Conquer Club

Why not have state-recognized marriage contracts of 2-year terms, 5-year terms, or whatever?


At the end of the term, you can opt to renew, or you can choose to end the marriage.


Why? This puts less pressure on the marriage, and people need to realize that some individuals aren't right for them. At least this method provides a legitimate and clear avenue.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why not have state-recognized marriage contracts of 2-year terms, 5-year terms, or whatever?

At the end of the term, you can opt to renew, or you can choose to end the marriage.

Why? This puts less pressure on the marriage, and people need to realize that some individuals aren't right for them. At least this method provides a legitimate and clear avenue.

How is this really any different than what we currently have? I'm not seeing the difference.

I think it would force people to think about what would happen in case of a divorce. You could see an end coming and you could have all the arrangements taken care before the marriage.

Yes, some people do this now, but this suggestion would make tons more do it, which could save a lot of money in the long run for a lot of couples.

maasman wrote:I think it would force people to think about what would happen in case of a divorce. You could see an end coming and you could have all the arrangements taken care before the marriage.

Yes, some people do this now, but this suggestion would make tons more do it, which could save a lot of money in the long run for a lot of couples.

It would also require people to stay within their marriage longer than they want to if they come to that realization far more quickly. That seems like a very bad tradeoff.

No different than a well designed pre-nup aint it?

Woodruff wrote:

maasman wrote:I think it would force people to think about what would happen in case of a divorce. You could see an end coming and you could have all the arrangements taken care before the marriage.

Yes, some people do this now, but this suggestion would make tons more do it, which could save a lot of money in the long run for a lot of couples.

It would also require people to stay within their marriage longer than they want to if they come to that realization far more quickly. That seems like a very bad tradeoff.

I'm sure you could put in an escape clause. And besides, what's 2 years? Hell, you could even make it a 1 year thing.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why not have state-recognized marriage contracts of 2-year terms, 5-year terms, or whatever?


At the end of the term, you can opt to renew, or you can choose to end the marriage.


Why? This puts less pressure on the marriage, and people need to realize that some individuals aren't right for them. At least this method provides a legitimate and clear avenue.

Couldn't this be abused in terms of people hunting permanent visas for work? Marriage is all about commitment, this turns it just into some form of business arrangement. I can't imagine people signing up for this concept either in droves. It is hardly a great endorsement for the beginning of a relationship, 'will you marry me? but only for 5 years as I am not sure really about you'

nagerous wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why not have state-recognized marriage contracts of 2-year terms, 5-year terms, or whatever?


At the end of the term, you can opt to renew, or you can choose to end the marriage.


Why? This puts less pressure on the marriage, and people need to realize that some individuals aren't right for them. At least this method provides a legitimate and clear avenue.

Couldn't this be abused in terms of people hunting permanent visas for work? Marriage is all about commitment, this turns it just into some form of business arrangement. I can't imagine people signing up for this concept either in droves. It is hardly a great endorsement for the beginning of a relationship, 'will you marry me? but only for 5 years as I am not sure really about you'

You can make it for US citizens only.

Lootifer wrote:No different than a well designed pre-nup aint it?

Perhaps, but I don't think 2-year and 5-year terms are acceptable conditions in the eyes of the law.


This proposal for well-defined term limits would lend further acceptance to the idea that some marriages shouldn't last forever, so the two parties of the contract would be less inclined to obligate themselves to a commitment which probably shouldn't continue.

nagerous wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why not have state-recognized marriage contracts of 2-year terms, 5-year terms, or whatever?


At the end of the term, you can opt to renew, or you can choose to end the marriage.


Why? This puts less pressure on the marriage, and people need to realize that some individuals aren't right for them. At least this method provides a legitimate and clear avenue.

Couldn't this be abused in terms of people hunting permanent visas for work?

Marriage already is abused. From what I know, 2 years plus photo evidence is usually convincing enough to end the "marriage." And if this is really the issue, then it's up to the state to determine whether or not these marriages are truly marriage or are excuses to live in the country. Here's an easy solution: implement a law stating that citizenship comes after 3 years of marriage, or maybe 5 years--depending on how many immigrants the state wishes to allow in.

nagerous wrote:Marriage is all about commitment, this turns it just into some form of business arrangement.

