This is a guest blog submitted by sahar. I'm not one to keep
up on my news and politics (unless it has to do with the election), but
as I was browsing through some news a German politician by the name of
Gabriele Pauli shocked me.
Last
year she suggested that marriage licenses should expire after seven
years, at which point the couple would choose if they wanted to renew
their license or dissolve it.
This makes life easier for the
couples who want to get divorced, she says; they wouldn't have to deal with
lawyers, fees and all the fighting that comes with divorce.
Wow, doesn't this take the meaning of marriage out of it? Isn't marriage
supposed to be a lifetime commitment, through sickness and health, till
death do you part? It's not a "hey, let's get married for the next seven
years and see if we want to make it to fourteen!" kind of thing.
What do you think of this expiring marriage license?
Comments (166)
I think that is the perfect option for some people. Because if it was offered and one party in the relationship wanted to take it then, it would be easy to see the doubts and they could work on that.
I personally would NEVER take anything less than a lifetime membership but hey, with people divorcing like they are, it kinda makes sense.
In this day and age, the idea of a lifetime commitment seems Utopian. An expiration date would at least give married couples a time to reevaluate their relationship, although I don't think in America it would really save money. There would still be "This is mine, this is mine, and this is mine" and custody to fight over, unless this is all pre-agreed before the couple can be legally married. It would take the hassle out of FILING for divorce, at any rate. There would be no chasing an unwilling spouse for a signature on the papers. I think that kind of a thing could go either way, really. I think there should be more requirements to getting married than having the money to pay for the certificate and whatnot.
That reminds me of What Happens in Vegas
When Ashton and Cameron go to get their marriage annuled the judge flips out at them and says it's people like them who are ruining marriages... the ones who are getting married on the spur of the moment when they don't really love each other or want to spend the rest of their life together.
I think the 7 year thing is stupid and it really does take the meaning out of it. I think it's good that divorce is so hard to do because it may give some couples incentive to work out their differences so they can stay together.
Look it was easy up till now. Get married young and die young. But now with life expectancy not to mention pressure increasing staying married becomes harder and harder.
In biblical times you might get married at 16 and die at 35. Fifty years ago it might be 20 and 65. Now, people live to 80 and that will increase of course, can you really stay with one person for 60 years?
@AllMyNamesAreTaken@xanga - "An expiration date would at least give married couples a time to reevaluate their relationship"
shouldn't they have evaluated and reevaluated their relationship before they got married?
why don't they give people the option of choosing whether they want one that expires or one that doesn't. nowadays, divorce is really popular and the meaning behind marriage isn't the same anymore..
most likely, if they gave us the option, the younger people would choose the one that expires.
Gabriele Pauli must have stolen that idea from me, because for years I've been saying that marriage should be a 5 year contract with option for renewal. (Maybe I'm even less optimistic than Pauli is about people's ability to make it through the long haul.) No, I don't think it undermines the "meaning" of marriage, because to me, marriage has less to do with loving a person for the rest of your life ad more to do with the joining of assets. (Hence all the legal trouble when the marriage is terminated.) I imagine that those who hold onto the idea of marriage being sacred and eternal are partially informed by religious ideas of marriage, not legal ones, in which case they wouldn't necessarily be affected by this 7-year contract idea. They would just opt to renew their contract over and over again.
in certain states if you live with somebody of the opposite sex (who you aren't related to) for a certain amount of time the state declares you married! we think THAT'S the kinda licence that should expire but if you get married volentarily it should be with the intention of a life long commitment, therefor, NO that licence should NOT have an expiration date! besides, if the couple were to decide not to stay together in Pauli's scenario they would still have to deal with the fighting over who gets what. so it really isn't simpler, in fact, with the option of seperation on the table, it might get more complicated!
Marriages shouldn't expire... if you say til death do you part, it should be just that.
I don't really think it's a good idea. I don't think even having the option to have that from the beginning of the marriage is a good idea. If you choose to have your marriage expired after a certain amount of time then what are you doing getting married?
That's pretty much the most repulsive thing I've ever heard.
If you want to take on the responsibility and commitment of marriage, then do so. If not, then don't get married, or deal with the consequences of having to suffer through the hardships of getting a divorce down the road.
The decision to get married should not be one that taken so lightly as it often is nowadays.
It's called a lifetimecommitment for a reason.
wow.. indeed lol. Woah.. it's like "Here, we don't think your commitment will last, this marriage license expires in 7 years. Don't have any kids, PLEASE! It will just make it harder on everyone. Thank you, enjoy your honeymoon!"
