|
stuffJust out of curiosity what is wrong with common law marraiges?
The way the law was written in Utah it created a situation where people got all the perks (tax breaks, health benefits, etc.) but did not have to take any responsibility. It was fine when it was just the two people involved, but add children and it becam a big mess. If one spouse left, the other had no ability to collect child support or alimony because they were never legally married. Plus, with no community property laws, they couldn't even lay claim to stuff the other person took when they left. In a few case the man even turned around and sued for custody of the child, claiming that since the woman had no means of supporting the child, she was an unfit mother. Meanwhile he has found someone else to shack up with and is now claiming her as his common law wife, and the circle starts all over again. It happened to my sister, among others. Of course she is back with the guy after he dumped the woman he left the women he left her for and her last "husband" threw her out, but go figure.
|
|
Is there any such thing as common law marriage? I ask because it's commonly thought that there is under UK law, too, but in actual fact there is no such thing and cohabitees have no joint rights whatsoever. As much of US law originated with the UK, I wonder if htis myth has also been transplanted.
Edit: Link to relevant article on UK legal situation.
In the United States it was handled on a state by state basis, but I do believe that most states had or have common law marriage statutes.
Edit: Here is what Wikipedia says about common law marriage in the U.S. Apparently only 11 states allow it, but all states recognize it if it was established in a stated that does have it.
|
The way the law was written in Utah it created a situation where people got all the perks (tax breaks, health benefits, etc.) but did not have to take any responsibility. It was fine when it was just the two people involved, but add children and it becam a big mess. If one spouse left, the other had no ability to collect child support or alimony because they were never legally married. Plus, with no community property laws, they couldn't even lay claim to stuff the other person took when they left. In a few case the man even turned around and sued for custody of the child, claiming that since the woman had no means of supporting the child, she was an unfit mother. Meanwhile he has found someone else to shack up with and is now claiming her as his common law wife, and the circle starts all over again. It happened to my sister, among others. Of course she is back with the guy after he dumped the woman he left the women he left her for and her last "husband" threw her out, but go figure.stuffJust out of curiosity what is wrong with common law marraiges?
Yeah I can see that causing issues. thanks for weighing in. I haven't heard of problems like that in FL though.
Let me repeat that so it can sink in, it's a law being passed that does absolutely nothing.
So there would be no harm in passing it would there be?
FL doesn't recognize gay marraige already, it recognizes civil unions.
So nobody is lossing anything by this ammendment then?
I think you doth protest too much about this, if it doesn't mean anything.
Hell, with 80% (or some astronomically high % like that) of marriages ending in divorce I would think that people wouldn't want to be a part of that.
I daresay the percentage is not nearly so high, unless you take a skewed sample.
Hell, with 80% (or some astronomically high % like that) of marriages ending in divorce I would think that people wouldn't want to be a part of that.I daresay the percentage is not nearly so high, unless you take a skewed sample.
One thing to consider about most types of statistics is they often count some individuals more than once. Say a man gets married and divorced four times. Well that will figure in as four marriages failing (which did) but it involved the same man four times.
BREAKING NEWS!
Oy, da froggy, dats me, is runnin' fo' presidunt. Ima gunna be da best runner, cause ima reallie fast froggie. You see my feets? Dey speedy quick. Ima da best, so vote fo' me fo presidunt!
-my name is Froggie Cultyst, ana I prove dis message-
Dirty dirty gopher loveThat's just because your religious beliefs would have us all making sweet sweet love to gophersIs there any other kind?
Well, yeah. I guess I would have to draw the line there. I mean, I am not one generally to favor legislating matters of morality, but there comes a point...
As a nation, angry gopher sex just cheapens us all.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
First Madonna, now donkeys? Is there any leg you won't grab onto?* humping David Fryer's leg *
Huh, wha?
