What do you think about this as a "Protection of Marriage Act?"?

Question

When a man and a woman get married, there should be a law on the books that says that each one of them needs to have an escrow account with $10,000 dollars for each of them, established in the bank before they can tie the knot. For the first ten years of marriage, the state government should be in charge of those accounts, and if the couple wants a divorce, they can have all the money back except for whatever number of years they didn't stay married.

For example: a couple who only stays married two years will get a rebate of $2000 dollars, three years - $3000 and so on. Whatever the balance is, the state should get to keep it and use it for school and road improvements, etc.

A couple who makes it past the ten-year mark should be rewarded, and the state should match their account dollar-for-dollar so that they get back $20,000 each. That's $40,000 for the kids' college fund, a new house, whatever they want.

Any couple who divorces in less than a year should lose it all.

You make some good points, Absolutely Edie. But divorce rates aren't falling, and more marriages are lasting less than two years on the average. "God" and "Love" apparently aren't enough, as too many couples are using the "Britney Spears" method when things start to get rough. It's not "till death do us part" anymore; now it's more like "until we get tired of each other or some hotter guy/girl comes along."

So if hitting people in their wallets doesn't serve as a wake-up call, then what will?

Da3rdxacharm, how do you know this is not where we are already headed? Our current administration got its foot in the door, because they convinced enough Americans that the country would disintegrate if gays were given the right to marry or even have domestic partnerships. Now, because domestic partnerships won't even be recognized in most states, that also means that my sister and her male partner of ten years will have none of the legal protections they could have without having to get married, something they have no intention of doing,

What I present here is just a "what-if", but if most Americans can be talked into one kind of stupidity, don't be too sure that they can't be talked into just about anything...

I have to laugh at how seriously upset people are getting over this scenario. Where was all this anger when George Bushwhacker hoodwinked people into believing that America would fall if "Adam and Steve" were allowed to get married? If people had gotten good and mad at the polls, we wouldn't be in the mess we are now...

Answer 1

I understand what you are trying to do here....the government giving couples a financial incentive to stay married. It just goes against what I feel marriage should be. Believe me, if it's instituted by vote, I won't vote against it, but I'd not likely vote for it either. It's an interesting concept, but I would hate to think that my partner would have that extra incentive to work towards a solid marriage because there is money to be made.

It seems cold and superficial. All things a marriage should not be.

Answer 2

LMAO Yea, right!! I don't have 10 000 dollars! So, I guess only people with money can get married?

That's an infringement of personal rights and an infringement on privacy and just forget about the ways in which that system can be abused.

Here's an idea okay?? The government is not an authoritarian parent. Get the bureaucracy out of personal lives!!

(And this is coming from someone who is all for socialism even the high taxes required, but this idea? That's not socialism.

Besides, social norms are changing and the traditional functions of marriage? Are out dated. When marriage became about love instead of function or survival marriage died. You're a dinosaur if you think that everyone needs to get married or that marriage MUST be until death do us part, that families need to be nuclear etc.)

Answer 3

Actually, I prefer that to labeling their unions as marriage. To me, it seems like a good compromise since the religious right wouldn't have to concede to "allowing" gays to marry yet gay couple would have legal marriage rights without actually being married. Of course, it won't go that easily. The religious right will insist that a "rose by any other name..." and I've even seen in New Jersey, where gays got some kind of similar thing not long ago (I'm not sure exactly.), gay activists insist that they wanted nothing less than marriage. For me, I feel a little "weird" in calling their unions marriage, but I still think their unions should have what you wrote in your question. Why does that first guy have to be so insulting? What's he going to do if "cons" DO have a problem with it? Beat them up?

Answer 4

Divorce is so hideously expensive anyway most of the time and staying married is so financially advantageous.

Plus, this law would be hard on the poor while the rich would laugh it off. You think the thought of losing $10 000 would make, say, Paris Hilton bat an eyelash? How long do you think it would take someone who works for minimum wage and has terrible money problems to save $10 000 so they could marry?

I don't like it.

Answer 5

Are we talking about a free country or a socialist country?

Lets play this scenario out. We are assuming that your intention is to protect the sanctity of marriage.
Let's say you don't have $10,000 (I didn't, and my wife certainly didn't). So we need $20,000 between the 2 of us, plus the cost of the wedding and honeymoon. Without that, the government will not allow us to marry. No problem, I'll just shack-up. That's what the majority of people would do. Look what you've just done to the institution of marriage. You made it a privelage for the wealthy.

Answer 6

Well, personally don't want government to get involved with putting laws on marriage. Believe we need to invest money in the educatiion of people before they get married and make it much more difficult to obtain a marriage license. Need to view marriage as a long-term committment and not be able to get out of this committment so easily. Of course would need to allow divorce or counseling where there is physical abuse, drug or alcohol abuse and such.

Answer 7

While that would likely cut the rate of marriage down to about 2% of what it currently is (and that may be a generous number), I don't agree with giving the goverment even more of our hard earned money to misuse. Sorry. They already rape us for enough, and then mispend the majority of it.

Answer 8

That is unrealistic - many people would never have the 20,000 "required" so more people would just live together. It would ultimately kill relationships that could have been good marriages and open the door to less commitment.

Answer 9

that is the most stupied thing i have heard. no one would be married cause most people cant get that kind of money up. two the goverment needs to back off on ruling our personal lives is this russia we use to be free and where is the state going to get this money to match it?? you going to pay even higher taxes??

Answer 10

I don't like it. A lawyer could draw up that for a couple who likes the idea, but I don't think the government should be involved.