View Full Version : Temporary marriage, it's about time
This is brilliant! I can't believe that it hasn't been done sooner. Marriage as a life long contract never made sense to me. How do you know if you'll still want to be married a few years from now? Apparently a lot of people don't and go through the expensive agony of divorce. Many more would cancel their marriage if it wasn't so expensive and have nasty lawyers pushing the opposing spouses to get more. I know, I've been through two divorces and it was the lawyers causing all of the problems.
Mexico City lawmakers want to help newlyweds avoid the hassle of divorce by giving them an easy exit strategy: temporary marriage licenses.
Leftists in the city's assembly -- who have already riled conservatives by legalizing gay marriage -- proposed a reform to the civil code this week that would allow couples to decide on the length of their commitment, opting out of a lifetime.
The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stays happy. The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits.
http://news.yahoo.com/til-2013-us-part-mexico-mulls-2-marriage-232608285.html
Bahh! This time I thought evo is getting married temporarily :tongue2::surprised. I got excited for a while until I read the first line .. :uhh:
Jack21222
Sep30-11, 05:22 PM
It actually makes a lot of sense, and I'd be much more willing to marry somebody if there was a trial run first.
It actually makes a lot of sense, and I'd be much more willing to marry somebody if there was a trial run first.People would take marriage more seriously and make more of an effort if they knew their spouse could opt not to renew. The murder rate would drop.
It does not make sense to me unless they ban permanent marriage. Who think they will divorce when they marry? And, if they are being realistic wouldn't it make sense just to live like a married couple same place for few years before actually getting married?
It might be mine lack of understanding about all this marriage business.
It does not make sense to me unless they ban permanent marriage. Who think they will divorce when they marry? And, if they are being realistic wouldn't it make sense just to live like a married couple same place for few years before actually getting married?
It might be mine lack of understanding about all this marriage business.
There are benefits to getting married, taxes, insurance coverage, etc...
Ryan_m_b
Sep30-11, 05:46 PM
This would also sort out long drawn out divorces. It would be easier just to separate until the contract expires.
I like the idea. Not that I am interested at the moment :biggrin:
flyingpig
Sep30-11, 06:02 PM
AM I the only one who thinks that couples are more likely to divorce because of this "temporal marriage"
Are you two married? You look like a great couple!
Nah we are temporal couple, we might get a divorce soon, that's why our marriage is temporal.
Pengwuino
Sep30-11, 06:09 PM
Yah this is a bit confusing.
So why do married couples get so many benefits again (in the US that is)? If the roots are some sort of belief that marriage is morally better and we tried to bring this to the US, wouldn't that fly in the face of the whole point of marriage?
Actually, none of this makes any sense. What would the point be? If marriage is basically assumed temporary, what is the point? If Mexico also gives benefits to married couples, then marriage simply becomes a special tax break and nothing more.
Also, Evo, are you still single? :!!)
Bahh! This time I thought evo is getting married temporarily :tongue2::surprised. I got excited for a while until I read the first line .. :uhh:
I thought the same thing. Thinking she was getting married long enough to get the furniture moved today.
Ryan_m_b
Sep30-11, 06:15 PM
AM I the only one who thinks that couples are more likely to divorce because of this "temporal marriage"
Are you two married? You look like a great couple!
Nah we are temporal couple, we might get a divorce soon, that's why our marriage is temporal.
Considering many couples get divorced anyway I think this will alleviate tension. The idea that if you promise to be together the rest of your life actually makes it so is ridiculous. If you are going to be together you will be together regardless of marriage type.
Astronuc
Sep30-11, 06:50 PM
It would help to get to know the intended spouse before marriage. Date and then be engaged for two years before getting married. Get to know each others habits and hangups. Scrutinize the financial behaviors.
I am amazed how little some couples know about each other when and after they marry.
I have seen folks get married because they wanted to get married, but not necessarily to the person they marry. Hence divorce a few years later.
My parents were engaged for 7 years, primarily because my dad went to university and they didn't have facilities for married students. They've been married 55 years this coming Nov. Both sets of grandparents were married until death claimed one - both grandmas died prematurely.
My wife and I are temporarily married. It has been 36+ years, and I think it might work out.
Jimmy Snyder
Sep30-11, 07:08 PM
My wife and I are temporarily married. It has been 36+ years, and I think it might work out.
You beat me to it turbo. By one post and 14 years,
Astronuc
Sep30-11, 07:16 PM
My wife and I are temporarily married. It has been 36+ years, and I think it might work out. We're going 30 years next year, and together 31 years.
