Not on wifes will

[not2cleverRed]

boy, this site is a common reminder as to why a person should bypass on the concept of a legal marriage !!

it is just a bunch of rules about how one person can confiscate assets from another person

And everyone marrying knows those rules and can plan accordingly. Some of these rules protect partners.

Whereas shacking up without the benefit of marriage doesn't have such clearly defined rules.

When brothers co-own a family property, and one brother still refers to the other's wife of over 50 years as "that woman", you can bet that "that woman" and her children from the marriage are glad of those rules.

 

[Zigner]

you will argue about something, even when wrong, until the cows come home

there is nothing about legal marriage that involves love, or any of the things that is touted in our society

it is simply a property contract - my last post on the subject

I understand that you are posting your opinion.

 

[quincy]

.. there is nothing about legal marriage that involves love, or any of the things that is touted in our society

it is simply a property contract ...

Yikes. I suspect someone had a less-than-satisfactory marriage at some point.

That said, I did only marry my wife for her Mustang. I loved that car. Haha.

 

[Taxing Matters]

not ridiculous, at all. just the truth. it is all just about property rights, and who gets what, etc. etc.

While certainly part of it is about property rights, there is a lot more to it than that. If you are unmarried you have to take extra steps to achieve many of the things marriage automatically provides. For example, the spouse is the one who will be allowed to make medical decisions for you by default. If you are unmarried, you have to create a medical power of attorney to do that. Your spouse is generally first in line to be appointed your guardian/conservator should one be needed. If you are not married, to give your love interest that power again requires extra steps. Being married allows the filing of a joint federal income tax return, which can save the couple money in tax, and that benefit cannot be replicated some other way. There is more but I hope it's enough to illustrate the point, which is that marriage is a bundle of rights; the property rights being just part of the total package.

As to the property rights, the idea is to ensure both spouses are provided for when one has the majority income/assets. Those laws arose when it was still common for women to stay at home, with the result that without those laws they could be left out in the cold should their husbands die or divorce them despite the considerable benefit they provided in helping to run the household. Your view seems to reflect an old male oriented belief that since the (generally) husband contributed the most assets/income that his spouse should get little or nothing. While today many more women work, there is still imbalance between spouses that ought to accounted for given the underlying premise of marriage being a partnership contract for that entire bundle of rights that I mentioned before.

Unless you just think your love interest a gold digger (in which case why are with him/her) I would think you'd want them cared for. If that's true, I have to wonder then why you'd object the law providing for that by default. If you and your love interest together decide you want a different outcome than the default, that certainly can be done.

 

[quincy]

TrustUser, thank you for the message.

I see things differently than you do but I admit I have been fortunate.