Wouldnt that break the original contract? If so, then the party that wants to divorce would face financial penalties for "early withdrawal." <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

The spouse who cheated would face financial penalties AND criminal sanctions.

Also, the state could refuse to issue another marriage license for a period of time (or forever for the habitual cheater) to the WS. If they wont honor the contract...why give them another?

In His arms.

Hi WAT !

Do EA's present a collateral risk until they are consummated ?

Today "infidelity" in UK law is having extramarital sex, grounds for a quickie divorce if proven. EAs despite being DREADFUL to behold are not considered.

I guess the law considers that if the WS doesn't leave the family home , the damaging effect on the marriage is less than if they do. And I can't think of any examples of EA WS leaving home to live with EA OP unconsummated.

But at the very least, there should be automatic custody and financial transfer to the BS where PA is proved. My derivation is that there is NEVER a justification to have an affair.

BTW, here I am 18 months in, still married and newly self aware. THANKS man. I hope you think of how you helped me and smile proudly someimes....

I wonder if you'd begin to see marriage contracts with term limits - renewable after so many years. Or, simply fewer marriages over all.


So, you get punished either way, but you get punished more if you're unfaithful.

Why do we want to punish someone who doesn't want to be married anymore and yet doesn't commit adultery? Should people be compelled by the state via severe financial and custody penalties to remain married?

Does anyone else feel uneasy about the idea of people being legally compelled to stay together?


Heh. Maybe we should make marriage licenses, overall, much harder to get.

Mys

Yipes, how did it go from infidelity being illegal to punishing people who want to get a divorce for non-infidelity related reasons?

This goes way deeper than making infidelity illegal, which as someone earlier said, already IS in many areas. It's being able to ENFORCE the law that's tricky, right?

Making marriage more difficult in the first place *might* help, but I suspect more people would just live together. And the way the law is covering "common law" partners these days, why get married at all? And would infidelity under the 'common law' or 'living together' situation be punishable? I wouldn't think so.

I wouldnt mind less marriages! Obviously, if they arent wanting to live up to what marriage is, then hey, they shouldnt get married. Just makes the institution of marriage a big sham.


Let me ask you a question. If I sign a year contract with you to rent an apartment from you, and then after three months, I want out...wouldnt I face penalties? If you as the Landlord wanted to, couldnt you say that I can leave but will have to pay for the contract in full before leaving? And that is a legal contract. Why is this legal contract any different? Promises were made, for a specific period of time. In this case, until death. Last I heard, shotgun weddings are illegal...so no one enters this contract without knowing the terms. So, why do we sign a legal document with the terms readily spelled out...and then think we can just break those terms for whatever reason we want? As a state issue and legal issue, that is just not right.


They compelled themselves to stay together! They signed the contract. They stated the vows. They knew exactly what they were doing when they got married. They said that they would do all of the things in the vows and contract, until death do they part. Now, a BS has a way out because the contract has been broken by the WS. But if there is no reason for the contract to be broken (in Virginia, it is infidelity, abandonment, abuse), then yes...you are to live up to your word. Or break your word...and face penalties. It works everywhere else in our society. As a legal construct, this should be no different.


Oh, I like that. We give out drivers licenses after they go thru classes. Seems like people would have to go thru a Harley-style marriage course before they could get theirs.

Then, as with the drivers license...if they abuse their license, then the state can refuse to issue another. I like it!!

In His arms.

Thanks, I am glad to have helped, and also say that for the others here who contributed to a success story. But once again, you did the real work and deserve the real credit. Nonetheless, hope to arrange to meet you someday for a few pints.


Dern tootin' they do!

Could be that the common distinction of commiting the physical act as being the threshold "evolved" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> due to the problem we recognize with establishing when an EA line has been crossed. This is why, for example, the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice cites, "...penetration, no matter how deep." I swear I am not making that up - at least it USED to say that many years ago.

