Fixed term marriages

[Scooter]

What do folks think of this idea? Critics say it undermines the permanence of marriage, but the 50/50 survival rate of today's marriages suggest that another way might be needed:

MEXICO CITY — Mexico City lawmakers want to help newlyweds avoid the hassle of divorce by giving them an easy exit strategy: temporary marriage licenses.

Leftists in the city’s assembly — who have already riled conservatives by legalizing gay marriage — proposed a reform to the civil code this week that would allow couples to decide on the length of their commitment, opting out of a lifetime.

The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stays happy. The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits.

“The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends,” said Leonel Luna, the Mexico City assemblyman who co-authored the bill.

“You wouldn’t have to go through the tortuous process of divorce,” said Luna, from the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution, which has the most seats in the 66-member chamber.

Luna says the proposed law is gaining support and he expects a vote by the end of this year.

Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years.

Could a time-limited marriage paradoxically lessen the likelihood that marriages will dissolve, by allowing a couple to approach their commitment to each other a few months or years a few years at a time, taking the pressure of a lifetime marriage off their shoulders?

[Gob]

Fucking brilliant idea.

We're soon approaching our tenth year, and there is no doubt we'd be signing up for a longer stretch, but for those who are young and unsure, what a great plan.

[The Hen]

Whereas I'm a "one in, all in" kind of gal.

If it isn't for life, then I won't bother at all.

[Crackpot]

When i First heard of this on NPR I thought it a novel Idea but as it continued into detail getting into pre determined distribution of common assets and child custody My opinion rapidly changed. It eventually gets to the point of running counter to the very concept of marriage. Really what's the point if you start at a point of "mine" and "yours" only to go back at a set time to redraw and clarify those lines in the best case resetting the relationship back to 0 and in the worst allowing someone foolishly in love with an opportunist jackass to legally be robbed of everything they built "together".

The problem isn't with marriage it's about an unrealistic idea of what marriage entails.

[loCAtek]

Whereas I'm a "one in, all in" kind of gal.

If it isn't for life, then I won't bother at all.

What did your first husband, think of that, after you divorced him?

[The Hen]

The problem isn't with marriage it's about an unrealistic idea of what marriage entails.

True. Immature expectations will ruin a lifetime commitment.

That's potentially why I waited until 38 to get married.

[rubato]

35 before I got married.

As to the 'fixed-term' marriage idea ... I don't know. It would not a a choice for me, but I'm undecided as to whether it would work be an advantage for society.

yrs,
rubato

[The Hen]

If you aren't looking at your marriage contract to be "forever", then perhaps a defacto relationship with a contract as to how to divvy up the spoils of marriage should be considered. You could update your contract annually to take into account your newly acquired 'spoils'.

[Gob]

John Cleese and Paul McCartney are looking into this...

[Scooter]

With each other?

[Beer Sponge]

With each other?

Would you have a problem with that, if they were?

[Scooter]

Not at all, would be a heck of an interesting melange of guests at the wedding

[Sue U]

I'm sitting on Cleese's side. I just hope they don't play any of that Wings crap at the reception.

[dgs49]

Certainly, for those who maintain that "words mean whatever I say they mean," this is fine and dandy.

With this concept of marriage, the introduction of children into the equation fucks everything up.

How about this: Re-introduce and re-define the concept of "consummating" the marriage. Marriage becomes, let's say, an automatically renewable series of one-year contracts unless one party notifies the other (and the state) at least 60 days prior to the end of any renewal term that s/he does not want to renew.

But once the wife gets pregnant, the marriage is considered "consummated," and the renewal period becomes the shortest of: (a) for the lifetime of the child, (b) 18 years, or (c) until the child is financially emancipated. Then you are back to one-year automatic renewals.

Works for me.

[BoSoxGal]

Why? Divorce is common in situations where children are present. The Court and the State enforce financial obligations to the children. Nobody can be forced to parent who doesn't truly want to - even if residing in the same house with children. I don't see how that rule guarantees anything.

[dgs49]

I understand your point, BSG, but using that logic, "marriage" of any kind, doesn't "guarantee anything."

The whole premise of this law is that they want to create an institution that people can feel comfortable with, precisely because they want to live up to the promises they are making. The promise of lifetime monogamy is simply too much for many people to make in our current culture, so I've proposed something that people should be comfortable with.

Regardless of the applicable marriage laws, when you have a child - married or not - there is a commitment of parental support (however you define that) for the shortest of, (1) the lifetime of the child, (2) 18 years, or (3) the financial emancipation of the child. Under current social mores, that commitment resides mainly on the head of the Mamasita. With my law, it is shared by the (married) parents.

[BoSoxGal]

So you're suggesting a marriage license that prohibits divorce in the event of children, up until the children reach the age of majority?

[dgs49]

Look at it this way. I'm suggesting "marriage" that exists under current, conventional rules, but for a series of fixed terms. The fixed terms are normally one year, but they are extended in the case of children.

If it expires by the choice of one partner at the end of any term, it is treated as a termination by mutual consent, and the parties are each made whole to the extent practicable. If it is terminated by divorce DURING a term, and the divorce is by mutual consent, it is similarly considered a termination by mutual consent. But if one party is at fault in causing a divorce during a term, it is treated as a "fault" divorce.

Details to be defined by the legislature. Party at fault has to pay support to the other party. Party at fault can lose visitation rights (unless bad for the kids). Party at fault loses inheritance rights. Etc. I'm obviously not current on family law, even in PA where I live.

[BoSoxGal]

Okay.

As no-fault divorce already exists in all 50 states, I'm thinking your idea ain't going far.