Divorce: Reform of the 15th Amendment

Mr. CooL ICE

My aunt and her husband first separated about 12 years. Without going into too much detail, there was a lot of emotional abuse and he refused to agree to a divorce and pretty much refused to leave her alone. It wasn't until things got violent and she requested a restraining order (whilst sporting a shiner) that she was able to get the separation recognised. Divorce is due to be completed this year.

I'm all for making any sort of amendment to prevent this from happening to anyone else.

SpaceTime

Average time for an agreed divorce in England and Wales is 33 weeks btw, not 2 years and that is largely just down to administrative slowness not some kind of patronising policies.

People make mistakes, things go wrong.

But this is backwards little old Ireland where everything's perfect and until 1995 all marriages were perfect, shortly before that nobody was gay and a few years before that nobody even had sex outside marriage and sure we didn't need condoms at all due to the fact that nobody had sex unless they wanted a baby.

Of course these days one can't get pregnant due to rape and fatal abnormalities during pregnancy don't happen...

An aspect of this country lives in some kind of conservative, moralising cloud cuckoo land !

Gay marriage passed - well done on being the 2nd last country in Western Europe to implement it (other than Northern Ireland) and they are still appealing it in court so it's not even passed until they appeal is hopefully rejected on the 30th of the month despite our recent referendum.

Don't congratulate yourselves too much for being slightly less conservative than the Vatican.

Ush1

Why not abolish marriage completely? Bit of a silly social construct.

The Corinthian

Ush1 wrote: »

Why not abolish marriage completely? Bit of a silly social construct.

One reason is that it would cost the government too much.

If an unmarried couple split up and one is working and the other is unemployed, then the former has no obligation to financially support the latter, forcing the latter to either go out and get a job or seek social assistance from the government. If married, then the former does have an obligation to financially support the latter, significantly decreasing the need for the state to step in.

Note, this is separate to child maintenance, which is the same regardless of the marital status of the parents and in addition to any spousal maintenance. To put it in context:

"At present, the District Court can award any amount up to €500 per week for a spouse/civil partner, and €150 per week for each child. If sums greater than these amounts are being sought, you will need to apply to the Circuit Court." Source

That's a lot of money the government can save, which is why when the cohabitation bill was brought in, it included an automatic measure whereby similar financial obligations would kick in after between two (where there's a child) and five years - with one in three children being born out of marriage in Ireland, it has undoubtedly saved the government tens of millions per year.

So, while there are numerous other reasons why no government would want to abolish marriage, this is one I can't see any government wanting to sacrifice.

Ush1

Ush1 wrote: »

Why not abolish marriage completely? Bit of a silly social construct.

Whats silly about it?

It gives you next of kin rights, tax exemptions, parental rights etc etc on top of it being a declaration of people desire to be together forever. W


Whats silly is some people nowadays who don't treat it with the respect it deserves.

The Corinthian

Bentley Gorgeous Yachtsman wrote: »

on top of it being a deceleration of people desire to be together forever.

Actually, if you listen to it at weddings, it's actually a deceleration of people desire to be together forever.

Whats silly is some people nowadays who don't treat it with the respect it deserves.

One might argue that reducing it to only a desire to be together forever isn't really treating it with the respect it deserves.

Ush1

Bentley Gorgeous Yachtsman wrote: »

Whats silly about it?

It gives you next of kin rights, tax exemptions, parental rights etc etc on top of it being a deceleration of people desire to be together forever. W


Whats silly is some people nowadays who don't treat it with the respect it deserves.

You just answered your own question.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, if you listen to it at weddings, it's actually a deceleration of people desire to be together forever.

One might argue that reducing it to only a desire to be together forever isn't really treating it with the respect it deserves.

Well I used the word desire but I probably should have said it differently as yes you are right if you get married there should be no desire to be together for ever you should be together for ever if you are doing it right.

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, if you listen to it at weddings, it's actually a deceleration of people desire to be together forever.

I'd expend a lot less effort avoiding weddings if I was promised people decelerating together. In formation, preferably. With a comedy soundtrack ideally.

Velocity is over rated.

kunst nugget

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

remember? Hello divorce, bye bye daddy!

But then having two daddys was a bad thing in the marriage equality referendum… make up your mind conservative people!!!

