Category: Let's talk
Today, I was listening to a podcast for a radio station, and one of the stories in the news was about how officials in Mexico City proposed that there should be a two-year expiration date on marriage licenses since most relationships in Mexico end after that amount of time; and the license would have to be renewed in order to continue the marriage. The distribution of property and custody of children would be predetermined in this contract.
I personally think these people have it figured out. I think that this might make people who are married work harder at their relationships and themselves. I've heard too many stories about people just letting themselves go after they get married. They don't have to keep themselves in shape and sexy because they can stop campaigning now that they've beene elected. This expiration date would be an incentive for people to be on top of their game if they really want to stay in the marriage.
While some people may argue that marriage is an institution for life, I will say that's the way it used to be. The divorce rate sure isn't decreasing. I think that there should be a test trial for marriage. Why not? People test drive everything else, or at least they should to know what they're getting themselves into. People test out cars, phones, furniture, videogames, computers, and check out their houses before they move in, so why not test out marriage for a couple years? Many people go into marriage believing it will be blissful, and that's a pile of runny bullshit. If they get to test it out, they will see that it's more work than they thought and can decide whether they are willing to work through it or not.
Another argument may be that this two-year expiration date will make it easier to dissolve a marriage. What's wrong with that? I don't think divorce should be this dramatic, expensive hassel. And guess what? Whether a person gets divorced or not, people still give up on their marriages, and this awful divorce process, especially if children are involved, locks people into relationships that are high-stress, and where one of or neither partner respects the other, which then negatively affects the children that they're so-called "staying together for."
I am not anti-marriage (not for all people anyway, just for myself), but I think that the way in which people get married and divorced has to change. People should not be able to get married after six months of dating and a woman shouldn't be able to rob her husband of his soul during divorce.
What do you guys think of this expiration date? Do you think this license should be renewed every two years, or you just renew it after the first two and you're locked in for life, or until someone files for a formal divorce? Do you think it should be a three-year or five-year trial instead?
I think they should do away with the thing entirely. A marriage should be a choice between two people, and the government should just stay out of it.
If you do away with the government being involved in marriage, you do away with legal divorce proceedings. You take out what you went in with, and that's it. What point do marriage licenses have anyway, can anyone tell me that?
Agree with Cody. Marriage licenses are only to give the state control of your life, and your children, and of course, your bank account.
Thanks. So many people go on about how marriage is this sacred thing you do because you love someone. It's not sacred, it's a business contract, and a very bad one at that.
Oh, and a marriage license serves the same purpose as a jail sentence.
Raven, marriage *is* sacred, but that's the problem. Marriage is a Biblical precept, set forth in Genesis between a man, a woman, and God. Nowhere was a state involved. You are correct, however, in saying a state marriage is a jail sentence. If you don't believe the Bible, or in God, then why believe in marriage? Just shack up with whom ever you wish, or be monogamous. Whatever floats your boat!
Well, there were marriages before there was a bible. Alexander the great, for instance, ordered his men to marry women of the nations he conquered. marriage as a concept predates the bible. However, at no time did you need a license to do it. Signing that contract just says to the government that you are now one entity, rather than two. That is entirely pointless.
This does not mean marriage itself is pointless, I want to be married one day, but I don't want to sign a marriage license.
I personally think marriage is a mix of both the sacred and the legal. More than that, it can be whatever you want it to. Some people focus more on the religious aspects, some just see it as legal binding. So in that sense, everyone is different.
But I'm a bit confused. Maybe I've missed something here. But, what would it take to renew the marriage license after those two years? Is it just the couple saying that they want it renewed? Or are there more criteria for its renewal?
Yes, I am one who thinks this would simply make it easier to get out of a marriage. If its just a matter of the couple saying they want it renewed, how would this expiration date help? Would it not just be an excuse for the couple to get out of the marriage? Realize all those problems you mentioned, not having to work on things, if they knew all they had to do was ride it out for two years and then just let it go? What would be the incentive to work on it in that case, than if you knew that to end it, you'd have to go through a fairly drawn out process? Would this idea not make the divorce rate even higher than it is?
