Discussions
Should we have Marriage License Term Limits?
Posted by F4wrdthnkndad • 5/12/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: divorce, family, marriage, marriage license, separation
As I read the latest concerns about Jon&Kate, John and Elizabeth Edwards, I wondered why we don't enter marriage with term limits. For example, you sign on for the first year. If it works you renew for another. However you might negotiate some conditions before you renew. If nothing else, it would insure couples conciously re-enter their marriage over and over. I'm so sick of the drama, shock and awe, and surprise that a couple "that seemed so happy" was actually miserable. Lets accept some marriages should not be and aren't till death do them part.
For more, check out 4wrdthnkndad.wordpress.com/
User Comments
-
"Lets accept some marriages should not be and aren't till death do them part."
This type of thinking is why the divorce rate is so high. I absolutely despise my marriage right now, but would hate to call it quits just yet. What if all this bullcrap makes our marriage that much stronger? I would have never known if I were to just call it quits now.-
I read your blog...I would love to get your persepective on my situtation right now... -
Feel free to email me...I love giving out my perspective on things.
-
Would love to...300 wrds won't suffice...
-
My email address can be found on my blog (I would post it here, but scared the spammers would gobble it right up).
-
Oh good point. Ok, I'll email you! Thanks!
-
Miss S-Your comments are exactly why I think we should have some type of term limits on marriage. The intention is not to give up on the marriage. If anything it is about committting over and over to the marriage. If you are truly invested re-commit for another 5 years. If you have doubts do it for a year and then renew. To me, it makes both people more accountable to the agreement. check out the blog
-
-
"Lets accept some marriages should not be and aren't till death do them part."
Or better, we could accept that marriage is a big commitment and people need to think longer and harder before entering into it and make sure they've done the hard work up front of determining whether or not they can make it a lasting partnership.-
Uh, ditto. I can't say it better than that. Perhaps folks should try not getting married so quickly in the first place. -
This is exactly what I write about in the blog. To me, give people a chance to commit, then re-commit, re-evaluate, and conciously choose what they want. I don't think a couple who gets married at 20, will continue to want and need the same things at 30,40, and 50. And since so many couples don't talk, this would minimally provide a reason to ask each other, do we still want to do this?
-
-
What does accepting that some marriages aren't meant to be have to do with loading down people with excessive paperwork to "renew" their marriage licenses?
If it doesn't work, the couple splits, if it does work, they do nothing. Why complicate it?-
And the lack of mental/emotional security with this proposed scenario...
It's worse than a landlord-tenant situation. It completely lacks trust. -
Anok-who said anything about excessive paperwork?
-
Recommitting legally as you suggested in your post here would require excess paperwork, refilling for your marriage license, ceremonies, and any other legal paperwork tied to your marriage (prenups, insurance benefits etc and so forth).
Otherwise you aren't suggesting anything that couples aren't already doing - going through their marriages year by year, defining, redefining, committing, recommitting, or divorcing as they see fit.
If it aint broke, don't fix it.
-
-
What exactly would "marriage" mean under those terms? What would be the purpose of marrying at all?
-
What would marriage mean under those terms. It would be about making a commitment and then continuing to see if you can honor that commitment or if you need to re-think what you can commit to. It's funny to me that we can work for companies that give you an annual appraisal and work with you to set goals. But it can be so stirring to expect that people in a committed marriage have to reaffirm that commitment regularly. It's understandable to require us to renew our drivers license, but not our marriage license or commitment?
-
But how is that marriage? What would be the purpose of creating a legal contract to form a "family" for such a brief period of time? Simply to fraudulently force employers, taxing bodies and health insurance providers to pretend you'd made a real commitment and give you financial breaks?
-
-
-
...good point.
-
Dumb idea-that's right. The small fees the states would administer is worst than the financial and emotional damage of a shitty marriage, separation, and divorce.
-
So you're thinking that if a couple is together for, say, 7 or 8 years, has a kid or two, then one decides (much to the surprise of the other) that he doesn't want to "renew", that will happen without emotional turmoil simply because the "contract" allowed for it?
Because, of course, when unmarried couples split up they never have any trouble over finances, emotional issues, mutual children, etc. -
Better point
-
-
I recall reading a novella many years ago where Stephen King presented this sort of scenario (I believe it was original "Running Man" short story.) Marriage was available in 1, 2, 5 and 10 year contracts and any couple who opted for a rare "lifetime contract" was considered unrealistic.
