Yes, a unified couple's money is their money on one level, regardless of who is actually laboring to earn a given amount. If both have their own income and both contribute as needed to shared necessary expenses, then as long as they are not spurred on by irrationalistic beliefs or engaging in some sort of sinful activity, they are nonetheless free to spend their own money as they wish. It is in one sense still their money, not that of their husband or wife, who did not earn it and would not have an automatic moral right to it in the case of separation or divorce. There is nothing antithetical to sheer egalitarian, relational unity within a marriage about striving to earn, keep separate (to an extent), and spend one's own money. Is a husband's or wife's money their own or their partner's? Depending on what is meant, it is both!
A couple is a unit, and ideally each side of the relationship would be in perfect relational sync as individuals; all the same, the truths of individualism are not nullified by marriage, however passionately connected a husband and wife are. No depth or length of marriage could ever erase the metaphysical individuality of each partner. Marriage also cannot be more important than the individuals that it cannot exist apart from. In the tragic case of divorce (which is absolutely permitted by the Bible for all kinds of spousal wrongs [1]), each person has to return to living as more of an individual, though they could still cohabitate with their former spouse for economic or other reasons. There are ways to go about marriage that gratuitously injure the ability of each person therein to be self-sufficient as much as possible inside and (if applicable) after the marital bond.
Even in the case of debilitating illness of the "breadwinner", the other spouse can quickly be prompted by experience to realize the perils of intentionally relying on one income earner that could be ignored for asinine reasons until the last possible moment. A spouse who did not work just because they could rely on their partner's income has in either instance set themself up for disaster. Women might be pressured by sexist stereotypes to do this simply because they are women, but unless they are forced to refrain from working by an abusive/sexist partner, it is entirely on them for actually choosing this course of inaction. Men of course need financial stability and independence as well; while the idea that men need to work by default whereas it is morally/pragmatically optional for married women to work is utterly sexist (against men primarily!) and therefore illogical, men and women alike need to hold onto financial independence where they can. This need does not disappear when someone gets married.
Protecting yourself financially on a personal level during marriage not only gives you a stronger chance of weathering a divorce or the death of your spouse, but it also can ease a great many tensions within the marriage or subvert them altogether. In the more troubled moments that might arise in the relationship, having as much clarity as possible about the security of your money or possessions can make adversarial exchanges less prominent or necessary. Unfortunately, an abusive or unhealthy marriage can severely jeopardize your career, job security, and savings, but a peaceful marriage can benefit your finances significantly, and not just because of pooled income—and stable personal finances can contribute to marital peace.
It is just that pooled income does not mean that the husband and wife are not entitled to a portion of their own respective earnings which they can utilize as they wish, given that they do not sin in the process. The husband and wife are individuals and never cease to be their own persons, yet they are in a relationship that inherently unifies them, at least when it is not trivialized to the point of neglect or more severe abuse. The logical truth about financial entanglement in marriage is therefore neither that all resources are beyond the claim of a particular person nor that being in a marriage is irrelevant to the individual's ownership of money, whether it was obtained beforehand or while married.
[1]. See here or other articles tagged under "Divorce":
No comments:
Post a Comment