With about half of marriages ending in divorce, usually within the first decade of marriage, why not offer a new type of marriage option: Make it a five or ten year contract which will be automatically renewed unless one of the parties to the contract decides to opt out?
No messy divorce. If you don’t like being married, simply decline to renew the contract once the five years are up.
I remember when I was in college one of my professors said the ancient Celt peoples in Britian had such variable marrage contracts. Basically (from what I remember) they had one year contracts, 5 year contracts, etc…and both parties could renew the contract voluntarily at the end of the time or go their separate ways with no stigma attached, keeping whatever property they had at the beginning of the contract and dividing whatever joint property they aquired during the marrage. The one caviot was if there were children from the union that the man would have to provide something similar to child support until the child reached their majority (something in the early teens if I recall right). I always felt this sounded like a great idea…but then in a lot of ways the Celts were way ahead of their time.
-XT
Well, some marriages have the “till death do you part” requirement at all. At a Jewish marriage, for example, the kesubah (wedding contract) is read aloud specifying what the wife receives in the event that the couple divorces.
In any event, divorce should never be an easy option. I think the fact that it is a bit difficult to get a divorce serves two functions:
(a) It makes (or it should anyway) perspective couples think twice before entering into marriage knowing that a divorce can be messy and
(b) It gives a couple considering a divorce time to really consider if this is what they want and to allow for the possibility of a reconciliation if they so wish.
Zev Steinhardt
Doesn’t the OP’s premise depend upon the absence of ‘love-matches’ in marriage?
Marriage has steadily moved away from a family contract to a declaration of love between individuals. I don’t see how allowing a fixed term contact would alleviate the problems of divorce.
My wife and I have a simple agreement in our marriage- “nobody gets out alive.” Hyperbole? maybe. But I can’t envision a world in which we are not married. Having a convenient legal ‘out’ would not help.
Of course, this all depends on your personal interpretation of what marriage is supposed to be. If you’re a love-match, the legal issues are probably the least of your worries.
And for the record, I don’t think that love-matches are necessarily superior to arranged ones- so long as all parties are willing. Culture has a lot to do with it as well.
Not necessarily; some friends of mine’s partnership agreement is specifically in one-year terms. (They don’t have a legal marriage, but they do have, I believe, religious vows.) The reaffirmation of their vows is in part a deliberate choice to keep their relationship a living thing.
What problem is this supposed to solve? Divorces are easy to get. So why do we talk about “messy” divorces? What makes the divorce “messy”? It isn’t the legal hoops divorcees have to jump through, it is deciding child custody and dividing assets. Having a marriage contract that ended after a fixed term unless renewed wouldn’t change the fact that child custody would still have to be decided, and assets would still have to be divided.
Marriage contracts don’t make dissolving a relationship harder, they often make it easier, since you can get a judge to help do the splitting.
The science fiction idea of temporary marriages or other such things kind of looks silly given that people can now live together and have children together without getting married and no one bats an eye. And people can write their own prenuptual agreements if they have particular needs, there’s no need to invent various flavors of marriage. Just married or single, and if anyone wants anything more they can write up a custom contract. What’s so hard about that?
I’m seconding Stonebow here. To the wife and I, divorce would never be an option. She’ll have to smother me in my sleep. 
Personal opinion: I think ease of divorce is what makes it so common. If you didn’t have that as an option, you might: think twice before proposing, and try real hard to work things out rather than calling it quits.
Sorry. I love my wife…can’t see life without her.
I don’t really think that it is a requirement. I know that it is not in Tennessee. Some relgious ceremonies may specify those words, but it isn’t a matter of law.
what Lemur866 said - I don’t think it would solve any problems - even with a fixed term contract it will still get all bitter and emotional when one party wants an extension and the other doesn’t.
Can the two parties not simply choose the arrangement they wish to enter into? Is there anything in law which proscribes them from going to a solicitors office to formulate and sign a contract similar to that in the OP?
All that is absent is a generic procedure for dissolution of the contract - if the thing broke up unsatisfactorily, it would entail lawsuits, rather than ready-made legal procedures, although compare that to a particularly messy divorce and there isn’t a lot of difference.
I think going the opposite direction would be healthier for society. Making divorces a little harder would help marriage as an institution, and the couples and children within them.
The covenant marriage law, where it exists, allows couples to voluntarily enter into a covenant marriage. Dissolution of that marriage cannot occur unless the couple has been through marital counseling, and that route has failed. Abuse cases are also exempted.
This forces couples to work on the marriage before working on the divorce, and they can sometimes become reconciled.
I have been told that much of the problem with the rising divorce rate (aside from factors like female financial independence) is the existance of ‘no-fault’ divorce, as opposed to breakup due to infidelity, abuse, etc.
Any thoughts on this?
I think that divorce should be harder, though my first preference would be to make getting married harder. Of course, I don’t know of a good way to accomplish that.
I believe covenant marriages also require premarital counseling. That might be one way.
Many churches also require this, and it has helped many couples resolve differences between them before the marriage ceremony.
When my sister-in-law got married, there were no references to “as long as we both shall live,” etc. She and her husband both come from divorced families, and it’s an issue they’re sensitive about.
Personally, I wouldn’t be interested in a 5-year contract. Maybe it’s old-fashioned, but I’m an all or nothing kind of gal.