Saw this editorial today: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/625395

It's based on an article in an Australian paper - any aussies out there able to find this?

Anyway, aside from the fact I don't much like the way the author depicts marital life in general, it is somewhat interesting (in a sick, sad sort of way) that someone, somewhere is considering making marriage about as disposable as fast-food wrappers. Also, the fact that such an idea is proposed in a time when too many people consider traditional marriage to be disposable.

On the other hand, if you can change one part of marriage (for life to x number of years), why can't you change some of the other terms and conditions. I don't give a hoot about who takes out the trash (though some might) but I'd like to see other conditions in there. Maybe something like - infidelity is punishable by jail term or even death. I mean, if your marital contract is a fixed term, NOW can you at least wait until it has expired before you boink someone else? Is that too much to ask?

And what if you forget to renew your contract before it is up? You aren't exactly divorced - what are you? Living in sin? Will you have to pay an extra fee? Get a new marriage license? Will someone send you annoying reminders like the dentist office?

You know on the one hand, it would be nice to have to renew your vows periodically, just as a reminder of what they are supposed to mean. But I'm not sure about this idea. Though there was a comment on the first page when I read it that this could eliminate divorce lawyers which isn't altogether a bad thing either.

Guess that would open the door to "adjustable rate marriages". The value goes up or down depending on prevailing market. No availale men around, stay married. An influx of new women on the market, divorce your wife and try someone new.

Or how about a "government guaranteed" marriage. Only through an act of congress could you get a divorce.

How 'bout Balloon marriages? Reach a certain year, a balloon payment is made or the marriage is BUST.

Or the "Interest Only" marriage. As long as their interest, the marriage stays intact.

Hey, I wonder if you could get government bailouts when your marriage gets in trouble because H buys an expensive sports car the same day she decides to have an addition put on the house? With bonuses and everything!

The sad thing is, the more crazy gov't rules and regs you can dream up here, the more likely something like this is to happen. After all, what are those divorce lawyers supposed to do now that people just let their marriages expire!

ok, I'm sitting her asking myself just how much care and devotion I am going to give to a relationship that is made on a TEST BASIS that can be disposed of if the test goes bad? NOT MUCH. In fact, why would I do anything to upkeep a relationship that is disposable and is only there long as it passes the TEST? Heck, if it fails the test I can just dispose of it!

It is like the difference between a rental car and a purchased car.

Dr Harley said something real interesting one time that made alot sense to me. Rather than marriage being a COMMITTMENT TO BE TOGETHER FOR LIFE, it should be a COMMITTMENT TO MAKING THE OTHER PERSON HAPPY FOR LIFE. That makes perfect sense to me!

what is this world coming to where someone, anyone, thinks this is a good idea.

Here's a thought....don't get married if you don't think it will be for life.

I don't think the issue is "Till death do us part" I think the issue is it's too easy to do it and society doesn't frown on Divorce like it did in our parents/grandparents day.

My SIL had a friend that got married a few years ago. 9 months later they were getting a divorce. When asked what happened, she said "We've been together for so long and everyone expected us to get married, so we did". :crosseyedcrazy:

How does that make sense?? Got married because that was what everyone expected to happen...

Hollyweird folks do it all the time.

It wouldn't be a MORTGAGE though, because this is just a RENTAL. It is all done on a TEST BASIS, rather than a real committment.

I think the contract mentality is exactly like the living together mentality, which is a month to month agreement. IT is just a longer rental agreement, but they are still the same in that they are TESTS rather than committments:

Dr. Harley:

"To understand why this is the case, I suggest that you consider why couples who live together don't marry. Ask yourself that very question. Why did you choose to live with your boyfriend instead of marrying him?

The answer is that you were not ready to make that commitment to him yet. First, you wanted to see if you still loved him after you cooked meals together, cleaned the apartment together and slept together. In other words, you wanted to see what married life would be like without the commitment of marriage.

But what you don't seem to realize is that you will never know what married life is like unless you're married. The commitment of marriage adds a dimension to your relationship that puts everything on its ear. Right now, you are testing each other to see if you are compatible. If either of you slips up, the test is over, and you are out the door. Marriage doesn't work that way. Slip-ups don't end the marriage, they just end the love you have for each other.

What, exactly, is the commitment of marriage? It is an agreement that you will take care of each other for life, regardless of life's ups and downs. You will stick it out together through thick and thin. But the commitment of living together isn't like that at all. It is simply a month-to-month rental agreement. As long as you behave yourself and keep me happy, I'll stick around.

Habits are hard to break, and couples that live together before marriage get into the habit of following their month-to-month rental agreement. In fact, they often decide to marry, not because they are willing to make a lifetime commitment to each other, but because the arrangement has worked out so well that they can't imagine breaking their lease, so to speak. They say the words of the marital agreement, but they still have the terms of their rental agreement in mind.