You're quite right that people have misconceptions about marriage. That it's easy, bliss, a bed of roses, so to speak. People often don't realize the work involved. And, as far as, "test driving marriage," as you put it, isn't that the equivalent to cohabitation? When you live together, you learn the same types of things. What it's like to be around that person day in and day out, their habits, their strengths, their flaws, what you can and can't tolerate. It seems that, once you learned those things, you can either decide to go your own ways, or to make that life commitment. Cohabiting relationships are a lot of work, too. And then you can choose whether to continue both the work and the good parts, or whether it's not right for you.
I do agree with you that a woman should not be able to completely take a man to the cleaners in a divorce. In that sense, our society has swung to reverse discrimination. Divorce used to leave a woman with nothing. Now, in the name of equality, we've gone the other way, and the man is the one who gets robbed in a divorce while the woman often gets whatever she wants. So yes, the divorce process does need to change.
But I very, very strongly disagree with you that a couple should not be allowed to get married say, before six months. I personally would not do it. I think it's a dumb move on anyone's part. But to say it shouldn't be allowed? Is that not just more of the state control that I know many people here are against? If you think a marriage license is just the state's way of getting control, how much more than is telling someone how long they do or don't have to be together before they can marry? It'd be as bad as the state telling you that you have to marry someone, which, to the original poster, would violate your basic rights as a person. Same with this. It should be up to each individual couple how long they date before they want to marry, if they want to at all. If they marry too soon, and then have a falling out later, that's their own issue, and the consequences they pay for not getting to know each other better beforehand.
I'm not sure how the renewal process would work out. I suspect it would just be signing some papers. They didn't discuss the renewal process; it's not set in stone yet.
The incentive would be there if both people wanted the marriage to work. If they want it to work, they will keep their shit together so as not to be ditched.
Of course, it makes it easier to dissolve a marriage. Marriage is most definitely not for everyone, and some people don't realize it till it's too late. Also, whether people get a divorce or not the marriage can still dissolve. Many people stay married but may as well be divorced because they can't stand each other at all, they're constantly bad-mouthing one another to their faces and behind their backs, and they don't agree on a damned thing. I rather the divorce rate be higher than have a number of unhappy marriages.
As Cody said, marriage predated the Bible. And many people who aren't religious get married. I don't believe marriage is sacred anymore. It's just a tradition that people partake in for various reasons, but most of all (I'd say), is simply because they're expected and pressured to.
One point of clarification. In Mexico the marriage ceremony as performed by a religion is not the same as the civil proceedings for gaining a marriage license.
In other words, a preacher or priest never signs a marriage license, so they have a different system.
However, here is what marriage does provide for those who want it:
You are automatically on the same ticket, as it were, for filing jointly for taxes, when you go to get a place to live, when you have kids as a part of the picture.
I have a friend in San Francisco whose marriage is accepted there but not everyplace. She told me she has to take adoption paperwork with her when they leave the state, because since they are not, well, woman and wife, is it? she is not automatically known to be the parent.
Because I'm married to the mother of my daughter, and ours is legally recognized, I could show up at school or anywhere, declare myself to be the father, and pick up my daughter. Same with taking her to the doctor and signing medical release forms, etc.
I think there is actually a place for the separation Mexico provides, and then for the religious part any church can do what it pleases. Now, while they can refuse anyone they want, the pastor has to be registered with the state in order to legally provide marriage licenses.
As to the legal renewal process, that is rather an interesting concept, but will probably work better in a country like Mexico where the religious and the civil proceedings are entirely separate.
But there are very real legal benefits to marriage that would be difficult to give to POSLQ couples.If nothing else, the couple has declared themselves to the state under contract, and all contracts at least take some work to break apart. While a long-term live-together relationship would probably also be hard to split up, who gets what, custody, etc., the dissolution of a contract is at least formalized, even if its faults are also formalized.
