Don't have an account? To participate in discussions consider signing up or signing in
facebook connect
Sign-up, its free! Close [x]

Benefits

  • okay Create lasting relationships with other like minded women.
  • okay Blogging, let your voice be heard!
  • okay Interact with other women through blogs,questions and groups.
  • okay Photo Album, upload your most recent vacation pictures.
  • okay Contests, Free weekly prize drawing.
  • okay Weekly Newsletter.


With so much Domestic violence, divorce and women losing custody of children in Divorce Court.

Ive been thinking, and thats dangerous... but Ive thought for years about number one clarifying the terms of a marriage.. Too often men go into marriage thinking of a wife as a possession. Im not saying to abolish traditional church marriages, have them.. but in addition... Each marriage entered into should be more than an I DO.. it should be a legal contract, that pre decides about children, property, assetts should the marriage fail... I think this would make it easier for abused women to leave, and Know she will get partial custody or full of her children, than stay and tolerate the torture and beatings to save her children.

Im so tired of Attorneys getting rich, and judges deciding and courts deciding ... the future of womens children that have lived and survivied Domestic Violence... many times its unreported for reputation, safety, tons of reasons. But when women get to court, they have to undergoe Psychiatric exams, by then they are at wits end, and many lose thier children.. a final blow.... to an already shattered dream of marriage.

I believe in Civil Unions.. a contract between two people agreeing on outcome if they divorce or die. I think every married person should be required to have one and agree on it before marriage, and also, if marrying someone that cant agree on a civil union, should be a immediate red flag.. for future relationships.

After a couple decides on the civil union.. go have that big church wedding..  

If something happens.. each couple will know what they agreed upon.

And if they change their minds at divorce then they can scabble and lawyers can come help but I think it would detour divorce a bit, and also, make it easier for women and children, if the woman can walk away, if a problem in the marriage. Or the man of course.

Just a thought Ive been thinking ... dangerous or practical ?



  •  

Member Comments

    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Feathermaye wrote Oct 28, 2008
    • I actually agree with this.  

      If ‘civil unions’ were a requirement for marriage, or even stood as a replacement in the event the couple has no interest in the church ceremony, it would also take a lot of the fuel out of the fire over gay marriages.

      I’ve always thought that pre-nups were very practical, and this just expounds on that idea. Very interesting.



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Mary Clark wrote Oct 28, 2008
    • Well...I’m going to be the “religious conservative in the group“.  According to my religious belief....marriage is how it has to be.  Living together as a couple...with all the benefits of being married but not being married is wrong.  Now....I do agree that there are a lot of “common law” or whatever you want to call them marriages that thrive and are successful...and more so than the typical marriage  I totally agree...but according to the Bible...marriage between a man and a woman is considered holy.  

      Okay....now..I do agree that legal wise measures need to be in place to protect either party in such cases as physical, emotional, or mental abuse...and infidelity.  

      In the Sate of South Carolina, you must be separated for one year before you are given the opportunity to file for divorce.  You must file for separation and you must live  separately that entire year.  I feel those laws must be changed.  I’m not saying it should make it easier to get a divorce, but in the event of abuse of whatever kind...it becomes crucial.  

      Example...read this article.  This mother and her two children attended my church.  Their mother still does and  I have no idea how she makes it each day without God’s help.
      Read this story first:

      [Link Removed]

      [Link Removed]

      So now this woman lives each day without her two little boys.  She had filed for separation over a year before this happened but for whatever reason (I’m not sure what it was)...it was denied.  This only gave her deceased husband time to get angrier and angrier within that year.  It was also discovered that he had been taking alot of diet pills (we‘re talking $1000’s of dollars worth)which it supposedly altered his personality.  

      Karyn Young has remarried to a family friend that just so happened to blossom into more of a friendship as she went through all of this.  He is divorced and has a boy and a girl.  Those are her living children now.  She is happy as she can be but continues to fight for the laws to be changed.  

      Her note to her children at their funeral was promising them that she would live her life as God would want her and would do everything to insure that she would join them again in heaven.  And that is how she lives her life.
      I see her at church and each time as I did this past Sunday...I wonder each time...how she even gets dressed.  

      So...the answer to your question is...I do believe more things should be in place before marrying...but I still believe in the holy union of marriage.


      Maryclark, Your links have been removed, please consider upgrading to premium membership.



