Mawij

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by trumpethead

Explain to me how the government stuck their nose in your divorce proceedings. Beyond caring about your marital status with respect to taxation, I fail to see why the government would have any interest in your divorce.

The Government runs the courts, do they not?
My divorce has to go through the courts, but only after we've been separated for a full year, which is the courts rule.
Luckily, the ex and I were on the same page, and did not have to get lawyers involved, and sit in courtrooms for hours on end to sort things out.
Still, I had to pay the Government to apply to get divorced, and far more than I had to pay to get a marriage license.
I then needed to fill out package, after package, after package of paper work, proving to them that we no longer wanted to be together, and how we were planning on dividing assets. Have all of this commissioned, and deliver it to the courts.
Now, it's sitting in a pile, waiting for a judge to review it, and decide if what we've chosen to do is acceptable or not, and either grant, or DENY, our divorce request.
The fact that a judge can decide wether or not we're allowed to get divorced, based on paperwork is ridiculous.
Like you said, why would the government have any interest in our divorce? But they certainly seem too want to dictate it.

To get married, we showed up at a registry, filled out a 1 sided form, paid a small fee, and could have gotten married right then and there. There was no application that a judge would review to decide if we were allowed to get married or not. No waiting period, no lawyers, no nothing, just a "Congrats, have fun!"

Why can't we just show up at a registry, fill out a one sided form, pay a small fee, and get a divorce decree? They let you make the decision to get married without intervening, but certainly ram their foot in there when you make the decision to end it.

Not to mention Common law relationships, where the partners have made the decision to not get married, the government decides otherwise for them, why is it any of their business?

[prime333]

Originally Posted by wretched34

The Government runs the courts, do they not?
My divorce has to go through the courts, but only after we've been separated for a full year, which is the courts rule.
Luckily, the ex and I were on the same page, and did not have to get lawyers involved, and sit in courtrooms for hours on end to sort things out.
Still, I had to pay the Government to apply to get divorced, and far more than I had to pay to get a marriage license.
I then needed to fill out package, after package, after package of paper work, proving to them that we no longer wanted to be together, and how we were planning on dividing assets. Have all of this commissioned, and deliver it to the courts.
Now, it's sitting in a pile, waiting for a judge to review it, and decide if what we've chosen to do is acceptable or not, and either grant, or DENY, our divorce request.
The fact that a judge can decide wether or not we're allowed to get divorced, based on paperwork is ridiculous.
Like you said, why would the government have any interest in our divorce? But they certainly seem too want to dictate it.

To get married, we showed up at a registry, filled out a 1 sided form, paid a small fee, and could have gotten married right then and there. There was no application that a judge would review to decide if we were allowed to get married or not. No waiting period, no lawyers, no nothing, just a "Congrats, have fun!"

Which is why marriage is BS. Men should avoid it at all cost. The government just wants men to be providers, if you enter a marriage contact you are a utility for the government. Divorce laws are BS in Canada and men need to go their own way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Wf9o3_uKw

This stuff happens all the time, though the government doesn't want you to know.

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by prime333

Which is why marriage is BS. Men should avoid it at all cost. The government just wants men to be providers, if you enter a marriage contact you are a utility for the government. Divorce laws are BS in Canada and men need to go their own way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-Wf9o3_uKw

This stuff happens all the time, though the government doesn't want you to know.

Go back to your MGTOW thread.
I have absolutely nothing against marriage, and plan to marry again.
My issue is the process the government dictates to get divorced. Not my role as a man, or provider, in fact, I pride myself on those things.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by wretched34

Go back to your MGTOW thread.
I have absolutely nothing against marriage, and plan to marry again.
My issue is the process the government dictates to get divorced. Not my role as a man, or provider, in fact, I pride myself on those things.

Can't thank your post, so thanks.


Prime333 needs to control his crazy and keep it in that thread.

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Can't thank your post, so thanks.


Prime333 needs to control his crazy and keep it in that thread.

I wish I could re-name him, so whenever he posted, I would see him as "Lonely-Jesus"

[troutman]

Why should courts be involved with divorce?

