This week a study came out that shows how unilateral divorce laws make divorce more frequent. The empirical research shows what any sensible person would already guess — easy divorce laws make for more divorces. This is only magnified by the fact the divorcing party usually has great incentives to divorce and few incentives to stay (independent of whatever marital problems may exist). The fact that this is even a debate in academia shows how politicized and irrational the academy has become. Sure, there are plenty of other reasons to divorce that also drive the high rate of marriage failures, but government incentivizes failure, not success. That certainly doesn't help.
Add into this debate on divorce law the current debate on gay marriage. With easy divorce, marriage has been demoted to the status of a contract. If it's just a meaningless contract, why can't any combination of participants enter into it? A good question that cannot be easily answered when framed that way.
First off, marriage in this society (independent of its religious roots) is not even a contract. Contracts are designed to be enforceable in the event of a breach. Divorce rewards the breaching party most of the time. None of the terms of marriage are enforceable in any real way. There are no options for a spouse to rein in an adulterous partner and the few laws still on the books against adultery are waiting to be declared unconstitutional.
Further, easy divorce ends up putting the entire lives of the parties into the public record and under the control of a judge. One can walk to any courthouse in this country and start reading detailed accounts of broken marriages. Judges have tremendous power to allocate assets, assign living arrangements, and exercise large amounts of control over the parties. This should greatly worry any libertarian.
One wonders why gay people want a piece of that action. Straight couples are putting off marriage because many wonder if it's really worth all the risk. Gay couples certainly aren't immune from divorce either. Marriage is a loaded term devoid of any meaning behind it. It appears that gay marriage is an attempt at social acceptance, not any desire for benefits. Any real look at marriage shows that on the balance, marriage confers a net liability, not a net benefit.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - gonzo marx
one - your assertion that someone "profits" from divorce in any substantial financial means is completely incorrect on it's face
to wit: there is a total amount of property and income in the "marriage" before a divorce happens...a single total net worth, then a divorce...no matter how the Judge slices it, it's still no greater than the total net worth the moment before the divorce is granted
now, subtract substantial legal fees for both lawyers and court costs
where's the prophet....errr, profit?
secondly, as soon as you stray from the secular legal meaning of marriage (which IS a civil contract..the divorce laws showing the consequences of breaking the contract)you get into the realm of what Individuals, their religions/churches and traditions are as to how it is defined by those being Married in the religious sense
knocking those two proffered postulates from your prose portends painful precepts purloined, perhaps?
for John....heh
Excelsior?
2 - Clavos
On the one hand, you argue:
"Straight couples are putting off marriage because many wonder if it's really worth all the risk."
And, on the other hand, you opine:
"The fact is, until the promises made and the obligations uttered on the wedding day are actually binding in any real way, it's hard to find much of a public good."
You are saying that people are putting off marriage because it's too easy to get out of, which makes it "risky"(?)
So your solution is to imprison people in their marriages by making it more difficult to dissolve them?
Sounds to me like that would make people even MORE reluctant to marry, not less.
3 - Clavos
Most excellent video, gm.
4 - gonzo marx
thanks Clavos for the bodacious praise...glad ya liked, now the Question...
will it's Message be understood?
heh
Excelsior?
5 - RJ
Under current laws, it would seem that few sane men would choose to marry a woman of child-bearing age.
Fact: A large percentage of marriages end in divorce.
Fact: In the event of a divorce, it is much more likely for a man to end up paying alimony to his ex-wife than the reverse.
Fact: If children are involved, in the vast majority of cases women will get the custody, which usually means that the man is expected to pay a substantial portion of his income towards child support while having very limited access to his own children, who could very well end up being raised largely by the ex-wife's new boyfriend(s).
Fact: If a divorced father finds himself in a difficult financial situation, he could wind up in jail (basically, debtor's prison) for failing to pay child support in a timely manner.
And even while in a marriage, a husband can be arrested in many states and sent to jail simply because his spouse accuses him of physical assault (even if there is no evidence to back this claim up, many states require officers to arrest the male "offender" and hold him in jail for at least 24 hours in such cases).
6 - Zedd
John,
This is a well considered article.
Marriage however is not a religious institution but a social one. Marriage has existed in all cultures. Only a few cultures permitted for temporary connections between spouses but even in those situations the connection was considered legitimate while it lasted.
