Contract of Marriage...

I wrote this bit for my MBA class. All week I have been watching my classmates talk about wether married couples should have seperate bank accounts or not. Then one of my classmates asserted that marriage is not a contract or a business deal - it is about oneness and unions and forming one, where there was once two. Um, well... news flash... marriage IS a social contract... it is treated as such under the law... I doubt couples who live together love each other less - maybe... but bottom line - when you get married you sign on the dotted line. You have to meet certain specifications in order to be legally allowed to sign on the dotted line, ergo, marriage is a social contract...

Marriage is in fact, where the law is concerned - a contract. A contract that entitles the parties to certain rights and privileges under the law. In fact about 150 to 200 years ago, all the women in this class, would have been prohibited from owning property in her own name as a married woman or would have to have had her husband's permission to do so, and largely at his discretion, the property she brought to the marriage largely would be - under the law considered her husbands. She had no political voice. In certain circumstances her signature on legal documents - would not have been enough for those document to be official. It was not until the 60s and 70s that women had much independence in the world of business...

That the law has evolved somewhat and women now have a political voice and can in fact own property in their own name, does not then change the fact that marriage is a social contract, with certain legal rights and privileges for those forming the contract. Certainly from a tax point of view there are advantages, insurance, right of property transfer on death... all rights governed and allowable based on having proof of a valid marriage contract. That is why no matter where the wedding happens, be it at sea, on the beach, in a legally recognized house of worship, or the court house - all marriages begin with a license... which is then ratified or validated by the officiant...mmm that is then a contract.

I was concerned vis a vi the Madoff mess, when the Feds seized Ruth's property - property held in her single name. If she was party to the scheme and the assets had been transferred to her name in an effort to illegally shield them, then fine - they should be seized as stolen property and returned to their rightful owners...those people Madoff swindled, BUT if those assets were Ruth's, brought to or earned thru legit business dealings during the marriage - while still marital property - I think a case can be made that she should be able to keep what was hers from the beginning. I think women should watch this case and these Federal maneuvers very carefully, because our rights to our own property, our own earnings, while married are tenuous at best. It was not long ago that in the eyes of the law - we were property at worst and at best quasi property.

I understand that we like to think of marriage as a "union" or "romantic love" but marriage is a social contract, one that has not always been fair and equitable, in the eyes of the law - should a party to contract decide they would like to void the contract...

The law is unconcerned with whether you love one another and pledge your eternal devotion to the counterpart in the marriage contract.

Love is about love, and property rights is about property rights, legal requirements are legal requirements - blending them together is dangerous fun...

I would not love H any less, had we forgone the contract 10 years ago...that contract gets us and the kiddos certain rights under the law... Love got's nothing to do with that...