Married in Montana: Servicemembers take advantage of state’s double-proxy law
stripes.com
stripes.com
It's the only state where an engagement ring is an unconditional gift, for example. Every other state the giver can sue the receiver to recover the ring if the engagement is broken off.
Another example is that Montana is one of a few (the only?) state that doesn't have at-will employment. After a probationary period, if you fire someone it needs to be for cause.
Am I required to provide notice to quit, or otherwise risk some type of penalty or is this strictly in the employee's favor?
ADDED: Not sure why I would see that as a problem anyway. If you can't be walked out the door without another dime, why wouldn't you be fine with giving notice in the vast majority of cases?
I live in Austria, arguably the most backward-looking rich Western country, and my agreement requires me to give a four-week notice. While my employer is such that this will never become an issue, I believe that the "at-will employment" is one of the many manifestations of the "American freedom" that also give the US its competitive edge.
And as some one living in Austria I thought you would have been acutely aware of the social status symbol of working in a professional role that has a long 3 - 6 month notice period.
Two itty bitty letters difference, thousands of miles apart.
For example, if you earn 10,000 PLN gross (7,000 PLN net) and quit without observing a 3-month notice period, you will have to pay your employer 30,000 PLN, i.e. over four times the monthly net salary.
Of course, if the employer believes they incurred a loss due to the employee leaving without notice, they can sue for additional damages of any amount.
[1] Polish "Employment code" (Kodeks pracy), article 61, https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&...
Having worked at a firm with largely big-C Conservative, Christian, male heads of department and up, I've seen how my more "out-there" co-workers were treated[0]. Folks who were open about their "pagan" religions, or polyamorous ways, or even women of the same social standings who dared have a job, get pregnant and raise children were treated terribly. If it weren't for the fact that good coders and managers are hard to find, I'm sure it would have been even worse, and them having some protection would make resting easier.
Still, that lack of protection meant they could find greener pastures and leave sooner. Personally, I've had a few jobs wherein I was lied to about the position, duties and responsibilities, etc. and after finding out it was a "Take it or leave it" situation, I left.
I really wish we had a bit more leeway in terms of negotiating employment agreements, so folks could find the right balance for them. Sadly, the business world is full of cargo-cult behavior so we get bog standard take it or leave it deals.
[0] - I'm not saying this an indictment of any group, just illustrating the conflict.
Granted, at least for your average low-to-mid level worker, you don't have as much negotiating power. Luckily, however, there are legal protections for regular sick time (get the flu, stay home 3 days, and you are safe to do this a few times a year) and parents have more time, since they are responsible for other little humans who get sick. (I don't have children, but fully agree with this). And there is either 4 or 5 week of vacation each year for everyone. These protections make it easier to find something that works with life.
Which contradicts the whole idea of an engagement ring:
> In the United States, until the Great Depression, a man who broke off a marriage engagement could be sued for breach of promise. Monetary damages included actual expenses incurred in preparing for the wedding, plus damages for emotional distress and loss of other marriage prospects. Damages were greatly increased if the woman had engaged in sexual intercourse with her fiancé.[32] Beginning in 1935, these laws were repealed or limited. However, the social and financial cost of a broken engagement was no less: marriage was the only financially sound option for most women, and if she was no longer a virgin, her prospects for a suitable future marriage were greatly decreased. The diamond engagement ring thus became a source of financial security for the woman.
Which is ironic, given the low resale value of diamonds.
> In fact many jewelers won't buy a diamond back unless you've previously purchased that same diamond from them and have the documentation to prove it. Even then they'll typically only do a trade in, whereby you buy another higher priced diamond and trade your old diamond in. [0]
[0] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-21/ugly-truth-about-d...
Your comment is making me feel vastly better about never having had an engagement ring, though I got married at age 19 and spent about 2 decades as a homemaker in a 1950s style marriage.
(Edit: I'm a woman, in case that actually needs to be said.)
I'm currently 53. When I was 19 or 20, I had a college classmate in her 70s iirc who talked about legally needing her husband's written permission to even get a job when she was in her twenties. This was the degree to which women were treated as property. So, yes, around 80 years ago, marrying well was just about the only hope of financial solvency a woman had.
