Post # 1
I just read this article: http://news.yahoo.com/til-2013-us-part-mexico-mulls-2-marriage-232608285.html
The basic idea behind it is that lawmakers in Mexico City are proposing temporary marriage contracts. The minimum length of which would be 2 years.
To get one, you also have to include provisions for if the couple decides to split (In my mind, basically a pre-nup), and then at the end of the contract you either resign the contract to stay married, or you just go your separate ways.
The idea is that 50% of couples in the city divorce, most within the first 2 years, so this would eliminate the messy divorces.
Obviously living in the US this doesn’t directly affect me, but I can see both sides.
While it would be nice to feel like you have the option to leave if you’re unhapy, I feel like this would also make people think less before getting married “Oh, it doesn’t matter if I’m unsure, I can get out in 2 years anyway”
So, what are your thoughts?
Post # 3
I don’t know. I can actually appreciate the cost-saving aspect of it. Fiance & I worked through some serious stuff before we got engaged, and I remember saying to him.. “You understand that working this out now will be way cheaper than divorce, right?”
I guess it depends on how you view it. You can either look at it as an extra paperwork step, or as a long “engagement.”
Post # 4
Its great on paper and in legal terms! but its bad for the meaning and sanctity of marriage. You don’t have to really commit or care, because in 2 years you can get out of it! Why not marry someone new every two years? A new wedding, a new dress, a new man!
Post # 5
Hmm this is very strange to me. I think this makes the instatution of marriage have a lot less credit. At that point you are not making a life long commitment you are doing the equivelant of signing a cell phone contract. I think that a lot of couples do end up getting divorced, but then we should choose our partners more carefully and not reley on being able to just walk away. I can see why they are doing it, but I dont agree with it.
Post # 6
@Eva Peron: I guess the real question, then, is “will the new ‘contract’ actually change the way people get married, or will it just require another step”?
You could make the same arguments about permitting divorce.
Post # 7
I dont think I can view it as “really married” if there’s still an easy way out. Life time commitment is not the same as 2 year commitment to be reevaluated.
Post # 8
I feel like to me, the major advantage to a contract like this is that so many people already enter marriage with the midset of “Well, if it doesn’t work out, we’ll just get a divorce”.
I know that this isn’t what everyone does, and it certainly isn’t what people *should* do, but we can’t deny that people do it.
So, if those people can spare themselves the messy, expensive divorce, and possibly leave on an amicable note (especially if there are children involved) then that may not be such a terrible thing.
But, even with that in mind, I still don’t know if I agree with it.
Post # 9
It’s a good thought, but it shouldn’t be called a marriage. It’s more like a trial period, although that doesn’t sound all that romantic. They really need to coin a new term for something like this.
Other than that I think the idea is sound. Trial “marriages” used to be pretty common in some cultures to make sure a couple was compatible before they made a lifelong commitment. If it results in less unhappy real marriages, then I’m all for it.
Post # 10
@linguo42: That is a very good idea! Allow them to have the benefits afforded to married couples (I think this is paramount- most of the issues come in once you start sharing bank accounts and trying to decipher the scary world of picking health insurance) but call it what it is- a “Trial Period”
Also, I think that if they did go this route with the shorter contracts, that after the end of the contract, they shouldn’t be able to just sign up for another 2 years or whatever. I think that once you resign, that’s it. You stick with it.
Post # 11
I haven’t decided how I feel but my thoughts are why does the government care? Does it cost them? Doesn’t the couple pay for the lawyers, court fees, etc…
Also, why not just give a 2 year waiting period for marriage then? Instead of 3 days like in the US, 2 years and make it optional or with some sort of financial benefit if they go along.
Did anyone ever see the Simpson episode set in the future where Bart asks his girlfriend to marry him? She says no, saying that’s a 3 year committment and she’s just not sure where he’s going in life. Maybe that rerun is finally making it to Mexico. Ha ha
Post # 12
I can’t get behind it. The point of being married is the lifetime aspect of it. I’m in, always. Anything that begins with the intention to be less isn’t a marriage.
Post # 13
This actually isn’t a new thing…a few cultures have it. E.g. http://www.islam-watch.org/Brahmachari/Mutah-Temporary-Marriage-in-Muslim-Societies.htm
I don’t think it’s a terrible idea, especially when you factor in how many ‘forever’ marriages end within 2 years!
Post # 14
@pinkshoes: “Life time commitment is not the same as 2 year commitment to be reevaluated.”
I totally agree.
Post # 15
I guess I don’t see how it’s different from dating and living together, with the exception that you can probably get some of the legal benefits of being married. You can still get out if you want to at basically no cost to you. And, if people do this, finalize it after 2 years… well, I bet there will still be lots of couples getting divorces 2 years after that too.
I don’t know. Maybe it’s right for some couples, but it wouldn’t have worked for Darling Husband and I. To us, marriage is forever (barring infidelity or abuse) and I wouldn’t marry anyone I wasn’t absolutely committed to spending my entire life with.
Post # 16
It takes out all the consequences and just gives people further ‘proof’ that they aren’t responsible for their own actions imo. I’m fully against this type of thing. It basically just tells people that if they hit a slight bump in the road it’s ok to just walk away instead of working to make things better.