Marriage Strike By Men

[Gunny376]

My point is that any financial benefit or ruin caused by divorce is often the result of our own negligence to educate ourselves, make good choices, keep the waters clear, and use the court system to protect ourselves. If you don't want to support your spouse after marriage, insist they contribute to supporting themselves during marriage. If you don't want to lose your assets, have legal documents drawn up and keep your monies separate.

 

Of course we all believe this marriage will be the one to last forever....until it doesn't. Better to be safe and prepared than sorry.

 

There's a Hell of a lot that I like about women ~ but mostly its a brilliant and sharp mind that makes me go grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! :love: ;) Without one ~ the rest is just a waste!

[dropdeadlegs]

I am concluding by reading this thread that there is a general marriage strike at hand. Especially by those who have traveled that road.

 

If if ever get married - and lord knows that's a big IF for me as well, I will be even smarter than before and far more careful to keep division of assets and liabilities much clearer than ever before.

 

I'm getting my milk (or stud fees, whatever you may call it) for free, too, and I see no reason to obligate myself to pay for it.

[Porn_Guy]

I am concluding by reading this thread that there is a general marriage strike at hand. Especially by those who have traveled that road.

I have made up my placard DDL....it says "Down with Marriage" in big black capital letters. I think it looks superb.

 

Tomorrow I will be on the picket line at 6am

[Gunny376]

If I ever get married again - and lord knows, that's a big IF - I'll certainly do precisely as DDL has advised.

 

You got that right!

 

And you and DDL have hit the nail on the head. When it comes to divorce it is we ~ ourselves that are our own worse enemies, not the spouse.

 

As Record Producer and her Jewish sayings ( ) said, when you point "fingers" of blame ~ first look at the three you've got point back at yourself!

 

Be

[a4a]

Yep Marriage Sucks for all unless you do the pre - post - and mid nups.

 

But you still get some benefits that the govt. hands out.

 

Really the only reason I did do it. Just made things easier and financial benefits ; legal reasons.

[serial muse]

I am concluding by reading this thread that there is a general marriage strike at hand. Especially by those who have traveled that road.

 

If if ever get married - and lord knows that's a big IF for me as well, I will be even smarter than before and far more careful to keep division of assets and liabilities much clearer than ever before.

 

I'm getting my milk (or stud fees, whatever you may call it) for free, too, and I see no reason to obligate myself to pay for it.

 

 

Me too. :bunny:

 

Marriage does sort of lose its mystique once you've been there, done that.

 

[Gunny376]

I have made up my placard DDL....it says "Down with Marriage" in big black capital letters. I think it looks superb.

 

Tomorrow I will be on the picket line at 6am

 

LOL!

"STRIKE, STRIKE, STRIKE!!!"

:lmao:

[Porn_Guy]

LOL!

 

"STRIKE, STRIKE, STRIKE!!!"

 

:lmao:

oh yea GUNNEY...where is picket line forming? I hope they will have hot coffee.

[a4a]

Why bother to picket..... just don't do it.

 

No anger..... just say no to marriage.

 

Oh the divorce lawyers are going to try to stop this "just say no to marriage" trend.

 

[dropdeadlegs]

I have made up my placard DDL....it says "Down with Marriage" in big black capital letters. I think it looks superb.

 

Tomorrow I will be on the picket line at 6am

 

6am your time is 5am my time. That's a bit too early for me. I'll work on my placard and join in a bit later, though.

 

I'm thinking of the bride and groom on top of the wedding cake with the circle around them and a big slash through it to symbolize "NO."

 

Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, even Gene Simmons and Shanon Tweed have figured out to to make it work without a marriage license. All three couples share children, too.

 

I believe that all these wealthy people have some sort of cohabitation t agreements in place instead of marriages. Certainly they own property together. You can protect each other financially in the event of death without tying the legal knot.

[a4a]

6am your time is 5am my time. That's a bit too early for me. I'll work on my placard and join in a bit later, though.

 

I'm thinking of the bride and groom on top of the wedding cake with the circle around them and a big slash through it to symbolize "NO."

 

Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, even Gene Simmons and Shanon Tweed have figured out to to make it work without a marriage license. All three couples share children, too.

