>>>IMHO the marriage contract gives a couple the glue needed to hold together when things get rough and after struggling realize what true commitment and dedication to a fellow soul is really worth. <<<
The state shredded that contract did it not back in the 70s? Between no fault divorce and the family court ordering the man to pay huge sums of money to the woman, did the govt not incentivize women to leave their man when the going gets rough? Instead of glue it seems to be that that marriage is now nothing more than a temporary agreement to stay together for life. Both spouses can choose to remain married, but either can opt out at a moment’s notice. Because it’s often financially ruinous for a man to leave, he may be in the “cheaper to keep her mindset” if things are not to his liking. That is the only “glue” holding a marriage together I can see.
Regardless of what man does to G-ds intentions for us it does not change what we should do nor how we should try to live.
One does not need “the state” to live with a commitment. I was talking about a spiritual contract, not an earthly one.
“Both spouses can choose to remain married, but either can opt out at a moment’s notice. Because it’s often financially ruinous for a man to leave, he may be in the “cheaper to keep her mindset” if things are not to his liking. That is the only “glue” holding a marriage together I can see. “
It used to be the other way around when women had less opportunity to get a job and being divorced carried a huge stigma. For the woman back then, the choice was putting up with a bad marriage or being unable to make a living on her own or finding someone else who would marry her.
Obviously today the tables have turned in favor of the woman.
What needs to happen to make it “fairer” is to remove/change the alimony law so that it doesn’t disproportionately punish men.
In turn that would probably result in more divorces since men would be less incentiviced to stay in a bad marriage.
It also would reduce the number of marriages, since it would further blur the line between cohabitating and marriage.
And further still, without any meaningful financial incentives or punishments to either side, the only “glue” left to hold a marriage together would be a strong personal commitment by both partners to each other and to the kids, if there are any. Which in effect is the same glue that holds a cohabitating couple together.
So that gets us back to “common law” marriage, where the state is removed from the marriage business.
But not completely, since there will still need to determine who gets what after the split and custody of the kids.
And to minimize that, there is the prenup, even for cohabitating situations.
Problem solved.
I wonder though what the long term societal repercussions of these changes would be. Would it make for a better society or a worse one?
Yes, marriage in its current state can’t be legally defined as a “contract” anymore. Anyone still using that language is just showing how out of touch they are with the situation.