The Corinthian

Bentley Gorgeous Yachtsman wrote: »

Well I used the word desire but I probably should have said it differently as yes you are right if you get married there should be no desire to be together for ever you should be together for ever if you are doing it right.

It was a Freudian slip. You were being honest; when they make those vows no one is saying "I want it to be forever", they're saying "I'd kind of like it to be forever, as long as it all works out".

Of course, you'd also be right to say, "well if it doesn't work out, it would be crazy to remain in such a marriage". Totally agree. Then why the fück do people lie through their teeth and say they will be together for life, if they believe that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5YtyW1aXIY

kunst nugget wrote: »

But then having two daddys was a bad thing in the marriage equality referendum… make up your mind conservative people!!!

Was that a joke?

TomBtheGoat

Lylah Melted Bedbug wrote: »

This notion that Ireland must always be in line with other countries really gets my goat. Why? Are all laws elsewhere more perfect? Why not align with US law and let us all carry guns and have the death penalty. Let's charge huge amounts for 3rd level education. Why don't we let the unemployed fend for themselves? Sorry off topic but because others do something doesn't make them right.

On the poll: nay, let it stand.

I completely agree with you, well said.

kunst nugget

The Corinthian wrote: »

Was that a joke?

A bad one but yeah…

kunst nugget

TomBtheGoat wrote: »

I completely agree with you, well said.

While I do agree with that people making the argument about getting in line with other countries tends to cherrypick the laws they want to get in line with, the law on divorce is pretty oppressive as it stands and I would like to see a revision of it. We constantly revise other laws in this country.

The Corinthian

kunst nugget wrote: »

the law on divorce is pretty oppressive as it stands and I would like to see a revision of it.

Excuse my ignorance on this, but how is it so? My understanding is that Irish separation law, due to the absence of divorce in Ireland, is essentially divorce without the right to remarry - assets, maintenance, children and everything else can essentially be dealt with long before the divorce, which is simply the final step, unless either party chooses to contest previous agreements (which they can do long after divorce, BTW).

So is the lack of a right to remarry for so long what is so inhumane?

Neyite

4 years is too long, but I don't think that you should be able to get a divorce on your lunch break either. A period of 2 years seems about right to me.

Until the Decree Absolute, (I'm open to correction here) in terms of financials, the spouse is still a spouse aren't they? So even if you've agreed on the financial split, if 3.5 years after you've separated, if you had an inheritance or lotto windfall, your soon to be ex spouse can claim a hefty portion of it. I know someone this happened to. Inherited money about 4 years after he split from his wife (no kids) and she automatically was entitled to half because they were still officially married.

Just spotted there that unless specifically waived, inheritance rights are still in place for a separated ex to automatically inherit your assets.

The Corinthian

Neyite wrote: »

Until the Decree Absolute, (I'm open to correction here) in terms of financials, the spouse is still a spouse aren't they? So even if you've agreed on the financial split, if 3.5 years after you've separated, if you had an inheritance or lotto windfall, your soon to be ex spouse can claim a hefty portion of it.

Actually, even after a divorce, if you have an inheritance or lotto windfall, your ex spouse has a claim. There is no final settlement in divorce.

FishOnABike

The Corinthian wrote: »

Affordable divorce? Can I have some of what you're smoking?

If both parties can agree on all the terms of divorce it can cost less than a thousand euro each from start to finish.

The high costs arise when the parties cannot agree and matters become litigious. The costs might then only limited by how dogged the parties are prepared to be and the depth of their disagreement and pockets.

The Corinthian

FishOnABike wrote: »

If both parties can agree on all the terms of divorce it can cost less than a thousand euro each from start to finish.

The high costs arise when the parties cannot agree and matters become litigious. The costs might then only limited by how dogged the parties are prepared to be and the depth of their disagreement and pockets.

Not entirely correct. If both parties can agree on all the terms of divorce and that neither owes the other anything in terms of assets or future maintenance it can cost less than a thousand euro each from start to finish.

50%+ of all you own, and may have owned even before the marriage, is often the highest price of all.

topper75

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

If 2 people what to get a divorce I dont see what is achieved by dragging it out.

What we currently have was probably just to appease the "traditional family" folk

If you are not "traditional family" folk... then....

....what, in the name of all that is sane, were you doing that whole marriage thing for in the first place?!!! :pac:

Marriage hardly falls on you like a shower of rain as you stroll down the street minding your own business, does it?

listermint

I think it gives someone a cool of time to actually consider if they want to get married again. Why after a divorce, (which is a pretty big deal) would you want to rush back into another (possible failed) marriage again.