I think knowing my friend and her struggles, I probably now appreciate the legal benefits I have more than I otherwise would have.
I guess if people marry because they're expected or pressured to, more fool in them. They obviously have no concept of what marriage is about, if that's why they do it. And, whatever consequences they then suffer for getting married for such a reason are theirs. Where it gets nasty is when kids come into the mix. It's not their fault their parents made a stupid choice.
As I said in my earlier post, of course many nonreligious people get married. It is whatever you make it. Inquisitive, you for example, do not believe it is sacred, and that of course is your right. I believe that it is, and that is mine. People get married for varying reasons, and marriage itself also means different things to different people.
Of course, it takes work to end any contract. But the divorce process is something that many people seem to fear and they end up trapped in a miserable relationship.
I understand there are copious legal benefits to marriage, but that doesn't mean all marriages are great. Obviously, many of them aren't working, so the legal benefits aren't helping the situation.
I just think it should be easier to get out of a marriage without the fear of a vengeful spouse asking you for every penny you ever make and your soul, or withholding the children from you. It's terrifying. While some divorces go smoothly, there are too many divorce horror stories, and something needs to be done about it. Marriage licenses with an expiration date could be one of several possible solutions.
I'm inclined to believe with Jesse. Marriage should be entered into only after some serious discussions about the past, and future plans. If there's any doubt as to whether a marriage should be performed, chances are, it shouldn't be. I think this two-year marriage scheme they're planning in Mexico could really be disastrous for any children involved. I'm sure the Catholic clergy in Mexico will not be pleased if this bill passes.
so that takes care of the first two years, what about after that?
People are naive if they think the reason why people stay in unhappy marriages is because of the difficulties in getting divorced. If there are children involved it is an immensely difficult decision to make to end a marriage, because ultimately it's not just about you - there are children to consider as well.And this equally stands where it comes to a cohabiting couple with children.
Ultimately people have to do what works for them, and I am personally of the opinion that if you wouldn't enter into something for yourself, then you don't really have the ability to comment on it on behalf of others.
I understand that many people stay together for the children. I think this might be more financially beneficial than emotionally. I know this because I was raised by two people who probably are only together because my siblings and I, and I resent both of them for it. I wish my father would have just gotten divorced when he had custody of us and he and my mother were separated. Now they're only together because my mom doesn't want to be alone, and my mother is the breadwinner, so my father can pinch all his pennies while my mom pays most of the bills. It is truly an emotionally chaotic household, I can't imagine that too many other children who are raised by such parents have it much better. I think staying together for the kids is one of the most selfish things two people can do. Just end it, damn it!
I hope to God my father has the balls to walk away from my mother after my brother leaves the house. Elsewise, she'll kill him before the cigarettes do. All the arguments, nagging, screaming, and verbal abuse can't be good for anyone's blood pressure.
sometimes though people do what they believe to be best.
And sometimes staying is harder than leaving because leaving means facing life potentially as a single parent (and the stigma that still goes with that) and the possibility of being on your own for the rest of your life.
It's very easy to sit and make judgements on behalf of others..
I think people are too quick to dissolve a marriage these days. if you're not happy with the marriage, communicate, seek help, self-reflect; do anything and everything you can possibly think of before you walk away. that's just part of the commitment that comes with it. However, I also agree that staying in a marriage for children, or because you literally don't have the means to get a divorce isn't very healthy, either. I don't know. I'm really on the fence with this one. It would really take the pressure and commitment factor out of a marriage, at least in the sense that if you have problems, you can run for the hills without too much thought. But then again, for those people who really need to get out of the marriage, it wouldn't be quite so ugly.
So, now, I have heard of one instance where the child sishes the parents split up.
I grew up in the 70s and 80s, and many of my friends were in divorced families, what we called 'broken homes' then.
