage, and that has changed the nature of the institution more than anything else, IMO. Yet marriage is about many things and not just sex. Still, the Wife provides us the opportunity to talk of one of the great social taboos about marriage: People may "say" it is not about sex, but its still there. Always has, been always will be. Hopefully, we can enlarge the dialogue beyond what is "verifiable" in the practical sense now.