The negotiations for marriage did not involve religion but a social contract that was sealed in most cases by gift exchanges. Many cultures required a dowry for either of the gender's families. The dowry is not a religious ritual. It bonds the one spouse to the other family.
One of my students is Ethiopian and has a son who just got married. He told me that their weddings here in the states will have up to 700 people attending. The entire community shows up from all over the nation to witness the sealing of this union. This occurrence got me to thinking....
It takes the entire society, holding similar values about family, revering the bond between man and wife, understanding the large impact on society when the dissolution of this union occurs, to participate in holding the couple accountable.
However the downfall is that most of such cultures allow for philandering (perhaps they have to??). A man in many of these cultures having someone on the side is not shocking. Its not any less hurtful to the wife but it occurs and is in some way part of the culture. However the other women is not respected and would be shunned if found out.
What happens in these set ups is that women often find themselves in abusive situations. If not physically abusive, mentally abusive. So we can say that divorce has helped men treat women better in marriage.
I would conclude by saying that the more society pushes towards equality between the genders, less unrealistic expectations of what a woman is (work horse and sex maven), the more the two families work to keep the two united, the more we let go of the unrealistic expectations of fidelity (sad to say), the more we fully embrace the unromantic aspect of the union and hold on to the partnership and collaborative aspect of it, the better chance the institution will have.
As for gays and marriage..... that doesn't compute. WHY must they?
7 - Zedd
RJ
Did you consider the "whys" behind your bullets?
8 - Zedd
Gonzo,
I would say that men do often profit from having been married.
In often cases their success is due to the support of a dutiful wife; arranging their schedule, helping them with things as small as grooming to things as large as negotiating contracts and their upward mobility in business and politics. After a divorce, men often live much better than their spouse, after she has aided in his success, he lives out the rest of his life with the gains while she has to start over managing day care and living expenses.
9 - John Bambenek
Re: religious vs social institution
I'm not sure you can create a brightline distinction between religion and social institutions, mostly because religion is social and always has been. Even hermits formed small societies. But not all social institutions come with the cultic aspects of marriage. There are rituals, invocations of a higher power, special ceremonies and so on that certainly seem to indicate it's religious components. However, no one considered it a purely religious arrangement, which is why there were plenty of economic or social packages to come along with it (you mention the particular Western practice of dowries).
I'm not sure the universality of the allowance for men to have women on the side. I can't speak to Africa, per se, but I know in Christian nations, particularly up to the Enlightenment or so, adultery was just as frowned upon for men as it was for women. The "outside the home" nature of how men operated allowed for them to get away with it more, perhaps, but on the books, the practice was just as shunned. Remember, the entire child support regime was designed specifically as a countermeasure for the philandering husband (not divorce).
I would highly challenge "unrealistic expectations" of fidelity. That makes marriage a mere temporary economic partnership, and quite frankly, asset sharing should have no privileged place in society. If the vows of marriage are essentially "we'll share until we stop" then they should incorporate, not marry.
Gonzo-
As far as profiting in divorce, another commenter responded to show how this is so... namely child support. Usually (but not exclusively) a woman can decide she doesn't like her man anymore, dump him, get the house, get child support (and that support doesn't have to go to the child), can get custody, can interfere with visitation, can lodge false accusations with impunity, and can get a new man while still drawing on the paycheck of the last husband. In what kind of contract can you break the contract and demand the "faithful" party give you a paycheck for 18 years?
10 - gonzo marx
John - still, where is the profit that you contended was there?
the child support and other considerations are awarded by a Judge for the care of the children created by both parents
if this is abused by one spouse, then that needs to be dealt with...but all is taken into account when done properly in order to care for the children of said marriage
your Issues appears to be when some abuse the system, which is completely understandable...
but the divorce awards are set up to care for those kids...a fulltime job for those 18 years you mention, if one spouse is awarded custody, the other helps financially as their fair share of caring for said children
can it be done better and more equitably? probably
but as some kind of profitable venture? that assertion holds no water, either logically or legally, imo
Excelsior?
11 - John Bambenek
I said where the profit is... in what other form of contract can you break it and then get the other party to pay you for the consequences?
As an aside, even a cursory look at the child support system will show you that it's not really set up to care for those kids, it's set up as a profit center for the courts and state government only marginally connected with the welfare of kids. This can be seen from a variety of ways, up to and including the fact that the "child support" award is not based at all on the needs of the child but on the income of the parent being charged and that the check sent for child support need not be spent actually on child support.