Though the teachers, particularly women, claimed the divorces were OK for my buddies, that they could do just fine, that divorce could even be good for kids, that is precisely not what my buddies always came and told the rest of us, secretly. Not to be overheard by the dogmatic schoolmasters/schoolmistresses, they complained about fights between parents which worsened when they split up: complained about having to move because mom wants to be away from dad, and on and on. Contrary to popular mythology, their so-called 2 Christmases and two birthdays, well, my friends didn't appear to be enjoying it, frankly.
None of us come from perfect houses, and certainly many of us can point to problems growing up. The unique situation for them was, they had to keep it secret and suffer silently or with their friends, because of the prevailing dogma.
I am not arguing a persuasion, but will forever perpetualy look at things as they actually are. I would have thought that of all the people I knew, if the dogma had any shred of credibility, I could find at least one who was growing up in a divorced home where they actually felt good about the separation.
There's nothing good about having to choose, whether you're 8 or 16, and there's no way the disputes the parents are involved in don't affect the kids. My friends to a one always knew ahead of time their parents were 'on the break', long before the big so-called age-appropriate discussion about it.
Granted, I cannot back any of this up with hard evidence: it is just anecdote from a somebody nameless faceless being online, but the enormous difference between real outcomes and accompanying dogma was pretty profound. Usually dogmatists, irrational as they are, have at least some modicum of truth to what they're saying. And I was, and still am, surprised that not a single one of my friends felt they were better off because their parents divorced.
Divorce rates have plummeted since the 70s, and my guess it is my generation, who saw this chasm of difference between dogma and reality of the situation, which has made us sober about the whole thing.
I'm not arguing one side or the other, just putting out what was actually there in front of us, for all to see, despite the dogmatists.
I also think that licenses for marriage should be done away with.
Marriage is a beautiful thing, but it is not a legal, contract, or government controlled situation.
People living in a marriage that has gone emotionally bad are selfish. If you have kids some laws should be setup to protect both parties’ rights, and some laws should be in place to protect each person’s rights when they split. Equal is the way. You called that person your wife, or husband, so you deserve half of all that the union has created, but you don’t deserve half of what that person has created before they were with you.
Government should step out of this place and allow people to decide how they want to make there vowels or promises to one another. No matter what government rules marriages are still governed by the parties involved.
But understand that people are already running for the hills without too much thought. If anyone wants to keep the commitment part of marriage alive, there needs to be some incentive, and there just isn't one if commitment is something a person realizes isn't for them. Besides that, people don't know how to communicate, hence the chaos with my parents. My mother thinks that everyone should hear what she says, but she doesn't have to listen to a word anyone else says; and the best way to communicate is via harshness and insults. It's not healthy.
Too many people don't know how to communicate or even argue. They think they can sweep problems under the rug until they start popping up like the sidewalk being pushed up by the roots of a tree. Also, people are just willing to endure a miserable relationship instead of talking things out with their partner or bringing in a third party to help. It's hard just listening to a couple fight, I can't imagine what it's like to be in that situation. I think it's easy to say exhaust your options to make your marriage work, but how much work can you do if only one person is putting forth effort? You cannot make anyone do anything, even if there's a gun to their head. So the solution is...? Well, get the hell out of the relationship! Why waste your time and life with someone who doesn't give a damn about the relationship? Life is too short, so just because marriage is about commitment, people are honestly going to spend their lives in a deflated marriage? That's very sad.
Some people don't have what it takes to make their relationship work, and others don't have what it takes to get a divorce. Unfortunate.
Well that is what makes me want to agree with making people wait a set time before the do it, but than I'd have to agree that the government should be involved.
Maybe this is a question of upbringing? But that doesn't work either, because people when they get grown want to have things they way they want. Guess it will be what it is.
I can disagree with a large majority of you. I think this idea is silly, socialistic, phoney, and terrible. It's the nonsense the left places out.
no one would want to get married after this process is passed through the government. It's too hard, a hasssle, a burden, a extra step, and cumbersome to get married and renew marriage license every two years.