I'm a former homemaker. I raised two special needs kids and followed my husband's military career around the world. Between that and a serious medical crisis, I've been really dirt poor for years and spent some years homeless.
So I think quite a lot about the degree to which society and husbands really ought to compensate women more for their labor and personal sacrifices in raising kids and supporting male careers at the expense of their own.
But policies are always two edged swords. Given how incredibly poor I have been, I am incredibly leery of the existence of actual laws still on the books that are rooted in the historical artifact of treating women literally as property of their husbands, even if that law is supposedly in the interest of the woman who is otherwise expected to accept being treated as a man's possession.
I have worked hard to try to find my voice in a world that is often openly hostile towards a former homemaker and her views being treated like a real person. I get crapped on a lot by self-proclaimed feminists who are often childless career women who seem to not actually be happy with their lives and are taking it out on me for various reasons.
The world needs very much to find a way to help people both stay home to care for children when that is the right answer for the family and also help them get a real career afterwards when that time has passed. The law in question is part of the manacles that keep women oppressed and poverty-stricken.
Please note I was careful to not attack the GGP. I just commented that it made me feel better about a detail of my life that I occasionally lament as evidence of a lack of "romance" in my life. I had something better than romance. I had a husband who genuinely cared about my welfare, something that is typically lacking in marriages based on the idea that he basically bought her because he has money, even if it isn't as explicit as such arrangements once commonly were.
The engagement ring laws cited are part of a polite form of selling oneself into slavery. It should be ancient history, but in 49 states, it is still the law.
Isn't that the whole idea behind alimony? Assuming the marriage ends prematurely (i.e. not "till death do us part") and speaking of the husband's responsibility in the matter.
As to society's responsibility in this matter, women have 100% the same rights as men in this day and age (well, other than the "right" to be conscripted) so at some point people just need to accept that choices they make in life will have certain drawbacks and/or advantages which may or may not affect their future in positive and/or negative ways. I'm also roughly the same age as you so I know there really weren't "manacles that keep women oppressed and poverty-stricken" in our lifetime and in fact the plight of women has arguably been the best it has ever been in all of human history. I'd even go as far as say it's The Golden Age of Womendom. Though, admittedly, things were a bit different pre-90's with regards to single mothers and, umm, "non-traditional" gender roles, probably more so if you didn't have the "luck" of growing up a major metropolitan area I'd imagine.
Please don't take what I'm saying as a personal attack but merely as an opposing viewpoint because I know these subjects get kind of touchy these days.
I'm not interested in fighting with you, but when you outright dismiss my assertion that women remain oppressed, it's really not fertile ground for having a good discussion on the topic. I'm not having a good day to begin with and your comment just reminds me of comments on HN where people try to dismiss the idea that my gender is a serious barrier to financial connections on HN and my rebuttal to that is that I appear to be the only woman to have ever been on the leaderboard and then that gets attacked as irrelevant and it's a really crazy making thing for me.
A lot of men on the leaderboard are quite well heeled. Some of that money clearly comes from their connections here on HN. These conversations make fire coming shooting out my ears and that's not a good place from which to try to engage in civil discourse in accordance with HN guidelines.
No, they don't. For one example, there are several hoops that women have to jump through when getting some medical procedures. Men do not have to jump through those same hoops.
> marriage was the only financially sound option for most women, and if she was no longer a virgin, her prospects
Ah, that.
i.e. companies are allowed to have layoffs with certain notification requirements.
So many people make this mistake. Instead of splurging on a really big wedding, put the money into something that is actually going to benefit you and your relationship.
Everyone is different.
I personally hate it when people use such cliche sayings to justify all kinds of crazy and irrational behaviors.
But I guess everyone is different.
I hope that this being something that engages your hate means that your personal life is otherwise quite good. May it be filled with all of the same and rational behaviours you choose to make.
Yes, I wouldn't spend money on a big wedding but that's just me.
See? I can make the same point without a cliche saying.
Keep in mind that a lot of people can’t realy afford big weddings, but use what little savings they have on them anyway.
Basically, the entire extravagant wedding culture is absolutely irrational and crazy. It just doesn’t seem that way because it has been normalized over decades.
In any case, dream wedding is not necessary something you cant afford. It is something you dream about.
I also believe the criticism is directed towards people who concentrate their efforts on the wedding to the detriment of the actual marriage.
