It would be a mess, but could all be straightened out in advance with responsible discussion and negotiation. Not that most people bother with that even in streamlined two-party marriages, or bother to stick with it when the shit hits the fan and emotions go berserk.
Though I will say, I've seen some multi-party households (not all parties were romantically involved) that have worked very well long term, and really ought to get tax benefits, insurance options, etc. just as a cohesive working household. Partly because of that and partly just because of our dynamic, my husband and I have always kinda wanted a third permanent and contributing adult member for our own household, though not necessarily as a romantic partner. Just someone to balance out some of the more chaotic elements in the house and give us a reason to impose some order like regular sleep schedules and meal routines, to make sure that there is a better human to cat ratio, to make meals a more rounded experience, and to always have enough people for board games. I've given some extensive thought to the various possible legal approaches to creating an integrated household like that, and yeah, it's a complicated mess.
Maybe, really, what we should be doing is revising the law to account for contractual households, rather than "marriages." Marriages (among however many parties of whatever gender) can still be recognized as one form of contractual household, but family can mean so many different things and take so many different forms these days, basing all our laws on trying to update an outdated model based on "marriage" is like trying to make a pair of pants out of fishnets and patchwork.
I've seen arrangements where groups of adults, not all romantically linked, formed a collective household. But as any gay couple can tell you, the legal ramifications of marriage are a whole other ball of wax.
There are different legal rights if people are [roommates] vs [living together conjugally but not married] vs [married]. And these rights vary from state to state.
Some friends and I talk about arrangements we might make when we're old, and don't all want to maintain individual households. Kind of a Golden Girls arrangement. (I, of course, would be the Bea Arthur character.)
Kinda what I'm saying is that they shouldn't necessarily be different legal rights at all anymore. A household is a household is a household, regardless of the exact relationships of the participants. From a legal perspective, should the nature of those relationships really be relevant?
From a social perspective, of course they're relevant both to the participants and to all the rest of the people whose business it isn't. But if you're a group of adults building a life as a contractual unit, I think that should be equally reflected and supported by the law for every such unit. From a taxation and resource allocation perspective, to me that makes the most sense.
Not really. Fraternity houses don't have shared finances or shared responsibilities outside of managing the frat, and the contract, if it exists at all, is not for the long term. Do I think the law could benefit from provisions for short term arrangements like that? Yes. It might be interesting if fraternities or less formal groups of cohabiting adults were allowed to provide group health insurance for their members, for example. But I would not say that they qualify as a group of adults building a life together as a unit, they are instead of a group of individual adults acting together as a community. A more interesting question might be abbeys and monasteries which theoretically are lifelong commitments... I'm not sure where I'd place those on this new scale. Possibly as a subset with specific guidelines, just like I would for marriage.
The difference to my mind is really one of both duration and cohesion. Short term communal rental agreements are very different from no term contractual households. Since my argument is that contractual households should replace or at least expand on marriage as federally recognized units, let's go back to marriage as an example of the distinction I'm making. A lot of marriages end in divorce, so end up as short term arrangements, but they begin without a time limit. The intent, and the decisions made and actions taken as a result, is to operate as a unit in the long term. Additionally, the effect of a marriage is to pool resources and responsibilities (time, money, property, insurance, liability, etc.) for the benefit of the unit, which is in large part what creates that cohesion. What I am suggesting is that households willing to enter into long-term, cooperative contracts to behave as a unit in that same way ought to be recognized under the law and accorded the same privileges as are accorded to the very specific example of a long-term cooperative contractual household known as marriage.
This would cover other unusual situations, too. For example, I recently read about a divorced couple that had decided to still live together by building a duplex with a connecting hallway so that their kids would not have to move between houses. That's an inherently complicated situation, and I don't know the exact details of it, but it seems to me that between the two adults they still jointly own the property, jointly care for their children, etc. Yet because they are no longer married, all of the other benefits that would allow them to work together more effectively are no longer available. If perhaps they had been a contractual household instead of or in addition to being married, they could have kept those benefits and continued to work together after their divorce, because they were still acting as a contractual household unit even though they no longer loved each other or wished to have a marriage.
