Straight Marriage To Be Just a Voluntary Contract in New York
New York State may at last join the rest of the country in no-fault divorce-a bill has passed the state Senate, and the Assembly is dealing with two bills on the matter. There's a very helpful series of contributions, largely from actual people who know things, in the Times: an economist, a law professor, a sociologist… and then two policy people/lobbyists. Surprisingly, the most distressing of these contributions is from the president the New York chapter of NOW.
While the Wharton School professor presents evidence that women are less likely to commit suicide in no-fault divorce states, and also found a "large decrease" in domestic violence, attributed to the idea that it's easier to leave a spouse without going through the legal system with an abuser, NOW is clinging to its policy that no-fault divorce is bad for women. They write:
No-fault takes away any bargaining leverage the non-moneyed spouse has. Currently she can say, "If you want a divorce I'll agree, but you have to work out a fair agreement."
That is not "blackmail" as has been claimed by some no-fault proponents. Negotiating the terms of the breakup of a partnership is the way partnerships are dissolved in the business world. Women should have the same protection.
While, speaking as a gay, I'm of course happy to have marriage reduced further to an issue of contracts and arbitration, which, oh right, it is. (And all citizens have an equal right to enter into contracts, right? Riiiight.)
But this seems a pretty wild way to stake out a feminist position. Why isn't NOW pressing for the new divorce laws to at least make New York a community property state-and also pressing for legislation against asset-hiding, and the creation of legal assistance for divorcing women to assist with asset-hiding spouses? Since the whole point of getting out of the marriage is, I guess, to get paid.
In the end, all this just makes me think marriage seems kind of icky. Straight people sure are crazy, entering into contracts willy-nilly and then doing their best to screw over their former business partners.
As long as we're reducing marriage to a contract there should be an anniversary clause- whereby both parties have the option of renewing for another year or not following a performance evaluation.
He wants a non-compete clause, she wants more royalties.
After the first year, the marriage goes month-to-month.
Sorry, but the contract model is an imperfect analogy. If marriage were just a contract, then you should be able to write it in a much greater variety of ways subject to the consent of both parties. Tthe more desirable partner could then insist on (for example) a clause where the annual renewal is at his/her sole option. And the parties should be able to remove all future disputes from the jurisdiction of the courts with an arbitration clause. Etc. Very flawed analogy. Marriage is a contract whose range of possible terms is severely limited by the society that enforces the contract. It is not really very much like a lease or a sale-and-purchase contract or an employment contract.
Not sure it's fair to judge marriage by the process of disolving one. There, I over-simplified your point for you. Oh, you're welcome.
Ha! Well actually, I kind of think that is true? Like, you can dress up a marriage in an act of God suit but then if actually God doesn't have to come down to break it asunder, well… The only teeth contracts have is the terms of their dissolution, really.
Right, but, God forbid, if my 15-year marriage (plus 9 years of living is sin) were to fall apart tomorrow, I hope I and others would think of it as something beyond just that ending. A bit like saying so-and-so had a bad life because, in the end, he was run over by a garbage truck. I don't think the contractual element makes marriage so much as divorce icky.
True. The attitude that a failed marriage/relationship/whatever means a relationship that was never worth having is something to constantly fight. I think it'd also make people less likely to hang on to broken marriages just to keep that time of their life feeling valid and awesome.
ALL OF THIS. Plus, the idea that a relationship was never worth having is extra super-duper hard on the kids. Which might make therapists happy, but no one else.
The assumption that the "non-moneyed spouse" is necessarily the female poses some problems, no?
No. It's a known fact that the ladies spend all the money men give them on shoes.
@jolie:
Hell, yes. But don't tell NOW or they'll really step up their annoying fundraising mailers.
Heh. I can think of more than a few friends/couples I know (living in NYC) where that assumption clearly does not fit.
THIS.
I'm going to be the neolithic bastard who says it: in any divorce involving kids, the ex-wife has all the bargaining leverage she wants. I saw this first-hand growing up, and PERHAPS AS A CONSEQUENCE I am not the biggest fan of 'marriage' today.
This is changing. Dads are getting rad and organizing.
Also, historically, when dads have fought for custody, they often got it (so I read about 10, 15 years ago).
@Bookish: Thank you, Alec Baldwin
@scrolly: We have so much to thank him for.
@Bookish: "Chest hair you could lose a phone in".
@scrolly: Sigh. Nobody rocks the fur quite like Mr. Baldwin.
@Bookish: Shhhhhh! Balk can hear you!
I accidentally dropped my phone into my pubes, and I still can't find it. Could one of you please *call me?
