would it be more fair for men and women if marriage was no longer recognised by the state?

Question

speaking to division of property, child custody and child support would it be better for individuals to enter into civil unions where in the event of dissolution the before mentioned factors would largely be pre-determined and regulated by state or federal law and not divorce courts? i am not talking about prenuptial agreements as those are defined by each individual but rather federal or state guidelines intended on ensuring equal rights to both parties.

also, would this change allow gay and lesbian couples the same rights as traditional couples?

Answer 1

I always feel that marriage is pretty pointless. Seeing how Men always getting screw in a marriage nowadays (at least in the West), it is best that Men should just stay single.

Just IMO

Answer 2

Excellent question! As long as child support, custody, and division of property issues are still addressed, I think maybe this could work. But then again, without divorce courts, who would decide these issues and more importantly, HOW would they decide these issues? The problem I see is that even though almost every divorce may have similar issues to resolve (custody, division of property, child support, etc.), the factors that go into those decisions can vary widely, and divorce courts allow for both parties to present their cases for resolution before a judge (who has dealt with families and these issues and so has great experience in resolving them). How could we avoid these processes and still manage to an attempt at fairness between all sides, and most importantly, the welfare of the children?

Answer 3

As I child whose parents divorced in the early 80's (back when it took like 2 years to get divorced and even longer if custody was fought for by either side), I think this to a certain extent would be great for some, but not all.
I worked for an attorney last year who worked divorces for a while, but stopped because of the violence caused by separation.

I think once we stop treating people and relationships in general like possessions we'd all be a lot better off.
I also think the more you involve the government in unions of any kind the more you tend to give your rights away.

"Marriage is about love," whines this girl in a show I used to love, complaining about the terms of the pre-nup.
"And the merger and acquisition of assets," was the reply.

Answer 4

It sounds like you're advocating a required generic pre-nuptual - one that all people would have to adhere to (at least unless they had their own specific one drawn up.) Not a bad idea - that way, people would know what to expect before making the leap.

Unfortunately, there are too many possibilities that need to be covered. As financial and social situations change, the agreement would also have to change. What if she drops out of her career to have kids? If he then divorces her, she may not be able to resume where she left off. This may be obvious, but is it fair? Or should she have been only thinking of herself and not the family as a whole? And to what extent it should be judged fair or unfair? And I'm not going to say much about gays and lesbians, since as far as I'm concerned, a couple is a couple is a couple...the same rules should apply to ALL, not just those who conform to the current norm.

I LOVE the idea, but I really can't see any practical way to put it in action.

Answer 5

I don't see where it makes any difference if you get married or enter into a civil union. You are still committing yourself to something bigger than just you yourself. The break ups would be just as often and traumatic for most people.

What I would really like to see is required couples therapy for all people thinking of getting married. Too many people get married out of lust instead of love and they just plain don't really know each other well enough regarding the basics on what expectations they each have for marriage---who handles the money, child rearing idea, life style choices, etc., etc.

Answer 6

You know, the ONLY reason I oppose gay marriage but support civil unions is that marriage is also a fundamental social and religious institution that is prior to the state, so I don't like the state trying to change it from the top down. (If public opinion changes enough for gay marriages to be supported through a popular or legislative process, I'd support THAT, but I oppose it being imposed from the courts or imposed from one state to all the others through the "full faith and credit" clause.)

But ideally, separation of church and state would mean getting the government out of the marriage business entirely. Then, it wouldn't be an issue.

The problem is that this too is an imposition of theory on tradition (something of which we should all be wary), but considering the flux that such institutions are in and may continue to be in, it wouldn't surprise me if something like that happened. And it might be a good thing.

Sorry for all the ambivalence. I've actually thought about this quite a bit and can see merit on various sides of the debate(s).

EDIT

My answer was addressed to side questions, but as for your main question, I believe that ProfC's answer is exactly right.

Answer 7

Hmmm, this question disturbs me, and I'm not sure if it is because property and child welfare are grouped (as if children might be regarded as chattel) or if it's because it predicts and prepares for an end to a union before it even begins. My belief system calls for a lifetime commitment before children are brought into the relationship, and that commitment means that there will be difficult times where the partners are not getting along and stress levels are high. But
even during the worst of times, that commitment brings a level of security - knowing that the person beside me will be ther next week, next month, next year.

I have no real answer, but there are some smart people in Law & Ethics that might give you some good answers.

Answer 8

If you want to talk about separation of church and state, this is one area they've never been separate. Though marriage is religious in origin, married couples nonetheless get advantages from the state that singles don't have. Is this as it should be? Perhaps, for kids' sakes. Still, I gotta say I'd be delighted to see state-sanctioned marriage go. People should keep their marriages in the church.

Answer 9

Yes, and more fair for men. For a man to get married in our current social structure, would not be an intelligent choice.
Most men(the majority, based on stats) find this out too late.

Consider this: - Women initiate 75% of divorces.

- Women take away the child from the man 80% of the time(legal kidnapping----75% initiate the divorces).

- 40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the fathers visitation to punish their ex-spouse.
["Frequency of Visitation" by Sanford Braver, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry]

- 50% of mothers see no value in the fathers continued contact with his children.
["Surviving the Breakup" by Joan Berlin Kelly]

Another answerer actually said that Divorces are healthy, because it implies choice. Obviously the choice is for women, because they are the ones initiating divorces, which leads back to the question "Why should a man get married?"

Answer 10

No. Because state law determines these things now- the court merely does the administration. Child custody could not be determined ahead of time because situations differ and the best interests of the child could change. Child support and property division are determined by state law as well.

Answer 11

This would serve no useful purpose: the overwhelming majority of divorce cases are uncontested:

- division of property (split, and only involves assets accumulated during the marriage)
- child custody (legal custody shared, physical custody usually assigned to the person who had acted as primary caregiver)
- child support - agreed upon by the parents, but if not, a judge will decide (same as everything else)

Gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry, as they have been doing in Canada for approximately 3 years now. Same sex-marriages are recognised in England - and even South Africa. The list of countries where same-sex marriage is legal is ever-growing.