Fixed length marriage contracts?

I read an interesting article this morning about a proposed change to marriage licensing in Mexico City.  The change would allow couples to select the length of the term of the marriage contract (a minimum of two years) and then allow them to continue to renew as often as desired, but have the choice to simply let the contract expire if they no longer wish to be married, thus avoiding a painful and protracted divorce process.  Conservative groups are opposed, naturally, but it's an interesting proposal (< ha!)  with potentially positive and negatives impacts on marriage for individuals, children and greater society. Good idea? Bad idea? Don't know, but it's an interesting idea for sure. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/americas/mexico-mulls-two-year-marriages-drawing-ire-of-catholic-church/article2185712/

I was reading that article too this morning.  As a Mexican-American I have to say this is very interesting given that Mexico as a country is way more conservative than the US based on the high population of people that are Catholic.  It would be interesting to see how this would be received here in the US if something like this was proposed.  Given that 50 percent of marriages in the US end in divorce, I think we should give it a try

That 50% figure is misleading because it represents 50% of all marriages, including 2nd, 3rd etc. marriages, which statistically fail at increasingly greater rates with each new marriage.  About 60% of first marriages last, and the figure jumps to about 70% if the couple is college educated and marry at or beyond about 30 years of age.  (Those stats are from memory and off the top of my head, but it's something very much like that).  There is no doubt the divorce industry is too often a predatory and destructive one, and if all this did was cut the ugliness and lawyers out, it would be a brilliant stroke. But it's such major redefinition of marriage that it could potentially affect just about every dynamic of marriage and family, both to their benefit and to their detriment.  As an aside, if such a huge proportion of marriages in Mexico City end within two years I think Mexico City has a social issue that's a bit bigger than this.  Do you have any insight into that greaserkat?  Is it the influence of the Catholic Church and undue pressure for young people to marry?  Some kind of impractical ideation of marriage that can't live up to reality?  Or a too casual attitude to it?

greaserkat wrote:

Given that 50 percent of marriages in the US end in divorce, I think we should give it a try

====================

I have somewhat mixed feelings on this.  They're attempting a practical solution, but it does run the risk eroding away the sanctity of marriage, as it may encourage people to have a looser view on what it means to marry someone.

That said, nobody has a monopoly on the ever-evolving definition of marriage.  It isn't the 16th century and the church doesn't control these things anymore.  Marriage can be between two lesbians, and it can also be an open marriage where 16 people in committed relationships have revolving four-way around the worlds once a week.

If this is indeed the catholic church getting their noses in there, then this is a pointless exercise.  They will essentially be shooting themselves in the foot, because it will be that much easier to "defy catholic doctrine" and get a divorce if the couple doesn't work out.  If indoctrinated people stay in their failed marriages, this change in law won't change that.  The only difference is it will be easier (and cheaper) to separate.

So I say they should try it.  The nuclear family shouldn't feel threatened, as they will still be free to practice marriage and traditional family in the way that they're accustomed.  But no doubt, it's a matter of time before conservatives worldwide will want us to hear their opinions.  I've already got my popcorn ready..

First impressions were that this was a good idea. But surely you should only marry the person you love with all your heart and look forward to spending the rest of your life with? Surely a marriage contract plants a seed of doubt that the person you are marrying is not this person? Which is wrong. Too many people get married now out of convenience, or fear of being alone, or the patter of little unplanned accidents.

If it wasn't for the fact I did marry the person I loved with all my heart and looked forward to spending the rest of my life with and it still went south after 5 years I would have a definite opinion.

I guess 5 years of love is better than a lifetime alone.

(mooghead in 'he is actually human' shock!)

GratefulFan wrote: That 50% figure is misleading because it represents 50% of all marriages, including 2nd, 3rd etc. marriages, which statistically fail at increasingly greater rates with each new marriage.  About 60% of first marriages last, and the figure jumps to about 70% if the couple is college educated and marry at or beyond about 30 years of age.  (Those stats are from memory and off the top of my head, but it's something very much like that).  There is no doubt the divorce industry is too often a predatory and destructive one, and if all this did was cut the ugliness and lawyers out, it would be a brilliant stroke. But it's such major redefinition of marriage that it could potentially affect just about every dynamic of marriage and family, both to their benefit and to their detriment.  As an aside, if such a huge proportion of marriages in Mexico City end within two years I think Mexico City has a social issue that's a bit bigger than this.  Do you have any insight into that greaserkat?  Is it the influence of the Catholic Church and undue pressure for young people to marry?  Some kind of impractical ideation of marriage that can't live up to reality?  Or a too casual attitude to it? ============================================================================================

These are interesting questions you bring up because I myself am bewildered as to why marriages In Mexico City itself end quickly when Mexico as a whole is really relogious (as a side note, this is why Mexico does not have a death penalty as far as I am aware and from statements made as well by politicians  in that country). 

