This is something that has been on my mind a lot over the past few years, having gone through an ugly, costly divorce and having watched friends stay in rotten marriages. Relationships come in a lot of forms, and we lack vocabulary, laws, and social acceptance for many of them. My mother's partner of more than ten years is still legally married to someone else, because to divorce would set off financial destruction for both parties. My "partpanion" and I call each other that because partner is so clinical, companion so incomplete, other terms like "significant other" a strange twist of the language. Can a seventy-year old really be a "girlfriend / boyfriend"? We will likely never marry, and to make things odder, "domestic partnership" can now only be made legally binding here for older people, presumably for the purpose of making it easier to deal with things like medical-power-of-attorney in the event of poor health. And then there are all the people I know who stay in terrible marriages either because of kids, money, religion... I kinda like some of these examples from the article that are so "live and let live" accepting of humanity, so long as we are good to each other and providing nurture to any children produced. Until that time, the lawyers sure make out like bandits.

>> My mother's partner of more than ten years is still legally married to someone else, because to divorce would set off financial destruction for both parties.

This is something I really don't understand. If both parties want the divorce and can agree on any asset splits, a divorce costs whatever the filing fee is. A few hundred dollars and you're done.

Wouldn't that be nice? No - marriage over 20 years, spousal support for life. Money came from an inheritance? Not part of the so-called 50/50 split. Kids involved? Are you male? Get ready to get screwed - either you go bankrupt to get your kids or you lose your kids. Are the significant assets at stake? Then these things are never simple, and if they are the lawyers are going to make sure that they aren't because they want their share of the action.

I am in full agreement with you - the majority of divorces should be simple. They should be a form you complete in a clerks office. But that's not how it actually goes, unless both parties are very, very agreeable, and even then you'd better hope the judge is in a good mood and doesn't overrule what you've both agreed to (no I'm not kidding).

Inheritance isn't considered community property. It is the sole property of the heir spouse except to the extent explicitly gifted to the union.

That aside, assets can be divided up without involving lawyers. Indeed, hiring lawyers is the pretty much the one thing you can do to guarantee that the divorce will be acrimonious, because the lawyers could care less about your (or your soon-to-be-ex spouse's) feelings.

I've never seen a judge throw out an amicable divorce settlement drawn up by parties without their own lawyers. At most, they required the divorcing parties to have the agreement looked over by a lawyer to make sure it satisfied necessary legal requirements.

>I've never seen a judge throw out an amicable divorce settlement drawn up by parties without their own lawyers.

And I had three lawyers warn me of exactly this scenario. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying as a lay-person that the law is very frustrating.

>I'm saying as a lay-person that the law is very frustrating.

This was my experience as well. I've been wondering if there is an audience for tools to help people going through a divorce, especially for those in the tech industry, since there are often complicated concerns over stock options, RSUs, 401k, bonus plans, etc. that are included in most tech worker's total compensation (btw - this is what you use to calculate support, not salary) that can. I had a very hard time finding help during my divorce for complicated topics such as these, and had to turn to many costly specialists to apply their formulas to determine community property.

If you have complicated assets prior to the marriage, like RSUs, you may want to hire a lawyer simply because RSUs are tricky beasts even if you're not getting married.

But otherwise, the Nolo Prenuptial guide is sufficient for most marriages and is in fact the guide that judges in SoCal will recommend.

>>unless both parties are very, very agreeable

This is the real problem, I think - people can't seem to split agreeably. If you have a good solution for that I'm sure we can clean up all the messy divorces. Until then though...not sure what options we have.

Let them downvote you. You're absolutely spot on.

I suspect the downvote is because you brought up gender. You aren't supposed to point out that there are differences in the way men and women are treated upon leaving a marriage.

Well, that and because he appears to be saying "this happened to me and therefore it happens 100% of the time to everyone", which isn't true.

Did I anywhere use the words "this happens 100% of the time"? No, I shared a personal reflection, plus would be happy to rattle off about ten more examples if you'd like. Once I get my life back in order, I intend to petition the Washington State Legislature, because I am not happy about laws that enabled my nut-job ex to use the legal system to her whims while leaving me on the edge of bankruptcy. I would like to believe this was not the legislature or courts intents, yet I have at this point read many accounts of exactly this scenario. So quit putting words in my mouth that I didn't use and cite some of your own counter-facts if you feel otherwise.