We got the lifetime guarantee. :biggrin:
Pengwuino
Sep30-11, 07:38 PM
It would help to get to know the intended spouse before marriage. Date and then be engaged for two years before getting married. Get to know each others habits and hangups. Scrutinize the financial behaviors.
I am amazed how little some couples know about each other when and after they marry.
I have seen folks get married because they wanted to get married, but not necessarily to the person they marry. Hence divorce a few years later.
My parents were engaged for 7 years, primarily because my dad went to university and they didn't have facilities for married students. They've been married 55 years this coming Nov. Both sets of grandparents were married until death claimed one - both grandmas died prematurely.
I wonder if any studies have been done comparing the divorce rate vs. how long people lived together beforehand. Time to google :D
Evo, are you still single? :!!)
Sorry, Evo doesn't date penguin's, even smart, but sinister ones like YOU !!!
Rhody... o:) :devil:
Astronuc
Sep30-11, 07:53 PM
I wonder if any studies have been done comparing the divorce rate vs. how long people lived together beforehand. Time to google :D I believe there are such studies. I heard about one, long ago, that seemed to indicate that cohabitation did not improve the probability of staying together, i.e., the divorce rate was about the same or higher for cohabitants.
Some mutual friends of my wife and I lived together, and they got married after we did. The woman wanted to get married, and the fellow really didn't, but he relented. They divorced about 5 or so years later. He remarried (to a younger girl) and she didn't.
Ivan Seeking
Sep30-11, 08:02 PM
Do you think lifetime of marriage is a challenge? Join the Mormons and you can get married for eternity! According to their beliefs, a temple marriage doesn't end with death.
My parents knew each other about three weeks before they got engaged, and about another month or so before they got married. They had been married about 51 years when dad died.
Crud, a quick check of the math says it was 55 years...I think. It seems like their 50th anniversary was just the other day. :sad:
Do you think lifetime of marriage is a challenge? Join the Mormons and you can get married for eternity! According to their beliefs, a temple marriage doesn't end with death.
My parents knew each other about three weeks before they got engaged, and about another month or so before they got married. They had been married about 51 years when dad died.
I wonder why they were in so much rush .. :eek:
wukunlin
Sep30-11, 08:09 PM
Note:
You are currently on a trial licence. Please select one of the following options to register for standard lifetime licence>
[ ] Register Online
[ ] Enter Serial Code
[ ] Register Later
Ivan Seeking
Sep30-11, 08:17 PM
I wonder why they were in so much rush .. :eek:
They both said they knew almost instantly that he/she was THE one.
QuarkCharmer
Sep30-11, 09:46 PM
What are the real benefits of marriage anyway? I mean the benefits of a legal wedding, not the whole companionship aspect. I think you can get the latter of that without any sort of legal gridlock. I guess it's a big deal if your spouse would need to be on your healthcare? It seems like it would save a lot of people some trouble if they just had a wedding, but didn't inform the court system.
Dembadon
Sep30-11, 11:05 PM
You've got to be kidding me, Evo. :rofl:
Terrible choice for a thread title! Although it's not as bad as "Bye, bye, Evo."
You do find it brilliant, though. Is this something you'd consider? :biggrin: :devil:
You've got to be kidding me, Evo. :rofl:
Terrible choice for a thread title! Although it's not as bad as "Bye, bye, Evo."
You do find it brilliant, though. Is this something you'd consider? :biggrin: :devil:
I'd consider a temporary marriage.
The thread title was accidental. :tongue2:
QuarkCharmer
Sep30-11, 11:17 PM
I'd consider a temporary marriage.
The thread title was accidental. :tongue2:
I think the rest of the women in the world (who may not be quite as extraordinary as yourself) would be put off by the notion of a temporary marriage. It almost reminds me of the idea of a pre-nup. Sure, it's a great, logical, safe idea, but in practice it's almost rude to ask for I would think.
Proton Soup
Sep30-11, 11:30 PM
how about a 1 year contract that automatically switches over to month-to-month after the year?
The unfortunate thing about a temporary marriage is that it will devalue all of the other 'marriage benefits' overtime. I think you'll see many spousal-benefits get drastically reduced over time as marriage becomes more trivialized.
If you want to marry someone - do it for the right reasons, not just for their health insurance for a year.
I also agree with QC - "Will you be my wife... for a year?" sounds like a poor proposal and this type of temporary marriage is just there to 'game' the system.