Basically, I'm saying create "Long Term Contractual Household Unit" as the category, and allow "Married" as a subcategory. When individuals enter into a marriage, they are recognized as belonging to a long term contractual household unit. However, it ought to be possible to be recognized as such a unit without marriage, and from a federal perspective, that master category is really what they ought to be concerned with overseeing.
Though I will say, I've seen some multi-party households (not all parties were romantically involved) that have worked very well long term, and really ought to get tax benefits, insurance options, etc. just as a cohesive working household. Partly because of that and partly just because of our dynamic, my husband and I have always kinda wanted a third permanent and contributing adult member for our own household, though not necessarily as a romantic partner. Just someone to balance out some of the more chaotic elements in the house and give us a reason to impose some order like regular sleep schedules and meal routines, to make sure that there is a better human to cat ratio, to make meals a more rounded experience, and to always have enough people for board games. I've given some extensive thought to the various possible legal approaches to creating an integrated household like that, and yeah, it's a complicated mess.
Maybe, really, what we should be doing is revising the law to account for contractual households, rather than "marriages." Marriages (among however many parties of whatever gender) can still be recognized as one form of contractual household, but family can mean so many different things and take so many different forms these days, basing all our laws on trying to update an outdated model based on "marriage" is like trying to make a pair of pants out of fishnets and patchwork.
Reply
There are different legal rights if people are [roommates] vs [living together conjugally but not married] vs [married]. And these rights vary from state to state.
Some friends and I talk about arrangements we might make when we're old, and don't all want to maintain individual households. Kind of a Golden Girls arrangement. (I, of course, would be the Bea Arthur character.)
Reply
From a social perspective, of course they're relevant both to the participants and to all the rest of the people whose business it isn't. But if you're a group of adults building a life as a contractual unit, I think that should be equally reflected and supported by the law for every such unit. From a taxation and resource allocation perspective, to me that makes the most sense.
Reply
That would include fraternity houses.
Reply
The difference to my mind is really one of both duration and cohesion. Short term communal rental agreements are very different from no term contractual households. Since my argument is that contractual households should replace or at least expand on marriage as federally recognized units, let's go back to marriage as an example of the distinction I'm making. A lot of marriages end in divorce, so end up as short term arrangements, but they begin without a time limit. The intent, and the decisions made and actions taken as a result, is to operate as a unit in the long term. Additionally, the effect of a marriage is to pool resources and responsibilities (time, money, property, insurance, liability, etc.) for the benefit of the unit, which is in large part what creates that cohesion. What I am suggesting is that households willing to enter into long-term, cooperative contracts to behave as a unit in that same way ought to be recognized under the law and accorded the same privileges as are accorded to the very specific example of a long-term cooperative contractual household known as marriage.
This would cover other unusual situations, too. For example, I recently read about a divorced couple that had decided to still live together by building a duplex with a connecting hallway so that their kids would not have to move between houses. That's an inherently complicated situation, and I don't know the exact details of it, but it seems to me that between the two adults they still jointly own the property, jointly care for their children, etc. Yet because they are no longer married, all of the other benefits that would allow them to work together more effectively are no longer available. If perhaps they had been a contractual household instead of or in addition to being married, they could have kept those benefits and continued to work together after their divorce, because they were still acting as a contractual household unit even though they no longer loved each other or wished to have a marriage.
Basically, I'm saying create "Long Term Contractual Household Unit" as the category, and allow "Married" as a subcategory. When individuals enter into a marriage, they are recognized as belonging to a long term contractual household unit. However, it ought to be possible to be recognized as such a unit without marriage, and from a federal perspective, that master category is really what they ought to be concerned with overseeing.
Reply
Leave a comment