The institution of marriage has a lot of different aspects. There's the romantic aspect. There's the forever aspect. There's the fact that spouses are automatically each other's next of kin. There's the fact that they are to be treated as a unit, legally and socially. There's the fact that they live together. There's the fact that they often have children together.
However, sometimes a person might be in a relationship that has some of these aspects, but not all. This kind of relationship, even though they are likely the most important relationship in the person's life, has no legal or social status. You might want to share a home or raise a child with someone, but not want a romantic relationship with them. You might want to be legally considered a household unit, but not want the obligation of "forever." You might fully intend to love someone forever, forsaking all others, but the two of you just cannot manage to live together.
So what we need is legally binding contracts that involve only some of the aspects of marriage. For example:
The common-law contract: I use the word common-law because this most resembles the concept currently described as common-law marriage. However, the problem with common-law marriage is that a cohabiting couple are automatically considered common-law after a certain period of time. So if you've been together romantically for 10 years but only moved in together last week, you don't get any of the benefits of common-law marriage. Conversely, if you've been living together for a year (I think it's 1 year - if not, insert the appropriate period of time) then you are automatically considered common-law married, whether you like it or not. The alternative I propose is that two people living together sign a contract that makes them "partners". They are then considered a family-style household, rather than roommates, with all the related legal benefits. Perhaps there could be a temporary version and a permanent version, with the permanent version requiring a "divorce" and splitting of assets if the relationship comes to an end. The common-law contract would not have the implication of a romantic relationship, although the couple is certainly free to have a romantic relationship if they choose. They would be considered equal to a married couple under etiquette, so they'd be invited to weddings etc. together. A couple doesn't have to live together for a certain period of time - they can sign the common-law contract on the very day they move in together, if they so choose.
The next-of-kin contract: This is a public declaration of a certain person as your next of kin. I am aware of the existence of living wills, but if no one can find your living will (or you're unconscious and can't tell them where it is) then your next living relative will be considered your next of kin, even if you want it to be your best friend or your roommate or your longtime lover. With this contract, your next of kin will be as much a matter of public as your spouse.
The non-cohabiting marriage contract: I know a number of couples who love each other forever, but simply are not compatible to live together. The stress of living together would ruin their relationship, so they live apart. By all rights they should get to enjoy the benefits of marriage, but their marriage would be considered null and void in our society, which makes living apart for a prolonged period of time grounds for divorce. Under this contract, a couple would get all the benefits of marriage, with the implications of romance and forever, but they would be permitted to maintain separate households. Under etiquette and "morality" they are considered a married couple, so they are invited to social events together, and it is just as acceptable for them to share a bed as it is for a cohabiting married couple.
The co-parenting contract: Suppose you want to have a child, but you do not have an appropriate romantic partner with whom to have a child. But suppose you know someone who would be the perfect co-parent, they just aren't appropriate to be a romantic partner. They might be an incompatible sexual orientation, or they might be a blood relative, or they just might be someone with whom you are not romantically compatible. Under this contract, two people can legally be considered primary custodial parents of a child without the other implications of marriage. They may live together or apart (although logistically they would probably have to live at least close to each other), and they can share the other legal benefits of marriage. They can be considered a couple socially, or they might prefer not to - it's up to them. I am aware of adoption, but this system is specifically designed to normalize the concept of two roommates parenting a child together.
No comments:
Post a Comment