Surely having someone marry again after a year is just repeating the cycle. Time out perhaps? Have time to think about what you really want..

FishOnABike

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

My aunt and her husband first separated about 12 years. Without going into too much detail, there was a lot of emotional abuse and he refused to agree to a divorce and pretty much refused to leave her alone. It wasn't until things got violent and she requested a restraining order (whilst sporting a shiner) that she was able to get the separation recognised. Divorce is due to be completed this year.

I'm all for making any sort of amendment to prevent this from happening to anyone else.

There's no reason why she should have had to wait 12 years.

A Judicial Separation could have been sought after they had been living apart for three years even without his consent (one year with his consent).

A Divorce could have been sought after after they had been living apart for four years (with or without his consent).

SpaceTime wrote: »

Average time for an agreed divorce in England and Wales is 33 weeks btw, not 2 years and that is largely just down to administrative slowness not some kind of patronising policies.

The 33 weeks is the UK national average for processing a Divorce through the courts from initial filing for divorce through to the granting the Decree Absolute.

If we compare the 'qualifying / waiting time' a couple have to live apart before they can apply for a no fault divorce in the UK it is 2 years if both parties consent, 5 years if one does not consent. In Ireland the 'qualifying / waiting time' is 4 years - consent is irrelevant.

Not a NSA agent

topper75 wrote: »

If you are not "traditional family" folk... then....

....what, in the name of all that is sane, were you doing that whole marriage thing for in the first place?!!! :pac:

Marriage hardly falls on you like a shower of rain as you stroll down the street minding your own business, does it?

By traditional family folk I mean the whole no sex or living together before marriage, man and woman, no contraception, no divorce crowd that decide everyone should have to do the same as them.

Plenty of people might go for some of those but also dont feel the need for everyone else to do the same and to do otherwise should be illegal.

kidneyfan

Irish divorce is very sensible. What sort of muppet get's married and divorced and married again. I suppose this is the latest thing from the gays so they can have another day out!

And another thing I will never recognise Leitrim!

osarusan

listermint wrote: »

I think it gives someone a cool of time to actually consider if they want to get married again. Why after a divorce, (which is a pretty big deal) would you want to rush back into another (possible failed) marriage again.

Surely having someone marry again after a year is just repeating the cycle. Time out perhaps? Have time to think about what you really want..

Why the assumption that people want to get divorced quickly to rush back into another marriage?

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Marriage is supposed to be difficult to get out of. It's supposed to be a lifelong commitment. It is not supposed to be something you can jump into and if it doesn't work out you can jump out again and be free to jump into another 'lifelong' commitment.

Waiting 4 years to start a divorce, can't be easy, but it's not supposed to be. That's the whole point. You signed up to a binding contract for life and now you want out - well take a bit of responsibility for having made that choice and stop blubbering about how it's inhumane, because it's unlikely anyone forced you to do so at gunpoint.

.

This is fine except it doesn't stop people from starting other commitments and families.

They do it anyway and end up in new contracts under the cohabitation bills.

Essentially having multiple spouses with multiple obligations.

And they do this because no one can take the four year wait seriously.

FishOnABike

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is fine except it doesn't stop people from starting other commitments and families.

They do it anyway and end up in new contracts under the cohabitation bills.

Essentially having multiple spouses with multiple obligations.

And they do this because no one can take the four year wait seriously.

The inconsistency of the timelines between the various family law acts are a bit crazy alright. You can have a Judicial Separation (by mutual consent) after a year but cannot divorce for four years but can have equivalent to spousal relationship with a new partner, if you have children together, after living together for two years.

It would make more sense to align them all at two years. This would avoid the possible legal overlapping of adult relationships while allowing parent - child relationships and responsibilities to be effectively legislated for.

I'm dubious of the benefit of having a longer 'waiting / qualifying time' when there is no consent by one party. It seems pointless as you can't keep someone in a relationship against their will and it can be abuses as a bargaining tool with one person trading consent for concessions in family law proceedings.

As they are all interrelated would it not make sense to look at consolidating all three,
Judicial Separation & Family Law Reform Act, 1989
Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996
Civil Partnership and Certain Rights & Obligations of Cohabitants Act, 2010
into one simplified act.

athtrasna

As someone with a countdown to 4 years I am still pro marriage. Just wish my marriage had been destined to last. We made it 7 years, maybe a couple of years longer than we should have but we fought for our marriage and it didn't work. But yes I'd consider marriage again.