Look, my parents are a classic example, my parents are now in there 50S and have been married for 25 years or more. and, my dad didn't look at my mom and say hey you look nice gal, I want to mary you. no, they genuinly love each other. my dad truely thinks my mom is still the nicest, most patient, loving, kind, and so forth, and my mom truely thinks my father is a smart and dependable man. they were married in the eighties and are still happily together, they have never once thought of leaving one another. and, I think there should be education on marriage and life and stuff like that instead of this phony process we now have to do. it's the ideology not what else happens.
and banning marriage processes and just having it be between the husband and whife is not going to work. If that's the case I can easily cheat the system and claim joe on the zone was my husband, it's not documented so why not? even if we're not in love? I mean, no one has proof. People can cheat on there taxes and so forth. Single people don't have to pay so much then because you can claim that you're married.
People already cheat on their taxes.
No matter the hassle, I just think it should be easier to walk out of a hopeless and miserable marriage.
And I didn't say it was every two years. I asked if it should be every two years, or the license is renewed after the first two years, and after that, you're trapped in.
Yes, perhaps there should be education on marriage in family planning courses. I don't know if that's already integrated into the curriculum, considering I never took one. Of course, it's kind of too late for this since marriage is going down the toilet, and I personally don't think anyone should do anything to make it as popular as it once was.
I have to wonder though, who does it really hurt if marriage isn't as permanent as it once was? I mean, its not like you contract ebola when you get devorced, it isn't a termial illness, its just a devorce. Where is it written that devorce is this terrible terrible thig? Well, ok, other than the bible.
I don't even think its written in the Bible.
Its written in the bible: malachi 2:14-16, and matthew 19:3-4.
hmmm.... well, divorces are difficult though and is very effective psycholoically especially to children and I think this system might set out to harm children if the parents don't want to renew.
News flash, almost 50% of children born today are born to parents who are unmarried. I will not deny that being raised by a single parent has negative effects on children. But my point is that people are going to break up, regardless of procedures. Also, do you think it's beneficial for children to be raised by a married couple who is fighting 85% of the time? No, it's not, at least, it wasn't for me and my siblings.
This law is not out to harm children, it is to take the strain off of ending a miserable marriage. I would have preferred my parents get divorced rather than this nineteen years of constant disputes and struggle.
As I've said before, staying together for the kids is one of the most selfish decisions a couple can make. Even though they decide to stay together, they don't work to improve their relationship, which in turn has a negative effect on their relationship with their children.
I think kids need to be hamred a little in this world. If we make our kids grow up in a bubble and never deal with anything, we raise poorly adapted kids. Its the ones who have dealt with at least a little confusion and pain that can more easily adapt to the world later in life. Realizing that not everything is all hunky dory is a good lesson to learn for children.
But what's worse, having to endure a divorce, or having to deal with constant fighting and bickering, maybe even physical abuse? I too have grown up in a home where my parents stayed together because of my sister and I, but because we're adults now there is more to it, like the fact my mom feels she won't be able to support herself financially if she leaves. Now, their marriage wasn't always bad. It's only been in the last 5 years or so that it's really taken a plunge. But I've seen fights between them that still haunt me to this day. I think it sickens me even more when the next day they act like nothing ever happened and try to sweep their actions under the rug, until the next fight happens of course.
Would I be permanently scarred if they got divorced? Hell no. And I don't think I would have even if I was younger. While being unable to fully grasp the reality of a situation is hard, as you get older you can grow and change. It has been more damaging to witness the bitterness, hatred and sometimes violence that has erupted between my parents than it ever would be to go to two separate households on Christmas. Because of it I honestly can't even say I believe in love anymore. My sister is now engaged to a man who is frighteningly similar to my dad. It just really is not a good situation and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
My parents got divorced when I was a child. I was upset at the time, didn't really understand. Now, I'm glad they did. Its called growing up, and kids today need to do a lot of it if you ask my opinion.