BTW, I always wondered whether it said "no matter how deep" to accomodate "lesser" guys. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> Maybe some current US military types can offer an update. (I was not in the U.S. military. I did once work for the US Navy and rode a submarine for a few days one time to give training to the crew and read the UCOMJ as it was posted on the wall next to the commode.)

WAT

If one wishes to lower the infidelity rate and the divorce rate, probably the most effective legislation would be to make MARRIAGE illegal.

Marriage is a contract. If one breaches it, or other civil contracts, the other should be entitled to some form of compensation.

Maybe marriage license should be issued for a set period of time, say five years. After such time the parties would be able to apply for another five year extension. The default state would be that the marriage contract becomes void after five years if no one takes action to file for an extension. Maybe that would reduce divorce and infidelity? If a person is miserable in a marriage all they have to do is wait the allotted time and poof, they are single again.

Maybe not. It is probably better just to make marriage illegal.

Just covering the legal aspects of the marriage contract. Enforce it like EVERY other legal contract. You make promises, you live up to them. Or face penalties.


Not really tricky at all. At least for the PA. Was rather easy to catch my wife. Had all the proof I needed. I do understand the problem with the EA. That would be tricky to define.


But then again, they wouldnt be married!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> Which means they wouldnt be making a mockery of marriage! They would be just "shacking up." And at least in Virginia, that also used to be illegal. Living with the opposite sex was a big no-no. Fornication was a HUGE no-no. Could add those in to the laws toughening up the penalties for adultery.

As you can see, I really have no sympathy for those that choose to do things against morality and the laws of the state. Even if I also did them. If the laws had been applicable then, I might not have doen them. But even if I had of, I would have deserved the sanctions and/or punishment.

But instead, or nation has gotten to the "well, freedom means that we can do whatever we want." Which is true to an extent. but the state does not have to license, participate or sanction acts and institutions that it deems (the people deem) are immoral.

In His arms.

I would not punish peope who wanted to divorce for reasons other than infidelity. In fact its a challenge I have about the Christian marriage - if a spouse is desperately miserable and abused, is it really God's will that they stay and suffer ?

WAT,

The beautiful thing about the UCMJ is that there is the "catch all" clause in there. So, the soldier says "I didnt have sex, I just got a hand-job." Well, okay! But guess what? You just broke the law concerning "conduct unbecoming."

So, we could add the EAs in by having a "conduct unbecoming" a spouse. Tha tshould reel in the rest of the mess. In the military, we got many of those that wanted to skirt the law by using that. VERY effective!

In His arms.

Hmmmmmmm, not to put words into other posters' mouths, it looks as if a consensus is forming that pre-nup agreements (which for reasons I don't fully understand appear to have a better track record as "contracts" vs simple marriage) would be useful to ensure "justice" in the event of infidelity. Any deterrent affect is icing on the cake.

If what I said above is true, it follows that post-nup (post recovery from infidelity) agreements would also have appeal.

Why isn't anyone at MB advocating for such "protection"? Wouldn't this put teeth into POJA?

WAT

But contract marriages might be a bit more useful as you could spell out a specific time limit (till the kids are 18, for example).

If we're going to call marriage a contract, why not allow it to be changed by adding term limits? What other contract really is for life?


Yes, but if I signed a month to month contract then I wouldn't be penalized as severely. Why not have a month to month marriage contract?


Yes, but what promises were exactly made? What remedies are offered for breach. For example, does a husband have the right to force himself sexually upon his wife since the 'contract' of marriage implies that she will have sex with him? What constitites fulfillment of a marriage contract? Is it picking up milk at the grocery store? Is it having sex? Is it remaining trim and attractive to your spouse? Spending 15 hrs a week together?

You are worried about people making marriage a sham, but in my opinion holding people to a CONTRACT to love someone is a better way to get there than allowing divorce. How do you compel love? How do you measure it, quantify it, and FORCE it if it says in the contract that is what you're entitled to. What remedies shall we apply? Oh, he didn't call when he was late, that's a $15 dollar fine. Oh, she didn't have sex with him last night, that's a $20 fine and no kids for a week.