It's not so odd a concept to consider. Marriage was developed for socio-economical reasons, when lifespans rarely reached beyond 40 years. Humans reach twice that now, easily... it may be naive to think two people can still spend a "lifetime" together. LIFETIME has changed. Also, it would mean LESS paperwork if people could go their separate ways after 1-2 years if they realized it was a youthful mistake or one person hadn't been honest about themselves. Renewals and dissolutions could be done by mail, like car insurance. Way less paper and hassle than lawyers, judges, divorce proceedings, etc.
But here's why it will never happen: Can't legislate how many children people can have, and when. The logical thing to do is say, take a short contract first, and after you decide you are mature enough to raise children together, you can take a longer contract and begin to reproduce. No one will ever allow that to be legislated. Also, even with a longer contract, we'd be guaranteeing those children will live in two households after 5-10 years unless people renewed. That offends our idealistic, romantic sense of hope... and conservative ideas about what constitutes a "family." Sadly, most of us wind up caught in parental divorces anyway (I did, 4 times over!!).-
What's idealistic or romantic about committing to honor your promises and obligations even when it's not all hearts and flowers? Seems to me the "romantic" notion is the one that says we should only stick around so long as emotion dictates.
-
I once wrote a story about a world where there was no such thing as divorce - one of the spouses had to die if you decided that the marriage was unworkable. Needless to say, the marriage rate was very low and most people didn't even consider getting married until they were in their thirties or forties and had had enough life experience to make such a permanent decision.
I don't see any benefit to forcing someone who has made a well-consdiered, life-long decision to reaffirm that decision every few years because others want to pander to people who can't be bothered to think that deeply or that far ahead. If you don't want to be bothered with getting divorced then don't get married in the first place. -
Very interesting story concept.
I think the problem is that while people don't want any of the obligations of marriage and want to be able to walk away at any moment, they still want the benefits (such as a spouse's health insurance coverage). -
Pillownaut-I think you present a well needed voice to this discussion.
-
-
Marriage licences have nothing to do with insuring happiness. Whether or not you are entitled to share property your happiness is based on you and your partner. Some people enter marriage with that exact idea...to see how it works out...and if it doesn’t they have the option to divorce or annul it.
-
oh brother... what if you lived in a different state than you married in?! -
What's idealistic or romantic about committing to honor your promises and obligations even when it's not all hearts and flowers? Seems to me the "romantic" notion is the one that says we should only stick around so long as emotion dictates
MadamX- If 80-90% of married couples were honoring their promises and obligations, then we probably wouldn't have such a high divorce rate. Also i have to wonder how many men and women would have to seek sexual and other gratification out of the marriage, if they were dealing with the problems openly on an annual basis.-
"Also i have to wonder how many men and women would have to seek sexual and other gratification out of the marriage, if they were dealing with the problems openly on an annual basis."
Exactly the same number who "have to" now: zero. -
[applauds] Why bother to work on a relationship with an expiration date?
-
-
lotsub-the license is not intended to provide happiness. It is about the intention of staying together. You could go to a priest or counselor every year and address it. You're right currently you can stay together, get a divorce, or annulment. But with that line of thinking, nothing ever changes or improves. To me, those solutions are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
-
Legbamel- you work on it because you wish to continue it. If an expiration date is enough to not work on it,then there are real problems. And the expiration date would provide an opportunity to address the problems, avoid them, stay or leave.
-
-
I'd hate the idea of all that examining and re-examining. It sounds so oppressive and overbearing. I believe in doing things on the blind. You jump in and relax and see what happens. Sometimes things work out, and sometimes they don't. Why take it all so seriously? Future developments are impossible to predict. I've seen the most compatible couples with everything in common end up hating each other with a passion. We all have the strength to deal with broken dreams and disappointments. It's all a part of life.-
Impossible to PREDICT? Sure. Fortunately, we don't have to rely on our crystal balls--we get to make decisions. For instance, we can decide to be honest and kind and maintain our integrity no matter what circumstances we find ourselves in.
I disagree with the idea that things "sometimes work out" and sometimes they don't. I don't think they EVER just work out--sometimes we decide to invest in making them work and sometimes we don't. -
Nothing you do can guarantee a good result. You may be all those things-honest, responsible, conscientious-and things may still not work out. Chance and irrationality always come into play, no matter how hard you try to prevent it. I still think the best thing is to be relaxed, and just let things happen. That may sound capricious or ridiculous to you, but it's always worked for me.
-
I agree with you with regard to most things in life. However, I think if that's your view of relationships, then you simply don't marry--if you believe that there's no telling whether you'll be together a month or a year or a decade from now, why stand up and take a vow that is essentially a lie? I also think that when we opt to have children, we make commitments that have to be honored regardless of whether or not things are "working out".