I don't hate divorces, but keeping together because of their children isn't selfish. At least they are thinking about the kids, rather than only what they want. I would say if you're unhappy go on and divorce, and I don't thinnk the children should be wishing it makes it sound like someone's being kind of ungrateful. I think though, that a happy married couple is better and we need an education system who teaches that. who teaches that love is not about looks or surface things, it's about deeper connections and there should seriously be a class that goes over extensively the philosophy of marriage and everyone should be required to take it. Family and a good one at that is everything, and, having parents that doesn't like each other or are not together is devastating.
and, this test driving won't help it. Education will, and philosophy adjustments will!
But who are you to say what marriage is and what it isn't. The idea of marrying for love has only emerged in the last centuries, its age can really be measured in decades. Before, you married for property, and you didn't have a choice in the matter.
Contrary to popular belief, love does not conquer all. I have known people who were in love, got married, lived with each other for a few years and simply did not love each other anymore. Love is not this magical substance that holds everything together permanently, reality simply doesn't work like that.
Besides, lets say that we do decide to teach marriage in schools, which marriage are you going to go with? Perhaps the christian, where you marry in the sight of god and divorce is a sin? Perhaps the muslim where the woman doesn't get a choice. Perhaps one of the several where being married is basically a slave contract for the woman from which she can never escape? Perhaps my personal favorite, the native american, where the woman is in control and can divorce her husband whenever she wishes if she feels and can prove that he is not living up to her expectations.
the point is marriage is created, and like many things, it is flawed. No amount of education is going to change that. After all, we teach the constitution in school, and I bet if you asked, most people could not even tell you when that was signed.
Staying together for the kids is extremely selfish when the two people have a bad relationship and do little or nothing to restore it. The negativity between them causes much tension in the household, people try to get their kids to take sides, and all the abuse and arguing is not fun to watch and is extremely frightening. It's not ungrateful to wish and think that my parents would have and still should get a divorce. Am I supposed to be greatful for the arguments, accusations, abuse, and threats? I don't think so, and I'd hope you think the same. Maybe you haven't been through it, so it's easy to say what you have.
Also, if marriage and family is going to be taught in schools, then various kinds of marriage and families should be discussed. As Cody pointed out, there are many different versions of marriage as far as roles and the union go. There are also various versions of a family. It's not just the married couple with kids any more. There are child-free married couples, unwed couples with children, blended families, gay couples with children, single parent families, and some people might even consider a single person with a pet as a family. My point is that family and marriage are very vague terms and everyone has different opinions and beliefs about what they should involve, what and how many people should be involved, and what roles they play.
I personally think a class shouldn't be wasted on teaching about marriage. It's slowly but surely dying, and we just need to let it take its own course.
There's too many bad marriages these days, and people are seeing that and deciding they don't want that for themselves. It's smart.
The sad part is that most people who support marriage do so for the wrong reasons. It is more about a lifestyle and not a show of commitment.
No kidding. And these are the same people more often than not wo go on about how allowing same sex marriage will destroy the institution of marriage when straight people have already done so.
I agree marriage is about a lifestyle. Love has much to do with this, but you don't find true love because you have a document that says you have it.
I've not had to deal with parents that were at odds so don't know what thats like personally, but I have seene this.
I have to say again and point to Fire and Rain's post that its selfish to stay together when you have lost the feeling for the other person. You can't fake it, so leave. Its far better.
I agree. But at the same time don't make it harder for those who truly do want to stay together to do so.
No one's making it harder for anyone to stay together. It just should be easier to make a clean split.
Having to renew the license every two years? I'm sorry but that's unnecessarily complicated. Althogh I do agree abot making it easier to make a cleansplit. Of course I have to be honest, it's often the people themselves that make things unnecessarily complicated when it comes to splitting up.
You know the old fashion way was actually better if you think about it. You got hooked up because of money, status, social place or what have you. Now when this was done the rules were clear. You stayed with him or her, because it was the rule. The rules also allowed for extra marital ventures. Okay it wasn't something that was stated, but offten done. People even slept in separate rooms and such.
Now I agree it was better on the male side of things, but the woman couldn't be dumped for his secretary, or whatever either. She was completely stable, and had all the benefits of bing MRs. X.