What would you call prenuptual agreements? They're pegged to a contract, so by your logic, marriage already is a "business arrangement."

To use a more accurate description: marriage is a contract. That's all.

nagerous wrote:I can't imagine people signing up for this concept either in droves. It is hardly a great endorsement for the beginning of a relationship, 'will you marry me? but only for 5 years as I am not sure really about you'

I can imagine that some people would find this form of marriage acceptable; therefore, they'd be more inclined to use it given that the term limits would be accepted as legitimate in the court. I don't see 60% of all future marriages within the next 10 years using this, but I don't know, and neither do you.

nagerous wrote:It is hardly a great endorsement for the beginning of a relationship, 'will you marry me? but only for 5 years as I am not sure really about you'

Perhaps it's not good for you, but for others it might be, so why not offer term limits as a legitimate prenuptual agreement?

BigBallinStalin wrote:Perhaps it's not good for you, but for others it might be, so why not offer term limits as a legitimate prenuptual agreement?

Only after term limits for Congress-critters. As in 1.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why not have state-recognized marriage contracts of 2-year terms, 5-year terms, or whatever?


At the end of the term, you can opt to renew, or you can choose to end the marriage.


Why? This puts less pressure on the marriage, and people need to realize that some individuals aren't right for them. At least this method provides a legitimate and clear avenue.

What will happen when it comes time to claim all your partners social security benefits? How will it all be divvied?

Phatscotty wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Why not have state-recognized marriage contracts of 2-year terms, 5-year terms, or whatever?


At the end of the term, you can opt to renew, or you can choose to end the marriage.


Why? This puts less pressure on the marriage, and people need to realize that some individuals aren't right for them. At least this method provides a legitimate and clear avenue.

What will happen when it comes time to claim all your partners social security benefits? How will it all be divvied?

They get a percentage of the future amount which the other partner contributed during the time of that marriage.

Or, the present value of that amount would be traded for other benefits.

There's plenty of other options which financiers, lawyers, and the parties involved could invent or select at the time of the contract. Even after the term limit, if certain conditions weren't clearly stated, they could decide then.

So, it depends. There need not be a one-size-fits-all approach here.

The entire premise is why there are so many problems in this country: marriage is NOT a contract.

Night Strike wrote:The entire premise is why there are so many problems in this country: marriage is NOT a contract.

*sigh*

I agree that the entire concept of marriage is more than a contract, in that, yes, love is involved, and there's these vague expected benefits and costs, and there's lots of warm and fuzzies, and blah blah blah. But that's the concept; we're looking at the essentials. The nitty-gritty, if you please.

Essentially, marriage is a contract. It's a somewhat binding agreement to hopefully limit your sexual activities and mental devotion to one person, with the general understanding that such love is also dedicated to the kids, income should be redistributed in a SOCIALIST and CENTRALLY PLANNED family, etc. Much of the contract entails implicitly understood expectations, which usually are not mentioned at the time of marriage. Simply because the contract is not explicit, or is almost entirely informal, it does not mean that there is no contract.


What is a contract, NS?

Night Strike wrote:The entire premise is why there are so many problems in this country: marriage is NOT a contract.

Inconvenience?

I like this. It would force couples to work out their problems because they won't be able to just walk out and I think that's what needs to be done these days. Gays aren't ruining the sanctity of marriage, younger generations are.

Night Strike wrote:The entire premise is why there are so many problems in this country: marriage is NOT a contract.

The law actually differs.

It is why, for example, a woman in Colorado was able to win a suit against her husband to be for breaking a contract when he backed out of the wedding.

It is also why there are specified rights and obligations, why terminating the agreement means going to court, etc.

Religously, it can certainly be much more, but it is legally a contract.

Night Strike wrote:The entire premise is why there are so many problems in this country: marriage is NOT a contract.

My view is almost entirely opposite of yours...the problems you're referring to are because so many people DON'T view marriage as seriously as they do a contract.