 

I believe that all these wealthy people have some sort of cohabitation t agreements in place instead of marriages. Certainly they own property together. You can protect each other financially in the event of death without tying the legal knot.

 

You miss out on certain things like pensions, SS, and instant rights to medical decisions blah blah blah.

 

I think the govt is crap for forcing M to do such things.

 

POOP ON MARRIAGE!!!

[dropdeadlegs]

You miss out on certain things like pensions, SS, and instant rights to medical decisions blah blah blah.

 

I think the govt is crap for forcing M to do such things.

 

POOP ON MARRIAGE!!!

 

True, true in most cases.

 

I worked for a very large financial company with a horse and wagon logo and they were really making some great changes that recognize that some relationships are equal to marriage. They called them "life partners" and you could benefit form pension and insurance plans with the right documentation, but I believe it involved clearly showing that assets and debts were comingled.

 

The US government, even with the separation of church and state, still has too much church in it's guidelines, so assignment of SS benefits will probably never be available to a life partner. If they allowed that, they would be pressured to recognize homosexual unions, and I don't see that happening in the next hundred years.

 

You might be able to address medical decision rights legally, I'm not really sure.

[a4a]

True, true in most cases.

 

I worked for a very large financial company with a horse and wagon logo and they were really making some great changes that recognize that some relationships are equal to marriage. They called them "life partners" and you could benefit form pension and insurance plans with the right documentation, but I believe it involved clearly showing that assets and debts were comingled.

 

The US government, even with the separation of church and state, still has too much church in it's guidelines, so assignment of SS benefits will probably never be available to a life partner. If they allowed that, they would be pressured to recognize homosexual unions, and I don't see that happening in the next hundred years.

 

You might be able to address medical decision rights legally, I'm not really sure.

 

Yes you can run around with a POA in your pocket....... most people don't do that. I believe you can get married for about $50 and get your rights intact, but to draw up legal contracts that stick..... or have a chance of sticking you are looking at about $1,600 for the minimal iron clad.

 

That sucks and is stupid.

 

Plus the whole tax return thing.

 

I think marriage should be illegal!

[dropdeadlegs]

Maybe a POA tattooed on my ass with a branded notary seal?

 

Then I could have "old guy's" name lasered out and "new guy's" name tattooed in.

 

I know it's ridiculous, just throwing crazy ideas for beating the system out here.

[Sevenmack]

A lot of folks here seem to think that marriage is the problem. It isn't. Marriage is merely an arrangement by which men and women (or men and men or what-have-you) form a family and is recognized by law. In itself, marriage is a fine institution and can be shaped in any way based on what you and your spouse deem appropriate. Some have good marriages, others don't.

 

I know plenty of people who are in long-term domestic partnerships not recognized by law. And that arrangement, no different than marriage except for the legal standing, also works fine. Some people have good relationships of that kind. Others don't.

 

I know plenty of folks who have been in the latter situation for years, who had wrenching breakups. Those relationships, like all marriages, involve assets that are commingled such as apartment leases, pensions, homes, even health insurance. They end up going to court to have the issues settled by the judge as married people do. They end up fighting over custody arrangements as married people do.

 

Neither arrangement is easy for one to extricate from; even without the assets, there are the emotional bonds created over time that are hard to break, even if the rest of the relationship is over.

 

 

The problem isn't marriage or domestic partnerships. It's people. Men and women who don't communicate well with one another, don't grow together, solve problems badly and in many cases, weren't suited for each other in the first place. Deciding not to marry doesn't mean you'll end up in a good relationship; it merely means you won't have to file for a marriage license.

[Sup]

I thought you were a woman. An ugly one! :lauh: But you're a man. A handsome one!

 

No, the thing with being backward was because for some reason I thought you were female, but you sounded weird. OK, for a man you're not bad! Just kidding, just kidding... you're bad!

 

 

Flattery will get you EVERYWHERE!

[Sup]

 

 

Depends upon which state you're in and what case law is ~ but generally speaking whatever you owned prior to the marriage would be yours if the marriage dissolves. In this scenario ~ your best bet would be a pre-nup ~ which the Femi-nazi's have been successful in states in getting ruled null and void. That is to say even a pre-nup may not hold up in court. A lot of courts have ruled that a woman cannot sign away her rights to common law property, etc.