I also agree with QC - "Will you be my wife... for a year?" sounds like a poor proposal and this type of temporary marriage is just there to 'game' the system.Why do people assume that women are needy leeches?
It's the government that is instituting this option to help people. Divorce rates are extemely high, they are expensive, and usually traumatic to some degree. A lot of people suffer in bad marriages, this would give them options to get out of a bad marriage and maybe find a healthy relationship. If you fear that your spouse is going to leave you if you don't have a legal hold on them, then you have problems with your relationship.
Not infering that you have problems, just generalizing.
Also, I'm sure people that want a lifetime marriage can still get one, so it's giving people options. Options are a good thing. One size does not fit all.
I'm pretty sure I will never remarry unless it's short term and renewable. Probably won't happen in the US in my lifetime. I'm surprised that Mexico is so much more progressive than the US.
wukunlin
Sep30-11, 11:48 PM
"Will you be my wife... for a year?"
:rofl:
QuarkCharmer
Oct1-11, 12:42 AM
Evo, I meant in no way to insinuate that women are leeches. I just think that the idea of a temporary or specialized marriage would not fly with the fairy tale image that we are led to believe exists in marriage.
Wouldn't it be simple enough to prepare a prenup that essentually reads like the Mexico version, or at least has the same basic effect?
Wouldn't some change in the divorce law (to make it not expensive) do the purpose?
TheStatutoryApe
Oct1-11, 03:13 AM
Why do people assume that women are needy leeches?
Its not that women are needy leeches but that there is a not entirely unearned reputation for women to respond rather emotionally to things that could be construed as an insult.
I just started to wonder if marriage (understand as a legal contract) in its current form isn't oppressive. I mean both sides agree to something, like in - say - employment contract. But most similar contracts can be relatively easily ended, and/or they contain a clause that defines how the contract can be ended. Marriage is different. If not for the fact that it is traditionally this way, I wonder if such an oppressive contract would be enforceable (I am walking on a thin ice here, could be my English fails me and what I wrote doesn't correctly express what I mean).
Oh, and Turbo and Jimmy - count us (Marzena and me) in the temp married group. We long ago told each other we don't have to force ourselves into being together till we die. But as long as it works... :smile:
DoggerDan
Oct1-11, 03:31 AM
I was heartened to read of the success stories in response to this horrific idea.
TheStatutoryApe
Oct1-11, 03:54 AM
I just started to wonder if marriage (understand as a legal contract) in its current form isn't oppressive. I mean both sides agree to something, like in - say - employment contract. But most similar contracts can be relatively easily ended, and/or they contain a clause that defines how the contract can be ended. Marriage is different. If not for the fact that it is traditionally this way, I wonder if such an oppressive contract would be enforceable (I am walking on a thin ice here, could be my English fails me and what I wrote doesn't correctly express what I mean).
Oh, and Turbo and Jimmy - count us (Marzena and me) in the temp married group. We long ago told each other we don't have to force ourselves into being together till we die. But as long as it works... :smile:
They've generally changed marriage to make it easier to get a divorce in most places. Its still a bit of a pain I guess if you have to actually track someone down and have them sign papers. You can have similar problems with other sorts of contracts as well. The major issue with dissolving any contract is making sure that there is an equitable end. Perhaps the major stumbling block in ease of divorce is that such situations are generally difficult to end equitably especially when children are involved. A no fault divorce where there are no children, no alimony is to be paid, and there is no disagreement regarding the splitting of finances or property should be rather straight forward and simple. All of those elements are the things that make it difficult, not so much the contract itself.
how about a 1 year contract that automatically switches over to month-to-month after the year?
I can imagine that conversation.
"Dear, it's that time of the month again".
BTW, my wife and I also opted for the long term contract. 15 years next year. :!!)
Jack21222
Oct1-11, 06:54 AM
I believe there are such studies. I heard about one, long ago, that seemed to indicate that cohabitation did not improve the probability of staying together, i.e., the divorce rate was about the same or higher for cohabitants.
That's outdated data, according to this USA Today article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-28-cohabitation-research_N.htm
•The odds of divorce among women who married their only cohabiting partner were 28% lower than among women who never cohabited before marriage, according to sociologist Daniel Lichter of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.
• Divorce rates for those who cohabit more than once are more than twice as high as for women who cohabited only with their eventual husbands, says Lichter's study, to be published in the Journal of Marriage and Family in December.