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Mary Clark wrote Oct 28, 2008
    • OH and I meant to add as well...just because the union of marriage and marriage between a man and a woman are my beliefs doesn’t mean that I think less of you if you choose to live a different way.  Love the sinner not the sin....that’s between you and the Lord.  Just my added two cents.



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Cindylouwho1966 wrote Oct 28, 2008
    • This is really a thought-provoking post, Bobbi. Hmmm. So many ways to address this. What your describing is sometimes covered in a pre-nup agreement, as far as assets and property. You’d probably still end up in court over the kids, because a lawyer would argue that X-Y-and-Z has changed since the original drafting of the contract.  

      I’m going to ponder this one. There is a lot of gray.



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Mary Clark wrote Oct 28, 2008
    • I just went back and re-read these articles and it just made me sort of re-live that horrible tragedy.  Not that I actually lived it...but as a member of their church...it was upsetting.  Their mother was once a member of my Journey team at church as well...and I can remember her walking those boys in on Sunday morning.  They were the cutest boys.  

      But their father...took each one...put them in the bathtub and held them underwater  until they died.  They could tell the oldest one fought nore due to his coloring.  

      He then took them and laid them in his and Karyn’s bed (wet)..covered them or really made the bed up with them in it..then sat at the bottom of the bed..and shot himself in the head.  That is how they found them.  

      Now.... the cost of her trying to get out of this mentally and emotinally abusive marriage was her children.  

      I believe in marriage but more laws have got to be in place so this does not continue to happen.  

      Sorry for being so graphic....but people need to know how bad it is.



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Mary Clark wrote Oct 28, 2008
    • Hey  Teeky...what are you going to do with it after you steal it???  (smiling)



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Mary Clark wrote Oct 28, 2008
    • OH my GOSH.......LOL..you got that right.  Of course my oldest has already moved out....let’s hear a “yeah!!!!”  But my youngest did clean the house today since he didn’t have classes.  I’m not happy tonight because he Pledged my hardwood floors....and now they are funky looking.  I told him he was to only use water and vinegar on them.  I know he was trying to help...but it seems the mess just keeps getting worse.  

      Oh...and he didn’t  burn fries in my oven..he burned up my good big soup pot that I have had for years.  But I’ll take the loss of a pot anyday over the loss of my house or even more so my life!!  No..I’m up now standing guard....LOL

      Well....since I don’t have a million dollars....I guess you can just share it with me....how’s that.



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Mary Clark wrote Oct 28, 2008
    • Absolutely......

      I want to say....eat when the rest of us eat....LOL...make a sandwich or something...why do you have to cook????

      Pop a bag of microwave popcorn or something...

      I go to bed with my kitchen clean and things put away...coffee ready to for in the morning...when I wake up...it looks like a fricken party went on in my house....unbelievable.



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Bobbi Bacha wrote Oct 28, 2008
    • Im not saying to abolish marriage in a church.. Im just saying not everyone has the money for a prenup, but if Civil Unions were the rule and everything was a standard form like, who gets, kids, who keeps what, check check sign.. now your a Union, it doesnt keep you from actually going through a church ceremony, you can choose to do that or not.. Basically, I think it will take alot of guess work out of the marriage or Union if it desolves and lets face it that desolution rate is very HIGH.

      It also would make it easier for a woman or man abused in a marriage to Leave, but filing a disolution by terms of the Civil Union and would also help in case of death.  

      I just see so many families and children ripped apart by horrible divorces.  Again, just like pre nups, these could be challenged, but Im thinking many would abide by them and free up courts, and also change the perspective of marriage as OWNERSHIP, like you own a car, or a house.. many entering into marriage do realize that the other person has made a promise of marriage, and I think a Civil UNION should be the standard not the exception.

      Like a marriage license.  It should be filed in the court and therefore, if a problem .. it wont take a ton of money to get out unless challenged.

      Again, Im in no way saying to stop church weddings.  And Im not saying that such a Union is pro Gay or Lesbian, Im just saying .. Civil Union may be our best option in the future as a contract of UNION, Heck the papers we fill out for pet ownership are more subjective than applying for a marriage license.  Im not saying do away with marriage... Im saying lets agree before the marriage and the kids... and then later if we break up we just desolve the partnership.. Easier on kids and parents involved.  No Pyshcicatric counseling, no worries, all agreed.

