Equal Right to Marry Exciting (Yet that Also Means Equal Right to Abuse, Divorce and Other not so great stuff about Marriage)

Originally thinking this out on Facebook but likely it did not post, so I copied and pasted..Sometimes a virus of sorts makes the post repeat, so I tried to edit and hope I did not cut out too much (hardly possible yet there are a ton of points to consider since the days of the 1980s when I started thinking about these topics, which was when 'coming out of the closet' was a big deal as was AIDS..and in vitro was a vague idea whereas now it will be more affordable to people as is the Plan B pill. Almost half of pregnancies are not planned and that's one aspect of the new marriages that should not be a pressing factor for couples to marry as it was for many in the past and likely still is for a host of reasons (more traditional, affordable if money's an issue, more funds to supporting marriage and father involvement and much more..

Yet not necessarily the safer bet, so review all options with caring friends and good online sites..is there one called MakingSuperImportantDecisions.com with a flow chart. I hope to craft one before long and of course, I encourage you to do so with logic and ask for guidance "calling all angels" and yes, the divine as www.drsha.com and many faiths and cultures promote. Use all of your resources. 

Be safe, sober (that's part of being safe and the longer time, the more stable), accountable, honest, open and willing to let caring people coach you along with being respectful and lovingly monitored about finances, time, socializing, setting goals and meeting them reasonable without over-stressing and getting lots of support (and sleep!). And all the best  to those pursuing connection in caring ways, legally or otherwise.

Eventually I think there should be a partnership based on the idea of 'everyone have a buddy' to look out for in the ways there are protections for assets, insurance, ownership of property and parenting or caring for children whether biological or adopted'. I don't think everything should be based on whether a pair of people are' in love' or wanting to be physically involved.

That could be an additional 'rider' or something to review as a partnership of two people would like. Then let's face it, some people may be interested or need 'different people watching out for different needs' in terms of rearing children, even caring for themselves health wise or money wise.

The truth is, it is a huge responsibility to have to figure out what Marriage means currently and 10x harder to have a Clue what separation, co-parenting or divorce would mean in the 50 states. As lovely as this is to allow any two people to marry (I don't know if that excludes the people who were deemed too closely related in various states--first cousins but siblings and so forth which likely mainly relates to the biological higher likelihood of having children who may be at greater risk for genetic anomalies and has been traditionally not promoted by most faith and cultural norms..

.Yet there are many who likely have also been involved (with some cultures defining marriage whether recognized by others or not as a sexual union between two people, which speaks to the idea of the biblical kind of 'knowing a person'--defined in the bible as a man and woman who are of the age to consent yet likely is indicating a kind of spiritual or energetic interaction or bonding that could be discussed more thoroughly by various circles of thinkers to help more people appreciate or be aware of what 'sex' may involve at various ages and stages of life.

Whether two or more partners are involved, such as a man having many 'wives' or partners whether only together with one at a time or not, and similarly for a woman) and  whether connected in various ways, whether 'really complicit or not' at the start.

Women or younger people likely need to be willing to consult with caring, informed counselors who could help them sort out patterns of giving into a person's requests which may be more like demands if there is not an acceptance of  'no'  or  rejection on other levels whether regarding 'each time and every time' permission to be involved to any degree physically whether married or not to other facets of the relationship not being discussed and clarified to each party's satisfaction.

What I hope to think through is the reality that many people could care for one other person at least in terms of sharing some kind of 'business type' contract for owning things or being able and willing to care for the other person. But right now, we haven't thought through the reality everyone faces in terms of the What Ifs...if someone becomes more of a case of needing care than when one first met and got involved.

What are the legal responsibilities and the overall options to ask for help and bow out gracefully and yes legally if that would put people's assets at risk, bring harm to children potentially (as in one abusive parent insisting on their access and harm to children and even the denial of the protective parent's access with the courts and many parts of society allowing for that if not rewarding the abusers and even the states financially for funding foster care over protecting mothers (typically) in caring for their children.

Some states do not allow an automatic transfer of assets to the other spouse (such as NM, the assets go back to the state is what one widow told me). If we focused more on the various roles one may need support in (co-owning a house or land, co-parenting a child born or adopted to a two people, owning a car, sharing one's retirement and social security, buying life insurance and medical insurance...etc) then maybe all that would not necessarily have to be linked to only one person.

We could redefine marriage to mean a few things as the couple would like (and may want to change) such as 'exclusively involved physically' (although CDC Center of Disease Control says 1 out of 3 'monogamous' relationships are not actually so whether one or both are 'not monogamous' by agreement or one sneaking about...and of course there is a risk then for STDs which means everyone should be tested periodically even if they believe they are exclusive.

Over time, if one person becomes less interested or able to be involved with the other, then new terms could perhaps be drawn up if that is creating a problem for them, yet they could still maintain involvement with their children, maybe reconfigure their ownership of their home or living arrangements and so on.

If they want to keep everything the way it was, that's fine too, but it likely should all be reviewed every year or two (not unlike having a yearly physical...and terms for relationships could be set for 1, 2, or 3 years or even 5 at a time which again could give people some idea of stability without having to face a 'sudden huge shift' in terms of being Either Married or Divorced (or Dating versus Breaking Up).