Anyway, marriage sounds like an idiotic thing to do in the current state. I cannot think of a single reason why I should predict that I'll want to be with the same woman (or any woman at all) 10, 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years from now. If I want to break up with my girlfriend, I should be legally allowed to without asking for the government's permission first.
In fact, I don't really see what business the government has being in my personal relationships anyway.
Ryan_m_b
Oct1-11, 06:59 AM
Anyway, marriage sounds like an idiotic thing to do in the current state. I cannot think of a single reason why I should predict that I'll want to be with the same woman (or any woman at all) 10, 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years from now. If I want to break up with my girlfriend, I should be legally allowed to without asking for the government's permission first.
In fact, I don't really see what business the government has being in my personal relationships anyway.
The best reason is legal. As a married couple you get legal protection for various things and rights and responsibilities recognised by the state. For example if one of you dies but doesn't have a will the possessions automatically go to the partner, you get rights of medical responsibility i.e. is it right to pull the plug now and you are legally protected if your partner tries to leave you and take all the money e.g if you left your job and raised a kid for ten years your bread-winning partner could leave at any point and leave you up **** creek without a paddle.
Astronuc
Oct1-11, 07:10 AM
In fact, I don't really see what business the government has being in my personal relationships anyway. Contract enforcement - and the legal aspect of marriage, which may involve real property, financial assets, debt obligations, and perhaps children, and the rights of the other person.
Jimmy Snyder
Oct1-11, 07:13 AM
So I was walking past Our Lady of the Evening church when I saw Scarlet LeFevre standing in her fishnet stockings with one foot on the street lamp. She called over to me and asked "Hey sailor, how'd you like to get married for 15 minutes?" I had to decline as my current wife was with me at the time. I winked at her and said, I still have a half hour left on this one, perhaps some other time.
Jack21222
Oct1-11, 07:20 AM
Contract enforcement - and the legal aspect of marriage, which may involve real property, financial assets, debt obligations, and perhaps children, and the rights of the other person.
I'm 100% certain that there are laws dealing with all of this even without marriage.
Astronuc
Oct1-11, 07:32 AM
I'm 100% certain that there are laws dealing with all of this even without marriage. For different relationships, such as business (proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, etc) and commerce.
So you could be married to five guys in 10 years, ten guys in 20 years, twenty guys in 40 years.....freaking BRILLIANT:biggrin:
:devil::devil:
In fact, I don't really see what business the government has being in my personal relationships anyway.
I remember reading that marriage as we know evolved somewhere in feudal times as a way of introducing kind of order in the society - married man were more "manageable" from the point of view of their lord. That in turn meant that society became stronger in economical terms, big advantage when you are surrounded by more or less hostile rivals. But I don't remember the source, so I can't tell how true it is. Times have changed, but marriage kept its form till now.
Ryan_m_b
Oct1-11, 09:58 AM
I remember reading that marriage as we know evolved somewhere in feudal times as a way of introducing kind of order in the society - married man were more "manageable" from the point of view of their lord. That in turn meant that society became stronger in economical terms, big advantage when you are surrounded by more or less hostile rivals. But I don't remember the source, so I can't tell how true it is. Times have changed, but marriage kept its form till now.
Not to mention it's an extremely effective way of deciding who owns a woman. If she is unmarried it is her father, if he is dead then it is her closest and most senior male relative. If she is married she belongs to her husband. Simples, and totally abhorrent.
Jimmy Snyder
Oct1-11, 10:06 AM
Not to mention it's an extremely effective way of deciding who owns a woman. If she is unmarried it is her father, if he is dead then it is her closest and most senior male relative. If she is married she belongs to her husband. Simples, and totally abhorrent.
I agree it's abhorrent, but my wife says otherwise. She thinks owning me is a great idea.
If a woman has two admirers, she may get two marriage proposals. I can imagine the resulting bidding wars already.
Suitor A: I bid 3 years of marriage, and I will give 50% of assets, and I will relinquish all child custody if we don't renew the marriage.
Suitor B: No, I bid 5 years of marriage, and 75% of assets are yours and I will keep the kids if we don't renew.
Woman: Sold, to Suitor B!
I have a couple of friends/former co-workers who are 'way ahead of Mexico in the temporary marriage business. One is a woman who has either been married or cohabitated with at least 5-6 guys over the years. The other is a guy who always manages to marry young women (on 5th marriage) and currently has a 4-year-old son by a twenty-something woman.