When there are children of the marriage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parens_patriae

The protection of the best interests of any child the first and single most important concern of the courts.

Pursuant to the Federal Divorce Act, the Court has various duties to discharge:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/sta...-2nd-supp.html

- To establish if there is a breakdown of the marriage
- To establish if the spouses are separate and apart
- To establish if there is any possibility of reconciliation
- To establish that there has been no collusion in relation to the application
- To establish if reasonable arrangements have been made for the children of the marriage
- The Court may make a spousal support order

Division of Matrimonial Property is provincial jurisdiction.

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by troutman

Why should courts be involved with divorce?

When there are children of the marriage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parens_patriae

The protection of the best interests of any child the first and single most important concern of the courts.

Pursuant to the Federal Divorce Act, the Court has various duties to discharge:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/sta...-2nd-supp.html

- To establish if there is a breakdown of the marriage
- To establish if the spouses are separate and apart
- To establish if there is any possibility of reconciliation
- To establish that there has been no collusion in relation to the application
- To establish if reasonable arrangements have been made for the children of the marriage
- The Court may make a spousal support order

Division of Matrimonial Property is provincial jurisdiction.

Not a single one of those makes sense which is my issue.
Obviously the protection and safety of a child is the most important thing, and it should be more important to the parents of that child than the courts. What does the courts jumping into the divorce do, to protect the best interest of a child, when the majority of the time, if left in the courts hands, one parent get the short end of the stick in custody, which directly effects the child, and the relationship with that parent.

Why do the courts decide if there is a breakdown of my marriage? I've decided that, hence the divorce.
Why do the courts care if we are separate or apart? If it's to avoid tax fraud, they have Revenue Canada to handle that.
Reconciliation??? are the courts marriage counselors now too? If I wanted to reconcile, I wouldn't be applying for a divorce..

[Peanut]

But wretched, you sound like a decent human being. What is common sense for you about how to split up and how to treat your ex and division of property etc. Is really not common sense for a lot of people (men and women both). Especially if the split is not amicable, or one person is abusive, or both people are just immature and trying to hurt each other through the kids... Any number of scenarios. The court process is there to protect the kids. As far as I know, anyways.

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by Peanut

But wretched, you sound like a decent human being. What is common sense for you about how to split up and how to treat your ex and division of property etc. Is really not common sense for a lot of people (men and women both). Especially if the split is not amicable, or one person is abusive, or both people are just immature and trying to hurt each other through the kids... Any number of scenarios. The court process is there to protect the kids. As far as I know, anyways.

Agreed, some divorces are messy, but that is what lawyers are for.
If it is amicable, and both parties agree 100%, it should be no different than applying for a marriage license. Meaning, both parties arrive at the registry together, sign the forms, and have them processed.
If there are issues, it should be up to those involved to take the proper routes to protect themselves and their children. The Government should not have the inherent right to get involved in every matter, just because they feel they know better.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by wretched34

If it is amicable, and both parties agree 100%, it should be no different than applying for a marriage license. Meaning, both parties arrive at the registry together, sign the forms, and have them processed.

If it's amicable and both parties agree 100% it's honestly not much harder than that. Waiting time I guess is the only issue IMO.

[troutman]

The Government that enacted the Divorce Act decided that it should not be simple to get a divorce. The most important reason is the Court's duty to protect the best interests of children. Another underlying reason is that the Government considers marriage to be an important institution, so they are requiring that spouses give the matter sober consideration (thus the requirement of one year separation and promotion of reconciliation).

http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/120.aspx

What do collusion, connivance and condonation mean?

Collusion is when you work with your spouse to lie to the court, either in an affidavit or through your testimony. For example, if a couple agrees that they will lie about the date of separation to speed up the divorce.

Connivance is when one spouse encourages the other spouse to commit adultery or tricks the other spouse into committing adultery to speed up the divorce.

Condonation is when you have forgiven your spouse for his or her adultery or cruelty. If you have forgiven your spouse, you cannot later use your spouse’s adultery or cruelty to claim a divorce

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I'll never understand the social stigma against prenups. I don't know why these are aren't used more. I think there is a "you don't love me if we get a prenup" mantra floating around for some people. A couple of buddies I know have run into that response.

