Confarreatio, or a Modern Two Tiered Marriage Scheme

We need to institute a tiered marriage system like Rome had:

1. “Covenant Marriage”–Marriage for life dissoluble only by traditional, fault-only divorce–traditional faults being adultery, abandonment, failure to provide sex etc. If there are any kids at divorce the most financially sound partner gets custody. The standard of proof for fault would have to be high, something like “clear and convincing evidence” in Criminal Law.

This type of marriage would include a dowry or bride price  presented up front as part of the Wedding Ceremony. This the wife herself could provide(an excellent option for a woman who has worked and wants to stay home, saving up her own dowry), or her family or the husband.  This would be maintained in a legally untouchable account separate from any marital monies as damages. In the alternative damages for divorce could be stipulated in a contract prior to marriage, like a prenup. This would give men hand in marriage by HOLDING OUT for a type of marriage designed as more beneficial to him.

2. Plain Marriage–No-fault divorce available at will, no alimony, no money or benefit to the abandoning spouse at all except the splitting of jointly owned property. Both parties walk away free and clear.  Couples could convert to “covenant marriage” by choice at any time by contract.

3. Cohabitation–This would have no legal recognition at all. No enforcement of any monetary claims that aren’t backed with a contract. No common law marriage.

The state would have no role in these marriages other than presiding over their dissolution like a contract dispute. The marriage contract itself would BE the marriage, irrespective of the officiant.  The marriage contract would be registered with the Municipal Court like a will and serve as evidence of the marriage.

Here’s the rub:

Upon the BIRTH (not conception) of a child the parents’ relationship would convert to a covenant marriage (UPON MANDATORY PATERNITY TESTING) by operation of law until the child is 16 at which point they can separate with damages or have an option to renew either as covenant or plain marriage. If this marriage is created by law the court would stipulate the damages in the case of divorces or at least a method for determining them upon dissolution.  The only reason a court would have a role stems from the lack of opportunity to negotiate the terms in advance of the marriage in this special case.  That this marriage is created automatically doesn’t alter the fact that you could choose this form of marriage from the outset before children.

All government assistance in this scheme would revert to being available solely to TRAGEDY cases, as originally intended. AFDC was originally available only to mothers who had been widowed or abandoned, not to unwed sluts or women who left perfectly good husbands for no reason.

This system would cause women to tear themselves to pieces competing with each other to “earn” a covenant marriage from men who could withhold it as a prize for evidence of proper “wifely” behavior. Women would know instinctively that getting a man to accede only to plain marriage would be an indicator of their TRUE SMV. This would put ALL the marriage balls back in the man’s court and ensure his investment in a woman and children couldn’t end up destroying him.  Both men AND women would have an incentive to be more circumspect with their sexual behavior because there would be CONSEQUENCES.

Another benefit would be the end of the oppressive regime of child support and single motherhood.  If this scheme were enacted, the sound of legs snapping shut all over the country would be deafening.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Confarreatio, or a Modern Two Tiered Marriage Scheme

  1. Justin says:

    I like your idea of damages for the breach of the marriage contract. That would actually be a return to the traditional ideals of marriage. Today, a unilaterally imposed “no-fault” divorce is equivalent to what was traditionally called “abandonment”. Abandonment was punishable by civil and criminal means. Today, of course, it is rewarded with support payments and child custody.

  2. measure of devotion says:

    Dana,

    Love your new blog. Thanks for the insight, especially the POWM.

    MoD

  3. David Foster says:

    Under option #1, one partner can make life psychologically very unpleasant for the other one, who then has no meaningful remedy whatsoever. Unless you want to courts to deal with the day-to-day events of the marriage in excruciating detail.

  4. dana says:

    david

    i only listed three trad faults, cruelty is also one–i’d merely like to raise the evidentiary bar on what constitutes cruelty or “abuse”. today a woman can claim abuse on th eslightest pretext and destroy a man’s life.

    women have been increasingly choosing men without regard to their suitability for longterm companionship. ONLY bringing back SERIOUS consequences to bad choices can change that. will some people suffer? yes–how many people are suffering under the regime of no fault divorce now?