Do you see how ridiculous this actually ends up being?

The difference between a rental situation, business contract, and marriage is that the in the case of the rental situation and business contract all the things that are bartered or exchanged are legally binding things that can be given away. In the case of marriage, much of what is bartered or exchanged (love, caring, sex, committement, children) simple CAN'T be legally bound. You can't legally bind someone to have sex with you, have kids with you or even remain in your presence.

The measure of the quality of a marriage isn't time. It's what's exchanged between the people and no one has found a way to really compell that sort of exchange.


What terms were on the marriage license that you signed? All mine said was that we were married in such and such a county on such and such a date. Nothing on there said we had to remain married. Technically, by what I signed, I'm month to month on that sucker.


We wrote our own vows and "Till death do us part" wasn't in there. I never promised that. I never promised to love, honor, obey or be faithful. What I did promise was very special to me, though, and has meaning to us. Does that mean my marriage is treated differently?

Mys

Abused? No. The Bible does ALLOW for that spouse to leave.

But again, God said He hates divorce. Which means He will never say that a person must divorce. He permits it i nthe case of infidelity, abuse, and several other issues, such as an unbelieving spouse wants to leave the believer.

The Bible states that the marriage isnt just about the happiness of the couple. It is bigger than that. Which is why "happiness" isnt a standard with God. He never promised happiness. It is why we promise fidelity and commitment, despite poverty, sickness, bad times...until death do we part. My link at the bottom concernign the Biblical roles of spouses goes into this more in depth.

So, no. A spouse that is being cheated on, or abused, doesnt HAVE to stay in the marriage. But they also dont have to leave, as God is the God of redemption (read more in my link).

But, if infidelity, or abuse, or unbelieving spouse, or other issues arent present, then God says that you stay and be the spouse He wants you to be. Even if your spouse isnt living up to what they are supposed to.

Because the Bible NEVER states divorce is permissible for "irreconsilable differences." There is no such thing! If two people divorce for that reason, then when they have sex with the next person (even if they wait until marriage), they have committed adultery and have caused that person to commit adultery.

The Bible states over and over that this life isnt about these 60, 70, 80 years on this planet. it is bigger than that. Even our marriages are bigger than the two of us.

So, when God says "let no man tear apart whay I put together," He means it. And believe me, there are penalties from God for early withdrawal!!

In His arms.

I think... in a perfect world (oh, that it were so!)... God would expect BOTH partners to remain committed and be good, moral, strong, compassionate and faithful partners.

But since we can't change others, and some partners, even in Christian marriages are abusive, my guess would be that God would want them separate until the danger was removed.

There are some situations where I believe you do what you think is best (i.e. divorce from an abusive spouse), ask God for forgiveness, and pray for renewal. God knows your heart. But that's just my belief.

What if you don't happen to believe in God. What does it say about two athiests who want to divorce?

Mys

I vote public humiliation instead of a misdemeanor...


I totally agree with JPH.

Those were my thoughts exactly.

So many affairs would be avoided if the results was having your name and picture plastered in a public place for all to see.

I love the way you think. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

mys - You posed the obvious questions created when the "entirety" of the marriage contract is considered "binding." Good questions.

I think the answer lies in what hasn't yet been stated on this thread. Or maybe I missed it.

When you get right down to it, "marriage" is comprised of two distinct parts - the government sanctioned civil union and the "spiritual" union, however defined by the participants. This is more clearly seen in the process of getting divorced. Divorce just addresses the civil piece - the "hardware" or tangible portion, if you will > money, property, custody, etc. In no way does this civil proceeding address the "spiritual" piece of the union.

The "contract" scheme I've been discussing so far in intended only to parallel the civil piece. Pre- and post-nups can ONLY cover tangible assets - you obviously can't "repay" lost love.

Seems to me that those who espouse Divine participation in marriage would have to answer the "why allow another marriage" question or "why is another marriage allowed by the Authority" question.