Evo, I meant in no way to insinuate that women are leeches. I just think that the idea of a temporary or specialized marriage would not fly with the fairy tale image that we are led to believe exists in marriage.
That's another very important point about why marriages fail, it's the fairytale aspect.
That's another very important point about why marriages fail, it's the fairytale aspect.So true! When my second-cousin got married, the bride's parents' family spared no expense. They rented a large facility for the reception, with a restaurant-quality kitchen, staffed with cooks and servers. Sit-down multi-course meal with plenty of wait-staff and an open bar. My great-aunt was allowed to invite 30 people. The bride's mother invited over 300. The bride never sat down all afternoon, since she had to dance with all her male relatives and family friends (huge Italian family), and they gave her 50s and 100s. She was beautiful, as were the bridesmaids and their gowns (surprise!) and the wedding ceremony was traditional Roman Catholic in a beautiful old church.
I think the marriage lasted about a year. She alleged spousal abuse, probably as a way to smooth things over with her family, since divorce was a real no-no in the 60's.
DaleSpam
Oct1-11, 12:12 PM
This thread is sad. I have only been married 12 years now, but I feel that the shared hope of a permanent connection is beautiful and helps make my marriage more fulfilling. Even if it falls apart later (God forbid), I wouldn't want to make what we have today any less by starting with the idea of a temporary convenience for tax purposes.
Interestingly, in Islam you actually have the concept of temporary marriages. They can last anything between less than a day or more than a year. Though sometimes people state this is just a manner for Islam to legalize prostitution.
Then again, some people jokingly refer to marriage as a legalized form of prostitution. But, heck, guess they didn't get it.
Under most communist regimes, women's emancipation and a simple manner out of marriage are also common. One of the thing which surprised me about Hungary is that they have child support, for example, but no women's support (equality of the sexes/worker classes I imagine.)
Personally, I think it's about time to take the whole concept of marriage out of the legal system.
Proton Soup
Oct1-11, 03:02 PM
maybe the fairytale marriages should include a reduction in rights for the princess brides. or grooms, i suppose. even the queen of england needs a mate, eh?
CheckMate
Oct1-11, 03:06 PM
Interestingly, in Islam you actually have the concept of temporary marriages. They can last anything between less than a day or more than a year. Though sometimes people state this is just a manner for Islam to legalize prostitution.
Then again, some people jokingly refer to marriage as a legalized form of prostitution. But, heck, guess they didn't get it.
Under most communist regimes, women's emancipation and a simple manner out of marriage are also common. One of the thing which surprised me about Hungary is that they have child support, for example, but no women's support (equality of the sexes/worker classes I imagine.)
Personally, I think it's about time to take the whole concept of marriage out of the legal system.
Actually, this is just practiced in Shia Islam. The majority of Muslims (sunni) stay away from that. It is legal prostitution because the man has to give dowry. What some men do is "marry" the bride for an hour, pay the dowry and consume the marriage, then they move on with their lives. It is widely practiced in Iran along with sex-reassignment surgery.
Actually, this is just practiced in Shia Islam. The majority of Muslims (sunni) stay away from that. It is legal prostitution because the man has to give dowry. What some men do is "marry" the bride for an hour, pay the dowry and consume the marriage, then they move on with their lives. It is widely practiced in Iran along with sex-reassignment surgery.The proposed change in Mexico would be a two year minimum, since IIRC ~50% of marriages end in divorce within that time frame.
The proposed change in Mexico would be a two year minimum, since IIRC ~50% of marriages end in divorce within that time frame.Wow! Is that a valid statistic for Mexico?
Wow! Is that a valid statistic for Mexico?Don't know what the actual statistics are, but this is what the article said Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years.Don't know the exact numbers for the first two years.
flyingpig
Oct1-11, 04:00 PM
How would this apply if the couple have children and then get a divorce? If the mtoher doesn't work, how much could she get from the husband?
The Church holds considerable sway in the country with the world's second largest Catholic population after Brazil.
I would have thought it would be tough to get traction for such an idea in a country that is so heavily Catholic.
I would have thought it would be tough to get traction for such an idea in a country that is so heavily Catholic.That was my first thought. Of course the Catholic church is against it.
CheckMate
Oct1-11, 06:36 PM
I could see it work for students. You can marry your college sweetheart and by the time the marriage ends no one is going to call you a fornicator (not that people use this word often in the western world)
DoggerDan
Oct2-11, 12:10 AM
Not to mention it's an extremely effective way of deciding who owns a woman.
The correct answer is "no one. Ever."
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.