Now things are different. People still get hooked up over the same stuff, but now they want to over look that and call it love. You have the ability to date now and see what you are getting in to, so if you are dating a money hungry, status symbol, social climber, you know what you got, so don't get mad when you wake up and learn you don't have love. You want to get hitched for love hold out until you find it. If you get hitched for love the rest of satisfaction will follow.Otherwise it seems better to just date.
Now when you get hitched for love you don't need a paper to say you have it. You are already in agreement about why you want to spend you life, or however long it last together. Hopefully when you have love it over comes the bad that goes with life.
I know weird thoughts, but there it is.
Bryan, I've said several times that I simply posed the question of whether there should be a biannual renewal or if after the first two years, the license is renewed, then everyone is locked in from that point until they separate, divorce, or whatever.
Forereel, I completely agree with you.
yeah, but that paper work would still be complicated mor complicated then it has to be. Less government in your life the better that means doing it once.
What's more complicated: signing a few sheets of paper, or a miserable or dysfunctional marriage/family?
if you honestly believe it'd be just signing a few pieces of paper you don't deal with the government as much as you think you do.
Oh okay, so then tell me what you think it would take to renew a marriage license besides signing paperwork.
So if you don't renew your marrage is over? The government should not decide such a thing.
look at everything else the government makes you jump through hoops to renew they control. you're telling me they'd just flop over and not put controls on renewing a marrage?
I see the last poster's point. I'm sure there would be filing fees and such to go along with it. Now, if it was free, or only came with a $10 fee or something like that, as in, you show up at an office, both of you sign a piece of paper, pay the $10 fee and you're done, then I could see the point behind this. But if it wasn't that simple, which I completely agree it probably wouldn't be, then I say the government needs to stay out of it, at least after the initial marriage licence.
The government make things simple? Why then it wouldn't be te government. They complicate things quite enough as it is.
As usual, they are trying to get there greedy paws on something that doesn't concern them.
Okay, but various posts throughout this thread have already asserted the government plays a larger role than it should in marriage.
Also, paperwork and fees aside, this is not something someone came up with just for fun, it has reasons and serves a purpose.
Also, if a couple does not renew their marriage, that means they are making the choice to end it without all the chaos of divorce. Therefore, the end of marriage is the couple's decision, not the government's.
But they shouldn't have to renew constantly if they DO! want to stay marrie. If you ask me that makes things needlessly complicated...well more than they already are.
and what if it does come to the point the government does start poking it's nose in saying you can't renew if you don't have this, or what ever. also the costs of any fees has to be considered, it won't be exactly the cheapest thing if most goverment related get involved.
Brian, I don't usually get snappy with people here, but it is obvious to me that you have not read and absorbed the information given in my posts.
If you don't understand any part of these next two sentences, please say so and I will try to expound.
In my original post, I proposed the question of whether a couple should have to renew their marriage license every two years, or if they should renew the license after the first two, and then after that they are locked in until they file for a formal divorce. I also proposed the question of whether this two-year period should be three, five, or some other number of years. These are questions, not statements.
And Rat, please provide me with a specific example of why the government would refuse a marriage renewal.
Don't know if anyone else suggested this, but, what if in the first two years the couple were not to have children to avoid creating a broken home by this contract, and if they did have children and divorce at the end of the two years, a penalty would be applied. The exception would be if the couple were older and were approaching the end of their child bearing years and had no children yet? Well, just a thought.
I just find the whole thing sick.
And don't forget to pay the internet bill or keep a working computer or and live near a library? You must keep some sort of credit card, or money card as well. Its all online. Fail any of these you could get divorced. Lol
Yes, the idea of marriage as it is today is quite sick.
i've been fighting the government the last couple months now. my gf in fact, got rejected for medical insurrance, because she isn't married or pregnant. try to explain that one to me and how it's them now rejecting over something. i could easily see them taking it to this marriage license thing if it were passed, one tiny thing they don't like and you're out of luck. As for saying people can't have kids, why not keep them from living together too the first couple years? why not just say no to start with.