No point going to the additional expense of separation if there are no kids involved IMO. There's still stuff that only a divorce can sort. Next of kin being one. Four years having someone as your next of kin after the split..that's just too long. That life support machine...

NotYourYear20

SmilesInMass wrote: »

Could we not just do away with marriage altogether?

It would be the wise and honest thing to do.

zeffabelli

FishOnABike wrote: »

The inconsistency of the timelines between the various family law acts are a bit crazy alright. You can have a Judicial Separation (by mutual consent) after a year but cannot divorce for four years but can have equivalent to spousal relationship with a new partner, if you have children together, after living together for two years.

Takes you four years to get a divorce but two to establish co habitational partnerships, which are not that different from marriage, and no prohibitions on setting up these partnerships before a divorce is final.

Yeah that makes sense.

It's polygamy.

The Corinthian

osarusan wrote: »

Why the assumption that people want to get divorced quickly to rush back into another marriage?

Because divorce was not available for so long in Ireland, separation effectively and legally developed into a form of divorce without the right to remarry.

There may be more to it, which is why I asked on the previous page if there is. Is there?

zeffabelli wrote: »

This is fine except it doesn't stop people from starting other commitments and families.

They do it anyway and end up in new contracts under the cohabitation bills.

Essentially having multiple spouses with multiple obligations.

Actually, that's the one case where cohabitation with someone for 2 to 5 years will not automatically make you liable for financial support. Neither can you register a partnership while married / already in a partnership.

If you already have a registered partner or spouse you can live together for twenty years with your new one and he or she will remain a legal stranger. Whether you become 'partners' the moment you divorce (and you've already lived together the prerequisite period of time) or the clock starts ticking then, I cannot say.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Because divorce was not available for so long in Ireland, separation effectively and legally developed into a form of divorce without the right to remarry.

There may be more to it, which is why I asked on the previous page if there is. Is there?

Actually, that's the one case where cohabitation with someone for 2 to 5 years will not automatically make you liable for financial support. Neither can you register a partnership while married / already in a partnership.

If you already have a registered partner or spouse you can live together for twenty years with your new one and he or she will remain a legal stranger. Whether you become 'partners' the moment you divorce (and you've already lived together the prerequisite period of time) or the clock starts ticking then, I cannot say.

Still a circus of legislation. And People setting up new families anyway.

So four years to dissolve a marriage but 2o minutes to dissolve a cohabitatinal partnership...wtf?

Annasopra

The constitution is not the place to have a specific timeframe set out. It should be removed and put into legislation.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

Still a circus of legislation. And People setting up new families anyway.

TBH, marriage has largely lost it's meaning in the modern World. Unless planning to have children, or later in life for inheritance reasons, people tend not to bother. Even in the case of the former, one in three don't bother. That's why the cohabitation bill was brought in and why there are tax breaks for married couples - to encourage marriage as it is the most cost efficient way to deal with people when you're a government.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, marriage has largely lost it's meaning in the modern World. Unless planning to have children, or later in life for inheritance reasons, people tend not to bother. Even in the case of the former, one in three don't bother. That's why the cohabitation bill was brought in and why there are tax breaks for married couples - to encourage marriage as it is the most cost efficient way to deal with people when you're a government.

A four year wait would suggest it means more than the zero wait for dissolving cohabitatinal partnerships. This of course seems silly and a residual practical consequence of older no longer germane applications of meaning.

It also means as you pointed out earlier that you are immune from further legal constraints with the new partners and children you create for as long as you remain in limbo.

hoodwinked

listermint wrote: »

Surely having someone marry again after a year is just repeating the cycle. Time out perhaps? Have time to think about what you really want..

personally i think we do things backwards on the whole marriage/divorce thing, i feel Marriage should be harder to get into and easier to get out of

too many people get married without doing what you suggest as i've bolded above, too many people marry the wrong people for reason's like:

-All my friends are getting married i want the big day i've always dreamed of too.

- i know he/she doesn't want children but after we're married he/she'll change their mind.

- i'd better propose we've been together so long already

-following the "stages", meet person, get married, get a house together, have children.

