
I Now Pronounce You Legally Null and Void - Petiver
https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/roundtable/i-now-pronounce-you-legally-null-and-void
======
poulsbohemian
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.

~~~
Thlom
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.

~~~
hikarudo
Would "dearest" be close to "kjæreste"?

~~~
simongr3dal
Spot on.

------
belorn
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.

------
lostmsu
This is about marriage history.

------
matte_black
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.

~~~
DanBC
You fundamentally misunderstand what marriage is.

~~~
deathanatos
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?

~~~
DanBC
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.

~~~
belorn
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.

------
ddtaylor
I feel click baited by the title.

~~~
optimuspaul
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.

~~~
ddtaylor
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.