In theory, could it be set up better, sure. That's my point... the entire regime is set up poorly. You and I agree on that point, we're just haggling over the particulars.
12 - gonzo marx
what i'm haggling about is your use of the word "profit"..it just ain't there
even the parent with custody has less than what was available during the marriage, and the total assets do not grow, but are diminished as i pointed out earlier
your misgivings are noted, but i contend that you are blowing some things out of proportion, that's all
Excelsior?
13 - Zedd
John
I wasn't speaking of Africa. Perhaps my example about Ethiopia threw you off.
Surely you know that in countries like Italy France and Spain a mistress is not looked upon in the way that we view a mistress. THAT is what I am speaking of. This phenomenon exists in most countries, industrialized and not.
All activities within society (meaning Europe as well John) involved ritual... hunting, harvesting, et al. In Christian life today for instance, one includes God in everything that they do but it doesn't mean that the mundane activities in life are religious acts. I say grace before I eat but we cant say that eating is a religious activity.
Marriage was designed for the survival of the species. If the male knows who his offspring is, he will more likely take care of it (hunt and protect). If he is in a union with a woman and she has no other lovers at that time and it is known by everyone that that is the case, he is more assured that the offspring are his.
Religion gave commentary on the institution, as it does with everything else, such as eating as we have already established or commerce or investing or hygiene and we can go on.
Now........ knowing what you know about the purpose of marriage REALLY, where does it take your discussion?
14 - Mark Saleski
always remember this: conservatives are for less government, except for when they're for more government.
15 - moonraven
Even the concept of marriage is completely obsolete.
Speedy Gonzales declared the Geneva Conventions, habeas corpus, the rule of law--and just about everything else he could think of--to be obsolete.
Oddly, he seems unconcerned about that completely useless appendix in the system of law called MARRIAGE.
(Perhaps he's planning on becoming a divorce lawyer once the tar and feathers wear off....)
I already posted this on another thread--seems more to the point on this one, though:
Marriages fail because:
1. Marriage is a medieval concept. In a post-industrial age society we don't need to produce 14 children--7 of which are supposed to die and 7 of which are to work the field. Get real.
2. Marriage brings out the WORST in people--all the nasty bits such as leaving the seat up, dropping socks on the floor, watching tv, fishing--these don't occur until the contract is in place.
16 - SteveS
You ask what good can come about by recognizing gay marriage?
Well, currently, there are over 10 million kids in this country being raised by gay and lesbian parents. The American Pediatric Association has come out with a report showing that the religious condemnations that these gay families endure, stress out these children who are as young as 4 years old.
Should my partner die, why doesn't my child get the same benefits your child would get if your partner dies? Recognizing that all families are equal and entitled to the same is only good. There is no evil in that, nor does it lessen the value of one family to recognize another.
Marriage may have started as a religious institution, who knows however non-religious people get married all the time in city hall. Marriage has completely changed over the years. It used to be a transfer of property, then it was making sure a man had his harem, and on it changes. Marriage has now been wrapped up in the government to provide protection and security for families. All families should get these protections, not just families that you biblically approve of.
Recently, we attended a family reunion in Virginia. Virginia is one of the most hostile states towards gay families, not only refusing to recognize our relationships, but actually saying in it's laws that relationships from outside the state cannot be recognized on an equal level with marriage.
What they are saying is that if my partner had a diabetic attack while we were there, it doesn't matter if the hospital is gay friendly or even if the doctor was gay or gay tolerant, but that they are required by law to NOT recognize me as a spouse.
Suppose something had happened to him, and me and our daughter were sitting there in the emergency room. How would you like to be the one to tell a kindergartner that you don't recognize the only family she's ever known and the inevitable death that will result from the bigotry?
There is a story here, complete with picture, of a gay family who encountered that just last february. In 2007, this is still going on.
A woman and her three children, aged 7 to 13, couldn't see the only other parent they've ever known because of a hostile hospital who refused to consider the patient their mommy. She of course died because they would't allow the family to make medical decisions.
We shouldn't have to prove to you, John, what 'good' will come about by recognizing all families as equal. Rather, you should have to prove, what 'harm' will come about by getting rid of bigotry, oppression and ignorance.
And the American Pediatrics Association report showing that the Christian Right in this country, in their assault on families causes undue harm, stress and trauma to children as young as 4 is right here.
