In the 60’s a couple would never even think of living together without first becoming married. Today more and more couples are choosing to have trial marriages by living together for a period of time before tying the knot-if ever.
Look at Prince William, even he currently lived with with Kate long before she became his princess, “legally!”
The reasons for this change of heart seem to be financial and social. Many young couples balk at the traditions of their elders but more common is that the financial part of being married does not seem at first glance to lend itself to choosing marriage as a wise alternative to living together.
In pagan marriages, this was called “hand fasting” and was intended for a year and a day. If everything works out, they could "re-up'' their commitments.
If it doesn't, they each could leave the relationship with whatever material possessions they came into it with, no harm, and no foul. This tradition of announcing couple-ship has been around much longer than traditional, legal, marriages where once you tie the knot, half of everything you own-including your debts-belong to the other person.
Now a legislator in Mexico City wants to give people “hand fasting” option.
Leonel Luna from the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution wants to make it easier for couples to divorce if things don't work out the way they hoped in the first two years after tying the knot.
The bill is at the center of a controversy about family values and the definition of marriage in Mexico City. But Luna, who introduced the bill at Mexico City's Legislative Assembly last week, says his measure is simply a reflection of reality.
"Almost 50% of couples in Mexico City end up in divorce," Luna says. "What we're trying to do is acknowledge reality and create a mechanism that will allow couples to end their marriage without going through the additional pain and suffering of a legal battle."
Under Luna's bill, couples would sign a marriage contract that would last two years. Once that term was over, the couple would have the option to renew. The contract would specify if property is owned by both spouses or separately. It would also state who would get custody of the children, if any, and how benefits would be distributed.
The US statistics are similar...perhaps we should look into the bill...maybe in California at least.
Would you support this bill in your country?
Gentemann@xanga
Premium
Comments (42)
I think it's a good idea in theory, but it kind of just gives people an excuse to not try to make it work. You might as well just live together and not get married.
How would this be different than getting an annulment?
Nope. I don't really advocate living before marriage. Call me old-fashioned, but those are my values and morals. Spending the night together or whatever is fine by me, but my boyfriend (who has similar values/morals) has agreed that we're not living together until we say our vows.
Another thing, have you ever thought it was the other way around? People get divorced because they rushed things by moving in together and beginning their life full on too long? Most older people I know didn't live together until marriage and they've been together 15, 20, 30, 40, 50 years.
Nope. I would not support this bill. Either get married for the long haul, or don't. And please, do not heap on more ideas for California to consider. There are enough serious matters to fix, this seems really trivial if you consider the unemployment situation and starving children and such.
@sunflowersforlove@xanga - I agree that it seems to be giving people another excuse to not work on their marriage.
I like it.
i think it could work....
i think the people who say "make your marriage work" are being really arrogant and out of line. with 50%+ divorce rates already a reality, people clearly don't care to "work on their marriage" within the currently framework...so supporting the status quo to force people to work on their marriages really doesn't seem like a logical solution at all.
the country will actually save a lot of money by allowing marriages to dissolve within a time period. i know the court systems in the states are always tangled up in divorce filings, and if their divorce rate is similar to ours then i am sure their courts are burdened in the same way. if this lets people "wait it out" and then go their economic ways, i can't see the harm in it.
to those who say "oh boo, but the sanctity of marriage!", i say only this - if this law is passed, real marriages will persist and failed ones will dissolve away more easily, leaving society with a more and more solid concept of what a good, successful marriage looks like. with a solid model to emulate, there will be more such marriages, and thus maybe you sorry lot will finally see some "sanctity" restored to marriage.
Trial marriage or no... I ain't getting married. Bad idea nowadays.
I think this is a great idea, this gives people a chance to figure out if they made the right choice BEFORE kids are involved. Granted, dating should serve the same purpose, but obviously it isn't working since half of marriages end in misery. I'd say anything we can do to give marriage a shot at actually working is a good thing.
does this mean that they won't be saying "till death do us part" anymore?
yes i most definately would. its a great/ read PERFECT idea
I think it's a great idea.
Living together no longer 'playing house'.
absolutely not.
@xxfl1@xanga - Are you kidding? This is the stupidest idea I have ever heard! By the way. No idea (aka: nothing) is perfect.
I wouldn't support it. Marriage is something that's long term, not short term. One shouldn't get married just to, "Test the waters," which this bill will allow to do.
You're either married or not married. If you choose to live with your significant other before marriage, then that's your choice. However, this shouldn't be considered a "trial marriage."
Personally, I think it's good to live with someone you plan on marrying in the future. It gives you an idea of what to expect before making this life-long commitment. It's like trying on clothes that you plan to purchase. Sure, it may look good on the rack, but you won't know 100% for certain unless you try it on first. There shouldn't be a label to this process, unless of course you decide to make it into a common-law marriage
Isn't the engagement period kind of like a trial marriage anyway, but without the legal commitment aspect?
Trial marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage isn't just a relationship. It's a commitment. That's what sets it apart from other relationships. Or is supposed to. When I married my husband, we hadn't lived together. But I trusted him and knew that there was nothing that I could find out about that would make me not love him. Has living together brought problems? Yes. But I love him anyways, which takes love and effort, and I do this because I made a promise. And our relationship is amazing for it. That is love.
Like Germany
As a pagan, I would love if the guy who asks me to marry him is willing to have a handfasting period first before we are legally married. I really don't want to live with a guy unless there is either a definite intent to soon be married (within the year, or with handfasting, year and a day) aka we are engaged or we are in agreement about it being solely a domesticate partnership and never getting married. Living together and having marriage up in the air would drive me insane.
I'm not 100% sure about this legal trial marriage thing though.
Maybe good to remember that it's a different process to get a divorce in Mexico, they may just be using this as one way to make it easier.
@haltija@xanga - I've noticed that those who always say "work on your marriage" are young people in their 20s who have never been married. They are clueless.
I think it is a great idea! I believe most ancient marriages in Europe (even after Christianity arrived) began with handfasting. It really is a great move IMO. Generally speaking I don't see how someone's marriage (or divorce) is of any consequence to any body else but people who have some strange desire to control other people's personal life.
Also, some Muslim cultures practice this today. It is wise.
@written_conversations@xanga - I would assume it is.
OP:
Honestly, I don't have a real opinion on this...but I will say, it's still interesting nonetheless.