I'm in California, but facing much the same situation. I've said it before and I will say it again... I think people are ignorant of divorce laws and simply do not realize how much financial damage a motivated (i.e. nut-job) ex can get cause if they decide they want to.

To give an example, I have my 2 kids almost 50/50 split custody (I have them 6pm Thursday to 6pm Sunday) and had my child support set at $1700 per month. This was on top of an additional $1800 per month of spousal support, which I had to give up my 401k to pay off because I couldn't afford that much monthly expense). My ex makes variable income of $3,500 to $5000 per month working part time as a wedding photographer. My wages are garnished, and if I ever have a change in circumstances, I will have to go through a lengthy court process just for a shot at that. In the meantime, I would be responsible for the original amount plus interest until such time as the court saw fit to change it.

I'm a good father. I love my kids and want to support them. The way the system is currently structured, if you made more money than your spouse during the marriage, you have to provide the same "lifestyle" as you had during the marriage to your children, regardless if they are in your care or not. I struggle to make ends meet, while my ex is able to live comfortably, take them on numerous expensive vacations, etc. because so much of my income is given to the other party as child support, but can spent as they see fit.

A downvote, really? Must be a lawyer in the crowd. Having just finished spending $15,000 and two years of my life on this, I'm not exactly happy with our legal system.

Hmmm try again.

Here are some more common barriers. Notice that these are 'assets' that are not controlled by the couple:

* Social Security with survivor benefits * Pension payouts * Health Insurance coverage (1 person's job has HC, the other doesn't)

In Scandinavia we have the term "kjæreste" which roughly translates to "most beloved". When I think about I believe it's only in Norway and Sweden we have that word. In Sweden they have the word ælskling which means much the same thing. Both used in much the same way as boyfriend/girlfriend, but without the gender and without the implied youth so can be used by both young and old.

Would "dearest" be close to "kjæreste"?

Spot on.

The Danes have this word too, I found it missing from English vocabulary while learning the language.

Love it! I think this moment is the birth of a new English loanword.

It would be if `kjæreste` didn't have `æ` in it and were easy to pronounce for an English speaker.

The glyph `æ` is part of the english language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%86#English

generally it is not used in the us, as we have dropped it.

>"domestic partnership" can now only be made legally binding here for older people

In some places it can be made legally binding against your will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimony_in_the_United_States

Yes! That's why I think our legal situation in Washington state is such a mess. I found at least 8 cases in my own divorce where the law was just plain stupid and harmful. I'm glad that homosexuals can now marry, but when that law went into effect, it also broke the existing domestic partnership laws and created a huge grey area. My lady friend and I are forming an implicit partnership, but we have no legal way to formalize it - and as you point out, if something were to go sideways in the future, you can be held accountable as though it were "legal" but without there being codified law making the rules-of-the-game clear.

The article points to many historical connections between the women's rights movement and marriage laws, through I wish it would have connected the dots to the current day. Looking at here in Sweden a lot of laws in regard to marriage was abolished in the time around 1960-1980, through the feminist movement was split on the issue and has since not really continued to abolish them. The US for example still have alimony as a concept which backs from the 1700s world view that alimony to wives was paid because it was assumed that the marriage, and the wife's right to support, would have continued but for the misbehavior of the husband.

A lingering view of marriage is the idea that the two individuals are now a single entity and should be treated as such by the government and companies. From a 21th century perspective this doesn't make much sense. Historical a loan might have been given to a family, and if it defaulted the debt transferred to the other family members. Today that is no longer a practice. Welfare is usually on a per-person basis with some minor exceptions. The biggest exception here in Sweden is insurance which still has some "family" aspect attached in both cost and coverage.

This is about marriage history.

I don’t know how others on HN may feel, but given stories I have heard I personally have no desire to be legally married until men are treated a bit more favorably by marriage law.

As it stands, a man who has accumulated significant assets and net worth as is common in the tech industry, would be easily ruined by a divorce to the wrong woman. Prenuptials do not always save you.

A marriage is very much like a partnership, legally. Both partners are held to be answerable to each other, share joint ownership of assets, be jointly responsible for children, etc.

Joining with a bad business partner can ruin you completely. Dissolution of a partnership may mean one partner is disadvantaged in favour of the other partner (depending on the partnership agreement). Marriage is a special type of partnership where we have a default partnership agreement, by statute and/or common law, because it's in the best interest of society, but you can override that with a contract if you like.

