# Marriage requiring renewal every 5 years **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 30, 2016, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081 "2016-05-30T13:53:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/41 "2016-05-30T20:23:41Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Yes! This seems to be an example of societal pressure toward a lifetime commitment. And I’m still not certain we as a society receive a net gain from that. It’s not a societal pressure. It’s a financial pressure. Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/42 "2016-05-30T20:27:13Z")
A financial pressure created by our laws surrounding marriage and divorce, no? (But I might well have misunderstood _you_. Which long-term benefits of marriage are you thinking of?) ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/43 "2016-05-30T20:29:56Z")
> [@Flyer](#): > > We’ve **already** lost the incentive for people to work out their problems. > > It used to be that in order to get a divorce, you had to be able to go to court and prove that your spouse was unfaithful, or abusive, or something like that. But since no-fault divorce came in, you can get divorced any time, anywhere, for any reason or no reason at all. Not to start a war here, but this point was denied by your side at all steps of this process: 1. No fault divorce? Not trying to destroy marriage, just helping people get out of a bad situation. 2. Palimony suits? Not trying to destroy marriage, just helping people who relied on promises get what they are due. 3. Equal rights for illegitimate children? Not trying to destroy marriage, just making those born out of wedlock to be treated the same as they are not at fault. 4. Higher child support orders? Not trying to destroy marriage, just making sure that children are cared for if their parents choose to split up. 5. Same sex marriage. Not trying to destroy marriage, because marriage has nothing to do with procreation, just allowing happiness to same sex couples. So after all of the promises that these steps would do nothing, nothing at all, to change the fundamental definition of marriage, you now claim that because of these prior actions that marriage has already lost its traditional definition, and it is now more like a business lease instead of what it was always understood to be. Conservatives were right about this stuff every step of the way. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/44 "2016-05-30T20:35:57Z")
> [@andros](#): > > A financial pressure created by our laws surrounding marriage and divorce, no? > > (But I might well have misunderstood _you_. Which long-term benefits of marriage are you thinking of?) See Manda JO’s excellent commentary for examples. Getting financially entangled with another person, and especially becoming financially dependent on someone, generally only makes sense if the relationship will be for a long time. But there can be big rewards. For example, maybe you want to buy a house with someone. Maintaining separate houses is expensive, and pooling resources can mean you can get a better house, or take better care of it, or do upgrades on it that maximize your investment return. So which someones make sense to buy a house with? Well, most people are going to look for long-term relationships, and are going to look for financial protections if possible. (Many people also have wrong ideas about what marriage does or does not do with assets.) ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/45 "2016-05-30T20:38:43Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > So after all of the promises that these steps would do nothing, nothing at all, to change the fundamental definition of marriage Cite please. Or are you just ranting? > [@](#): > > you now claim that because of these prior actions that marriage has already lost its traditional definition, and it is now more like a business lease instead of what it was always understood to be. A means of securing and transferring property and chattel, including women? > [@](#): > > Conservatives were right about this stuff every step of the way. Your “conservative” definition of marriage is gone. Sorry. You’re free to make an argument that we, as a society, are worse off for it. But I really don’t think you can make a compelling one. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/46 "2016-05-30T20:44:00Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Getting financially entangled with another person, and especially becoming financially dependent on someone, generally only makes sense if the relationship will be for a long time. But there can be big rewards. Oh, absolutely. I agree completely. But does “long time” have to mean “lifetime?” Should it? I’ve owned more houses than I’ve had LTRs, and I’m certainly likely to sell my current house before I ever get divorced (which I fervently hope will be never). . ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/47 "2016-05-30T20:56:17Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Oh, absolutely. I agree completely. But does “long time” have to mean “lifetime?” Should it? > > I’ve owned more houses than I’ve had LTRs, and I’m certainly likely to sell my current house before I ever get divorced (which I fervently hope will be never). > . It doesn’t have to mean lifetime, but it’s indisputably simpler if it does, since then you don’t really have to disentangle at all, in most cases. But my comment was only the benefits accruing more to longer marriages over shorter ones. If you want to be married for a short time, it’s best not to entangle things at all if possible. In some states in the US, that’s not even possible. So the benefits to it being longer are not about what should be but about what is. ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/48 "2016-05-30T21:20:16Z")
Fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/49 "2016-05-30T21:21:59Z")
