A Kiss Is Not a Contract, But Marriage Is

Like many of my posts, this one is inspired by social media. The emergence of social media is revolutionary for many reasons, but, as the name implies, social mores still apply. You simply can't say everything you want to about a subject, or at least you can't say everything you want if you also want people to like or respect you. This is especially true when the topic you are going to critique is an institution that many people are heavily invested in, to wit, the institution of marriage.

But this blog fears no such consequences, largely because the stats indicate that no one is reading it (only a small exaggeration with the exception of, for some reason, my juvenile post about theater people promoting their projects featuring Homer Simpson gifs ... woohoo?). So let's dive in, shall we?

[P]renups are to marriage as condoms are to sex: sure, they're a good idea, but they're a real mood-killer. 

Recently, a lawyer friend of mine posted on Facebook a lighthearted, but timely, warning to think twice about using the holidays as a time to propose. One of the several reasons he cited, in true lawyer fashion, was a perfectly valid point that giving an engagement ring as a Christmas gift undermines the ability to recover the ring should the engagement be later called off. This is a somewhat interesting topic itself and is well explained here.

I gave a similarly lighthearted response opining that maybe the newly-minted fiancée, in her holiday and engagement-induced euphoria, wouldn't mind signing a brief statement of understanding that the ring is given on the express condition of the occurrence of marriage. After a few more tongue-in-cheek riffs on the romance of legally-binding agreements, the OP's fiancée responds, in an unfortunately serious and somewhat stereotypical manner:

Many of Future Mrs. OP's friends quickly agreed, and, of course, so did Mr. OP (he's not an idiot). The subject quickly turned to the mutual disdain of prenuptial agreements for essential the same reason. Though a bit eye-roll-inducing, I am thankful for her post, because it means I don't have to invent a straw man, er, straw woman, upon which to base this gripe fest legally-relevant post.

Women, speaking in generalities, and even many men find the concept of prenups and conditional gifts entirely unromantic and contrary to the very essence of marriage, which according to modern social mores is supposed to be an unqualified and unconditional expression of love and devotion. As such, any contemplation of the possibility that it just might not work out is utterly taboo. A contract? Ugh. Lawyers? R.I.P. any chance at post-engagement coitus.  

But this is really not that much different from anyone contemplating a major legal event, such as purchasing a business or forming a partnership. At the beginning, the relationship is all smiles and firm handshakes as the parties are excited about the deal. After all, why would you form a partnership with someone you didn't trust?

But you would, of course, be an idiot to rely solely on trust in such a situation. If you had any sense at all, you would sit down -- with each other at least but hopefully with a lawyer -- and write down the ground rules of such an arrangement. You do this because, while you are (hopefully) wildly optimistic the deal will succeed, you know that circumstances change, people change, excitement gives way to skepticism, and you might need an exit strategy. Call it being cynical if you will, but I call it pragmatism.  And, I don't know about you, but it's a trait I find attractive, at least in moderation.

So why doesn't the same concept translate to marriage? I would guess that, to a lot of people, prenups are to marriage as condoms are to sex: sure, they're a good idea, but they're a real mood-killer. But also, I suspect most people fail to conceptualize marriage as itself a contract, with built-in terms and conditions and hefty penalties for the unwary. The law has a decidedly unromantic (and pretty archaic) understanding of marriage as an economic arrangement, in which two people merge into a single economic entity: sharing income, property, and expenses (some exceptions apply, of course). If that arrangement should end, the assets are divided accordingly -- that is, (for the most part) equally.

This "equitable" distribution can lead to some wildly inequitable results. Suppose a couple has no children, one partner works hard in a lucrative position (a medical doctor perhaps), while the other decides he is free to pursue a career less dependent on economic remuneration, like, say, blogging. Is it fair that, if the marriage ends, that he should get half of the big house in the suburbs and the nest egg that are almost solely the results of her hard work? Wasn't his freedom to pursue his own career goals, at least for a time, reward enough? Let alone that, in some jurisdictions and under some circumstances, she could be on the hook for spousal support, aka maintenance or alimony.

Modify that scenario to one where the bread winner spouse-to-be brings in children from a previous marriage. Certainly, the non-biologically related spouse will provide some support in raising those children, which undoubtedly has economic value, but what about when the marriage ends? The kids will (presumably) be going to live with the biological parent, meaning her expenses will rise while the step-parent's responsibilities will cease. Is it proper that the step-parent take half the house and assets from a the ex-spouse that is left to continue supporting her children, and all that entails (college -- eek).