  5. Gorbachev says:

    This is great. I endorse it.

    But women will never vote for it.

  6. Gorbachev says:

    I like the damages for breach of contract, too.

  7. Ghost of James Caan says:

    >We need to institute a tiered marriage system like Rome had

    Who is “We”? (rhetorical question)

    >Another benefit would be the end of the oppressive regime of child support and single motherhood.

    Child support and single motherhood are pillars of female support for the state, so I really can’t see anything like this plan getting adopted. This sort of reform will make ruling class exploitation of whites more difficult in the future, and is therefore of no value to your exploiters and will ALWAYS be ignored.

    The organization you (implicitly?) propose to reform is the organization dedicated to oppressing you.

    • dana says:

      when you say “oppressing me” are you saying me as a woman? i would jump for a covenant marriage tomorrow, nothing has been MORE oppressive to women that marriage that could end at the drop of a hat putting her back on the sexual market at 34 with kids–i am already in something of a dominant/submissive marriage without the super gay playacting and dressup and try to practice being “surrendered” for lack of a better term–oppression isn’t really something i’m worried about, apparently it makes me really, really happy. please explicate further

    • dana says:

      “we” is the united stated

      “The organization you (implicitly?) propose to reform is the organization dedicated to oppressing you.”

      please unpack this, are youy saying dont bother trying to reform or change the government ever because its designed to oppress you?

      fascinating, in the 20th century there was a massive revolution that turned the Us on its head, abrogated the founding and threw off the entire previously dominant culture without a second thoought because they felt “oppressed”. i guess they had some magic that made them able to work their will on the country, if only someone had typed that sentence at them

      • Ghost of James Caan says:

        >“we” is the united stated

        OK. Who’s the united states?

        >are youy saying dont bother trying to reform or change the government ever because its designed to oppress you?

        Yes, well said. The federal government is a predatory total state, a cancer on society. It cannot be reformed. “Reform,” to the extent it can succeed, will only make it stronger in the long run. The only hope left to conservative america is secession.

        >i guess they had some magic that made them able to work their will on the country

        They did. The magic is this: policies that expand the power and influence of the state will always, over time, gain much more political traction than the absence of those policies. For example:

        1. Women, we’ll pay you welfare and enforce child support and workplace laws! Chase your hypergamous dreams!
        2. Non-asian minorities, we’ll pay you welfare, enforce racial discrimination and hire you in government jobs!
        3. Those of IQ 115 or higher, want to pursue your petty intellectual hobbies and get paid doing it? Just take on some debt and toe the right ideological lines!
        4. You need protected from rapacious private corporations through “regulation!” (Corporations, we’ll help you raise barriers to entry, just pay our campaigns!)
        5. Etc. Etc. Etc.

        or:

        1. Let private society organize its own affairs, and keep its wealth. Just sit in those fancy chairs and do nothing, politicians!

        Which set of policies is going to experience more success? History will tell you, always the former. Progressive ideology is a pretense for theft and bribery, and that is why it has become so popular: people need psychological “cover” for participation in a racket as large and blatant as the state.

  8. dragnet says:

    You do, of course, realize that this is far too sensible to ever be adopted in reality, right?

  9. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Still Playing Catch-Up Edition (NSFW)

  10. ElectricAngel says:

    Both men AND women would have an incentive to be more circumspect with their sexual behavior because there would be CONSEQUENCES.

    There are already consequences. This would only make the consequences explicit for those too short-sighted to see them now.

    Marriage seems to be going well amongst the Amish. By not paying Social Security, they deny the State the benefit of their investment in children. I do not see it surviving much in any other areas except for strong religious communities with shunning and loss of face and community as the price of divorce.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s