In Ontario, separation triggers all the parenting and money issues, so if the parties are separating anyway, divorce is close to meaningless other than when third parties make divorce a trigger (e.g. an insurer terminates spousal health benefits, or someone wants to marry one of the parties). Putting people through additional paperwork just to stay married, and having to implement a procedure to deal with people who forget or couldn’t be bothered to renew their marriage licence, or who argue over whether the omission was deliberate or out of forgetfulness, would create an administrative burden without accomplishing anything. Good for lawyers, but not good for the people tangled up in this and not good for the taxpayer funding the courts. Marriage contracts are easily and inexpensively made, but where I am they do not have fixed term expiry dates. Note that marriage contracts can include automatic and/or contingent variation terms. For example, a marriage contract can specify “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours, and there will be no spousal support either way, for the first five years of our marriage, but should we remain married for more than five years, then upon separation what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.” To me, the whole idea of fixed term marriage smacks of control issues: “Do what I require or I will not renew the marriage and you will be out on the street,” rather than conventional marriage: “Let’s do our very best to make it work, but if it doesn’t then we’ll separate and divorce.” I realize that conventional marriages could be (and often are) burdened with control issues, but I’ve noticed that people who are too controlling in their marriage contracts have a greater likelihood of being return customers. BTW, read up on nikah mut‘ah for an interesting use of short contract marriages, particularly as a mechanism to participate in what would be adultery or prostitution had the parties not been married to each other. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/50 "2016-05-30T21:35:21Z")
[Here’s an interesting site on fixed term marriages.](http://www.mutah.com/) ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2016, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/51 "2016-05-30T23:30:03Z")
I’ve heard this proposal before and I don’t see what problems it’s supposed to solve. Divorce is messy because two lives are entangled (property, kids, whatever). An automatic five year divorce will not be easier than a regular divorce, because proving that you’re entitled to a divorce is not the difficult part of divorcing in 2016. Nobody has to hire a “private investigator” to get pictures of their spouse’s “affair” and sue for “adultery” like in the 1930s or whenever. Sometimes there’s a waiting period, sometimes there’s not, but “because I want one” is now a perfectly legal reason to get a divorce in every state. So really, you can choose not to renew your marriage at any time. > [@UltraVires](#): > > Not to start a war here, but this point was denied by your side at all steps of this process: I’m pretty sure that’s _not_ his side. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/52 "2016-05-31T01:28:06Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > I’m pretty sure that’s _not_ his side. Now, now. Don’t interrupt the man with your pesky facts. ---
**Author:** ![Maastricht](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a88e57/32.png) [@Maastricht](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maastricht)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/53 "2016-05-31T01:30:31Z")
> [@IvoryTowerDenizen](#): > > 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. God yes. I know so many couples who have divorced in this period. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/54 "2016-05-31T01:51:27Z")
I can’t for the life of me imagine what problem this is meant to solve. Does the OP imagine that married people are not well aware of the existence of divorce? All I can think of is that those advocating this idea personally prefer the idea of a lower-commitment partnership, but recognize this isn’t a popular choice in the dating pool. Maybe they think if everyone is forced in to such an arrangement, it won’t put them at such a disadvantage? ---
**Author:** ![spamforbrains](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@spamforbrains](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spamforbrains)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/55 "2016-05-31T01:55:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Why should marriage be forever? Because that’s the generally understood concept of a marriage relationship. There are many terms to cover the different types of relationships and what they mean: hooking up, having fun, just dating, exclusive, living together, marriage, etc. Whether you call it marriage or something else, there should be a term for “I want to be with this person forever in a loving relationship and I will be committed to making that happen.” And why is that desirable? Marriage was invented in a totally different era and I don’t see how it has any relevance today. It was originally invented as a way to transfer ownership of women from fathers to husbands; since women own themselves nowadays, that doesn’t apply. It was also used as a way to support women, who weren’t allowed to work. But women are perfectly capable of supporting themselves nowadays. Most of the facts suggest that people are not biologically inclined to stay with one mate their entire lives; they tend to want to split after 5 to 7 years and find someone else. My own experience suggests that foisting this fantasy on people that they will fall in love forever causes immense amounts of misery. Time to accept the facts, people and stop living in Disneyland. People will be much happier if they stop trying to force themselves to live in nasty, dead marriages. When it’s over, you shake hands and move on. If “marriage” is all about raising kids, perhaps we should get rid of marriage and instead invent a "raising a kid’ legal contract, where the two parents are legally committing their time and money to raising each child to age 18? The concept of “merging assets” is already well-dealt-with in the legal system with partnerships and businesses. If two (or more) people want to merge some of their assets, they can just draw up some business contracts. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/56 "2016-05-31T02:01:43Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Ok. “Generally understood” concepts change, though. I’m not seeing why “generally understood” means marriage _should_ be forever. I think the point is that there’s no real need to change the concept unless and until the change arises naturally. When and if we see significant numbers of married couples signing pre-nups stating the expectation that they’ll get divorced after five years, or nonchalantly talking to their friends at the wedding about how they’re blissfully happy right now but they’re sure they’ll be ready to start dating again a few years down the road, then we can safely assume that the concept of marriage has changed organically to the point where laws recognizing time-limited marriage agreements make sense. ---
**Author:** ![naita](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/naita/32/5862_2.png) [@naita](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/naita)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/57 "2016-05-31T12:56:07Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > I’ve heard this proposal before and I don’t see what problems it’s supposed to solve. Divorce is messy because two lives are entangled (property, kids, whatever). An automatic five year divorce will not be easier than a regular divorce, because proving that you’re entitled to a divorce is not the difficult part of divorcing in 2016. Nobody has to hire a “private investigator” to get pictures of their spouse’s “affair” and sue for “adultery” like in the 1930s or whenever. Sometimes there’s a waiting period, sometimes there’s not, but “because I want one” is now a perfectly legal reason to get a divorce in every state. So really, you can choose not to renew your marriage at any time. Well a case could be made that the current divorce rate and the problems in those divorces indicate people have an unrealistic expectation and don’t do enough planning for the eventuality that the marriage won’t last forever. Whether forcing people to answer the question “How should we deal with all the financial and practical stuff if we split up in five years?” would be good thing overall is an open question, but I’d expect it to simplify the divorce process. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/58 "2016-05-31T13:09:12Z")
> [@naita](#): > > Well a case could be made that the current divorce rate and the problems in those divorces indicate people have an unrealistic expectation and don’t do enough planning for the eventuality that the marriage won’t last forever. Whether forcing people to answer the question “How should we deal with all the financial and practical stuff if we split up in five years?” would be good thing overall is an open question, but I’d expect it to simplify the divorce process. Sure, if it kept people from combining their lives. I’m not sure why that’s supposed to be a benefit, though. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/59 "2016-05-31T13:46:33Z")
> [@spamforbrains](#): > > Marriage was invented in a totally different era and I don’t see how it has any relevance today. It has relevance today because people pair bond for emotional, sexual, and yes, financial reasons, and then commingle their assets (and other things :)), make long-term financial plans together, and have kids together. Even if it is true that 5-7 years is the normal period (which I would like to see some evidence of; I don’t think it’s possible to assume that everyone is the same on such an intensely personal point), after five years of commingling, sex, child rearing, it’s simply not possible to just shake hands and move on. • did they buy a house together? who gets the house and the mortgage? what compensation does the one who doesn’t get the house have? or do they agree to sell the house, pay off the mortgage, and split whatever’s left? • did they both have old beater cars when they started out, sold them, and bought one nice new car? who gets the car and the debt? what compensation does the one who doesn’t get the car get? • do they have a child? who gets custody? or will it be joint custody? where will the child live? do they have to sell the only house the child has ever known, or can they reach an agreement on how to keep the family house somehow? • did one of them quit a job to do the child-rearing? how quickly can that one re-enter the job market? did that parent lose seniority and experience by being off, making it more difficult to re-enter the job market? • if both parents are going to work, how will child-care be handled? • what health insurance will each have (in the US)? if they split up and one doesn’t have a job, does that one not have any health insurance because no longer covered by the ex-spouse’s health plan? • does the child have health insurance? who pays the premiums for the child? who pays the co-pay or deductible for the child, if needed? These are complicated financial and emotional issues; just shaking hands and moving on is not normally an option. That’s why splitting up and getting a divorce can be a very messy business. It’s not the divorce law that causes the tensions and disagreements; it’s the very real financial implications of splitting up. > [@](#): > > The concept of “merging assets” is already well-dealt-with in the legal system with partnerships and businesses. If two (or more) people want to merge some of their assets, they can just draw up some business contracts. Except living together is not a business, and using principles evolved for business does not translate well to the intensely personal situation of a couple living together. Now, a young couple starting out together could go to a lawyer and spend a lot of money they don’t have to try to envisage all the different situations that might come up. But a lawyer is more likely to say that aside from a pre-nuptial contract relating to property, it’s much simpler and cheaper to rely on the law that has evolved over the past century dealing with families and family property, usually based on being married (or living together long-term, in some jurisdictions). You could try to completely re-invent the wheel; or you could just take the off-the-shelf package of law that has been designed by legislatures and courts to cover the situation. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2016, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081/60 "2016-05-31T13:46:55Z")
It just seems like an exercise for people to display their ‘modern minded’ disdain for marriage as it’s been understood. If the government or civil society was heavily pressuring people to get married and not get divorced, maybe I could see it. But that’s no longer true. People who view lifelong commitments as ‘obsolete’ and/or refuse to accept marriage as a holy sacrament can simply not get married…or get married but agree to define their relationship some other way. They can even agree with their partner to ‘prepackage’ a divorce, agreeing to all the terms in advance\*, and sit down every 5 yrs to decide whether to put the divorce agreement into force. I can’t see why they should force me to go through paperwork, and pay taxes or fees to hire that many more bureaucrats at the margin, to renew my marriage every 5 yrs (after 33 already). \*as several responses have pointed out, this is the actual crux of the issue. Even ‘modern’ post religious type couples would have trouble actually doing this. And that’s where the problem comes, not from divorce per se but agreeing to terms in a divorce. And while there are cases where both parties are satisfied with relatively smooth and painless divorce proceedings, and cases where women in opposite sex relationships feel wronged by the divorce process, the clear excess IME is males who feel that way, a net surplus of males who think there should be a better way to protect them from the disappointed expectations of females in ‘committed relationships’ which fail. This suggestion would not be it IMO, if there is one. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/marriage-requiring-renewal-every-5-years/756081.md?page=4)