In Europe, Lovers say Marry Me a Little
Marry Me, but not Forever
I found this article discussing precisely what I have been mentioning here. Some have contended that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue. I personally feel that many are using homosexual marriage to re-examine the relevence (or lack thereof) of marriage in general.
In some parts of Europe, you can register as domestic partners. One of the current discussions about it is that many heterosexual domestic partners are denied rights afford homosexual domestic partners. In short many people are looking for a way to love someone, but not be legally entangled with them for life if it doesn't happen to work out.
Some nice bits from the article...
A bit more...
I still hold that civil unions are the best path because they start us on the road away from one word and one definition being the government catch-all of legal rights. Marriage has a lot of baggage. The rights can be conferred without the word. In fact many people are seeking many of the rights without having to get married. Something like this could help get rid of that 50% divorce rate give ALL people more freedom, and lastly not allow some mistake of the heart to hurt everyone's pocketbook for the rest of their life.
Toss in your two cents if you please,
Nick
I found this article discussing precisely what I have been mentioning here. Some have contended that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue. I personally feel that many are using homosexual marriage to re-examine the relevence (or lack thereof) of marriage in general.
In some parts of Europe, you can register as domestic partners. One of the current discussions about it is that many heterosexual domestic partners are denied rights afford homosexual domestic partners. In short many people are looking for a way to love someone, but not be legally entangled with them for life if it doesn't happen to work out.
Some nice bits from the article...
Quote:
So two years ago, they presented themselves to a court in Aix-en-Provence and signed a pacte civil de solidarité, or PACS, as they are popularly known, giving them many of the same legal rights as married people but not, Ms. Ramirez explained with some relief, committing them to be together forever.
Even as President Bush is proposing to spend $1.5 billion to promote marriage in the United States, European countries are moving in the opposite direction. They are granting new status to couples looking for some legal rights in the broad gray area between living together casually and "till death do us part."
So two years ago, they presented themselves to a court in Aix-en-Provence and signed a pacte civil de solidarité, or PACS, as they are popularly known, giving them many of the same legal rights as married people but not, Ms. Ramirez explained with some relief, committing them to be together forever.
Even as President Bush is proposing to spend $1.5 billion to promote marriage in the United States, European countries are moving in the opposite direction. They are granting new status to couples looking for some legal rights in the broad gray area between living together casually and "till death do us part."
A bit more...
Quote:
For French heterosexuals with religious or political objections to marriage, as well as those suffering from modern angst over what kind of commitment they are prepared to make, the government-issued pacts offer the perfect halfway house.
The civil solidarity pact that they signed confers some stability and legal rights. It means, for instance, that Mr. Antar can remain in his civil service job in Marseille, living with Ms. Ramirez, secure that he will not be transferred to another area. It means that the couple share property rights and, after three years as official partners, will get the same tax breaks as married people.
But it also allows either member to dissolve the relationship, with little legal complication, on three months' notice, a source of some comfort to this skittish couple.
For French heterosexuals with religious or political objections to marriage, as well as those suffering from modern angst over what kind of commitment they are prepared to make, the government-issued pacts offer the perfect halfway house.
The civil solidarity pact that they signed confers some stability and legal rights. It means, for instance, that Mr. Antar can remain in his civil service job in Marseille, living with Ms. Ramirez, secure that he will not be transferred to another area. It means that the couple share property rights and, after three years as official partners, will get the same tax breaks as married people.
But it also allows either member to dissolve the relationship, with little legal complication, on three months' notice, a source of some comfort to this skittish couple.
I still hold that civil unions are the best path because they start us on the road away from one word and one definition being the government catch-all of legal rights. Marriage has a lot of baggage. The rights can be conferred without the word. In fact many people are seeking many of the rights without having to get married. Something like this could help get rid of that 50% divorce rate give ALL people more freedom, and lastly not allow some mistake of the heart to hurt everyone's pocketbook for the rest of their life.
Toss in your two cents if you please,
Nick
Comments
Yes, Switzerland is split up in 26 different cantons, and they all have some different rules.
The fact is that some people rush into marriage too quickly and either stay unhappy in that marriage because they feel they have to or get taken to the cleaners in a messy divorce. A probationary period would end that issue.
The right can be conferred without the word.
Exactly my opinion Trumptman.
As i said in a previous thread i am for civil union but against gay marriage. For me the word is important. Other people will think otherwise, for good reasons also. It's just my opinion.
Originally posted by BR
I've actually thought for a long time that it would be better if marriage contracts had to be renewed every few years with very clear escape clauses that do not screw a man by taking half his stuff.
The fact is that some people rush into marriage too quickly and either stay unhappy in that marriage because they feel they have to or get taken to the cleaners in a messy divorce. A probationary period would end that issue.
Divorce is not an issue if kids are not involved.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Divorce is not an issue if kids are not involved.
It is here in the States.
I was married for two years to a gorgeous, brilliant hunk - an engineer. (I was 21, he 24.)
But "I" was too immature at the time to be married. We got divorced, and were much better friends 'then' than when we were married. I would visit him at his beach house in California, and we had the best time just 'being together', with none of the typical "expectations" that the married state seems to engender. Weird, huh?
I am very leery of marriage now. I can't see myself ever getting married again. In fact, I recently broke up with someone because he wanted to get married.
I think 'expectations' can chip away at relationships.
All I know is that I LOVE being FREE. I can do what I want, when I want. I can be in love or not. But I'm still free, and not 'stuck' in a relationship.
Don't get me wrong. I think that people who have good marriages are the luckiest people in the world, I really do.
Maybe someday I will find 'just' the right guy and I will change my mind about marriage.
But for now, a lover is fine for me.