-
I've been married to my wife now 20 years, and we lived together for 10 before that. I've always had this view throughout our relationship, and I think she appreciates my free and easy attitude. I've never tried to control her, nor make demands on her. To me, relationships and marriage are no big deal. I get what I need in terms of contentment and satisfaction from myself, so I've never had to go looking elsewhere for things she is unable or unwilling to give.
-
-
"Why bother to work on a relationship with an expiration date?"
I don't buy that. You're ignoring a huge part of human nature. People might try even harder. The mechanics of falling in love are the same at the beginning -- we always expect it to "last forever" ... but romance fades, sometimes into content mutuality, sometimes into friendship, sometimes into hatred or indifference. We see these around us every day.
Let's say I fall in love with a person and we marry in a 1-year contract. Maybe I am afraid of losing him, and do my darnedest to meet his needs, because I want him to renew with me. Time is of the essence, and I never fall into that "oh i'm stuck with this chump forever, i feel so trapped and miserable" syndrome when the oxytocin wears off.
Still in love, we renew for two years. He sees that another man find me attractive and is watching for when our contract comes due, so he sends flowers, keeps the relationship fresh, because he wants that next renewal. Can you really not see the benefits of the emotional dynamics?
Then, toward the end of the second contract, I find he hid something about his past -- prison time for a crime he never disclosed to me. I find this irreconcilable, and I have the option to leave without a messy divorce when the contract expires.
Philosophically speaking, in terms of the "effects" on societies, I don't see why it would be worse than the systems (monogamy, bigamy, polygamy, divorce) we have presently.-
This type of thing happens without "term contracts" - why bother putting time limits on it? I know that I can divorce my husband at any time, and he knows he can divorce me. We both know that even if divorce didn't exist, we could "separate" and go our separate ways and live our lives as we see fit, anyway.
What makes us work hard? Our commitment to each other, that's what - and if you need a deadline or a contract limit to encourage hard work in a relationship then something isn't right with the relationship, anyway.
-
-
You missed the point because you wanted to. Your refutation is largely fallacy, since something already "isn't right" with plenty of relationships under the current system. One can never know the extent of someone ELSE's committment. Plenty of wives who think their husbands were devoted get broad-sided by affairs or desertion.
Everyone is overlooking the idea that this would take divorce out of the equation.-
What makes us work hard? Our commitment to each other, that's what - and if you need a deadline or a contract limit to encourage hard work in a relationship then something isn't right with the relationship, anyway.
Anok- Exactly. So a couple that doesn't have this wish to work hard or endure a commitment can either get help and work on it, or get out. I think of it as a sort of mandated renewal of your commitment.
-
-
The discussion has so far largely ignored the first of the reasons for marriage mentioned in the traditional ceremony, namely procreation of children. It seems to me that if marriage only involved a remedy against sin (fornication) and mutual society help and comfort, agreements for a defined period (with the option of renewal) could make sense on the grounds that such contracts would be more likely to be honoured. However, when a couple enter into a contract for procreation of children they are signing up for a life-time of cooperation in this venture, no matter what else happens in the relationship.-
Wintonbates- I believe a couple that is asked to renew their commitment every couple of years would inevitably have to deal with the question of children. In fairness, I don't know that all couples enter marriage with procreation of children as the goal. However for those that do, I believe this would provide a forum for addressing the issue. We all know couples who avoid the issue, till its time to make a threat-have kids or its over. Maybe its time to prevent that.
-
-
This is not a good plan. It only encourages people to give a partial commitment and it lowers the honor and dignity of the marriage commitment.-
Jflower- I would argue that it would encourage people to make an honest commitment. So instead of an 20 y.o. pledging a lifetime, perhaps they can actually pledge a year or two. If they honor that, it would seem to me it would give the couple something to build another 5-7 years from.
-
Perhaps it would be better to raise the legal age for marriage, rather than redefining the entire concept. There's no way that adding another layer of bureaucracy to the process will make relationships better. I'd prefer that the government stay out of my life as much as possible, not monitor the status of my marriage every couple of years. And how many people will sue a partner for breach of contract, which will be the new divorce?
-
-
I definitely think we should have renewable marriage licenses -- renewable every five years. At the end of the five, either person can walk, no questions asked. If this was the case married people would be a lot nicer to one another.-
I could work with that. I'm really surprised by how reluctant people are to even the thought of having to stop, and ask each other, do we really want to be together.
-
-
That's not a bad idea! But what if kids are involved? Who gets custody of the children?-
Well, with kids there would have to be a custody agreement. But wouldn't it be great if that was the ONLY legal detail that had to be worked out?
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