If you live in a sensible jurisdiction (maybe not, you're likely in the US) family law is already gender neutral. If you don't like the idea of marriage, fine, but the problem is only marriage law if your marriage law is lousy.

The difference is that business partners are completely free to set the terms of their partnership. Whereas in marriage, the terms are fixed by the state.

No business partners would enter a deal with equal shares if one brings 1M in assets and the other zero. A marriage forces them to.

In the US it usually doesn't, where did you learn about marriage property?

> generally speaking, Separate Property includes: •Any property that was owned by either spouse prior to the marriage; (random link with explanation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/04/12/understa...)

> The difference is that business partners are completely free to set the terms of their partnership.

They are not completely free; the law has bounds.

> Whereas in marriage, the terms are fixed by the state.

That's not true, there are default terms set by the state and, within the bounds of the law, they can modify them. Hence pre-(and post-)nuptial agreements.

> No business partners would enter a deal with equal shares if one brings 1M in assets and the other zero

You can probably find examples showing that that generalization is overstated, but, sure, that would be unusual.

> A marriage forces them to.

No, even in a “community property” state, it doesn't, even in the absence of a special agreement between the parties. Community property is generally that property acquired during the marriage; assets brought in at the formation remain separate property, in general.

Three things with that:

1) Prenuptial agreements exist, you can alter the terms of the partnership.

2) As someone else mentioned, pre-marriage assets are generally kept separate.

3) Business partners enter into all kinds of arrangements - maybe one parter brings in less money but has more expertise, connections, or will work more hours over the life of the partnership.

I am not sure why you are downvoted. The article even touched on this, marriage was viewed as some type of pseudo-slavery with the man having ownership over the woman in the 1700-1800s.

Divorce laws reflect women traditionally not having any means of financing their own lives and being dependent on men especially since the article notes they could not gain higher education even after some jobs opened up to women so would they divorce they would be stuck with very slim financial options (i.e. low paying non-career positions viewed as feminine)

It did note however that men used to get ownership of the children in the event of a divorce. I do not know when that changed because I have seen stats that show women are more likely to get the children today.

I think the US switched to giving women custody in the 1920's.

Since the 1980's California now fairly strongly pushes joint custody.

I’m not sure why I was downvoted either, but perhaps it’s because people believe women really are more disadvantaged after a divorce. The modern woman is more than capable of taking care of herself, even if salaries are not totally equal for both genders yet in all industries.

Yet from what I’ve seen in most cases, if there are any children involved in a marriage, the woman will get them AND the house in a divorce. The man will be on his own, possibly paying a hefty child support.

I didn't down vote you. I did consider it.

My suspicion is you were likely down voted by someone with strong feelings to the contrary who sees no point in arguing it given your stated position and the fact that this is an overwhelmingly male forum.

I post as openly female. I try to be really evenhanded. But I have been here nearly 9 years and have been trying to figure out how to make money online during that time. I know people who made good money because of connections made through HN and that has not worked for me. It is clear to me that my gender is a large factor in that.

It's pretty offensive to me to read that you want to protect the wealth of men on the grounds that "women can support themselves" while acknowledging women generally make less and simultaneously decrying the imposition of needing to pay child support.

I'm not really interested in debating this with you or anyone. I remain appalled that I could spend so much time here while homeless and struggling to eat while men here poo poo the idea that sexism is any kind of real financial burden for women.

I appear to be the only woman to have ever spent time on the leaderboard of HN (under a different handle). That's one woman out of quite a lot more than 100 people over the years given that names on the board come and go.

I like HN. I have a lot of good things to say about it. But comments like yours still leave me shaking my head and astonished at the blindness that can be found in such a generally intelligent, well educated etc crowd.

If it makes you feel any better I'm male, have been here roughly as long as you, and have yet to find a reliable way to make money online either. But I think I might be getting closer.

I do not believe that a significant portion of the population on HN makes their money online. I believe remote work is an extremely small percentage of workers, regardless of gender.

The HN forums are mostly for discussion of the tech industry and emerging tech/trends. Job hunting is very secondary here.

Women in America most definitely can support themselves easily. We are a top country for gender equality. Even with a small pay gap, women can still support themselves here. BLS has a lot of informative data on women in the workforce for those interested.

So to summarize, yes - women can support themselves without a man in the USA today. Which I think was the poster's point.

I don’t think your gender plays as large of a factor as you think. I think most people do not make any sort of money or connections through HN, even if they are plain straight white males.