I agree with AllMyNamesAreTaken. If they really believe a 7 year (maybe license) will decrease the need for a layer they are insane. Unless of course there are no children, and they don't buy anything but rent everything. Then there will be nothing to show for the last 7 years except your clothes, but hey. At least you won't have to hire attorneys and fight over what you are going to have, because you don't own anything.
As far as the comment from loveandpolitics. When is the last time the Bible was read. No one in Biblical times died at 35 as a general rule anyway and women were still having babies in their 80s.
I remeber growing up you couldn't get married until you were 21 without parents consent. They make it to easy to get married. I don't think marriage in this country is considered a life time commitment. In this country it is, we'll try it, if it doesn't work we'll get an annulmant or a divorce, no problem.............
@sahar - They SHOULD HAVE, but that doesn't mean that they did. And it can never hurt to ask yourself if you're still happy somewhere down the road.
marriage should be lifelong, but it convey different meanings to different people.
That's funny, I was thinking the same thing a few days ago except my terms were a little bit longer.
This isn't a new concept. In fact, I first became aware of it shortly after my marriage in 2004. At the time, I was just as appalled as you are. Then after living with my then-husband, discovering what a liar he was, what a control freak he is, all his addictions to video games and porn, his nasty temper, the animal cruelty, how he was not the man I thought I was marrying... I was really wishing for an expiration date!
An expiration date is a LOT cheaper than divorce, trust me. Yes, it sucks that we've reached a society where this idea is toyed with. However, unless you've been stuck in an abusive marriage held together only by religion forbidding divorce, don't be so quick to declare it a thing of evil.
I disagree wholeheartedly with the expiring marriage license.
I think that some couples discover down the road that divorce is the best choice, but I don't know anyone who goes into a marriage anticipating divorce. I think the system is fine how it is.
I don't know. You could look at is that everytime you put that application for the certificate it is a show of strength of how the marriage is going. It could increase the divorce rate, but a lot of people whom I have known that have gotten divorced have said their suprised how easy, quick and painless the whole process is. I really don't think it would increase the numbers. It might mean that newly weds won't divorce in the first year. They may try waiting the seven years so they don't have to spend the money and maybe because of waiting they may actually try to work it out. Unless it goes through and time is allowed to pass. We have no idea how this thing will impact marriage. To me I got married with the idea that I would grow old with the one I love.
I think if people need to be reassured that they can end their marriage in seven years if it doesn't work out, then those people should not be getting married. Marriage is meant to be a lifetime commitment. Besides there's already something that allows people to be together for seven years (or less, or more) then decide whether or not they want to continue. It's called dating.
Well, some people like it, others hate it.
Is this 7-year contract suppose to help both parties psychologically?
I really don't think it's a good idea. Many teens are already thinking way ahead of themselves. When they think they found love, they really think he/she's the one for them. Giving this seven year contract is for one thing a waste of money. Also seems to devalue marriage.
When you consider marriage, you have to make sure your lover is the right one, for personal reasons as well as legal reasons. If she's a gold-digger, the guys lose both love and pretty much half their assets. Same for girls.
Geez, this 7-yr thing will just change the marriage lines from 'til death do you part" to "til 7 years pass and if you still want to be together..."
@mommygirls@xanga - Uh, 35 is pretty generous to begin with. The life expectancy in the Middle Ages wasn't exactly high (what, 40 if you're lucky?), and that was thousands of years after Biblical times.
Sure, the Bible has people living hundreds upon hundreds of years, but that sure didn't carry over to any other era...ever.
Well it could be a good thing.
Sure, marriage is supposed to be for life but some people don't look at it that way.
I think for the people that look at it that way, they can look forward to the expiration date as a day that they can renew their love for each other.
For people who don't, then it helps with divorce rates I guess. Though if you decide you want to leave the person within the first 5 years of getting married I doubt anybod is going to want to wait the rest of the marriage until the license expires. Though I guess as long as they didn't want to get married and they were seperated until that time it would work.
Whatever... I don't see it as hurting anybody.
Maybe I'm a traditionalist in these matters, but I feel like marriage should stay as a form of lifetime commitment. Is marriage absolutely necessary? Hardly. Is it just about the joining of assets? Likewise...hardly. There's a real emotional and psychological impact of marriage that extends beyond the purely economic, and making that a seven-year commitment (or any fixed-length commitment) just cheapens the whole affair.
For one thing, the vows will just be ridiculous. I promise to cherish and love this person, in sickness and in health, until death do us part, provided this should happen in the next seven years with an extension to fourteen for good behavior? What happens if one party is dying of cancer and the term is almost up? Is it right for him/her to fight for an extension? What are the moral and ethical ramifications of the other party cutting loose at that point?
No, these views aren't influenced by religion.
the times have change, with the rate everyone's divorcing at it's not a bad idea