*licks the poodle*
Look David, what you and your poodle do in the privacy of your own dungeon is none of my business, but don't bring that nonsense into this thread, okay?
|
|
Hell, with 80% (or some astronomically high % like that) of marriages ending in divorce I would think that people wouldn't want to be a part of that.I daresay the percentage is not nearly so high, unless you take a skewed sample.
It's actually around 50% for a baseline. Start adding extenuating circumstances and that number moves about a lot. For instance, 85% of married couples who have a child with autism end up divorced.
I'm proud to say that my home state of Connecticut now recognizes gay marriage. I think once the law has been in place for several years and the foundations of our society aren't demolished (... by gay marriage, at least; I can't vouch for things like, say, a massive failure in the financial sector) we'll look back and wonder what took us so long.
|
|
Yeah I can see that causing issues. thanks for weighing in. I haven't heard of problems like that in FL though.The way the law was written in Utah it created a situation where people got all the perks (tax breaks, health benefits, etc.) but did not have to take any responsibility. It was fine when it was just the two people involved, but add children and it becam a big mess. If one spouse left, the other had no ability to collect child support or alimony because they were never legally married. Plus, with no community property laws, they couldn't even lay claim to stuff the other person took when they left. In a few case the man even turned around and sued for custody of the child, claiming that since the woman had no means of supporting the child, she was an unfit mother. Meanwhile he has found someone else to shack up with and is now claiming her as his common law wife, and the circle starts all over again. It happened to my sister, among others. Of course she is back with the guy after he dumped the woman he left the women he left her for and her last "husband" threw her out, but go figure.stuffJust out of curiosity what is wrong with common law marraiges?
Yeah, since common law marriage is a state by stae thing, and since Florida currently does not have common law marriage according to the info I have found, what is problem here in Utah might not be a problem anywhere else.
Let's all do the right thing and extend tax benefits to people with saggy pants.
Let's all do the right thing and extend tax benefits to people with saggy pants.And women who jog and rollerskate naked. Apparently that is becoming a big problem in California.
Right. Because a naked body is offensive.
Hey Ross where in FL do you get your game on?
Online, sadly. Being a grad student bars me from scheduling a regular game, so I run two PbPs here (currently updating about twice a week, wishing I had time to update more often.), and play Magic Online.
But I'm just across the Seminole/Orange County line from UCF if you ever feel the need to say 'Hi'.
|
|
Let's all do the right thing and extend tax benefits to people with saggy pants.And women who jog and rollerskate naked. Apparently that is becoming a big problem in California.Right. Because a naked body is offensive.
The funny thing was it was construction workers who called the police to complain. I guess no stereotype is sacred anymore.
The funny thing was it was construction workers who called the police to complain. I guess no stereotype is sacred anymore.Let's all do the right thing and extend tax benefits to people with saggy pants.And women who jog and rollerskate naked. Apparently that is becoming a big problem in California.Right. Because a naked body is offensive.
What in the world is wrong with those guys?(LOL!) I wish we had that "problem" in Texas.
|
It's actually around 50% for a baseline. Start adding extenuating circumstances and that number moves about a lot. For instance, 85% of married couples who have a child with autism end up divorced.
I read excerpts from some study recently (by some government-funded organization that tracks social trends or somesuch) that stated that 60% of couple who cohabitated prior to marriage would divorce within 3 years or marriage. The longer they lived together prior to marrying, the greater the chances.
Another interestnig observation was that 4/5 couples that didn't discuss their feelings or views on marriage within the first 6 months of dating wound up divorced within 2 yeras.
-Skeld
The funny thing was it was construction workers who called the police to complain. I guess no stereotype is sacred anymore.
That actually makes a lot of sense. Hooting an hollering is all good fun, but after about the fourth time you smash your thumb with a hammer (or remove it with a saw), you might wish you were a bit less...distracted.
What in the world is wrong with those guys?(LOL!) I wish we had that "problem" in Texas.
To be fair, we don't know what kind of women were doing this. There are some people you don't want to see naked.