2) What additional value does a married service member provide to the taxpayer that is worth an additional $40/day over what an unmarried service member provides?
Or, if climbing the rank ladder is more important, pay low rank people less instead of incentivizing them to give their money to someone else to create pressure to earn promotion.
For others: I dunno why this is downvoted. The military actually does what he suggests.
2) This is the wrong frame of mind. The answer is zero. There is zero articulable additional benefit for a service member to be married. It is a worthwhile expense anyway.
The issue isn't that an individual married Marine is worth more than an individual unmarried Marine. The issue is that a Marine Corps where good Marines stay when they start a family is better than a Marine Corps where good Marines leave.
What? That doesn't make sense. At a glance, otherwise, what's the point of marriage versus civil unions? I'm assuming here, and could be wrong, that there's no legal difference - but people still fight for marriage when they can only have civil unions.
Even if you got rid of all the legal and pay advantages to marriage, people still find it valuable and enriching. It may be an ephemeral benefit, but it's still articulable.
Yep, there are/where legal distinctions (sort of irrelevant now in the US with federalized same-sex marriage). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States . The main problem is that unlike marriages, there is no requirement that states recognize civil unions granted in other states, because:
> The federal government does not recognize these unions.
Not a direct legal distinction, but:
> Civil unions are commonly criticised as being 'separate but equal', critics say they segregate same-sex couples by forcing them to use a separate institution.
And yeah, my point is about the "separate but equal" sort of thing - it's not a legal distinction, but it's one people definitely care about.
They have a cheap caregiver ready for when their leg is amputated.
You honestly would have to have been in the military to really understand it.
The additional value that the taxpayer receives is that the spouses and kids of service members, who follow then around from duty station to duty station, aren't homeless, so that the service member can concentrate fully on the 16 hour work day for shit pay.
The servicemember can have the partner and kids either way; what value is the marriage license specifically adding?
But we don't live in that world so a marriage license is the way to declare to the government "I have legal dependents now." This is part of the reason why the legality of gay marriage was a big deal.
And regardless of what you call it, it's probably a good idea for the well-being of those in the military to pay for their dependents' housing. As a U.S. taxpayer you're pretty much getting a deal by underpaying those in the military who aren't married. It's not a place to go to get rich.
A marriage license is for legally making your relationship "for realsies."
We could ask ourselves instead why service members are vastly underpaid. The average salary/benefits for a US soldier works out to about $44,000 per year, exactly the same as a mailman. Yet a mailman works defined hours and, except for the occasional angry dog, doesn’t have a real risk of being severely injured or killed, nor separated from family for months or years at a time. The mailman also doesn’t suddenly get deployed to foreign hellholes for months or years. Yet, we pay the mailman as much as soldiers. When I was a lieutenant, my pay was $36,000 per year — that’s with a college degree and having been an E4 before that. That was officer pay and it is about the same level of pay as an entry level teacher. And we didn’t get summers off. I am not complaining — I knew what I signed up for, but asking questions such as what additional value a married soldier provides is interesting because do we question what extra value pregnant women provide a company? Because paid maternity leave is effectively paying them more money since they are getting paid to not work. Which means they get more compensation per unit worked than a woman who had not become pregnant. Should we question the additional value provided by offering paid maternity leave?
1) Yes, but Chaplains are strictly religious, not legal, entities. Further, they are employed by the federal government and would have no ability to marry even if there were some legal status. Marriage is a function of state governments.
2) It's important to keep in mind that military is a case where the free market is generally not at work. Servicemembers take long contracts that they can not negotiate their way out of and surrender all control of most of their lives. In exchange, the military generally takes responsibility for a standard of living on top of their salary. In Spc Lloyd Baker's case, he is probably assigned a barracks at his home base and hence not eligible for a housing allowance. Once he is married, the military recognizes his need to cohabitate with his wife and now pays him a Basic Allowance for Housing. Keep in mind, as a military spouse his wife will be unable to pursue most professional careers due to having to move with her husband at the beck and call of the military.
This seems like blatant discrimination against partnered-but-unmarried servicemembers.