If you get married younger a prenup is pretty useless. I have been married and there is almost nothing left that we own that was brought into the partnership.

I think they do make sense if there is a significant imbalance in assets or debts though. Although the time frame should probably be short. ie. After five years it becomes common property.

[GP_Matt]

Originally Posted by troutman

The Government that enacted the Divorce Act decided that it should not be simple to get a divorce. The most important reason is the Court's duty to protect the best interests of children. Another underlying reason is that the Government considers marriage to be an important institution, so they are requiring that spouses give the matter sober consideration (thus the requirement of one year separation and promotion of reconciliation).

http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/family/120.aspx

What do collusion, connivance and condonation mean?

Collusion is when you work with your spouse to lie to the court, either in an affidavit or through your testimony. For example, if a couple agrees that they will lie about the date of separation to speed up the divorce.

Connivance is when one spouse encourages the other spouse to commit adultery or tricks the other spouse into committing adultery to speed up the divorce.

Condonation is when you have forgiven your spouse for his or her adultery or cruelty. If you have forgiven your spouse, you cannot later use your spouse’s adultery or cruelty to claim a divorce

I thought no-fault divorce meant that adultery had no bearing on the divorce.
Am I missing something?

[wretched34]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

If it's amicable and both parties agree 100% it's honestly not much harder than that. Waiting time I guess is the only issue IMO.

As I initially stated, divorce is a process.
The paperwork involved, without legal guidance, can be a nightmare, and any little error will result in it being denied.
Then there is the 1 year mandatory separation period that the courts enforce, before you can process your application.
Once the process has been initiated, the application is filed, then you have to serve the other party, if it's amicable, and there is no dispute, there is a 30 day waiting period, before you can file the rest of the paper work. All of this must be commissioned as well.
Then another several months of it sitting on a desk somewhere waiting to be reviewed, at which point it can still be denied, which, if it is the application process starts all over again.

My whole point, is that, if the government want to be involved, it should be at both ends.
When you want to get married, they're just like "Oh, you're adults, you're totally capable of making this life changing decision, we trust you." but if it ends in divorce, they're like "Oh, really? are you sure? We don't know if you really want to do this.... you should really try to sort it out, this is a big decision. You know what, give it a year, if you still feel this way come back. Oh, okay, it's been a year, maybe you should think it over again, review this stuff, and get back to us if things don't change. Oh, it hasn't changed, okay, well now you should let your spouse know, and we'll give them some time to think it over too. Alright, you're both set on this, and you both agree, great, but you know, this really is a big decision, it shouldn't be taken lightly. I think it's best if you let us decide if you're ready for this step in your life, we'll get back to you."

Like I said to start, if they're that worried about the decision to get divorced, they should put in more preventative measures when applying for a marriage license.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by GP_Matt

I thought no-fault divorce meant that adultery had no bearing on the divorce.
Am I missing something?

No-fault means you can get divorced after one year of separation.

If there was adultery, you can get divorced sooner.

Adultery is not relevant for support calculations or division of property.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by Plett25

Am I the only one around here who clicked on the thread to find out what "Mawij" meant?

lol, actually, no. The second I saw the word I heard it in my mind in that guys voice. It was the weirdest thing.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

So, if the passion is going to inevitably die anyway, if you are going to get married, should you be looking for qualities that are more pragmatic in nature? Should you marry someone who is your best friend rather than your best lover?

Arranged marriages supposedly fail less often. Is that just because of cultural reasons, or are there pragmatic considerations such as family harmony that make them successful? I'd hate to be in a passionate relationship with a woman whose family I hated.

That's how I see it.

The idea that you're marrying your soul mate, true love etc is complete fairy tale BS.
I think a lot of marriages fail because people go into them like that, and can't handle the first time they go through a phase of pretty much hating their partner or losing attraction to them.

A more pragmatic approach is that you've found someone you love and think you can build a life with. Someone who is on the same page with the fundamentals like life goals, lifestyle, family values, beliefs, children etc.