- "things will get better when we're married"

- "he/she married him/her why won't he/she marry me?"

and other assorted reasons/pressures, but none of which are the right ones to get married.

too many people get married to the wrong people, for the wrong reasons and are too caught up in the "excitement" of it all until it is too late. we need a way to prevent this but thats hard to do without infringing on people's "right" to marry.

currently we are using divorce to deter these marriages but it's clearly not working.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

A four year wait would suggest it means more than the zero wait for dissolving cohabitatinal partnerships. This of course seems silly and a residual practical consequence of older no longer germane applications of meaning.

Well, if you see cohabitatinal partnerships as a form of marriage lite (TM), then it makes sense.

It also means as you pointed out earlier that you are immune from further legal constraints with the new partners and children you create for as long as you remain in limbo.

No one is immune from further legal constraints with the new children. Your financial responsibility is exactly the same regardless of your marital or partnership status.

What is affected is one's obligation to financially support another adult, potentially for life and independent of children, which frankly - in this day and age, that's a questionable obligation, TBH.

hoodwinked wrote: »

personally i think we do things backwards on the whole marriage/divorce thing, i feel Marriage should be harder to get into and easier to get out of

Won't happen. Governments want people to marry. It's cheaper for them when we do.

and other assorted reasons/pressures, but none of which are the right ones to get married.

Caveat emptor. The idea that people should have rights but not the responsibility attached to those rights is pretty popular nowadays. People get married for the wrong reasons and then things go bad, but as sad as that is, they went in with open eyes. And if not open, then they should have been - they're adults, after all.

I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me why the 4 - 5 year delay in divorce is such a major issue. Is it simply for the right to remarry or not?

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm still waiting on someone to explain to me why the 4 - 5 year delay in divorce is such a major issue. Is it simply for the right to remarry or not?

The government should not have the right to coerce two adults into sustaining a bond they no longer want.

Four years ago they separate and still have the right to sign a DNR over that person against that persons will just because the Irish government says so? Neh... Can't go for that.

Nanny statism... Micro controls over the family...

athtrasna

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The constitution is not the place to have a specific timeframe set out. It should be removed and put into legislation.

Amen. Our constitution is littered with stuff that belongs in legislation and not in the constitution. Problem is it takes a referendum to change it and afaik we've never voted to make that change from constitution to law on any issue?

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

TBH, marriage has largely lost it's meaning in the modern World. Unless planning to have children, or later in life for inheritance reasons, people tend not to bother.

Not so sure about that, I don't see any shift away from marriage personally. People may wait longer but people who plan to stay together and not get married are like hens teeth (from my experience). I'm 30 so all my friends are late 20's early 30's and from this time last year there is one marrying off every couple of months and that's set to continue for the next year at least with a number of weddings already arranged and no reason to believe more wont get arranged also as we move forward.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

The government should not have the right to coerce two adults into sustaining a bond they no longer want.

The government have the right to coerce adults into paying for other adults from a bond that may no longer exist.

Unless you think the above is equally wrong, you really should not be cherry picking what you feel the government can or cannot coerce of others.

Or simpler still, don't marry. And live somewhere where living with someone doesn't make you married (lite). If you don't want the government to coerce you, don't sign on a contract that gives them permission to do so.

Bentley Gorgeous Yachtsman wrote: »

Not so sure about that, I don't see any shift away from marriage personally.

Thank you for your personal opinion.

More objectively though, it's a little difficult to ignore the growth of unmarried families in the state though.

I'm 30 so all my friends are late 20's early 30's and from this time last year there is one marrying off every couple of months and that's set to continue for the next year at least with a number of weddings already arranged and no reason to believe more wont get arranged also as we move forward.

What percentage did not have a child on the way within 12 months of marriage, out of interest?

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

What percentage did not have a child on the way within 12 months of marriage, out of interest?

As I said its all started to happen inside the last year so only one couple are approaching the full year and no child on the way.

To be honest children wouldn't be on the agenda for a number of year for the majority of the couples. If I cast the net a bit wider to my girlfriends friends who would have friends married longer I don't think a single one had a child on the way inside 12 months.

I know you said people not intending to have children may not bother but the number of couples who never intend to have children is tiny so that is not really a strong argument for people not getting married.

The Corinthian

Bentley Gorgeous Yachtsman wrote: »

As I said its all started to happen inside the last year so only one couple are approaching the full year and no child on the way.

