Having these options is common in other countries too afaict (with some minor differences)

I would be really surprised if the US didnt have these options too…

In Islam, we have it much simpler. There's a dowry paid to the woman that becomes her property. Other than that, each person leaves with their own assets they came in with. If, during marriage, they acquired assets they decided to split half way (or any other percentage), that split holds post divorce.

Absolute nonsense.

Just living together, informally, is already enough for the woman to take half your assets as it's already considered `Partial Community of Property`.

I can't think of anything where Brazil is generally superior to the US in terms of law.

this "just habituating with someone for 10 years is enough for the courts to consider you effectively married" is completely false and a myth. Especially in California.

Only a few states have something like the common-law 'marriage' you picture - but it's a really high bar.

There needs to consideration AND usually clear intent to marry (w/ nuance of course);

You can't simply fall into this by happenstance because you cohabitate for {n} amount of years.

California does have a (ever barrowing) Marvin Action.

But it's an incredibly high bar and not family court

You need to prove that essentially a contract exists between the parties; * e.g. consideration *

https://www.wgslawfirm.com/family-law/divorce-mediation/2025...

You need to really fuck up to end up common-law married. You are simply wrong about California (we don't do common law marriage at all), and in all jurisdictions I'm aware of that do have common law marriages, you need to present yourself as married in order for there to be any claim.

That's not some "oh, we live together, and under old-timey understandings that means we're married" requirement. That's publicly making a pattern of referring to each other as your spouses, often including at least some public documentation. Common law marriage is much more about protecting people who failed to dot their 'i's and cross their 't's when registering their marriage than it is about surprising a breakup partner with divorce precedings.

> EDIT: Turns out this is NOT true, or at least, nothing I can find seems to point to it being true. Just habituating with someone for a long time is not enough.

It isn't true in California, it appears. It is true in a number of other places worldwide, Australia in particular.

Even in Australia, a de facto relationship – in which partners have a right to a property settlement upon separation – requires more than mere cohabitation of sexual/romantic partners. However, in practice, relatively few long-term cohabitating partners will be found not to be in a de facto relationship.

Unless something has changed recently, I’m fairly certain California doesn’t recognize common-law marriages.

In BC it's 6 months.

> If men and women are the same thing with slightly different parts, then gender neutral laws make sense.

> If men and women have meaningful differences then it makes sense to have gendered laws.

This framing of the issue puts the discussion down an awkward rhetorical path that is difficult to recover from.

What if it doesn't matter whether someone looks or acts different; but it matters how society treats them and the outcomes that they face.

Black chess pieces and white chess pieces are superficially, trivially distinct. Yet, the player with the white pieces wins 52% to 56% of the time.

I'm calling it out here because it's a typical technocratic bad-faith argument that I'm personally tired of hearing.

Do you have any examples of laws that couldn't just be thought out better and anchor their reasoning more accurately and neutrally? Falling back to using gender often just feels like a quick hack.

Universal human rights are inalienable.

Distinction is always going to be less effective than universally agreed declaration. We can declare: all human beings have equal rights.

Pandora's box is the universality aspect, which must be manifest by those agreeing to declare the nature of ones rights in respect to others rights, both for oneself and for others. This is the reason a distinction-based legal position is poor policy.

We cannot distinguish between a man and a woman if we are agreeing to the universality of their equal human rights.

The we part is the difficult part, apropos pandora's boxes. But ultimately, universality is very empowering to the individual.

of course they have more differences than that.

no controversy of this in chimps.

no magical evolutionary moment when they became the same in humans.

biologists know this. sociologists start with an unfounded null assumption.

the desired outcome seems to be that men and women are the same in situations where being a man is beneficial. In situations where being a woman is beneficial that goes away. For example 80% of healthcare workers are women, it is the biggest?(or close to) industry in the USA but I have never once seen someone pushing to correct that imbalance.

I don’t even get how I am supposed to hold my partner to the same standards I would hold a close male friend/family member. If I knew a dude who freaked out and yelled/sobbed several times a month over something inane like where to get dinner I would drop them immediately. I have found just using the old adage “happy wife happy life” is most effective, but isn’t that inherently disrespectful? Like “I can’t reason with this person but if I upset them it’s gonna go poorly for me so I better let them have their way!”. The only way my relationship survives is if I have a bit of internalized misogyny and hold her to a different standard than I do myself or another man.