 

The trick is to not mingle before marriage assets with after marriage assets. Look at it as if it were two differenet glasses of water. One is muddied, and the other is clear. The muddied one is "before marriage" assets, and the clear one is "after marriage" You pour one into the other, you've mingled them together.

 

For example. I'm retired out of the Marines, and get a check each month. Generally speaking, should I re-marry again under Federal law my new wife wouldn't have any claim on my retirement unless she and I were married at least 10 years while I was on active duty prior to retiring.

 

However, under Alabama state law, a common property state, if during the course of the marriage, if I used my retirement to support the marriage she would have dibs on my retirement. However, since Federal law superceeds state law ~ she wouldn't have dibs on it.

 

But, less say that instead of being retired out the Marines ~ I was retired from the state, and I used my retirement to support the wife and marriage ~ she'd have claim to it. Even though I earned it before we got married. Ditto with lottery winnings for example.

 

 

 

 

So from what you're saying here is, if I were to get married, and she were to pay for ANY of the mortgage payments, THAT would entitle HER to keep the house, children or not. But a woman can NOT sign away HER rights of ANY property. If I'm getting this right, that's reverse sexism, racism, genderism, and perhaps even against the US Consititution, let alone legal robbery, and as you have mentioned before "DOUBLE STANDARDS"! From that, there is NO reason why ANY man would WANT marriage! Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting shacking up or anything like that, God's laws strictly forbids these kinds of lifestyles, as we probably all know.

[Salicious Crumb]

I agree GUNNY....marriage basically benefits the woman and kids.

 

I agree...and also disagree. I agree divorce benefits the woman...but not necessarily the kids.

 

There are a few women where I live that cheated on their husbands, their infidelities were brought up in court....yet the woman gets custody.

 

So the woman cheats, destroys the family, and now gets to take a good father's kids away from him?

 

Some courts don't care if the kids are raised by an immoral huss.

[Porn_Guy]

So the woman cheats, destroys the family, and now gets to take a good father's kids away from him?

yep SC....thats pretty much the way it works

[dropdeadlegs]

I agree...and also disagree. I agree divorce benefits the woman...but not necessarily the kids.

 

There are a few women where I live that cheated on their husbands, their infidelities were brought up in court....yet the woman gets custody.

 

So the woman cheats, destroys the family, and now gets to take a good father's kids away from him?

 

Some courts don't care if the kids are raised by an immoral huss.

You are right. Often the woman gets custody even in the case of infidelity. But...infidelity is a transgression against the marriage, not the children.

 

I think you will disagree, SC, but being a bad wife is not the same as being a bad mother. The two relationships are very different, and very separate.

 

Many courts award custody to mothers because fathers do not fight for custody. Gunny has some statistics that are something like mothers are awarded custody 90% of the time, but in cases where fathers contest custody, they are awarded custody 90% of the time. Contesting custody seems to be the difference.

 

There are many cases where fathers gain custody because mothers don't contest, or take the initiative, to gain custody, as well. I know quite a few of these men.

 

Custody of children has it's own benefits and downfalls. I cannot obtain employment that involves anything but the usual 8-5, M-F hours due to daycare availability. Daycares in my area are open 6:30am-6pm. In my area, male employment often involves nights and weekends if you are seeking top pay and employment advancement. I live an an area that is fueled economically by chemical/petroleum plant jobs. Most men work in this line because the wages are high. Sure, there are other opportunities, but many jobs still require night or weekend availability.

 

Women have these issues too, but most accept positions based on their availability, not necessarily their ability, due to having custody of children.

 

It's more economical to not have children and be available for any and all shifts.

 

In that way, someone has to make concessions, and in general, women make those concessions which preclude higher wages and job advancement.

 

As always, I speak generally, not for individuals.

[Porn_Guy]

It's more economical to not have children and be available for any and all shifts..

this may be true DDL...but singles without kids also get shafted by being assigned the shifts/jobs/duties/travel that people with kids can't (or won't) do.

 

basically, singles w/o kids have an unfair burden of added responsibilities. I know women with kids at work that leave half hour early every day and come in one hour late regularly.