So your personal opinion is based on less than a year of your friends marrying?

I know you said people not intending to have children may not bother but the number of couples who never intend to have children is tiny so that is not really a strong argument for people not getting married.

I never said that it was a strong argument for not getting married. I said that children are one of the principle arguments for getting married.

If you want arguments for not getting married, just look at the consequences of divorce.

Then compare the pros and cons and make up your own mind.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

The government have the right to coerce adults into paying for other adults from a bond that may no longer exist.

Unless you think the above is equally wrong, you really should not be cherry picking what you feel the government can or cannot coerce of others.

Or simpler still, don't marry. And live somewhere where living with someone doesn't make you married (lite). If you don't want the government to coerce you, don't sign on a contract that gives them permission to do so.

[/tquote]

Thet can do that when one party wants that against the wishes of the other. When neither party wants each other to pay for the other, no the government can't force them into alimony.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

Thet can do that when one party wants that against the wishes of the other. When neither party wants each other to pay for the other, no the government can't force them into alimony.

Irrelevant. Either you agree that signing up to marriage means that you also consent to be bound by rules that you may disagree with some day or not and both what you originally complained about and I then added to fulfill those conditions.

So unless you want to cherry pick, you have to be consistent for both. And if you do want to cherry pick, then logically, you've lost all credibility.

zeffabelli

The Corinthian wrote: »

Irrelevant. Either you agree that signing up to marriage means that you also consent to be bound by rules that you may disagree with some day or not and both what you originally complained about and I then added to fulfill those conditions.

So unless you want to cherry pick, you have to be consistent for both. And if you do want to cherry pick, then logically, you've lost all credibility.

Huh?

Government can't force you to get married but they can force you to stay married. If neither party want this, why should this be?

You brought up alimony so it's as relevant as you decided to make it. If neither party wants to pursue alimony, then no the government can't make them.

If neither party wants to remain married why should the government make them? I

hatrickpatrick

State sponsored marriage is IMO an appalling concept, and the sooner it dies, the better.
I realise I may be waiting a while, but that's just my opinion. All of the arguments for it, up to and including the argument that it's better for kids to be raised in marriage, flirt around but never actually address the central elephant, which is that the reason it's considered more secure is that people are forced to put up with sh!t they'd end a relationship over in a heartbeat if there was no financial penalty involved.

So what it actually means, is that it makes people more reluctant to end unhappy relationships.

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

State sponsored marriage is IMO an appalling concept, and the sooner it dies, the better.
I realise I may be waiting a while, but that's just my opinion. All of the arguments for it, up to and including the argument that it's better for kids to be raised in marriage, flirt around but never actually address the central elephant, which is that the reason it's considered more secure is that people are forced to put up with sh!t they'd end a relationship over in a heartbeat if there was no financial penalty involved.

So what it actually means, is that it makes people more reluctant to end unhappy relationships.

Its a good thing people can't end relationships at the drop of a hat especially when children are involved. Also there are other important things like next of kin rights and tax exemptions that simply cannot be handed out without the people involved giving a strong and official commitment to each other that they cannot simply get out of when ever they feel like it.

The Corinthian

zeffabelli wrote: »

Government can't force you to get married but they can force you to stay married. If neither party want this, why should this be?

I never said the government can force you to get married. I said the government can force you to do whatever you have agreed to be forced to when you get married. You signed up, you agreed to the conditions - tough.

You brought up alimony so it's as relevant as you decided to make it. If neither party wants to pursue alimony, then no the government can't make them.

And I already pointed out this was irrelevant. Coercion can still be employed based upon what one agreed upon getting married and that's the point. You seem to be under the delusion that you can make an agreement and then change your mind on the conditions whenever you change your mind. You can't - at least not with the government.

If neither party wants to remain married why should the government make them?

Because that's what they signed up to.

The Corinthian

Bentley Gorgeous Yachtsman wrote: »

Its a good thing people can't end relationships at the drop of a hat especially when children are involved.

Actually they can.

Also there are other important things like next of kin rights and tax exemptions that simply cannot be handed out without the people involved giving a strong and official commitment to each other that they cannot simply get out of when ever they feel like it.

What exactly is this commitment anyway? Why is an inheritance tax exception worthy of those who have made such a commitment and not of, for example, a good friend? Why is a spouse you may be trapped in an unhappy relationship to a better next of kin to someone you might prefer to choose?