Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...

[Coito ergo sum]

Anyone who gets married without considering what divorce may cost you is a fool.

As are people who walk in the city alone with a wad of cash in their pocket. They don't deserve to have it taken away from them without reason, though.

There was reason, though. They got married, with is a legally binding economic arrangement. They didn't have to get married.

Well, getting married doesn't have to mean that one person is automatically entitled to 1/2 of what the other person makes. As I mentioned, it's that bit that I'm concerned with, because the reason why community property is set up like that is because of certain underlying assumptions about the relationship -- one major assumption is that certain functions will be allocated between married couples and that just because one partner subordinates his or her income potential in favor of taking care of a home or children, or supporting the other partner's income, they shouldn't be left with nothing or less if the marriage dissolves. The community property system is justified by the idea that joint ownership recognizes the theoretically equal contributions of both spouses to the creation and operation of the family unit. Here, though, I think it's hard to say that Brand's contribution was "equal." The fiction of equality in this kind of a case doesn't hold up, where you have a very short term marriage with two professionals, neither one of whom are contributing in a non-monetary fashion.

[PsychoSerenity]

Here, though, I think it's hard to say that Brand's contribution was "equal."

Why is it up to you to decide the value of what Brand contributed to the relationship? Surely that's just a personal issue between them.
And getting married doesn't mean that one person is automatically entitled to 1/2 of what the other person makes. That's just one possibility. Alternative arrangements can be made.
This is all meh.

[Bella Fortuna]

Here, though, I think it's hard to say that Brand's contribution was "equal."

Why is it up to you to decide the value of what Brand contributed to the relationship? Surely that's just a personal issue between them.
And getting married doesn't mean that one person is automatically entitled to 1/2 of what the other person makes. That's just one possibility. Alternative arrangements can be made.
This is all meh.

I think what he's saying it that - at least in California - that's the default position of the law, unless you proactively make other arrangements by a pre-nup or have an amicable mediated divorce or similar. (I'm assuming that's what our law is here, I don't really know its parameters)

[surreptitious57]

Marriage is an anachronism so
should be abolished straight away
Man is not hardwired for monogamy
so having that as a pre requisite is just
completely devoid of any logic what so ever

You are not going to love your other half
one iota more by having metal on your finger
It is psychological compatibility that you reference
not expensive jewellery which while nice is unnecessary

There are marriages that survive but those relationships
would have done so anyway so it makes no difference to them

And do not get me started on pre nups for they are just not
worth anything. I mean emotionally not financially. For if that
is where your mind is at before you are even hitched then there is
something severely wrong either with you or with them relating to your
compatibility for each other. If you believe in pre nups then you believe in
divorce too and if you believe in divorce then you should not be getting married

At the very least marriage needs a severe overhaul and not before
time either. Fixed term contracts would be a step in the right direction as
we over here have the highest divorce rate in Europe and yet our government
wants us all to get hitched - no seriously my American friends it does - I am not joking

Fidelity is easier to maintain if you are not wih each other for ever
and a day. After the contract has expired both parties can go their own
way or renew it but no expensive lawyers to deal with - well at least not with
out having any choice in the matter. So a perfectly rational critique of it then and
I see no reason why these ideas should not reference a change in the law but I will not
be holding my breath on it though. Marriage like religion will probably be with us for ever

[Coito ergo sum]

Here, though, I think it's hard to say that Brand's contribution was "equal."

Why is it up to you to decide the value of what Brand contributed to the relationship? Surely that's just a personal issue between them.
And getting married doesn't mean that one person is automatically entitled to 1/2 of what the other person makes. That's just one possibility. Alternative arrangements can be made.
This is all meh.

I suppose it's up to anyone who cares to opine. Why is it up to anyone what anybody does? People venture opinions on a variety of legal issue, political issues, personal issues, and every issue under the sun. Why is this issue off limits?

Just because it's a personal issue between them doesn't mean that it's not newsworthy or worthy of debate. I mean, maybe Brand will say something like, "when we got married, we agreed that I would forgo my career so that I could stay home, take care of the house, and help Katy with her career." I don't know, could be. I merely stated that it seems to me highly unlikely that such is the case, given that Brand himself was making movies during that time, and was earning millions in his own right.

Now, community property states are states where all income during a marriage is divided equally between the two parties. That's the whole meaning of community property. Alternative arrangements "can" be made, sure, with a prenuptual agreement, but my issue was with the law. I think that it's not nuanced enough, to take into consideration the issue of two people who get married and have their own careers, are married for a short period of time, and the underlying reason for the community property rule in the first place doesn't seem to apply.

It would be like, for example, if spouse X marries spouse Y, and spouse X makes $100,000,000 playing golf, and spouse Y makes $500,000 playing golf. They are married for one year only, and neither one changes their work habits at all. It seems to me decidedly unfair that they would split $1,500,000 evenly in that situation, which is what community property law requires.