If you were to ask a Mexican or Mexican-American who are the "worst" kind of people or what kind of people are just plain "assholes" In Mexico, for the most part they will say Chilangos; "Chilangos" are what people from Mexico City are called.  They do have the reputation of being ill manered, obnoxious, rude, and their way of life is different from others that are from different parts of Mexico.  Is this the reason as to why marriages in tha city dont last very long? No, BUT it can be a contributing factor.

Sir GH wrote: greaserkat wrote:

Given that 50 percent of marriages in the US end in divorce, I think we should give it a try

====================

I have somewhat mixed feelings on this.  They're attempting a practical solution, but it does run the risk eroding away the sanctity of marriage, as it may encourage people to have a looser view on what it means to marry someone.

That said, nobody has a monopoly on the ever-evolving definition of marriage.  It isn't the 16th century and the church doesn't control these things anymore.  Marriage can be between two lesbians, and it can also be an open marriage where 16 people in committed relationships have revolving four-way around the worlds once a week.

If this is indeed the catholic church getting their noses in there, then this is a pointless exercise.  They will essentially be shooting themselves in the foot, because it will be that much easier to "defy catholic doctrine" and get a divorce if the couple doesn't work out.  If indoctrinated people stay in their failed marriages, this change in law won't change that.  The only difference is it will be easier (and cheaper) to separate.

So I say they should try it.  The nuclear family shouldn't feel threatened, as they will still be free to practice marriage and traditional family in the way that they're accustomed.  But no doubt, it's a matter of time before conservatives worldwide will want us to hear their opinions.  I've already got my popcorn ready.. ===========================================================================================
You are right.  I do agree that this can erode the sanctity of marriage.  Poeple should not go into marriage already thinking how long is it going to last, I at least hope so. 

On another side note, it's funny that I mention that for the most part Mexico is a very religious country.  The older generations are the hardcore religous types like my grandma and even parents that are my parents' age as well; those that were born for example in the early 1900's to the 1970's even.  What's funny about this is that this topic reminded me of how my own personal life growing was quite different than the "average" Mexican family. Both of my parents' parents were hardcore Cathoics, and my grandma from my mom's side still is as she is the only living grandparent I have.  My parent were obviously borught up Catholic and followed the Catholic way of life. However, I'm surprised as to how liberal my parents are now when it comes to religion and their actual views on it.  Mind you, they still are Catholic and go to church here and there but they really don't follow it as you would expect someone their age from Mexico would.  Ive done my first communion but I'm still surprised that Ive gotten away from doing my confirmation given that im 26 years old lol.

This proposed law would apply to civil marriage , not religious marriage. If the state thinks that people are unable to stay in a marriage for longer than two years they should abolish civil marriage. It is ridiculous to cater for every immature citizen who gets married without thinking only to find that it was a big mistake after a few months. If  citizens think they need a civil marriage to live happily with their partners they can pay for the divorce, for heavens sake. After all - in these happy days of freedom and choices marriage is not really needed if someone is not up to it, you can live together unmarried just as well. Children have the same rights no matter if the parents are married or not, so there is no need to make laws for every possible case of bad judgment,

bizarre... i know there is a high divorce rate, but i don't think i'd bother getting married in a two year contract... what's the point?

Personally, while I would never take this up, I don't really have a problem with it. I'm of the view that marriage should be defined by individual citizens, rather than the government, and this is an extension of that.

YourValentine wrote: "If the state thinks that people are unable to stay in a marriage for longer than two years they should abolish civil marriage."

Except many people don't want religious marriages, they only want civil marriages, and to get rid of civil marriage would simply punish the majority when it's only a minority who would take this up.

What a pack of dildos.

Amazon wrote: Personally, while I would never take this up, I don't really have a problem with it. I'm of the view that marriage should be defined by individual citizens, rather than the government, and this is an extension of that.

The whole thing of determining stuff like that on an individual basis is great in theory, but how can it work?  I mean, we think what we think largely because society tells us to -- and the western emphasis and idolisation of individuality and choice highlights this.  Society values individuality, its how society tells us to form our identities.  So I am not sure that it is possible to define a concept like marriage on an individual basis, as we grow up surrounded by our own and other families, and the media, and that is what tells us what a 'family' is.  So if a fixed term contract marriage was introduced, it would be really weird for maybe the next 20 - 30 years, but then it would become 'normal' and would be seen as the definition of marriage, the same as now assume marriage is aiming to be for life.

Which brings us back to my original point - that the definition of marriage is ever-evolving.

Even 50 years ago, the life of the average person was much more simple.  It was easy to spend a lifetime with someone because your values and life goals didn't change much, or at all.  Nowadays there aren't too many people I know in their 20s and 30s who think they'd be compatible with one person for the rest of their lives.

A lot of people get divorced and are completely civil (pun not intended) about it.  They've simply arrived at different places in life and want to go their separate ways with no hard feelings.  Maybe there shouldn't be a horribly long process to move on with your life.  But if divorce goes on a case by case basis like this, we may be heading down a slippery slope, legally speaking..

I wonder if these contracts will include a sanity clause?

paulosham wrote: I wonder if these contracts will include a sanity clause?

rofl