The funny thing was it was construction workers who called the police to complain. I guess no stereotype is sacred anymore.That actually makes a lot of sense. Hooting an hollering is all good fun, but after about the fourth time you smash your thumb with a hammer (or remove it with a saw), you might wish you were a bit less...distracted.
What in the world is wrong with those guys?(LOL!) I wish we had that "problem" in Texas.To be fair, we don't know what kind of women were doing this. There are some people you don't want to see naked.
Or someone drives through the cones and hits one of your guys.
Also, there are some people who should not be naked, if you know what I mean. Everyone things nudist colonies are like pornos, nope, a bunch of overweight old folk running around naked, *dry heaves*.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The funny thing was it was construction workers who called the police to complain. I guess no stereotype is sacred anymore.
Conversation overheard between two construction workers: "Yes, but if you really want to understand the growth of his poetry, you should buy his collected works."
The funny thing was it was construction workers who called the police to complain. I guess no stereotype is sacred anymore.Maybe "she" was pre-op, and was violating one of those famous construction site peepholes.
You say that as if it's a bad thing... :-)
|
|
Hey Ross where in FL do you get your game on?Online, sadly. Being a grad student bars me from scheduling a regular game, so I run two PbPs here (currently updating about twice a week, wishing I had time to update more often.), and play Magic Online.
But I'm just across the Seminole/Orange County line from UCF if you ever feel the need to say 'Hi'.
Dude I live in Deltona, we are at best like 40 minutes away from each other. Holy crap I thought I was the only Paizonian in my area (not that there aren't one or two people on these boards in this area, but you have to have a certain amount of name recognition to be labled a Paizonian, I think people have started to recognize my name as I do others) You play magic, you may not be able to make a weekly game but you should definitely come over some time and play a we can shuffle some cards around.
|
|
I read excerpts from some study recently (by some government-funded organization that tracks social trends or somesuch) that stated that 60% of couple who cohabitated prior to marriage would divorce within 3 years or marriage. The longer they lived together prior to marrying, the greater the chances.
It seems to me, and I have no data to back this up, 'cause I'm just making it up as I go along, that the average man stays 'in love' for approximately two years. After that, he's either bred, or he's not gonna with that woman, and the soft lighting and the 'Dream Weaver' soundtrack fades, and suddenly she transforms into this hideous nagging creature (strangely reminiscent of the awful stuff his friends were saying about her a couple of years ago...), while all of the other women in the world start looking more and more attractive again.
Some dudes dude who stays with someone after two years have beaten this biological imperative and transcended the 'crush' stage and discovered a truth that isn't obvious at the beginning;
Love isn't a feeling that you have, it's a *choice* that you make.
Old couples who have been together for fifty years sometimes seem to have the purest love, because they are *long* past seeing each other through rose-tinted glasses (the 'beer-goggles of love') and have actually learned to live with each other and accept the real person they married, not the glimmery idealized fantasy-pedastal-person they fell head over heels in love with all those decades ago.
Other dudes who stay with someone after the blush has gone off the rose sleep on the couch and never bother to admit to themselves that their marriage is long-dead, and just staggering around in a zombie state, pretending to be alive. I'm sure we all know a friend or relative like this, married to someone that they can barely stand, but not ever getting a divorce for a bewildering plethora of reasons that sound like excuses like 'we're staying together for the children.'
Yeah, buddy, 'cause it's so much better for the children to grow up in a two-parent household of seething repressed resentment and frustrated dreams where the two parents avoid each other, blame each other (and occasionally the kids) for ruining the best years of their lives and occasionally drag the kids into their sniping wars. That's wicked healthy. :/
Caveat; As with everything I say, add IMO to the end of every sentence that starts with a capital letter.
|
|
Some pretty dark stuff
I guess I can't really say much since I'm only halfway into my second year. But we were together for 5 and lived together for one before getting married so I believe I'm well past the rose colored glasses stage. And I still adore my wife. Now I'm not saying there haven't been times where I wanted to put my head through a wall (or hers lol) in frustration over something. But we really do have a strong relationship and we get into fights but we are determined to make it work, not just live in the same house together, but be a working couple. And we haven't had children yet.
