We did not have children. This couple does. The presence of children makes a HUGE difference.

Not so much at their age, particularly since they are talking about a civil dissolution, not an annulment that pretends the marriage never happened. So what does it teach the kids? To look at the law and find legal ways to accomplish their goals, even when those ways are not conventional. It teaches them to think for themselves.

Where the difficulty arises for me would be the intent of the law vs the letter of the law. Is taxation an accepted reason to legally dissolve a successful marriage and go back to the state of living out of wedlock, or will they have to lie about why they are divorcing? Do you really want to teach the kids through your example that it is OK to lie, as long as you profit from it? How would the parents feel if their kids started living with someone, feeling that marriage was not important? I think that SC needs to sit and discuss how they would like their children to live out their adult lives and their view of marriage, because it does imply that it is not that important to be legally wed.

It is theoretically interesting, but messy.


But I did think maybe they could hear from someone else on the matter.

Counter points provide balance to a discussion. You are very much entitled to your opinion.

IP