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The entire premise is why there are so many problems in this country: marriage is NOT a contract.

My view is almost entirely opposite of yours...the problems you're referring to are because so [u]many people DON'T view marriage as seriously as they do a contract[/u].

I agree with this. Another issue is that important matters are left to some vague understanding at the time of the marriage.

About 8 years ago, I had conversation with... I think a Presbyterian "priest"/marriage advisor, and he mentioned that roughly 6 months before people get married, he drills the couple through some serious questions about their future plans on kids, living arrangments, careers, likelihood of moving away, and all that. Many couples with whom he advised generally don't address these issues seriously before getting married.

If the above story is similar to the experiences of many Catholic priests, and Christian "priests," then the underlying problems of marriage could be found in a lack of communication between soon-to-be-wed couples and their local priests.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The entire premise is why there are so many problems in this country: marriage is NOT a contract.

My view is almost entirely opposite of yours...the problems you're referring to are because so [u]many people DON'T view marriage as seriously as they do a contract[/u].

I agree with this. Another issue is that important matters are left to some vague understanding at the time of the marriage.

About 8 years ago, I had conversation with... I think a Presbyterian "priest"/marriage advisor, and he mentioned that roughly 6 months before people get married, he drills the couple through some serious questions about their future plans on kids, living arrangments, careers, likelihood of moving away, and all that. Many couples with whom he advised generally don't address these issues seriously before getting married.

If the above story is similar to the experiences of many Catholic priests, and Christian "priests," then the underlying problems of marriage could be found in a lack of communication between soon-to-be-wed couples and their local priests.

My pastor at the time of our marriage did precisely this. Before he would marry us, he required that he take us through roughly 3-6 months (it's been a LONG TIME, so I don't really remember the timeframe) of counseling with him that surprisingly had almost nothing at all to do with religion, but rather focused very much on our views of things and situations that we would unavoidably run into (we were very young at 17 and 19, so this was a great thing for him to do). He even got us in touch with two other couples (one of which is divorced now, interestingly enough) who got married at a very young age under similar circumstances (teenage pregnancy). That counseling was invaluable to us, but we still had some pretty serious problems (we were still dumbass kids who knew we knew everything, after all). But the counseling has to be taken seriously (which I think we did, for the most part).

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Night Strike wrote:The entire premise is why there are so many problems in this country: marriage is NOT a contract.

My view is almost entirely opposite of yours...the problems you're referring to are because so [u]many people DON'T view marriage as seriously as they do a contract[/u].

I agree with this. Another issue is that important matters are left to some vague understanding at the time of the marriage.

About 8 years ago, I had conversation with... I think a Presbyterian "priest"/marriage advisor, and he mentioned that roughly 6 months before people get married, he drills the couple through some serious questions about their future plans on kids, living arrangments, careers, likelihood of moving away, and all that. Many couples with whom he advised generally don't address these issues seriously before getting married.

If the above story is similar to the experiences of many Catholic priests, and Christian "priests," then the underlying problems of marriage could be found in a lack of communication between soon-to-be-wed couples and their local priests.

My pastor at the time of our marriage did precisely this. Before he would marry us, he required that he take us through roughly 3-6 months (it's been a LONG TIME, so I don't really remember the timeframe) of counseling with him that surprisingly had almost nothing at all to do with religion, but rather focused very much on our views of things and situations that we would unavoidably run into (we were very young at 17 and 19, so this was a great thing for him to do). He even got us in touch with two other couples (one of which is divorced now, interestingly enough) who got married at a very young age under similar circumstances (teenage pregnancy). That counseling was invaluable to us, but we still had some pretty serious problems (we were still dumbass kids who knew we knew everything, after all). But the counseling has to be taken seriously (which I think we did, for the most part).

I wish more pastors would take the time to do this. Unfortunately, many think that by the time a couple comes to them, they have already "made their decision".. and that any other discussion is pointless.

I remember reading about one state that actually implemented or tried to implement a counseling requirement. It was some years ago, I think it was successful, but there was debate over whether such a requirement was legal. I cannot remember more about it, though (maybe Utah????).