Letters to the Editor
-
Revised formula
Your expected income after marriage must be reduced by the 40-45% probability of divorce times the cost of divorce. The average cost of divorce is $20,000 (contested divorces can be considerably more expensive). On the average, your expected income after marriage should be reduced by eight or nine thousand dollars.
-
You know ...
I don't care whether you get married or not, whether your partner is the same sex or the opposite sex, or what you think of the way I've arranged my relationship.
But there's an interesting thread running through these comments: "I failed at marriage, and it's the fault of the institution, although my spouse turned out to be subhuman as well." In other words: "It's everyone's fault but mine." That's rarely true. No matter what you call it, there's still the idea of a relationship between two people who ought to be equal, and I keep hearing, "... except I couldn't hold my own." And that's the elephant no one wants to acknowledge.
-
Happily married..(this time) but..
I do not understand the issue with the Newsweek column. I actually bought the magazine to give the article in question to my 21 year old daughter. She (living with a boyfriend OMG!) found it thoughtful and expressed some her thoughts as a child of divorce. What I do not understand (and never will) is the vitriol that is spewed every time somebody declines to partake in the marriage ritual. By the way, nearly every credible researcher will tell you that marriage has historically been about property rights and legitimizing inheritance. Many of the poor in previous generations never bothered with (or could afford) church and state sanctioned marriage because they had nothing to pass on. FWIIW..I blame the Catholic church for making marriage a "sacrament" and placing mystical and supernatural properties on a very human experience and thus making it much more than it should be--a simple declaration of commitment.
-
The woman in the article
isn't legally married--but she says they solidified their commitment with a ceremony and recently bought a house together. I mean, what's the diff? Besides the fact that you won't get any respect from ER personnel and so forth. If they split, they'll have just the same amount of heartbreak, plus the financial pain the ass of splitting their joint assets.
Live together, marry, I don't care. The reason why married folks get pissed at people who act like they're all evolved and stuff for not getting a "piece of paper" is the same reason people who don't have the piece of paper get pissed at married folks who act like theirs is the One True Way. Because it's freaking annoying, that's why. People don't have to like your choice, but when they act like theirs is a moral step above, it tends to be a bit of a pisser and you'd like to see something a little bad happen to them just to take them down a notch or two. Chalk it up to human nature.
-
you don't need to be married to be responsible for child support and paternal rights (such as they are) don't depend on marriage
I don't think marriage makes much difference to a fathers legal position-for good or ill.
-
Medical Proxies
Many of the posters have commented on a reason for marriage being the ability to make medical and end-of-life decisions for one's partner/spouse. One of the problems with the Terry Schiavo case was that she didn't have a piece of paper designating her husband as her health care proxy. I'd like to think that the legal shitstorm that ensued wouldn't have gotten as far as it did if the paper did exist.
That being said, as a physician I know that health care proxies are often ignored (if they are known about at all). I can't believe I'm actually saying this, but maybe we need to be sued a few times over this. A few high-profile cases may be just what we need to increase awareness.
*looks in the sky to see if lightning will strike her down*
-
The bottom line:
Bonnie Eslinger, the article's author, wrote: "And for me, that's the bottom line when I consider cashing in on all the benefits our heterosexual relationship is entitled to. My gay friends can't do that. I don't want to send a message to anyone, including my daughter—who may someday choose a same-sex life partner—that the value of her relationships can be determined by law and the affirmation of others."
I love that she won't dine at the straight people's country club when some of her buds/fellow citizens are denied entry.
-
the party and the paper
A marriage is a multi-faceted event. It is:
1. a religious ceremony
2. A legal contract
3. A huge party
People choose to marry for any or all of the above reasons. Certainly #3 is the least important (though often the most stressed). And plenty of people aren't interested in #1. But reason #2 is perhaps the most important reason to get that "piece of paper." I don't understand the attitude that disdains a legal relationship with guaranteed rights and protections as "meaningless." Opt out of it if you wish, but don't call it "meaningless." And if anyone plans to have children (or knows they won't abort unintended pregnancies) then to deny the children the protections a legal marriage offers is outright irresponsible.
As for the "My Turn" writer, I also don't get how or why her opting out of a legal marriage helps the cause of gay marriage. Any more than gay couples marrying "hurts" the institution of marriage, or harms hetero marriages. The words are nice, and the sentiment is laudable, but the gesture is, well, silly. Marriage is not a country club. The writer would do better to marry, and use her position as a married person to say "See? I am not damaged by gay people wanting what I have."