I'm not sure if it's about same or universal, someone else already said it's about universal human rights that all humans must agree to demonstrate a practice of care with and towards each other.

Gosh, this thread is so full of sweeping takes. Different or equal in what regard? Income? Violent behavior? Or culinary skills? Maybe we should not codify stereotypes into law...

I would argue the opposite. Women are born with something that (most) Men want. That puts them at a natural advantage.

That is horrifying to hear.

Maybe men don't have supports until it's rock bottom or too late.

At the same time I don't think there's many men who beleive think the standard of supporting women, and children, early and often, should never be reduced or changed. Maybe it could be expanded.

Where did this happen? Just reading that is terrible.

So, the solution is to penalize innocent men who had nothing to do with those events, let alone that era? How is that even a logically sound stance?

I don't think your rhetorical question adds much to the discussion at hand if we're being honest.

Everyone has a prenuptial: the state provides a default. Either explicitly, e.g. in writing, or implicitly, e.g. via court proceedings.

It could. As a father of a 18yo I can tell that they are very well aware of what awaits them in their adult lives.

My comment is about grown men going through grief because of biased laws. What is the relation to "TFA related to adolescent boys"?

Now, to answer your data points regardless - I don't think you understand that divorce isn't in isolation, it obviously affects entire families, including children. So, I wouldn't be surprised if there is more data showing these young boys are from broken homes.

there's way to many comments projecting their issues on to the title.

> Don't marry the wrong woman.

I guess you missed the last part of my comment. Women are majorly incentivised legally to walk out of a marriage while being financially rewarded for it. Even if you marry the "right" woman, it doesn't guarantee she won't turn into the "wrong" woman over time. And in modern times, it doesn't take a lot for that transition especially with social media really rallying to take advantage of the legal loopholes - eg. you can cheat on your partner AND walk away with 50% of the marital wealth.

Brilliant advice. Why didn't he think of that.

> It's important for people to remember they don't marry other people.

Of course you do. As you even point out yourself, you marry the government, which is people.

> The first time I came across this it made me wonder how much people are aware of this central, third party in between the two people in their marriage.

Considering that the traditional marriage process involves two people standing in front of representatives of the government and declaring promises to them it seems like it'd be a bit hard to miss? I suppose if others also don't realize that government is people then they might not realize what the people in the audience are doing? But, then again, given that the two people prepared to make those promises are usually responsible for inviting that audience to the wedding you'd think they would have questions about why they are there otherwise?

I went through a divorce in Canada, there is a thing called "amiable divorce/separation". Where both parties negotiate a fair divorce agreement rather than the standard "Pay continued support for X months/years + lump sum".

So there is some variability, and of course in my case it was a "happy path" scenario where both me and my ex-wife mutually wanted the divorce.

But by default you have to pay spousal support regardless of how well-off your partner is. The assumption is that women will be worse off after a divorce financially. Which is really not a contemporary point of view to make as a blanket statement.

> Women...so naturally vulnerable ?! In 2026?

All else aside for a second... yes? Women are both physically and economically (primarily when they are stay at home moms) vulnerable. No, that doesn't mean I'm saying that no men are vulnerable at all but averaged out to a population it's clear.

Pro-tip (for both unmarried men and women): You can sign a pre-nup even if you never have any nuptials. It turns out that people can choose to enter into a contract with each other at any time. There are plenty of reasons why people in a relationship may choose not to get legally married, but that does not mean you have to leave yourself at the mercy of the defaults in the law, which may or may not make sense for you.

This is especially important if there are children involved in your situation.

There is the underlying reality and bias. When I'd pick up my kid from Kindergarten it was me and 20-30 other moms hanging out on the playground afterwards. So yes, in that sense we may not see gender neutral outcomes.

The bias however is absurdly strong. My first lawyer said I should have taken my ex's offer of slightly less than 50/50. She said that my ex's floor was 50/50 and that if we couldn't show that we could effectively coparent they'd give it to the Mom.

That's exactly what happened and it held through her completely cutting me off from my son. I even went through a modification try and the same Judge upheld the situation.

As a result I haven't spoken with my son in almost 2 years now.

Why not have the laws take into consideration stay at home status regardless of gender?

You're not wrong but in situations where there are no kids, and no one stayed home "unfair" settlements are forced.

Source?

[dead]

I don't think sharia law has anything to do with this.

> Everyone hates on Sharia law

I wonder why.

Really? Sharia? What’s next stoning people who have sex outside of marriage…