A Convenient MarriageFollow

Actually, I'm pretty certain legalised marriages in the West started as property, business, and treaty affairs. They only happened between men of property, and women whose fathers owned property, which was a tiny minority of the population for centuries. The marriage contracts, as opposed to the usual marriage certificate of today (unless a pre-nup is involved), were usually elaborate documents swapping assets, real estate and money between the groom and father-in-law. It was unusual for the wife to receive any of these things as part of the contract, as it was presumed that her husband would provide for her out of his own income, and after that her son/s or son/s-in-law would. The social apex of marriage was the union of a ruler with the daughter or sister of another ruler, and involved treaty law. Given the number of baronies, principalities and dukedoms and postage stamp kingdoms around, those types of marriages were really rather common.

In a minority of cases the marriage contract would stipulate the woman would receive ownership of a sum of money, which she then had a right to dispose as she liked in her own will. This was usually a privilege granted to higher ranking women.

Most other people got married by moving in with one another, with or without a personal ceremony, like holding hands and jumping over a broomstick together in the village square. The vast majority of people couldn't afford the church fee to get married in a church, and before somewhere in the 1800's, it wasnt' expected of anyone not in the upper class. Go back far enough, and once women left puberty they were addressed as "Mrs [father's surname]" as a gesture of respect, before they lost their virginity or paired up with someone.

Basically, marriage was a loveless, romanticless, institution for centuries. The husband in many eras and places was not expected to remain faithful, and after the wife had produced "an heir and a spare" wives were often allowed and expected to have discreet affairs too. People who coupled up for love usually did so outside marriage.

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 12:52am by Aripyanfar

Assuming they actually have a strong emotional connection, and were considering marriage in the future, this would be a pretty weak foundation to start that marriage on. If they are planning on continuing this relationship beyond school I forsee the "Ya, well you only married me to save money on school!" argument rearing its ugly head at the most inopportune times.

Considering the dismal success rate of marriages today anyway, I would advise starting one on as solid of a foundation as possible.



Perhaps this was made in jest, but divorce is statistically more likely to result in overall negative outcomes for children.


Apparently markup works a little differently than it did 7 years ago...

Edited, Mar 22nd 2012 8:58am by xythex

I assume gbaji meant that the kid would be better off being born to a married couple who later divorce versus being born to a couple that was just living together and later split. Still, a pretty stupid statement. What makes a kid born to a couple that divorces more 'legally protected' than being born to a couple that never marries and splits (unless the married couple had a prenup that specifically addresses kids)?

They're both white and are of different sexes, so they're relatively free from discriminatory legal practices whether married, divorced or cohabitating.

There is a new gbaji? Funny, because I'm not wiping any differently lately.

Front to back?

I realize I'm echoing Jophiel's comment earlier, but I too have to wonder why HE is the one that should get the job with benefits and help her out. That sort of expectation would be a red flag for me. Any relationship I've ever had where I had doubts ended up being ultimately wrong for me. I have to say when I met Joph, marriage and kids seemed the most natural feeling in the world, not forced at all (both our school debt included), and this is what I would advise to my own children. Marriage can be a business transaction, but if it feels even the slightest bit wrong or forced, don't do it.

Correct. Obviously, a child is better off if their parents relationship stays intact. But they're better off if their parents were married when the child was born and then later divorced than if their parents had never been married. There's a whole host of social statistics on this for anyone who's really that interested.



Um... Because marriage automatically makes any child born to the woman a child of the husband by law. If a man wants to remove himself from responsibility for a child of a woman he was married to, the burden is on him to prove that he's not the father. If the couple are not married, the burden is the opposite. The mother must prove that the man is the father. If he chooses to fight it, or leaves the state, or otherwise avoids the matter, he can make this enough of a problem that it never happens.

It's because the child isn't. Actually, from a legal standpoint, you are better off if your parents are divorced (at least while you are a dependent). You don't need to claim both parents when you file for student aid (or, at least, I don't know any kids from divorced parents who claim both). This very effectively increases your aid offer by a pretty significant amount, especially if there's a huge disparity in their incomes (in which case you would obviously only claim the less affluent of the two).

I like how the situation was changed from a pair of people who may or may not have a kid to a situation where there is a one night stand douche-bag who knocks up a girl and then runs away as quickly as possible. I also find it amusing how you think this has anything to do with marriage laws.

That's an... odd interpretation of what I said. I said that if the parents were married when the child was born, that child would be better protected by the law. The protection is that the law will ensure that he doesn't have an unknown parent in the first place. The law protects the child from the possibility that the father will never support him in any way.

The result of that lack of protection is the child not having a legally recognized father. And certainly we can agree that this puts that child at a pretty hefty disadvantage.

Technically speaking a marriage of this kind would be fraudulent, and the resulting financial benefit would be the result of a conspiracy to defraud (which is two felonies for the price of one ^^) ( the conspiracy itself & the Grand Larceny)

based soley on info given in OP