252
Unhappy couples staying put due to cost of living crisis, say divorce lawyers
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2026
252 points (98.5% liked)
News
39404 readers
2446 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Marriage as an institution is an artifact from prior to women's right to vote. It's so fucking stupid.
Human beings can choose to be monogamous, choose to be partners in personal finance or choose to be parents without a stupid religious ceremony and an apartheid sourced diamond ring being used to justify it.
It's a legally codified religious practice with tax benefits, I hate it so much
I mean there are also a lot of legal benefits and protections extended to a spouse that aren't extended to a boy/girlfriend. Depending on where you live, could mean tax credits, inheritance, how ownership of accrued assets is handled, priority guest access to ER if one gets injured, etc.
I call that: state sponsored religious entrapment.
You can get married in a courthouse without any religious connotations and call it a civil union instead if you want. The religious elements are strictly optional, and I think some codified protections for a significant other significant enough to be your spouse make sense in a way that they don't for your new girlfriend of 3 weeks.
There was and is absolutely nothing religious about my marriage. Where are you getting this from? It's a strictly legal contract, not more not less.
But, why even make it a legal contract?
Because it makes others like banks, the state, hospitals easier to legally deal with it. And it obviously gives both partners more security. The standard example being one partner focuses on childcare instead of career who without marriage would be left with nothing in case of a split up.
I agree with this, but I understand why people would want the ceremony, the reception party, and the honeymoon vacation.
What I don't understand at all is why anyone would make it a legal contract. Why pull the government into a private relationship? And, since they do often give certain small benefits, ask why they do that? What's in it for your government if people are legally bound to each other? And, do the benefits for you outweigh the detriments.
The thing is, no one asks this before the marriage, when they're all lovey-dovey and imagine "they're the one!" and all that. And, no one who knows better is going to suggest they slow down and reconsider, evidence being all the downvotes this comment would get if this post weren't one day old.
You're better off leaving the government out of your private relationships, every time. You can do the ceremony however you want, it doesn't need to be religious, and all the rest without making it a legal contract. Wouldn't you rather have a spouse that chooses every day to be with you without any coercion, who is free to easily walk away at any point? Imagine waking up every day and they're still there only because they want to be there with you and for no other reason.
The government has an interest in children being raised by multiple adults (more resources, more attention, more perspectives, etc). So governments incentivize it and disincentivize ending it.
Additionally, even if you don't want kids, I think you probably want some kind of legal protection when you pool money with someone for really large expenses (houses). If they stab you in the back, you probably want some means of getting your money back.
The modern legal structure of "marriage" exists largly to protect the person who takes on what was traditionally the women's role in a marriage. There is no longer a legal obligation to have sex, leave the workforce, or dispraportionatly give up your property rights.
However, if an individual chooses to procreate, marriage helps insure the other party remains on the hook for the child. If an individual chooses to leave the workforce, and the relationship subsequently fails, marriage provides that individual substantial financial protections in the form of an equal claim to marital assets (and, potentially, alimony).
Without marriage, someone who chooses to take on the role of a homemaker places themselves in a very vulnerable and dependent position.
While these protections are no longer specific to women, they still disproportionately protect women; because heterosexual couples still disproportionately adopt a relatively traditional relationship.
There is also absolutely no requirement for a religious ceremony or diamond ring.