I think it's more a symptom of our society at large more so then your somewhat apt description of biological imperatives. There is a lot of emphasis placed on getting married, and not a lot of emphasis on being married. along with the turn our society is taking for easy sex, I mean if I wanted I know I could go online or call one of those hook up services and meet someone for casual sex by the end of the week if I wanted. I don't, but it's a possibility, and without the determination to actually work through your problems, that temptation can get stronger as time goes by. Add that to the growing acceptance of divorce as just another thing, instead of the soul crushing drama inducing spectacle it usually becomes, and you have a recipe for disaster. What you talk about has always been an issue. But why are the rates increasing if it's nothing new?
By the way I agree with you on the caveat about staying together for the children. Cause that sets a good example for them.
I honestly think that the cure to most divorces is
A) longer courtships, you need to have known this person for 3 years (preferably actually dating) before moving in together.
B) live together for at least a year before getting engaged.
C) have sex during your engagement if you haven't already.
that way when you actually get married there aren't any surprises and the rose colored glasses have hopefully worn off already. Will this end all divorce, no i don't think so not even close, but i believe it will help.
Other dudes who stay with someone after the blush has gone off the rose sleep on the couch and never bother to admit to themselves that their marriage is long-dead, and just staggering around in a zombie state, pretending to be alive. I'm sure we all know a friend or relative like this, married to someone that they can barely stand, but not ever getting a divorce for a bewildering plethora of reasons that sound like excuses like 'we're staying together for the children.'
* raising hand *
You got me there.|
|
Other dudes who stay with someone after the blush has gone off the rose sleep on the couch and never bother to admit to themselves that their marriage is long-dead, and just staggering around in a zombie state, pretending to be alive. I'm sure we all know a friend or relative like this, married to someone that they can barely stand, but not ever getting a divorce for a bewildering plethora of reasons that sound like excuses like 'we're staying together for the children.'* raising hand *
You got me there.
Hopefully its someone you know and not actually you yourself.
Hopefully its someone you know and not actually you yourself.
Not so lucky. I would not say I can not stand my wife, but there is definitely resentment.
I hope she doesn't frequent the boards lol
(laughing) Highly unlikely. She thinks, and I quote, “Role playing is stupid and immature.”
|
I honestly think that the cure to most divorces is
My favorite part of the whole story:
However, "in a marriage or other relationship, one partner could be jealous or consider it infidelity if the other used a robot," Levy said. "But who knows, maybe some other relationships could welcome a robot. Instead of a woman saying, 'Darling, not tonight, I have a headache,' you could get 'Darling, I have a headache, why not use your robot?'"
Sounds like the perfect solution for the poodle. I wonder how the robot would feel about threesomes?
I read excerpts from some study recently (by some government-funded organization that tracks social trends or somesuch) that stated that 60% of couple who cohabitated prior to marriage would divorce within 3 years or marriage. The longer they lived together prior to marrying, the greater the chances.
I must be doing it all wrong. My wife and I cohabitated for two years before the enagagement, and were engaged (with continued cohabitation) another year and a half before getting married. We've been very happily married over 4 years.
What is the point of a marriage if it is not going to be intimate? I mean, aren’t you suppose to say “I just want to be friends” before you say “I do”?
|
|
Just out of curiosity I know I kinda made it harsh for someone for something like this to chime in. But if there is anyone out there who supports something like this (even if not this specific one because you don't live in FL) care to explain why so I can try to understand it?
