The recent debates over gay marriage, civil unions and what exactly marriage even means today reminded me of how antiquated our marriage and family laws have become. They don't take into account how the nature of wealth has vastly changed over the last few decades. I am neither an advocate nor an opponent of marriage but I do believe that the financial obligations we assume when entering into a marriage contract, including the court-ordered redistribution of personal wealth that takes place upon divorce, are not well understood by most of our citizens. Even lawyers I have known have been confused about the differences between spousal versus child support. If Chris Anderson really wanted to investigate the long tail, he should have taken a look at the potential length of California spousal support terms.
California has always been the leader in divorce and alimony law, and I think it is time the state started addressing the profound inequities alimony judgments have created. In short, alimony has evolved into a pension plan for the less successful spouse. In many cases, this pension commitment becomes a lifelong burden for the paying spouse, regardless of who initiated the divorce and under what conditions the marriage dissolved. It promotes unproductive behaviors as well, such as the alimony recipient avoiding employment in order to maximize spousal support. The spousal support payer may reluctantly forgo re-marriage as well, fearing the income of his/her new partner will be combined for the purposes of calculating higher support payments. If the state believes that promoting marriage among the population is a public good (a reasonable belief), then it needs to reduce the severe financial penalties associated with divorce. And since many marriages do end in divorce, it makes sense to acknowledge, upfront, the consequences of that likely outcome.
One marriage-neutral option would be to provide every couple with a simple disclosure form that highlights the financial obligations they are about to assume.
This disclosure form could easily fit on just a single page, with disclosures of the following sort:
1. The State of California recognizes your marriage as a legally binding contract.
2. By entering into marriage in this state, you agree to assume all debts incurred by your spouse during the marriage, whether or not you were aware of these debts when incurred, and whether or not you personally benefited from them in any way.
3. You also agree to provide monetary payments to your spouse in the event your marriage dissolves and you are the higher income earner. The amount and length of these payments will be decided by a court of law.
4. The State can and will use its court and police powers to enforce the financial obligations you are assuming in the event of divorce, including the garnishment of your wages and your incarceration in the state prison system for your failure to comply with court ordered spousal payments
5. If your spouse so chooses, he/she may divorce you at anytime. In so doing, he/she may be legally entitled to receive monetary payments from you for a time period that may extend to the rest of your natural life. These spousal support payments may exceed 50% of your income, could be adjusted upward if you remarry and as a result have more disposable income, and they cannot be eliminated though bankruptcy.
6. The conduct of your spouse, including him/her having one or multiple out-of-wedlock affairs, does not change your legal obligation to provide spousal support.
7. If you are the higher earning spouse, you may be required to pay your lower earning spouse's divorce related legal bills. This is the case regardless of which spouse initiated the divorce and regardless of the conduct of either spouse during the marriage
8. If you have questions or concerns about what financial obligations you are about to assume, it may be advisable to consult with a family law attorney before signing your marriage contract.
The most important point to highlight when it comes to marriage is that the State of California recognizes it as a legally binding contract. Too often that simple fact is misunderstood or ignored by the couple getting married. In fact, curiously, the one thing the state absolutely does not care about is whether or not a couple is "in love." There is no requirement to be "in love" to be legally married in the State of California, or any other state for that matter. Only in recent human history -- perhaps the last 150 years -- has the predominant purpose of marriage been associated with romantic love. It has nearly always been, and remains in much of the world, primarily an efficient method of property redistribution. In the end, the state, and your future divorce lawyer, care only about one thing: the legal enforceability of the marriage contract as it relates to the financial obligations borne by the higher wage earner.
Our society has become accustomed to warning its citizens of potential legal and financial hazards every time they enter into a contract, even those of relatively small consequence. We as a society like to be informed when we are assuming a financial obligation, particularly one that is potentially large and open-ended. Isn't it odd then that while we require our citizens to initial car rental forms (just in case they didn't realize that they will be charged $6 a gallon to fill the gas tank), we let 18 year olds get married without so much as a tap on the shoulder about the greatest financial liability they will likely ever assume? Keep in mind that we are talking about state-sanctioned marriage, a legally enforceable contract. Shouldn't such a contract, with its profound lifelong financial repercussions, only be assumed by those fully informed of its potential consequences? This is why I completely support a marriage financial obligation disclosure form.
If I knew then what I know now.
Marriage is slavery and bondage for men - if you are male, avoid it at all costs!!!!
I was taught that a man is suppose to give the woman he loves everything he has. A woman, on the other hand, is suppose to give herself, meaning unquestionable faithfulness, loyalty until death, and of course children and a "castle" to come home to.
Despite them all, "hope does spring eternal," and we all want to believe that we are different or invincible and what happens to other people "will never happen to us."
.....Yeah, right.
I don't think the notion that a homemaker receive temporary assistance to get on their feet is in dispute, but the notion that alimony is, as the article puts it, "a pension plan for the less successful spouse." (Where "success" is defined as earning power)
When circumstances necessitate it, alimony should be like unemployment: a temporary fix for a temporary situation. It should not be a life-long source of income that disincentivizes re-entering the workforce at one's full capability.
"The primary years for earning and career advancemenÂt happen to coincide with primary child bearing years, the 30-40's."
Primary child bearing years for women are in their 20s to early 30s at the latest, not 30s-40s. Greater age reduces fertility and increases the risk of miscarriage and genetic abnormality, especially after the age of ~35 is passed.
Superior Court of California, County of San Benito
"Depending on the number of children and the amount of income the paying parent has, the percentage of take-home pay which goes for child support can be anything from about forty percent to fifty percent or more of that parent’s after-tax income."
Spiritual marriage counselors--your pastors-- can help you with the truth of the matter, living with and through the differnent stages that comes in marriage. Finding people dedicated, sincere, and truthful is hard but worth it. Sorry you have had such a bad call on m.counselors.
Me 1 marriage, 1 divorce, no kids, no debt.
Love is love. Business is business.
A breadwinner that decides to work outside the home and stays with the same company for 10+ years isn't guaranteed anything. Not only are they not guaranteed anything, they must also accept the risk that they will have to divide the future fruits of their labor with another adult for the rest of that adult's life regardless of circumstance. (e.g., a homemaker engages in adultery and initiates divorce and the breadwinner is forced by the state to pay the adulterer lest the breadwinner suffer the legal consequences.)
This isn't an equitable situation. Homemakers are still adults and adults are expected to take care of themselves if the need arises. Marriage shouldn't be a golden ticket that's redeemed through divorce.
I am sure that you played a part in this.. and you are not a "victim" There are always two sides to the story.