Someone had once suggested a new system of marriage, where, rather than being married for life until death or divorce, two people would only be married to each other for 7 years at a time. Then, every 7 years, they would both have to renew the marriage. If one or both partners decided not to renew, the marriage would simply end.
In this thread, I’m reducing that to 5-year periods. What do you think of such a system?
As it is, divorce often represents a financial disaster for people. Currently, they can choose that course if they wish. Why would you want to force them to choose against it every few years?
I’ve floated this idea before, Velocity, the idea of short-term marriage contracts, and it could work, but to make it happen would likely require some sort of game-changing scenario, like we discover how to live to the age 200 or something. The idea of a “to-death” agreement is nice and romantic and kind-of doable when people are expecting to kick off after 40 years or so after making that commitment, but I think the idea that a decision made in your 20’s would be binding for the next 170 years would be unpalatable to most people.
Nobody should ever go into a marriage unless they expect it to last at least twenty years. A set term marriage of 5-7 years does nothing of value - it would make more sense to require a trial period of 5 years before you could get married - at least that might avoid creating the entanglements in the first place that your by-default divorce would have to tear apart.
No one is making you marry. If you don’t like the nature of the lifelong commitment make another arrangement. You are fortunate to live in a society that pretty much permits you to shape your Union as suits you and your partner.
Few women are seeking "starter " husbands before making a family. I think you’ll find by a rather large majority people are mostly hoping for a stable home for their kids and a lifelong partnership, when they marry.
I think it would be easier, for those who don’t like the format as it stands, to not participate and enjoy something of their own devising instead. Rather then attempt to reshape marriage when most people want it as it is, a lifelong commitment.
For many couples the first 5 year period would be when there are very young children in the house, often more than one. Making a decision whether to stay together or not under that type of stress could be a very bad idea. It’s not always a good time in what would be an otherwise solid marriage.
If a couple lives together for five years, they will have the same entanglements as if they are married. They may have bought a house together, they may have bought a car together, they likely will have pooled their incomes, they may even have kids. And there will be five years of memories and emotions behind the split-up.
Depending on the jurisdiction where they live, the main difference may be that the law makes it more difficult to untangle that five year relationship than if they are married, because there may not be any equivalent to divorce and property separation for people who live together without getting married.
It’s the fact of living together that causes entanglements, not the marriage certificate.
Lots of people seem to have this idea that the problem with divorce is the divorce itself. But divorce is simply the process by which you disentangle the lives of the people who are entangled. No matter how short or long the marriage, ending the marriage will require that disentangling. The only way to avoid it is to keep all money and property and assets completely separate (this doesn’t even work in a community property state).
So what is the benefit of having a limited marriage? I guess people might choose not to entangle their assets if they expect it to end within a few years. I don’t see that as a huge benefit. People combine assets for a reason.
Sunset marriages, interesting.
Marriage is close to be redundant and almost irrelevant these days anyway.
States have adjusted inheritance laws that give equal recognition to bastards.
Rendering marriage irrelevant.
States have created child support laws that have no dependance on marital status (look at all the baby daddys ordered to pay support).
Again, rendering marriage irrelevant
States have adopted palimony laws to cover property division when a non-marital relationship breaks up. This was started back when the famous Marvin v. Marvin case came up from California.
Again, rendering marriage irrelevant
You might not understand what marriage is really about.
I think if it were in the form of 5 year contracts instead of the unlimited marriage that we have now with the total merging of both estates [for lack of a better term, resources?] it would work. I guess the closest we have now is a pre-nup contract. If it were a 5 year term marriage based on pre-nup for the merging and dissolution it might work?
Don’t look at me, I love the idea - though perhaps something like 5 year contract marriage with the option to renew for another 5 years as long as there are no children, and an option to go permanent? If there are kids, it becomes the term of until the youngest kid turns 18?
I always liked the descriptions of the various forms of marriage in Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, they have various types of contracts and the line marriage was interesting.
It seems to me that that wouldn’t be “marriage”; it would be a different sort of relationship. It would fundamentally change the type of relationship if, instead of thinking “we are permanently committed to one another” and “we are a family,” you’re thinking “in a short time I’ll have to decide whether to stay with this person, and they’ll have to decide whether to stay with me.” I’d think you’d avoid becoming as closely attached (emotionally, financially, etc.) to try to make the separation easier if and when it happens, and you’d be keeping your options and your eyes open for your next partner.
I would think that there would be differing marital contracts, right? There’s a “commitment” contract, good for 5 years. There’s a “conception and raising children” contract, good for 5 years of childlessness with an automatic renewal of 20 years upon conception and birth (likely dating from child’s birth). There would be a “let’s fuck, but not co-mingle assets” contract. There will be the ones the Clinton’s have, a “Let’s further your career until it can go no further, then we focus on my career” contract.
Again, though, there really is no true need to change things… but that can change.
People would enter into marriage with less pressure under such a system.
I think it’s stupid. If I wanted to stop being married, there’s a perfectly fine divorce system in place, what does this system add, other than needless bureaucracy every 5 years?
Cohabiting doesn’t really have any stigma in mainstream Western society any more, what pressure are you talking about?
Nothing that I can see.
What benefit does that have that isn’t available now by simply not marrying?
What is marriage really all about?
“there’s a perfectly fine divorce system in place”
expensive too
another reason to not get married.