      Just a thought.. One Ive been dwelling on for years.  

      Basically a Marriage Improvement.. Now we get into marriages with unknown outcomes and there in lays the problems.



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      (華娃娃) ChinaDoll wrote Oct 28, 2008
    • I like the idea of having an agreement in place similar to a pre-nuptural agreement (OMG, I typed pre-naptural first...I caught it) where everything spells out.  Especially when the couple mostly likely is still in their pre-honey mood stage and so one would usually think of the best of the others during this time.  I still love to see them going thru a church ceremony for the bond from God is a grace according to my religious point of view.  It was that promise “In sickness or in health, in rich and in poor, what God unite, nothing can divide” keeps my marriage from falling apart once and keep me going.



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Daphne wrote Oct 29, 2008
    • I have thought for a long time that marriage licenses ought to be renewable...removing the over involvement of lawyers.  The civil union concept, combined with the renewable marriage license might work at some level...but, as Cindylou said, the terms would be contested by some based on changes in relationship, circumstances, etc.  As long as there are lawyers who are willing to challenge laws, and people who are looking to get over, under or by their obligations, divorces will be ugly and complicated.  

      Life expectancy and quality of life has hugely increased/improved.  Used to be “til death do us part” wasn’t so long...these days, it could reach 60+ years and i think that’s daunting to many.



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Bobbi Bacha wrote Oct 29, 2008
    • I just always thought that anyone can get married with out being challenged, and have children, but the moment a divorce happens... suddenly its a huge bloodly battle, and usually women dont come out so well.  And why many women take abuse in marriage.  They dont want to lose thier children.  

      I just see that in these marriages and there are many, the husband views marriage as an ownership.. a possession of his wife and children.  Not that she entered into marriage as a promise of faith love and fidelity.

      Civil Unions are so wonderful because it basically spells out all the terms of the Union before such Union is entered into.  Its so much better than what we do with marriages as we enter the Unknown zone.. and if it ends its a huge battle and usually ends up hurting women and children.  

      Im not saying to abolish marriages in a church, Im just saying lets spell out the agreement in writing before you enter into such agreement.  Its like a prenup but I think better.  Yes it can be challenged as all legal documents can.  But usually not too much sucess.

      And Annie, I know people live together common law and that is sooo dangerous because if it breaks up and there are chldren, guess what, a common law marriage is just like a real marriage and here we go again.. divorce court.  Best to have a Civil Union agreement.

      So much more we as women need to do. Ive really seen the courts slowly moving against women over the years.  As it used to be women always got the children, the house, child / spouce support, now, men are getting it more and more.  Due to mental or physical abuse mostly and men having more money to fight in court.

      My photofacial girl, won her two daughters in Divorce and he has had her in court every year since trying to take them back, she said the court costs are tremendous... as he has money to do it.  She is afraid to date and said she spends all her time with her children, which she loves, but is afraid if she even goes out with another man, her husband will feverishly go after her.  This is after divorce.

      I know there are unfit parents out there but Im seeing fit parents losing children, mostly women.  Or being made to look nuts in court and losing thier children, I understand that some mothers arent good mothers, but the tides are flipped against women in courts now and that it not good for our children.  As children.. need mothering.  

      In nature its the females that raise the children, not the males, and Im not saying men arent good parents, its just that nature did pick the female to have children, and raise them.

      Im part Cherokee and my grandmother told me.  If a Cherokee male wanted to leave his wife, he left the cabin, the children, and all the food, and all he could take was his bow and arrow, to hunt for food for himself.  That was so the woman could have all the tools to raise the children.

      Tides are changing in a wrong direction for women in divorce.  We need to wake up.  

      Lets face it we would enter into any contract with out reading the fine lines of the agreement and agreeing to all the terms of the contract, yet, today in the 21st century we jump into Marriages, or common law marriages with out spelling out the terms of the relationship or agreement.

      I just think Civil Unions, as a requirement before marriage would save tons and also change the perspective of a marriage.  Then go have that church wedding or not.  And I am not seeing Civil Union as a replacement for marriage but a requirement, just clarify the agreement before you jump feet or head first into a marriage.  

      Do you realize that getting married is the biggest life changing event you will make.  Or living with someone common law.  Your basically giving your body, life, possessions and could be creating children with this person.. and we enter into marriage with no contract at all or no agreement other than, I DO !  