If you don't wanna make the legal commitment to marriage, you don't get benefits of "committed relationship." The military isn't the only governmental or non-governmental organization to treat married partners different from unmarried partners. You'll be shocked to learn that you also can't collect spousal social security if you never married your girlfriend.
They highly value commitment. To the nation, to your unit, and to your family.
Chaplains typically spend more of their time counseling and mentoring than on religious services.
There are two answers here. The first is that being married means you get housing allowance instead of being expected to live in the barracks. You lose that housing allowance if you get into on base family housing. Either way, the military takes responsibility for making sure you are housed in a way that is not the norm for a civilian job.
The second is that being in the military makes you property of Uncle Sam and the US government has long used this fact to encourage social outcomes it desires. This is part of why the GI Bill provided mortgage assistance and help going to college: Because it is a very effective means to promote home ownership and education which helps stabilize communities, build social capital, reduce crime etc.
It works vastly better at furthering such goals than most of our welfare programs, in part because it is tied to specific outcomes and in part because character and honor are a big part of what you need to develop and prove you have to make it in the military. We do distinguish between "Honorably discharged" and "Dishonorably discharged."
2) A Servicemember doesn't become more valuable when she picks up playing tennis in her spare time. That doesn't mean we shouldn't spend money building and maintain tennis courts and other recreational facilities for the morale and welfare of servicemembers.
1) US states issue & register marriage licenses. Chaplains could officiate, but would usually expect both parties to be present.
2) Benefits to uniformed services & thus taxpayers:
retention - less turnover & training costs; increases pool of available talent; stability, commitment, reliability;
Benefits to service-people with dependent(s) (spouse, and/or children)
paid an allowance (BAH) for off-base housing; family separation allowance if separated from dependent(s); health care & benefits for non-service spouse, children; less likely to be assigned less desirable duties/shifts;
Detriments to married service-people
impacts to non-service spouse's career due to relocations of service spouse; marriages of convenience to get benefits may have side-effects;
There is no additional $40/day cost to the taxpayer.
For a single servicemember living on base, the taxpayer is paying for their housing (the building may be paid for, but has limited capacity and ongoing repair & maintenance costs), their food, their water, their power, their garbage collection, their cable tv, and on and on. While it would be a pretty dull life, it is possible in some facilities to have all your needs met with essentially $0 living expenses (depending on availability of things like non-coin-op laundry machines).
When a servicemember moves off base, for example to live with their spouse, all those become out of pocket expenses. The housing allowance is simply an offset to what otherwise would be a pretty drastic cut in total compensation.
Anyone know what/how this is? Is this just blatant discrimination against unmarried servicemembers, or what?
But yes, if you're married you get a significant raise. Your wife also gets extra benefits, like health insurance.
This, predictably, leads to marriages of convenience:
https://www.today.com/news/us-soldiers-shop-wives-get-more-p...
The military is required to house the servicemember and his or her family, the servicemember either lives in government housing or gets an allowance for private housing.
Basically, a married couple/family has a higher housing costs than a single person so the servicemember with a family get extra money to cover those costs.
It's kinda odd though because there's only two "levels" of BAH: "with dependants" and "without dependants." Spouses are always considered dependants. So a family of 10 has the same BAH as a dual income family with no children.
BAH is also a reimbursement for housing expenses, not income, so it's not taxed.
You also get a family separation allowance if you're away from your dependants for more than 30 days. Currently around ~$300 a month.
Short form: Basic pay is very low, partially justified by all of the living expenses that the military covers for you (food, housing, health care). If you live off-base, you get an extra pot of money, the "basic allowance for housing", BAH.
If you have dependents then your BAH is higher. I definitely knew of couples that had justice-of-the-peace weddings right after they were engaged, and then had a formal ceremony 6-12 months later.
All of the rate schedules are published online. The married/single difference for an E-5 (mid-level enlisted rank) in New London, CT is only $369.
The big difference is that if you are married, then you are more likely to qualify for off-base housing in the first place.
What's up with Iowa? Also, what happened to the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, requiring, among other things, marriages in one state to be recognized by another state.
>To be recognized as legally valid pursuant to Iowa State Law, marriages, which are originated via proxy, must be further perfected; moreover, additional processing is required. Please inform us if you will need your proxy marriage to be recognized under Iowa State Law.
Seems a bit out of step with the current American zeitgeist.