This is exactly why this stuff needs to be sorted out ahead of time, romantic or not. It's not a matter of whether you are going to enter in a marriage contract; it's a matter of whether you are going to dictate the terms and conditions of that contract or accept the default terms when you say "I do."

"By the present communiqué ...": The Disconnect Between Laypeople and the Law

Welp, that ought to do it!

This blog has undertaken to explore the public's tenuous grasp of copyright before. But the recent resurgence of the above Facebook hoax has caused me to wonder more broadly about why there seems to be such a disconnect between laypeople and the law. (If you are not sure what's wrong with the above picture, I would invite you to do a search and read the far more sweeping tear-downs of the above nonsense).

Sure, I could sit back and ridicule the people who posted this thing, but the above hoax has affected a large enough swath of my friends list (to include TWO recent graduates of my law school [exasperated sigh]), so as to legitimize it as a threat to otherwise reasonable people. In their defense, most of them, after myself or one of their friends informed them -- as politely as possible -- that they were an idiot, responded with something like "lol, you're probably right ... but it couldn't hurt."

Yet, ultimately, they did not take it down. This implies that some small part of them believes that this arcane, jarbled mix of gibberish and sloppy citations to inapplicable foreign law and irrelevant domestic law that they unilaterally microblogged to the world might somehow protect them from the mysterious terms and conditions that they clicked agree to years ago and never read.

Now, this issue may implicate a host of others, such as the very real and kinda scary privacy and ownership concerns arising in a digital world, or the infuriating tendency of people to re-post bullshit without taking a second to Google the damn thing (when they are already on the internet)!  But more to my point, it raises real questions about the public-at-large's staggering rate of legal illiteracy.  To many, the above "communiqué" (as a previous iteration of the hoax called itself) is how they think the law works: you can just say some magic words and bask in legal sanctuary.

Now, maybe you're saying "Hey, legal illiteracy is good for lawyers, right? The less they know, the more they need you!" Well, not always. To initiate a legal relationship (i.e., hire a lawyer) the client must first have the legal wherewithal to realize he has a legal issue. This may be clear when the client gets arrested or receives a summons. And the billboard lawyers and the media have done a pretty good job of informing people to call an 800 number if they should slip and fall or get into a serious accident.

But in the modern world, the law touches everything. If you're a writer, a photographer, or an artist of any kind, you need to be educated about copyright. If you're an inventor, patent law. If you're a business person, large or small, you need to have some understanding of corporate structures and governance, contract law, local zoning ordinances, licensing requirements, insurance, employment law, ERISA ... the list goes on.  And everyone needs to understand tax.

But, by and large, people not trained as lawyers or who do not work with lawyers frequently fail to conceptualize a lot of these issues as legal ones for which they could or should seek a lawyer's help. And thus, they don't, or at least they don't until they do get arrested or receive a summons and frantically call a lawyer well after the opportunity to painlessly rectify the situation has passed.

Finally, the other part of the problem is the law itself. The continuing expanse of the law into every aspect of our lives is, for better or worse, unavoidable. But the law doesn't expand neatly or comprehensively, it expands amorphously like an amoeba grotesquely enveloping new particles of jurisdiction with its pseudopods. In so doing, it synthesizes it with the glob of existing law, much of which is based in centuries-old common law and other legal traditions.

In the end, you end up with a bunch of rules that come off as overly formalistic (disclaimer of warranties and service of process rules come to mind) that leave no room for common sense and that empower the legally-literate to say the right thing or file the right form to defeat on technicality an otherwise righteous opponent's interests. Not only is this inherently unfair, but it lends itself to the expectation that there are always some loophole that a crafty lawyer can exploit -- which is another toxic client mindset. Google "sovereign citizens" (the likely perpetrators of the above hoax) and you can learn about whole groups of people who believe that overly formalistic nonsense, like the existence of gold fringe on an american flag, can be invoked to exempt oneself from all manner of legal requirements.

Over recent years, however, many consumer-protection laws have been enacted to, to some extent, relax the harsher operations of law against non-business entities (i.e., regular people). And from time to time, legislators even heed advise from legal reformers and make the law more intuitive and fair. Thus, when someone tells you that you can "get out of jail free" by using some arcane legalese, and you are tempted to try -- please call a lawyer first. But barring that, try good old snopes.com.