Some people object to marriage being used to cover anythng beyond what marriage means in their 'religion' . . . . but there are many religious views where marriage is different
if some people have a religious view that allows them to get 'married' for awhile, then so be it
and the same with homosexual marriage
the legality of "entanglements" can be worked out twixt the lawyers
perhaps there should be a new set of options that need to be filled out prior to legally tying the not:
Prenupt or not
ten year contract with option for renewal or not
etc
I, for one, treat my marriage very seriously, I love it, and it is for life and all the "entanglements" deepen its meaning to both of us.
If a couple wants a meaningless contractual fling with different obligations and a different emmotional consequence . . . well then, so be it
if you think civilization would collapse because of this you are wrong
Originally posted by BR
I've actually thought for a long time that it would be better if marriage contracts had to be renewed every few years with very clear escape clauses that do not screw a man by taking half his stuff.
The fact is that some people rush into marriage too quickly and either stay unhappy in that marriage because they feel they have to or get taken to the cleaners in a messy divorce. A probationary period would end that issue.
I agree with everything you said, especially the probationary period. I think that's a 'great' idea. It makes perfect sense.
My brother was a psychological mess when he was getting divorced. He was in no state to be making legal decisions about the division of property. I'll never forgive his ex for how she screwed him over. She didn't get 'half' the stuff; she got everything!!! Oh, but HE got half the debt!!!! His half was $10,000. What a bitch she was. But he couldn't think straight at the time. I tried to help in every way I could. But there's only so much an outside person can do or say. At least I have the comfort that I exerted myself mightily in his behalf. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to live with myself now.
He's doing pretty well at present. But what he went through, NO ONE should have to endure. It was AWFUL for him.
Anyway, BR, you and I actually agree on something!!!
Will wonders never cease?
My ex and I didn't have much at the time. I got our small car; he got the motorcycle and all the electronic/music/etc. stuff. I got the divorce myself, spoke before the judge in court, called and questioned a witness. The judge complimented me afterwards. (Carol beams
My ex owned lots of land; but I would never in a million years have claimed even one square foot of it. I could NEVER have been like my brother's ex-wife. The unmitigated bitch.
Originally posted by trumptman
I found this article discussing precisely what I have been mentioning here. Some have contended that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue. I personally feel that many are using homosexual marriage to re-examine the relevence (or lack thereof) of marriage in general.
On your usual patronizing anti-gay rampage again, trumpt?
Well, the situation is very different across the EU. France and Germany have this civil union kind of marriage light, but Holland and Belgium have opened marriage to homosexuals. As far as one can tell, the sky has not fallen in either country.
Just face it: societies are changing and people's attitudes towards things like marriage likewise. This is not because of gay marriage or PACS-like institutions but they are part of the same megatrend.
As far as marriage-lite, that's great if you (gay or straight) want it. But I think that a union, when entered into, should not be that easily walked away from. I've had friends that have had rough patches in their marriage that have been kept together by the legality of their union long enough to recapture what they felt for each other in the fisrt place and work out their troubles. And I hate to say it, but I have been one relationship that later I regretted ending because it was easy to just break up during a bad time- even though he did want to "marry" me.
I also think that for every she-bitch out there to screw a guy over for 50%, there's at least one slime-ball wishing do dump the woman who supported him on the way up for a younger, fresher trophy wife.
Originally posted by Smircle
On your usual patronizing anti-gay rampage again, trumpt?
Well, the situation is very different across the EU. France and Germany have this civil union kind of marriage light, but Holland and Belgium have opened marriage to homosexuals. As far as one can tell, the sky has not fallen in either country.
Just face it: societies are changing and people's attitudes towards things like marriage likewise. This is not because of gay marriage or PACS-like institutions but they are part of the same megatrend.
I see that you find it much easier to call names than debate.
Contact me when you choose differently.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I see that you find it much easier to call names than debate.
I did? Must have slipped by me.
However, if you are running out of steam to "prove" your point about homo marriage setting free forces detrimental to het marriage, fine by me - just throw your towel, I don't really care how you do it
Originally posted by pfflam
Marriage with prenuptial agreements amounts to the same thing
Some people object to marriage being used to cover anythng beyond what marriage means in their 'religion' . . . . but there are many religious views where marriage is different
if some people have a religious view that allows them to get 'married' for awhile, then so be it
and the same with homosexual marriage
the legality of "entanglements" can be worked out twixt the lawyers
perhaps there should be a new set of options that need to be filled out prior to legally tying the not:
Prenupt or not
ten year contract with option for renewal or not
etc
I, for one, treat my marriage very seriously, I love it, and it is for life and all the "entanglements" deepen its meaning to both of us.
If a couple wants a meaningless contractual fling with different obligations and a different emmotional consequence . . . well then, so be it
if you think civilization would collapse because of this you are wrong
Prenups do not equal the same thing. There are plenty of courts that have overturned prenuptual agreements.In short there are judges that believe you can't sign away what they believe to be obligations, even if you choose to do so.
There are plenty of people who don't want a marriage because it implies a lifetime obligation.
The entanglements shouldn't be left to the whims of lawyers and judges AFTER the fact. Especially after previously agreed to facts.
I'm very glad your own marriage is going well, but don't apply or assume for everyone else through the world. My own marriage is going very well and I do consider it to be a commitment for life. However if either one of us caught our respective spousing shagging with the neighbors, or even each other (YEAH BABY!) I wouldn't want to be dealing with the ramifications of it 20 years from now.
There was an example I posted on here of a woman suing to compel her ex-husband not to retire. They had been divorced 18 years and he was retiring at 60 years old. She received part of his income as per their divorce decree. Well his retiring was going to lower his income and hence her payment. So she was suing to not allow him to retire. This sort of stuff is nonsense no matter what the gender roles. If someone has not been married to you for over a decade, they should have no role in your financial dealings. If no kids are involved even moreso.
Nick