@Art: I told you not to use so much activator down there. Now it'll be like trying to catch a greased pig.
@scroll: next time, I'll remember to use Aqua-Net, so the dropped phone bounces right off.
I wish the band Reno Divorce were better, because it's a great name.
In New Jersey they have rehabilitative alimony, temporary alimony, or permanent alimony. Permanent alimony is a terrifying concept. All that being said, if 50% of all marriages end in divorce, the other 50% must end in death, so perhaps divorce isn't that bad.
I don't know any women in New York who don't work. Maybe this is to protect the women leaving a marriage in rural upstate New York?
Oh, wait. I heard NOW is changing its name to National Organization for Rich Bitches Who Don't Want to Ever Get a Job
But NOW is so much easier to say?!?
Also who doesn't love women! But I'm sure somebody out there doesn't love rich bitches &c.
@Deep: By the way, is my reading of your name this way incorrect?
Deep O Mega
@Bookish: I like Dee POMEGA
Hah! MEGA IRISH.
TheAwl's style guide specifically states that in non-screen name situations, it should be rendered as DeepOmega. I really, really, really don't want to explain where the name itself came from, so imagine your own exegesis.
A long time ago I was against marriage for gays. In my warped mind, I thought that whole "marriage's definition is a union between a man blah blah blah. I hated being married to my husband. I stayed until my son was 18. The light finally dawned on Marblehead that I had NO RIGHT telling ANYONE who and who should not be able to get married. I would SUGGEST that those who do not currently have the right, be careful of what they ask for. It is a scary proposition. I like the annual contract renewal (a reason to sit and talk about the relationship.)
Welcome to the 20th fucking century. As someone going through this sad but ridiculous rite of passage, I was shocked to discover how ass-backwards this state is.
Here are my choices.
1) Live a year in separation. Because we all know nothing brings a dead relationship back to life like dragging its dead corpse around for a year and beating it with a stick.
or
2) Lie and say one of us didn't put out for a year. Now, I'm not above lying to the government, but considering the marriage lasted a year and a half, my pride just wouldn't let me do that. "Why, yes, for a full 12 months of the 18 month marriage, we didn't touch one another."
As far as NOW goes, will they give me a cookie since my ex made more than me and I didn't go after her for alimony because hey, this shit happens and it's not my money? Or am I showing disrespect by not treating her like a man would be treated?
Your pride? Didn't you surrender that when you said "I do"?
Sorry, I don't mean to be a bitch*, but you've been married for a minute, I doubt you even bothered getting a joint checking account, baby. Suck it up and get on with it.
*I am a bitch. Again, sorry.
Why, yes, you are a bitch. But a funny one. I'm laughing through my wounded-pride tears.
Oh, and joint savings, but no joint checking.
Onward and upward, my dear. Lots of good fish in the sea.
Mmmmmm, sea fish.
Really I just want to register at Crate & Barrel IS IT SO MUCH TO ASK!?
Copper, lots of copper.
No…but you'll need to understand if you get married and then divorced I'm going to expect you to send the Vita-Mix back to me. Same rules for gays and straights.
Oh, I'll send it back… but not in the original packaging! M'wah ha ha ha!
Keep your damn civil rights but I WANT SERVICE FOR EIGHT.
Goons, you could make your fortune if you put that on a bumper sticker and sold it at Pride.
That will cover the cost of a nice set of Tiffany Audubon (you like sterling, right?). No, go forth!
Having passed the Senate as part of a package of three bills that includes no-fault divorce, the State Assembly is currently considering passing a similar bill. Together, these bills will replace the current statute for determining maintenance (the New York equivalent of alimony) with a mathematical formula based on post-marital income and the length of the marriage. The proposed formula uses just two of the 12 factors currently used to determine maintenance, the ones that are easiest to measure – the respective incomes of the parties and the duration of the marriage. The rationale is that using these parameters is simpler and yields more consistent results than the current statute. The legislation does not take into account the unique aspects of each case and does not lead to more equitable or workable outcomes, just very different ones. The new guidelines are presumptive, not advisory. While theoretically rebuttable (potentially at great cost and with no guarantees), if history is any precedent, they will be relied upon heavily by the courts. Simply put, whether or not applying the guidelines produces equitable or workable results, it will be the quickest and easiest way to make determinations. The bottom line is that simpler and more consistent does not necessarily equate with better and could easily equate with worse, even much worse. Since there are relatively inexpensive methods available to analyze needs and paying abilities in different settlement contexts, it is an unnecessary workaround that substitutes one set of problems for another. Though well-intentioned, this is bad legislation.