Interesting Points about "Getting the Government Out of Marriage"

Bluebird

Well-known member
I see what you're saying - if PunkRock and I split, could he go after a joint account that belonged to just DarkKnight and I? I think the answer would be yes, but I think the court would still take into consideration what percentage of that money is mine, and what percentage of that belongs to DarkKnight. Don't they do that sort of thing now, if an ex-spouse has a work account or an account with another family member? Actually, I know they do - when my ex and I divorced, he soon moved in with his girlfriend and they had a joint account. He wasn't hiding assets or anything, and I wasn't a vindictive bitch, but the lawyer still mentioned it to me.

I don't think you need to get rid of joint property policies. That said, the divorce attorneys will make a fortune, tracing everything, as always, I am sure.
 

YouAreHere

Well-known member
I think the answer would be yes, but I think the court would still take into consideration what percentage of that money is mine, and what percentage of that belongs to DarkKnight. Don't they do that sort of thing now, if an ex-spouse has a work account or an account with another family member?

Not always:
http://www.divorcenet.com/states/nationwide/property_division_by_state

The main difference between community property and equitable distribution is that in community property states there is an absolute 50-50 split of all property acquired during the “marital enterprise.” In equitable distribution states, more assets are considered “marital property,” but the split is not necessarily 50-50.
 

MusicalRose

Member
This article seems like a bit of a joke. Most people, when they talk about "getting the government out of marriage" do not also advocate not having any kind of civil union structure whatsoever. People have always had the ability to be spiritually "married" by their church or what-have-you, but they also need to go to the government to have it done legally if they want the government to recognize it and get the associated rights. I don't see this changing much except that the part the government does is no longer called "marriage" and thus gets all the religious nuts raving about how the definition of "marriage" is changing to quiet down and separate the religious from what the government does.

My pipe dream:

1) Single payer health care. This should be a fundamental right, and if it were it would drastically reduce the complexity of civil union law. No one should have to get a civil union to receive decent health care.

2) No more tax benefits or privileges as such afforded to the unioned over the ununioned. Our relationship status should not affect the level of taxes we pay.

3) Civil unions as legal family contracts. It's not about romantic partners any more. It's about chosen family. This can apply to anyone for any reason. If you want someone to be legally considered your family, you should be able to do this for reasons of inheritance and hospital visitation.

3a) As well, the ability to formally remove blood relatives from their abilities to make decisions or visit if an individual wants that. Too many heartbreaking stories already of LGBT couples where one gets sick or injured and their parents take over and forbid their loved ones to visit.

4) Unions are done one-by-one. So in a triad, for instance, each person would have to get a union for each other person separately. You are not legally tied to your metas unless you want to be, by abovementioned legal family contract. I think for this reason joint property should go away.

5) Some kind of system needs to be set in place whereby adults regularly update their living wills and powers of attorney and who is considered legal family for matters of medical decisions, etc. We do this with driver's licenses, and I think it would make sense to connect the requirement together. Obviously you can update sooner than that if you want, but this has adults at least looking at it and having a chance to alter it every few years or so. Things in this would include how to divvy up inheritance and who can make medical decisions in what order of priority.

6) Paternity is established biologically, as that is getting easier and easier to do. No more auto-paternity with a civil union. After the biological parents, other legal guardians can be added with the agreement of both biological parents.


Yeah, it would be kind of complicated, and it would require reworking a lot of things, but I think in the long run a system like this is the easiest way to be as egalitarian as possible.
 

PinkPig

Well-known member

This is exactly why creating a contract for the union would be simpler for all. All parties involved would know going into the union (and coming out of it), where they stand financially.

As it is now, I can marry in one state, under one set of rules. Move to another state & divorce under another set of rules. Depending on my financial circumstances, that may be advantageous or disastrous. Prime example: My parents gifted me a significant amount of money during my marriage. The gift was to me, not us. However, if we'd divorced in the community property state that we'd married in, my ex would have been entitled to 50% since the property was acquired during our marriage. The state I'm currently in is an equitable property state... the amount of the gift that I'd 'commingled' with other joint, marriage-acquired property, was subject to a 50/50 split, but the amount that I'd kept separate was considered mine alone.
 

PinkPig

Well-known member
My pipe dream:

....
Yeah, it would be kind of complicated, and it would require reworking a lot of things, but I think in the long run a system like this is the easiest way to be as egalitarian as possible.

I agree on all counts except #5. I agree it needs to be easier to update wills, living wills, POAs, etc, but I'd rather the government stay out of those (& making them compulsory like a driver's license would accomplish the opposite.)
 
Top