17 - gonzo marx
SteveS sez - "We shouldn't have to prove to you, John, what 'good' will come about by recognizing all families as equal. Rather, you should have to prove, what 'harm' will come about by getting rid of bigotry, oppression and ignorance."
Quoted for Truth
and for all the times i've Asked and never been Answered on that self same Question...i could spit pure battery acid...
sign me up with the civil Libertarians on this one, folks who want to get married should be able to legally do so under civil jurisdiction...
nuff said
Excelsior?
18 - Zedd
Steve
Stop the drama.
She could adopt those kids and she would be their mommy.
BUT, she chose to make up something that is biologically impossible. SHE chose to pretend that she and her partner could have children. THEY CANT. Now she is whining, knowing full well that the laws don't support her insane fantasy? There are real problems in society. Pretending as if you can make a baby with someone of the same gender and expecting sane people to go along with you is mean spirited, bratty and controlling.
There are sick, starving, suffering, war ridden, abused people all over the world. No energy needs to be dispensed on this madness.
19 - gonzo marx
ummm..any woman who is capable is quite able to have kids without having relations with Men..
we call them, silly as it is, sperm banks
one of the purposes for Marriage is indeed children, but that is not the ONLY reason for people to desire it...
my wife and i can't have children, does this lessen my Marriage at all after 21 years and counting?
we call that Logic....kidding, just a Jest
folks wanting equal Rights under the Law is not "silliness"...ask Rosa Parks
Excelsior?
20 - Zedd
Gonzo,
Gonzo,
Equal rights to do what?
Should I complain and throw a tantrum because I cant grow a full beard?
How is it a right to pretend as if two people of the SAME gender have the "tools" to have kids A RIGHT?
Also don't insult us Blacks with such foolishness. Gays have rights as human beings. Full constitutional rights. No less than anyone else.
.
21 - gonzo marx
didn't i just point out that it ain't all about kids?
your preoccupation with the biological, rather than the psychological and socio-politic is a bit frustrating when attempting to discuss this topic
but we've done it before, no need to repeat the Dance
i'm for Individual liberties, in the realm of Marriage, i consider only the civil contract recognized by the government, and consider it an equal protection Issue
anyone else is, of course, well within their Rights to their own Opinion...
but i point back up to my quote from Steve...and paraphrase...
what harm does it do ANYONE to recognize folks as able to be married under the Law? how specifically does it harm or infringe on the Rights of anyone else if other family arraingements besides a man and a woman are recognized legally?
until someone can answer me that single Question...i just can't see any reason to not respect equal protection for everybody of legal age
oh yes...not insulting anyone...Mrs. Parks had those "same human rights as anyone else" too...
but she wasn't supposed to take that seat...what "right" covers that in your opinion?
equal protection...those words are carefully chosen, think about it
Excelsior?
Excelsior?
22 - Zedd
Gonzo,
Because we have gone through this before, you should know what the harm is.
You don't call a turtle a pig. Its wrong on so many fronts no matter how psychologically ill the turtle who wants to be pig is.
You know full well that I am for full rights. So the legal aspect is NOT the issue. Gays just want us to pretend with them that they are the same as same gender couples and they CANT be. Its impossible. The closest that they can get to that is if one of them has a gender change and even then the change would be only pretend, like paper dolls.
Sorry. Its time that we stop playing along with this silliness.
Now as for your respect for logic, please present some so that we can have a meaningful discussion.
23 - Zedd
Gonzo,
Ms. Parks couldn't vote, vote.
24 - gonzo marx
so, you are saying that the *harm* is because of mislabelling?
just trying to make certain i comprehend your position...it appears that you contend that the accepted meaning of a word in a legal context is greater than that of an Individual to enter into the very same social contract as others do with equal protection under the Law...is that accurate?
you do realize that you gender changing example woudl be able to be legally married after the operation, but without that operation, they cannot be wed....yet in neither case can they produce children on their own?
you also realize that not only are artificial insemination, adoption but also surrogate mothering contracts are among the things hanging in the balance and can provide children, genetic and otherwise, for any family Unit able to take care of them?
but let's go back to the baseline...are you contending that this *harm* being done that is the reason for preventing these legal adults to enter into a legal/social contract is because you deem semantics more important and that the meaning of a word has Rights greater than that of a select minority of Individuals?
Excelsior?
25 - gonzo marx
oh and we ain't talking about Rosa voting...that is another part of the Argument...we are talking about the simple action of sitting down on a bus...much more trivial than Voting....or Marriage
think about it
Excelsior?