WAT

I LOVE the idea of a post-infidelity-nup-agreement!

I wonder if it would REALLY work? It would have to be signed when the WS was back to their right mind, lest it be suggested that it was signed under duress (sp), wouldn't it?

While public humiliation is an attractive choice for those who don't care about the outcome of the marriage, I would think that if you want to stay married, you would want to treat your WS with as much dignity as possible, especially if they have remorse, repent and do all the things asked of them (like a NC letter, quit the job where OP is, etc.).

I get the intent, though... and would have probably dragged my ex-H and his OW(s) to the town square if it had been offered to me.

True. But you sign a thirty year loan contract for your house right? What other contract do we sign occupies over a third of our life? Your argument here is just about length of time. So, sure, you could sign something that says this "marriage" is up for renewal when the last kid is 18. But then again, that wouldnt make it a marriage. It would be a civil union. A marriage, by definition, is a joining of a man and a woman for life. So, if people want to sign these agreements, then let them do so under a civil union contract. And leave marriage alone.


Again because that wouldnt by definition be a marriage. It would be a civil union.


Good question!!! I have heard the argument before that there is a conjugal right to marriage. Do I want to see a husband force himself on his wife, even i na marriage? Nope. But here is the thing. A wife (or husband) that does not take care of their conjugal responsibilities, would not be living up to the contract. Thus, the other spouse would have legal recourse to end the marriage because the contract has been broken.


The contract is fairly simple. So are the vows. Buying milk aint in the contract. Staying faithful no matter what...is in the contract. So, the contract could be enforced just with that standard. BAsed on being faithful. No infidelity, abuse or abandonment..as the law currently is written in Virginia. All we need in this state is to enforce it!!


The marriage contract has NOTHING to do with love!! Neither, in a basic form, does a marriage have anything to do with love Biblically. Sure, the husband is commanded to love his wife and all. But the marriage itself is bigger than love. A marriage is a commitment, plain and simple. Dont want to make a life long commitment? Then dont! But if you do, then live up to your word. Even if you dont feel love for that person after 10 years.


Again, the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia are very clear. Infidelity, abuse, abandonment. All we need are penalties attached to those laws. All of the rest that you stated isnt the business of the state.


Not if you enforce tha basic premise of the contract, which is a commitment for life. Not if you enforce divorce, only for infidelity, abuse and abandonment. Becomes VERY simple then!


Okay, I am the owner of the Redskins (an example..I wish I was!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />). I contract with a person to be my quarterback for 4 years for 10 million dollars. What am I bartering? I am bartering for his labor, for him to do the job of quarterback. If he wants out early, there are penalties. Just as if I want him to leave my team, I am still liable to pay him for the remainder of the contract.

Again, marriage at its basics, is not about sex, or love, or any of that emotional stuff. As a legal and Biblical construct, it is a legal commitment (in the Bible, it is a covenant...which is a commitment that is enforced on the penalty of death...something very serious). Yes, one of the things that marriage IS about is the kids. The Bible goes on and on about this. Which is one of the reasons that I advocate that if a spouse cheats, or abuses or abandons...then they lose custody of the kids. The spouse that continued to uphold the contract gets custody.


The law (and the Bible) arent really worried about the quality of the marriage at first. The first part is livign up to your word, to your commitment. For marriage, as I said before, is bigger than the husband and wife! Bigger than sex. Bigger than love.


No. Because the definition of the marriage defines in its definition how long its duration is.


Not really, as I said...because the definition of marriage is a husband and wife bound for life. That is the basis. All of the rest is extra. And yes, if you promised back rubs...then yes, you would be legally bound to give back rubs.

In His arms.

God does allow for separation without divorce. But, that means you still must be faithful. The goal there is to try to fix things and reconciliation.

As I said, God does permit divorce for adultery, abuse, abandonment by a spouse or an unbeliever wants to leave.

In His arms.