The Problem with Marriage and Relationships.

Many people, not convinced that marriage is for them, these days opt for a convenient and undefined relationship. It may be with cohabitation or without but if there is cohabitation the law in many places tends to regard this as a common law marriage and it can become as binding as any marriage. Many others do not pursue even a relationship because they are not attracted by the inherent uncertainty of undefined relationships. 

It is estimated that in Australia some $100 million per month is lost in settlements due to the failure of marriages or cohabitation relationships. In the US it is estimated that this figure is around $1.5 - 2 billion per month and world wide the figure is upwards of a staggering $10 - 15 billion per month. This constitutes the world's largest ongoing financial and social catastrophe. Nobody knows for sure on their wedding day whether their marriage will eventually end up in divorce or last till death. Marriage is a gamble. This is a monumental problem attesting to the danger of getting married even if it done so with the best of intentions and with innocent expectations. Indeed since the gains can be so high many people get married purely with the intention of gain and cleaning out their partner and marriage is the perfect vehicle for this practice. The above figures attest to the failure/danger of marriage and reckless cohabitation. An alternative is deperately called for for the prudent in order to protect assets, and provide greater honour and respect and benefits for both parties so that honour, respect and assets are not at risk and so that both parties, not just one, can be provided for.   

Many people choose to become married because it is the done thing and they don't know of any recognized alternative. Although nearly 40 - 45% of marriages end up in divorce that does not mean that the other 55 - 60% of marriages are paragons of success. Probably of the other 55 - 60% about half of those are exercises of tolerance and sufferance or dishonesty and should break up to but never do. There are marriages which are marriages in name only, there are loveless marriages, marriages of convenience, fake marriages that are an insult to the concept of marriage, lifeless devitiated and worn out marriages past their use by date, marriages where the disadvantaged do not know of the options available to them nor have the courage to make a break. There are marriages where a divorce would come at great costs, financially or to reputation and so is avoided and the marriage a pretence. 

The alternative to marriage or an undefined relationship is for both people to enter into a common law Relationship Agreement which is the only relationship option which protects the rights and property of each other and ensures respect and trust.

Furthermore most people find that marriage, and of course unspecified relationships, have no internal inherent mechanism to ensure respect and trust, especially for women. This is because marriage developed in times when women were regarded as the property of men, and had no rights and hence since they had no rights marriage was not meant to protect their rights and so still today in marriage there is no way to assure respect or trust or fidelity short of divorce. Divorce is the only big stick of marriage. Much the same can be said of relationships as relationships have no parallel mechanism short of breaking up or dumping, meaning much time can be  wasted and much effort come to nothing.

Infractions in a marriage bring no legal repercussions. Marriage originated in very ancient times when women were regarded as the possessions, chattels, of men and had no rights and so were not able to obtain redress for transgressions or ensure misbehaviour was not repeated or atoned for. This failing is still evident in the nature of marriage today leading, in part, to its problems. One is expected simply to forgive and tolerate failings. The concept of redress and dissuasion for infractions is foreign to marriage and so marriage, unlike an RA, has no teeth as it has no enforcement provisions and is built on a dream and transgressions and failings have to be tolerated and endured and the victim demeaned or the marriage ended. The time is long gone when the only big stick to preserve marriage was excommunication from the church. In the absence of the original big stick, apart from the current one of great expense, marriage has become toothless and the need for an alternative more agreeable vehicle for relationships long overdue. In marriage one is entitled to respect but one can do little to ensure it. Within the context of a system with no means of ensuring high standards it was formerly only women who sought trust, respect and desirable behaviour with no means of making a partner render these if he chose not to do so. These days men can suffer a similar fate for not measuring up in ways which may not have been spelt out, or if so only verbally and hence not "seriously" in writing as would get through to a man.

Relationships suffer similar deficiencies.

Since marriage provides no inherent mechanism to ensure respect and good behaviour apart from divorce it does not qualify as an honourable estate as it does not preserve and uphold the rights of a transgressed and devalued party should the other choose to misbehave, dishonour or demean. There is no penalty but divorce and hence failure.

Since marriage ends up in a mess if 40 - 45% of cases it is not a proposition you would put to someone if you respect them. If you respect them you would put a rellationship proposition to them which respects their rights and property, is safer and more fun. Given that Relationship Agreements are now available you would only put a marriage proposal to somoene if you are after their property, as is increasingly happening. Services that promote marriage exclusively are showing arguable disrespect to their clients and may in time be held accountable for negligently or recklessly not advising of the relationship agreement option resulting in loss to either or both parties .