The high cost of divorce, or of staying in an abusive relationship make relationships that much more complicated. Yet if a person had an agreement with one's siblings to rear children (and both 'partners' could perhaps agree to enlist some helpful family or friends to provide support and be consulted about changes or challenges or even more input to encourage a team of support for each child...and pet etc). The stress of two people having to meet the many needs of the other and keep the finances, housing, and work life going can prove taxing.

With family and friends lending insight if not funds and being 'support people for various aspects of agreements' then there can be added help in times of need as well as more practical support should times get tough. Having some standard 'check off what might pertain and review every year in the first five years' and then every two thereafter standard 'pre-nuptial' or pre-dating forms and guidelines or youtube videos (are there some likely..it's just hart to remember to do one's homework when one is thinking about love or very important parts of one's life..maybe having buddy to be accountable to about having some insight and meeting the person early on would make sense along with my post on Checklist for Chicks and Guys.)

Even religious or committed people have not thought through the prospects of what they would do if 'things changed' in various ways..and there were a need to enlist more help for pay or by donation from others to care for basics--the people in their home/ life, their things, their work or social needs.

With mental health, drug effects (for legal or illegal substances), as well as aging or other life factors impacting people how much of a 'guarantee' can anyone really offer another person? Half of all marriages end in divorce within 2 to 7 years (and that is not likely a bad thing if the pair is not happy.

It could be a literal lifesaver although abusers can still torment and control their victims--often through their kids or social ties if not financial and legal wrangling) for years..and the fatality risk is also still high if one of the parties was a victim.

Sorry to go on So Long with all this, and really I should post in my blog www.livfully.drupalgardens.com since so few headlines look at the stats or realities of what people are facing in a legal marriage, nice as it can be there are also some huge risks which are not well understood. The intervenors are basically non-existent unless people volunteer info and the law is not the best tool to use to fix things of the heart and piggybank or where younger folks (kids) are concerned.

I hope to space this piece out but when I try it usually posts automatically, IF people are really happy being together and 'married' maybe they could take some time to consider what I'm suggesting in terms of making it all Really Better for Everyone to have some protection under the law to own and transfer assets, to allow people to have capable guardians for their children (some baby Daddies are not really capable of rearing kids if they are on drugs or are violent..and if they hurt the mother, when she's pregnant or even after the child is born that IS a form of child abuse which does not just get better over time.

That's why more 'nice normal' people should ponder how we could protect more people, mostly women and kids who are confused if in an abusive situation. Jail lands people in dismal situations and even in solitary which likely no one really deserves (and in the Netherlands/ Germany is hardly used--a good recent talk on NPR said.)

But in the US of A..well,.. 2 million men are in prison (and likely another few million should be). Should a man or woman be warned that she or he may not get much protection for their safety if they are married (or dating, etc) and even less if they pursue divorce? It's an 'all or nothing' mentality with many abusers...and maybe that is so they can try to control themselves and likely are they only not caring about their victims, they really can't intuit or sense what the big deal would be to cut them off from their own better sides or even take their children from them (the victims). In their minds, the other person is the Enemy to be gotten rid of not only if they had a strong interest in them or loved them but Because they felt strongly and that person Failed to Meet Their Requirements.

See how that is kind of logical even if a bit demented in terms of feeling justified in hurting someone one cared about? Not a problem for the abuser-solves-all mentality..and no one really has to warn those heading to the marriage halls to learn about this.

That's why as much as it sounds nice to have 'equal marriage' I'm afraid it will mean 'equal abuse' for about 25% of those headed there now that there's a green light for same sex marriages (similar to that of heteros marrying..and that could be closer to 40%..and knowing not all those being abused can or will get out safely alone or with their kids.) Food for thought and maybe best not to bring this up At a Wedding..but maybe before!

Eventually I think there should be a partnership based on the idea of 'everyone have a buddy' to look out for in the ways there are protections for assets, insurance, ownership of property and parenting or caring for children whether biological or adopted'. I don't think everything should be based on whether a pair of people are' in love' or wanting to be physically involved. That could be an additional 'rider' or something to review as a partnership of two people would like.

Then let's face it, some people may be interested or need 'different people watching out for different needs' in terms of rearing children, even caring for themselves health wise or money wise. The truth is, it is a huge responsibility to have to figure out what Marriage means currently and 10x harder to have a Clue what separation, co-parenting or divorce would mean in the 50 states. As lovely as this is to allow any two people to marry (I don't know if that excludes the people who were deemed too closely related in various states--first cousins but siblings and so forth which likely mainly relates to the biological higher likelihood of having children who may be at greater risk for genetic anomalies and has been traditionally not promoted by most faith and cultural norms...

Yet there are many who likely have also been involved and connected in various ways, whether 'really complicit or not' at the start. What I hope to think through is the reality that many people could care for one other person at least in terms of sharing some kind of 'business type' contract for owning things or being able and willing to care for the other person. But right now, we haven't thought through the reality everyone faces in terms of the What Ifs...if someone becomes more of a case of needing care than when one first met and got involved.

.