[PsychoSerenity]

Oh, I don't know. I'm never getting married anyway so I really don't care. But I thought half of the point of it was to do with sharing and commitment. Does that come in to it?

I imagine the law is the way it is, because it's the simplest way to protect the most people with the least hassle.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh, I don't know. I'm never getting married anyway so I really don't care. But I thought half of the point of it was to do with sharing and commitment. Does that come in to it?

Yes? Does that mean that one person should get $30,000,000 that he had no role in earning?

I imagine the law is the way it is, because it's the simplest way to protect the most people with the least hassle.

The law is the way it is to shift money from male breadwinners to female divorcees. It was created under the paternalistic notions of the past that when a man gets married, he takes over the obligation of supporting his wife from the woman's father. He traditionally is supposed to have that role until death, and the female was traditionally disabled legally from things like owning property and entering contracts without hubby's permission. Courts took a dim view of divorce, and alimony was commonplace because the idea was that you can divorce her, we won't force you to live with her, but you still have the obligation to support her unless some other guy agrees to pick up the tab.

Courts and legislatures theorized that when a man and woman got married, they became one, and that "one" was the man. Thus, all of the woman's money brought to the marriage became his, and all the money earned by the two of them during marriage was community property. If they split, it would be divided in two. The assumption was that married women don't work outside the home for pay and men do.

That isn't the world we live in today. But, the law hasn't changed. So, we get the absurd result of a grown man, Russel Brand, who makes millions on his own, claiming community property in Katy Perry's earnings from being a singer simply because they got married for a year. It doesn't make sense for it to be that way.

[MrJonno]

Still slightly confused Brand is only marginally poorer than Katy Perry (he is a multi millionaire beforfe he met her and probably more famous in the UK than Katy Perry is)

Automatic 50% of everything isnt right in general but in this case probably isnt that far off ( Brand's career probably got hurt by him marrying her and moving to a country where isnt particuarly well known)

[Coito ergo sum]

Still slightly confused Brand is only marginally poorer than Katy Perry (he is a multi millionaire beforfe he met her and probably more famous in the UK than Katy Perry is)

Automatic 50% of everything isnt right in general but in this case probably isnt that far off ( Brand's career probably got hurt by him marrying her and moving to a country where isnt particuarly well known)

The numbers are in the article. She's kicking his ass financially.

She must've blown someone else. He seems like he's out for revenge!

[Ian]

Still slightly confused Brand is only marginally poorer than Katy Perry (he is a multi millionaire beforfe he met her and probably more famous in the UK than Katy Perry is)

Automatic 50% of everything isnt right in general but in this case probably isnt that far off ( Brand's career probably got hurt by him marrying her and moving to a country where isnt particuarly well known)

The numbers are in the article. She's kicking his ass financially.

She must've blown someone else. He seems like he's out for revenge!

She probably got caught kissing a girl. And liking it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Still slightly confused Brand is only marginally poorer than Katy Perry (he is a multi millionaire beforfe he met her and probably more famous in the UK than Katy Perry is)

Automatic 50% of everything isnt right in general but in this case probably isnt that far off ( Brand's career probably got hurt by him marrying her and moving to a country where isnt particuarly well known)

The numbers are in the article. She's kicking his ass financially.

She must've blown someone else. He seems like he's out for revenge!

She probably got caught kissing a girl. And liking it.

That would only result in divorce if she refused to invite him into the mix. Kissing girls isn't cheating. It's adding spice to the sex life.

[Ian]

She must've blown someone else. He seems like he's out for revenge!

She probably got caught kissing a girl. And liking it.

That would only result in divorce if she refused to invite him into the mix. Kissing girls isn't cheating. It's adding spice to the sex life.

Perhaps you missed the lame joke?

Anyway, what if he got caught messing around with a guy and didn't invite her to join? That should be the same thing, but I sense there's a cultural subterfuge of a double standard there.

[maiforpeace]

She must've blown someone else. He seems like he's out for revenge!

She probably got caught kissing a girl. And liking it.

That would only result in divorce if she refused to invite him into the mix. Kissing girls isn't cheating. It's adding spice to the sex life.

Perhaps you missed the lame joke?

Anyway, what if he got caught messing around with a guy and didn't invite her to join? That should be the same thing, but I sense there's a cultural subterfuge of a double standard there.

It was cute joke Ian, and I got it.
CES either has his whoosh moments, and/or sometimes he's too busy being a know-it-all to notice the humor. (it takes one to know one, so, no offense CES. )

[Coito ergo sum]

I got the joke - I was carrying it forward.

I thought someone would come at me for saying that cheating with girls isn't cheating, but cheating with guys is cheating. Usually someone gets their dander up over that sort of thing... :-)

[hadespussercats]

Coito, I think you're just trying to look sympathetic so Katy Perry will marry you next. You should be thanking Brand for bringing her 50% closer to your league.