      Civil Unions as a requirement when we get marriage licenses, I just think its a wise thing to do... then go have that HUGE church wedding.. or not.



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Cindylouwho1966 wrote Oct 29, 2008
    • Maybe something to consider, although it’s more government and I am not a fan of that, is required counseling, not necessarily church-based.

      I was amazed at how cheap it was to get my marriage license. Maybe if it cost more and there was some form of pre-marital guidance, there might be a little more thought...although I doubt it. When you think you're in love, nothing or no one can make you see sense. But then when it falls apart, you ask everyone, why didn't you warn me?



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Bobbi Bacha wrote Oct 29, 2008
    • Thanks Peeper, and all ladies.. Its just even if you buy a dress you have an agreement and a refund policy.

      We are all just jumping into the biggest decision of our entire lives, with no legal protection.

      Most people cant afford Pre Nup’s and in my opinion, Civil Unions are the most protected, form of a Union, it protects in death, and in disolution.  Not to say they cant be challenged, but I just think much wiser than stopping at the Hitching Post.. to get married... or for that matter planning and elaborate wedding in a church, and having no personal protection in the event of disolution.

      Additionally, I still think such a contract of marriage, would clarify the ownership aspect.. as its a contract between two parties not ownership papers, as many view marriage.  Your most likely right about each state having different state laws, and it would have to be adopted in each state.

      Civil Unions have way.... better assurance than a marriage.  In my opinion.



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Bobbi Bacha wrote Oct 31, 2008
    • Peeper, your right, a marriage is a legally protected institution, however, still, you enter into the marriage with no pre arrainged or prewritten division and if disolved you still have to await the court, file divorce and divide things with an UNDETERMINED OUTCOME.  

      I just think Civil Unions, are so much better because its all spelled out in the begining and although yes can be challenged, it gives and expected outcome rather than an undetermined outcome, therefore, giving each party entering into the Union, the power and privelege of know what the HECK they are signing up for.  

      As marriage goes today.. you enter the UNKNOWN OUTCOME ZONE.

      I know prenups are available to the rich, but Im talking a basic contract before marriage, that will help establish the playing field and ground rules before you enter the game.

      Your right, all the options you wrote above are available after a marriage is disloved, still there is no guaranteed outcome, and many more women are losing thier children.  I just think that it should be decided before marriage as a mandatory thing.  I think it would help DEFINE MARRIAGE, and lay ground rules and outcome, which would detour divorce or detour abuse, and impower women in a bad marriage knowing what was pre decided it the way it will be if they leave.

      Just a thought.. I just think the way we have it Now is too... IFY.

      Thanks Peeper.



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Tori Santos wrote Oct 31, 2008
    • I believe the problem w/ marriges today is that people go into it thinking well if it dosn’t work out I’ll get a divorce, sign a preenup that’s also saying well lets set the precedent just in case we get a divorce. If you go into it thinking there’s always an out then why go into it all? Marrige was for better or worse richer for poor....



            Report  Reply


    • 0 votes vote up vote up

      Bobbi Bacha wrote Nov 19, 2008
    • With all the Gay marching and protests over marriages being banned..  

      I just want to address this topic again..

      What if the states and cities just get out of the marriage business and only become a civil union business.

      Let the churches decide on marriage.

      I think we should have civil unions for everyone, and leave it to the churches to perform marriages.. why does the state get involved in a religous based cerimony anyway ?

      I know I keep going back to this, but I believe in seperation of church and state and the states should not be performing marriages anyway or even deciding on them.  I think thats up to the churches.

      Im proposing all states do away with marriages, since it s a religious based union, and just require a civil union, and then let the churches decide on marriages ?  

      Then let each insurance company decide if they will recognize a civil union and or marriages on policies.. I think youll see many accepting both and problems solved.

      Christians will be happy that marriage is a between a man and a woman and gays / lesbians will be happy that they are treated equally in the state in a civil union required by the state for everyone.  

      Im sure certain churches would marry gay couples and I think everyone will be happy.

      I think the illimation of descrimination would solve the problem.  

      Also, it would make things clear to everyone before entering ina marriage what the outcome will most likely be in case union is desolved.

      Basically, Civil Unions for all, and a marriage in the church to follow up the civil union, if the church allows it.

      Just a thought.



            Report  Reply