[dropdeadlegs]

this may be true DDL...but singles without kids also get shafted by being assigned the shifts/jobs/duties/travel that people with kids can't (or won't) do.

 

basically, singles w/o kids have an unfair burden of added responsibilities. I know women with kids at work that leave half hour early every day and come in one hour late regularly.

I'm sure that is true. I was definitely given concessions in the workplace, but never failed to put in my 40 hours, and then some. I brought my kids to work on occasion because that was more acceptable than not being there myself.

 

Still, you have a valid point. I have known childless people, and married men, that were expected to spend more hours on the job because they didn't have a daycare deadline or they had a wife to tend to that deadline.

 

I concede.

[Gunny376]

 

 

Depends upon which state you're in and what case law is ~ but generally speaking whatever you owned prior to the marriage would be yours if the marriage dissolves. In this scenario ~ your best bet would be a pre-nup ~ which the Femi-nazi's have been successful in states in getting ruled null and void. That is to say even a pre-nup may not hold up in court. A lot of courts have ruled that a woman cannot sign away her rights to common law property, etc.

 

The trick is to not mingle before marriage assets with after marriage assets. Look at it as if it were two differenet glasses of water. One is muddied, and the other is clear. The muddied one is "before marriage" assets, and the clear one is "after marriage" You pour one into the other, you've mingled them together.

 

For example. I'm retired out of the Marines, and get a check each month. Generally speaking, should I re-marry again under Federal law my new wife wouldn't have any claim on my retirement unless she and I were married at least 10 years while I was on active duty prior to retiring.

 

However, under Alabama state law, a common property state, if during the course of the marriage, if I used my retirement to support the marriage she would have dibs on my retirement. However, since Federal law superceeds state law ~ she wouldn't have dibs on it.

 

But, less say that instead of being retired out the Marines ~ I was retired from the state, and I used my retirement to support the wife and marriage ~ she'd have claim to it. Even though I earned it before we got married. Ditto with lottery winnings for example.

 

 

 

 

So from what you're saying here is, if I were to get married, and she were to pay for ANY of the mortgage payments, THAT would entitle HER to keep the house, children or not. But a woman can NOT sign away HER rights of ANY property. If I'm getting this right, that's reverse sexism, racism, genderism, and perhaps even against the US Consititution, let alone legal robbery, and as you have mentioned before "DOUBLE STANDARDS"! From that, there is NO reason why ANY man would WANT marriage! Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not suggesting shacking up or anything like that, God's laws strictly forbids these kinds of lifestyles, as we probably all know.

 

BINGO!

 

 

There's a winner!

[Salicious Crumb]

You are right. Often the woman gets custody even in the case of infidelity. But...infidelity is a transgression against the marriage, not the children.

 

I disagree...when you cheat on your spouse, you cheat on your children.

 

And then it comes down to who would be better to raise the kids...someone who cherished their marriage vows, or someone who makes a mockery of marriage. Again...I would think a jury would want the children to be raised with values contrary to infidelity and such...and that won't happen with a cheater.

 

I think you will disagree, SC, but being a bad wife is not the same as being a bad mother. The two relationships are very different, and very separate.

 

The betrayed shouldn't be penalized by having their kids taken away from them. If one spouse didn't think enough of the family to refrain from cheating..then they don't need custody. I say custody should go to the spouse that didn't want any of this to happen.

 

Many courts award custody to mothers because fathers do not fight for custody.

 

Thats a different issue...but when a father does fight for custody, even when the mother is the one responsible for destroying the family...it is the father that gets screwed over.

 

Gunny has some statistics that are something like mothers are awarded custody 90% of the time, but in cases where fathers contest custody, they are awarded custody 90% of the time. Contesting custody seems to be the difference.

 

Well I sure haven't seen many fathers get custody when the wife is an adulterer.

[whichwayisup]

You are right. Often the woman gets custody even in the case of infidelity. But...infidelity is a transgression against the marriage, not the children.

 

I disagree...when you cheat on your spouse, you cheat on your children.

 

I agree with SC on this. Ask ANY child how they felt when one of their parents cheated.

THE WS is cheating and betraying his WHOLE family.