It doesn't sound romantic, but I see getting married like starting a business partnership. Get the right partner you can build an overall successful endeavour with despite that fact that you will go through many ups and downs together.
It's about creating something bigger than yourself and involves a lot of sacrifice.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

That's how I see it.

The idea that you're marrying your soul mate, true love etc is complete fairy tale BS.
I think a lot of marriages fail because people go into them like that, and can't handle the first time they go through a phase of pretty much hating their partner or losing attraction to them.

A more pragmatic approach is that you've found someone you love and think you can build a life with. Someone who is on the same page with the fundamentals like life goals, lifestyle, family values, beliefs, children etc.

It doesn't sound romantic, but I see getting married like starting a business partnership. Get the right partner you can build an overall successful endeavour with despite that fact that you will go through many ups and downs together.
It's about creating something bigger than yourself and involves a lot of sacrifice.

All of which points to the idea that you really need to be ready for marriage.

When you're young, you tend to be idealistic, full of romantic ideas about what marriage is supposed to be like. Not only that, but sexual attraction is at or near the top of your list when looking for a partner. If you can't get that out of your system - either by having enough relationships fail to change your perspective, or sticking with one until you realize what it takes - you're probably always going to struggle with it.

I wonder to what extent loss of attraction plays in adultery though, which obviously is the cause for lots of marriages ending. Pretty tough to be married to someone you're not attracted to, knowing they're the only person you'll ever be with. I mean, when you think about it, when you get married, there's only a couple of things that you're now limited to doing only with your spouse, sex being the big one. And if you don't like that, the marriage probably starts to look unattractive too.

I'd be curious to see a chart of sexual frequency over the course or stages of a relationship to see where the peaks and valleys are (and when it flatlines).

[flylock shox]

Best I could find in a quick search on that latter point:

The frequency with which couples engage in sex is affected both by the partners' ages and by the duration of their relationship. In general, older couples have sex less frequently than younger couples. For example, sociologist Vaughn Call and colleagues (1995) surveyed over six thousand married people living in the United States and reported that sexual activity was highest among the youngest respondents (those ranging in age from nineteen to twenty-nine, who had sex approximately ten to twelve times per month), became progressively lower in older age groups (e.g., four to seven times a month among forty- and fifty-yearolds), and reached its nadir among respondents in their seventies (who engaged in intercourse with their spouses less than twice a month). The majority of studies also find that the longer couples have been married, the less often they have sex (Rao and DeMaris 1995; Samson et al. 1991). This decline may be greatest during the first year or the first few years of the relationship. For example, William James (1981) analyzed diaries kept by newlywed couples over the course of their first year of marriage. Couples reported having sex on seventeen or more occasions during their first month of married life; however, by the end of the year, their rate of intercourse had declined to approximately eight times a month.

More

[bubbsy]

this is a very interesting topic. I have often thought that the institution of marriage would eventually fade away (in 100 or so years of course), but that may be another topic for another day.

Today, i think a lot of us fall victim to this notion about love/passion/attraction being key drivers for marriage. There lies the problem. Marrying for reasons that can be attributed to "falling" in love is a bad idea, as these reasons are quite different from being happy in marriage .

Marrying for love/passion seems dumb to me. You must be much more rationale in your partner picking decision (ie. use your brain not your heart). of course, even this doesn't necessarily work since people grow and change. My biggest fear of marriage is that i'm completely happy in my marriage (5 years now) but we both are individual growing creatures. Who's to say we don't grow away from one another (ie. who we are individually 10 years from now leave us less compatible).....

At the end of the day, marriage is hard work. you have to live with its pros/cons, and try to be flexible enough to make it work. Easier said than done of course.

also, my thoughts on pre-nups. They are a great idea, technically/rationally speaking. I didn't get one, nor would i ever be able to. I couldn't get into something like this (knowing it's difficult and will take extreme sacrifices over a lifetime to make work) and go in planning with "out-clauses". I found it counter-intuitive in buying into the whole arrangement.