Unfortunately, you've already discredited me with this just-as-discriminatory statement:
hardcore religious nutjobs with a bad education
I can't even open my mouth without you automatically dismissing my discussion, and yet you bandy me with demands for tolerance, even if I address the subject from a clearly secular standpoint.
|
|
Yeah exceptJust out of curiosity I know I kinda made it harsh for someone for something like this to chime in. But if there is anyone out there who supports something like this (even if not this specific one because you don't live in FL) care to explain why so I can try to understand it?Unfortunately, you've already discredited me with this just-as-discriminatory statement:
hardcore religious nutjobs with a bad educationI can't even open my mouth without you automatically dismissing my discussion, and yet you bandy me with demands for tolerance, even if I address the subject from a clearly secular standpoint.
You're right it is condescending of me
I allready agreed that it was condescension on my part and mostly a rant and that once I calmed down actually made a point of listening. Or did I miss it and begin hassling david fryer or behave dismissively to him
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Just out of curiosity I know I kinda made it harsh for someone for something like this to chime in. But if there is anyone out there who supports something like this (even if not this specific one because you don't live in FL) care to explain why so I can try to understand it?Unfortunately, you've already discredited me with this just-as-discriminatory statement:
hardcore religious nutjobs with a bad educationI can't even open my mouth without you automatically dismissing my discussion, and yet you bandy me with demands for tolerance, even if I address the subject from a clearly secular standpoint.
I don't personally support policies that restrict same-sex marriage but I have lived in countries where homosexuality was widely thought to be a mental illness that only afflicted westerners. The view did not seem to vary widely with level of education or religious inclinations. It was a widely held cultural view.
|
|
Just out of curiosity I know I kinda made it harsh for someone for something like this to chime in. But if there is anyone out there who supports something like this (even if not this specific one because you don't live in FL) care to explain why so I can try to understand it?Unfortunately, you've already discredited me with this just-as-discriminatory statement:
hardcore religious nutjobs with a bad educationI can't even open my mouth without you automatically dismissing my discussion, and yet you bandy me with demands for tolerance, even if I address the subject from a clearly secular standpoint.
still waiting, and I'd like to point out at this point that I'm the one who's taken the time to listen to the other side and respond and your the one who came in made dismisive comments and then left.
My solution: there should be no tax incentives, benefits, or othewise for marriage. Make it a completely religious function and you solve the problem.No it doesn't. There are still a lot of other issues, communual property, and the power of medical decisions over one who is not in a condition to decide on thier own treatment. Doctors who require family consent will not take one from a partner who does not have the legal status equivalent to a spouse that is not a blood relative.
I wouldn't call those voting for this law uneducated. However I would fairly say that that they are voting out of fear to repress the rights of others. They are voting to deny others a right that they enjoy, a right which granted to these couples does not take away from thier own. A right that does not threathen in any shape or way anything but illogical homophobic fear.
Just to point out, alot of those things can be done through normal legal channels. So nobody is being denied those rights.
|
|
Just to point out, alot of those things can be done through normal legal channels. So nobody is being denied those rights.My solution: there should be no tax incentives, benefits, or othewise for marriage. Make it a completely religious function and you solve the problem.No it doesn't. There are still a lot of other issues, communual property, and the power of medical decisions over one who is not in a condition to decide on thier own treatment. Doctors who require family consent will not take one from a partner who does not have the legal status equivalent to a spouse that is not a blood relative.
I wouldn't call those voting for this law uneducated. However I would fairly say that that they are voting out of fear to repress the rights of others. They are voting to deny others a right that they enjoy, a right which granted to these couples does not take away from thier own. A right that does not threathen in any shape or way anything but illogical homophobic fear.
Yeah but I'd bet it would take a lot more money for a gay couple to do all of that through the proper legal channels than it cost me to do it with a simple marraige liscence. Which makes it unfair.
Yeah but I'd bet it would take a lot more money for a gay couple to do all of that through the proper legal channels than it cost me to do it with a simple marraige liscence. Which makes it unfair.
That might be true. Let's look at perhaps easing the paperwork, bundling all the appropriate things together and such. Though it might be nice actually to look at perhaps putting in some choices of benefits/responsibilities for anyone (heterosexual or homosexual), this one size fits all approach may not be the best or most "fair" thing for everyone.