The ones that have made fortunes off of here could probably do it through any other place just as easily.

Hell, some days I feel like I can’t even get a word in, and I’m the epitome of a Silicon Valley straight white male.

I replied to give my opinion as to why you were down voted. Your response is to be essentially personally dismissive of me. Meanwhile, I am currently downvoted to zero and pretty much expecting to be ROFLstomped for daring to say anything.

I will reiterate that this is exactly why I think you were down voted: someone disagrees with you, doesn't care to engage you in discussion about it and doesn't care to deal with the fallout from voicing disagreement in an overwhelmingly male forum that will generally be sympathetic to your concerns.

If sexism is not an issue here, where are the other 16+ openly female members of the leaderboard?

Piss on me as an individual all you like, but the data does not support an assertion that gender is irrelevant on HN.

There are probably not many women here because it's not fun to be on a forum full of finance-obsessed manchildren and brogrammers unless you are one or identify as one. The actual benefits from being on HN are basically null, yet most men who use it think it'll improve their careers. It won't, but it helps sama and paul graham.

Marriage can work out with either party getting the better end, and divorce usually works out with both parties getting screwed by lawyers. However, on average, men still come out better than women do.

See https://www.amazon.com/Price-Motherhood-Important-World-Valu... for documentation of this fact.

(Speaking anecdotally, I came out much worse off for my first marriage and that was mostly my fault. My second marriage has been a delight though.)

You fundamentally misunderstand what marriage is.

Perhaps, then, you could explain where the commenter you are responding to's misunderstanding lies, for the benefit of him/her and the rest of us?

The point of marriage is to pool money to provide for each other and your potential children. Once you get married it's not "your" money any more, it belongs to both of you.

That's from the States PoV, and since they make the laws that govern marriage it's a reasonable position to take.

All the other stuff (eg religious baggage) that comes along are optional extras.

As I explored in an other comment, it used to be that once married the community viewed the family as a single entity and as such the money did not belong to a single person but rather to the family. Very similar, debt also did not belong to a single person but was an property of the family and in cases of death of the parents it also transfered to the children. From the banks PoV, it was a reasonable position to take that it was every family members responsibility to uphold the family honor and repay any debt.

This 18th century view was thankfully mostly abolished by later centuries. We don't see children going into debt slavery just to repay their parents or grandparents sins. An other 18th century concept is that children starved and died if they did not have a supporting family. There was no welfare state or no social net. A major progress in the way government operates today is that government operates on individuals. The PoV of the state is that there is individuals that need food, healthcare, and social support. Those individuals could be a child in which a lack of essential needs cause the state to bring in social services. The family is only a factor when evaluating the available support an individual has, but in the end its the individual that the government focus on. 18th century marriage law did not look at the individual, and as such it made sense that marriage was a single entity that formed a family which members had legal responsibility to each other. The state issued the laws that defined a family, the family protected each member, and the chain of command (and law) was simple, clear and established.

I'd like to hear this as well. To me marriage is an ancient construct that really was designed to provide structure to single earner families and to align them with the popular religious beliefs of the time. It does't make much sense to me in today's world (in particular in places like the USA) outside of religious constructs.

Sure, figure out a ceremony so people can celebrate their love and proclaim their loyalty to each-other. But why should the law and finances get so tightly involved?

I'm sorry you think that.

Marriage was never about "single earner families." In pre-Modern times, both spouses worked/farmed/whatever to support the family.

The point of legally recognizing marriage is to give the partnerships a simplified method of recognizing their rights to/in/with each other. You can recreate most of these rights separately if you wish--all of them except the one related to spousal testimony.

As for finances...if you're willing to go through the hassle of drafting a prenup, the spouses can maintain separate finances as well, though in the event of a divorce, the judge will critically examine the agreement to make sure that both spouses were independently capable of supporting their pre-marital and marital standards of living, which generally limits the usage of this arrangement to independently wealthy couples.

Now I’m curious as to what you think marriage is.

The traditional definition is that marriage is a covenant by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.

The more cynical modernist take is that it's a mix between a tax break and privatized welfare that should be abandoned as soon as it stops feeling good.

I feel click baited by the title.

I did not, my mind went straight to marriage/divorce when I read the title. I don't think the title was at all click bait.

For some reason I expected someone with the last name Null to get married to someone with the last name Void or some kind of benign database error to produce a marriage certificate with said surnames.