Um, forgive me for being young and not quiet on my own yet, but medical insurance is obtained through an insurance company, not the state, right? Marriage licenses are obtained through the state, not an insurance company.
If what I said above is correct, then your example of a circumstance for rejecting a marriage license renewal is not a good one, unless you can provide me with a different interpretation that would help me understand it as so.
Well, she could have been applying for medicaid.
Medicade? Perhaps. But I highly doubt the government would reject a marriage license renewal because someone isn't pregnant.
I was looking for something more specific and pertaining to marriage license renewal.
Unless it is revealed that someone somehow has slipped by for the past two years with more than one spouse, then I could see why the renewal would be rejected. Other than that, I can't think of anything else.
Oh I don't know. THe gvernmennt does some crazy stuff as it is. Andi have indeed absorbed all you've said and I still think it would make things way more complicated than they need to be and even more than they already are.
the best option is still to take government out of the equation altogether.
I certainly agree.
Hmm. I have in mind what I believe to be a fair proposal.
As long as the couple in question does not have children, no renewal should be required, period. end of story.
If the couple does have children, they should have to undergo one, and only one renewal process, five years after the birth of their last child.
No renewal should be denied unless it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the childrens' safety is jeopardized as a direct result of the parents living together as a married couple.
The reason I propose this is because if there are no children in the picture, it's the couple's own fault if they want to be miserable and unhappy together. Now, don't get me wrong. I do believe that even without a renewal, the marriage should be simpler to get out of, especially if both parties can agree on the terms. But if a couple seems to be content with their living conditions, and there are no other children who have the potential to be in danger, who are we to make them go through a government process every few years, or even once at the 2-year point so they can remain living as a happy couple? I agree that marriage as we see it today has many flaws, but one thing people need to learn is that it is a major commitment. You can't just run off when things get bad. You need to exhaust every possible option first and use divorce as a very last resort. If you have to, have your children stay with other family members, if at all possible, while you make every attempt to sort things out. If everything you've ever tried; honest communication, time apart, stress free vacations, marriage counseling, if none of that does anything to make it better, only then should you seek to end it. If marriage was easier to get out of than it was to stay in it, just imagine how many couples we'd have giving up on each other unnecessarily.
We already have a number of couples giving up on each other without trying to ameliorate the situation. They can't stand each other, bad mouth one another, don't have sex, just can't seem to get along, but The only difference is that they don't get divorced or separated for whatever reason. Maybe it's because they've just grown comfortable with having another person around whether they enjoy their company or not. Maybe it's because of financial circumstances.
Just because a couple doesn't get divorced or separated doesn't mean they haven't given up on each other.
Is this whole renewal thing a way of over time putting the cabosh on divorce? If so it won't work. As someone who went through it I can say it is horrible however at times it must be done.
In Mexico, perhaps. There's a number of factors that might play a role in this, such as the amount of time people think it takes for their relationships to go downhill, how long before people give up trying to rectify problems in their relationship, and the amount of time it takes after marriage for people to start seriously considering divorce.
Maybe two years is too short a time period.
that's my point exactly. People are taking the divorce route way too quickly, in my opinion. Just because things are bad between the two of you don't mean it has to be over for good. Take some time apart for awhile, try to figure out what it is that's causing this bad blood. If you're tried, and the only thing you can come up with is differences in your personality that neither of you can/don't want to change, now I'd say divorce might be something you want to consider, but many controversies can be solved if you focus on the cause, and not just the fact that it's happening, if you know what I mean.
I think that's easier said then done because often one person wants to work things out in the relationship, but the other has given up completely, knowing they could change things, but choosing not to. If only one person is willing to attempt to change things, and the other isn't, then the relationship has failed.
Also, most people don't know how to solve conflict. There are people who don't mind involvement in conflict, and others who try to avoid it with all their might, so when it comes down to solving problems, people are clueless. Hence the existence of occupations such as referees, mediators, and arbitrators, but even seeking a third party intervention is often only desired by one partner.