Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: marriage =! (necessarily) commitment
Message-ID: <666@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 15:03:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.666
Posted: Mon Aug 12 15:03:46 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 01:19:44 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 82

>Adrienne Regard:
>>
(stuff about single-cohabitants thinking about having kids as well as
married people).
>> For the purposes of generalization, the high correlation certainly serves.
>> But I've become aware that very few people separate these issues, not
>> recognising the fact that certain legal contracts in effect under state and
>> federal laws DO separate the issues, and certain other contracts do not.

Bob Bruck:
>I am happy that your situation works for you, Adrienne.  But you're seeing
>this issue from a womans point of view and there IS a difference from a man's
>point of view.

I know.  I NEVER talk to the father, since we're not married! :-).

>The difference is in the way the COURTS treat unmarried
>fathers.  IF the relationship happens to break up, it is difficult for the
>married father to get equal custody of his child - and it is almost IMPOSSIBLE
>for an unmarried father to get equal custody.  Unless some sort of legal agree-
>ments are made, the unmarried father has little protection under the law that
>his child would not be taken away from him!  How would the knowlege of that
>make YOU feel?

Exactly (part of) my point, Bob!!  Don't worry for a moment about whether
or not the couple is married -- it's a downright shame that it's so damned
difficult for ANY father, married or not, to gain custody of his child.
What do you suppose these court decisions are based on?  SOCIETAL EXPECTA-
TION.  Where do you think societal expectation comes from?  SIMILAR
ASSUMPTIONS.  Where have we been making rash assumptions lately?

What I am urging people to do is NOT not-get-married.  Rather it IS to
_THINK-ABOUT-ALL-ASPECTS-OF-GETTING-MARRIED_.  Not only that, but I think
they ought to think about them BEFORE even living together.

Why?  Precisely (for example) _because_ it is so difficult for unmarried
fathers to get custody.  So, let's say you are living with your SO, un-
married.  According to the prior discussions, by definition, because-you-
are-not-married,-the-question-of-kids-doesn't-come-up -- uh, until the day
that birth control fails, and she is pregnant.  Now you gotta make your
arrangements fast in order to cover your bases, and you may find out AFTER
the fact that you and your SO don't see eye to eye on 
etc., etc. and suddenly you have a court battle on your hands. . .

. . .all because you figured "single" people don't concern themselves with
questions about having kids.

Sure, my situation is personal, and statistically insignificant (as of
this year).  I know that.  What I am urging is that people _in_ _general_
rethink the assumptions that they operate under which may not be serving
them all that well.  Child-having being restricted to the realm of married
people only is one of those assumptions.  Father's presuming that marriage
gives them equal treatment in the courts re custody battles is another.
There are numerous economic, legal, cultural, etc., other examples.

Yet all the time people decide to "get married" without _knowing_ what
they are getting in to, assuming they understand what the package "marriage"
is.  I'd like to know how many married people on the net know the specific
repurcussions that marriage has on an individual, where the effects are
fairly well drawn (legal, for instance) and where they are shaded by
individual circumstances (legal, for instance :-)).

How many people do you know of who were UNsurprised by things that surface
in the course of a divorce?  How many people are surprised, and find as
a source of strife, things they didn't know about either the institution of
marriage and/or their spouse, after they went through the ceremony?

Yet, our _thinking_ pool of singles lets pass without a blink the bald
statement that the subject of children DOES NOT come up between singles
(surprise!) but it DOES come up between married people.  Surely we don't
suppose that questions of money ONLY come up between married people!?!
Questions of health?  Questions of social obligation?  This kind of
thinking will make single-co-habitants ripe for lawsuits.

I'm not interested in selling my life-style to anybody (patent laws are
too boring), but I have a vested interest in an informed populace.  That
moves me to challenge statements that appear too absolute, even given that
they may be generalizations.  An idiosyncracy of mine that I've indulged
this year. . .

Adrienne Regard