Couples who have not lived together before marriage, on the other hand, have not lived under the terms of the month-to-month rental agreement. They begin their relationship assuming that they are in this thing for life, and all their habits usually reflect that commitment." Living Together before Marriage

Can we take out 5 year terms on our kids also? How many of us would be turning them in??? Especially in those teenage years?

:twobyfour:

Where does it end?

While everything Mel (and Dr. Harley) says makes perfect sense, the reality is we live in a world where people DON'T take marriage seriously. I guess that's what I really find funny about this article. I mean, one can get a divorce at any time one wants as it is. The other spouse doesn't even have to agree. It's a completely unilateral decision that can be made in an instant, though the details often take longer to work out.

This system almost seems to put the details up front (it doesn't quite say that but I expect it would). And yes, it does turn it into a rental agreement. And yes, people would treat their marriage like they treat a rental car.

But how exactly do they treat their marriages now?

If I returned a rental car in the same shape I was in after WstbxH was done with me, I'd have been charged a fine.

No, this isn't the answer at all, but it's a funny way to look at things. Can't believe the world has come to this. Oh wait, yes I can.

I'm sure kids come with a no refund/no exchange policy!!! At least mine did - I would have given him away free to a good home sometime around age 17! Heck, one day I was ready to just give him away to a home! Thankfully, he's grown up!

Nah, we don't want to be like the Middle East with this. Besides, there would be no hope of marriage recovery with WS's in the ground with their bones mouldering.


Nah, gotta disagree with that comment.

I suppose the author thinks this is a novel idea. It would never work. It would probably start a trend where there would be less and less marriages because why bother? Just live together instead.

Charlotte

See, I'm starting to think that the way marriage is NOW, there's really no point to it and you might as well just live together instead. Now before Mel chimes in with her favourite Harley quote, let me explain! Marriage is a contract and your vows are the terms. For any other type of contract, if you fail to meet the terms, there is a penalty. That penalty could be paying interest on your credit car balance, or it could be a legal fine - even jail term. Right now there is absolutely no penalty whatsoever for breaking your marriage contract. In other words, it doesn't mean a thing.

So while I strongly believe in marriage, including the quote that Mel is probably going to post here anyway, my concept of marriage does not coincide with the legal and societal definition. So my viewpoint right now is - why bother getting married, just live together since it's the exact same thing anyway and at least this way when he cheats you don't have the additional pain of knowing that he broke vows that you thought were sacred.

Hahaha, I am only laughing because I have joked with DH about this EXACT concept...I said:

"Wouldn't it be nice if God set M up in 10 year increments? Then at the end of 10 years, you get to decide if you want to re-up again????"

I'm a little scared that someone out there is actually considering it, however....I was only JOKING!

That is the way SOME marriages are now. Not all, by far. That is not the way my marriage is today because of the things I have learned here. But if something is bad, why perpetuate it? Doing something just because "everyone else does it" is about the worst reason possible I can think of for doing something. That is not sound thinking.



Well, when you start with a wrong premise, you are destined to end up with a wrong conclusion. I do not have a "marriage contract" and I have no idea what you mean by this. I don't think comparing a business contract with my exterminator to my marriage makes for a coherent analogy. I have no plans to live my life with my exterminator, after all.


Actually, its not the same thing. And you weren't hurt because he "broke his vows" but because he cheated on you. And a shack up honey can cheat on you just as well. Not marrying him doesn't protect you from that. Go look at the NUMEROUS threads on this forum whose shack up mates have cheated on them. They are just as devastated as you were. Living together did not immunize them from the pain.

Getting married is no guarantee that you won't get hurt, but shacking up is a guarantee that you will have nothing more than a month to month rental agreement that will be ended if you fail to meet the TEST next month. Who would choose that?

I would rather have this deal:

A COMMITTMENT TO MAKE MY SPOUSE HAPPY FOR LIFE.

That is the option I am going for. To me, it makes no sense to choose the LOWEST common denominator just because the BEST does not carry a iron clad guarantee. There are no guarantees with the lowest common denominator, either, so why not choose the best? Rejecting something only because it is not 100% guaranteed is to set a false standard that only robs you of the best possible outcome.

Like I tried to say Mel, I do agree with you 100%. I guess I simply have no faith or trust in the rest of humankind, and the experience to know that even when you THINK you've found someone of similar mind as you, it could easily be a charade. And after all that, society pins YOU as the fool for taking such a non-legally binding thing as wedding vows seriously. I believe in marriage but marriage doesn't exist in today's society anymore. So while this fixed-term marriage article is sort of funny, it's really just a symptom of how screwed up society has become that someone, somewhere is actually, seriously considering implementing such a thing.

I see your point, Tabby. While I wouldn't want a fixed term marriage, I like the idea of a covenant marriage, which is available in several states.

The idea is that you can choose a covenant marriage, which requires counseling before marriage, and prior to any divorce. Also there may be a waiting period of 2 years to get a divorce.

I know there are probably drawbacks, but it seems to me that it would really make people think harder before making vows. When people are madly in love, I think sometimes one or the other is not really meaning "till death do us part". But the other partner may not realize that.