Redefining marriage

IMO marriage needs a real redefinition. Instead of being "forever" or "until death do us part," if you prefer the poetic touch, how about setting an expiration date on marriage, with terms of separation agreed to beforehand?

Upon reaching expiration, it could be extended by mutual agreement. the terms of separation could be revised at any time, again with mutual agreement. And the birth of each child would mandate a revision to the custody and child support terms. The expiration date could also be revised by mutual agreement.

This wouldn't necessarily make divorce unnecessary, but it might reduce the incidence of bitter, acrimonious divorces. After all, you'd know how long you signed up for and under what terms you'll part.

Just a thought.

Forever, till death do you part, till death or distance do you part (from slave marriages in the USA), for as long as you each shall dig it (Hippie oaths).
And remember, when a man dies and is set on his funeral pyre, well the wife is expected to be there too.

Many women consider physical ability to be a part of the marriage despite the better/worse; sickness/health part.

Knowing what they signed up for is easy,,, its enforcing it and honesty about it that is hard.

A man retires and still wants a clean shirt each day, the wife wants her retirement.

So the people that can't make marriage work want to change the rules. This is like if I can't be a successful basketball player under the current rules lets change the rules.

We already have the alternate living arrangement of 'common law' legally defined. We don't need to screw up traditional marriage, and the 50% it works for, to accommodate the 50% that have problems with it. Most of the unsuccessful would probably have problems with any long term arrangement regardless.

Some states do not recognize a common law marriage, many people do not understand the rules and some who think they are married because they've shacked up for over seven years think they can escape its bonds simply by ending the relationship.

All contracts are contracts of adhesion. All women about to walk down the aisle are deemed capable of making a contractual decision regarding property.

I think that most juristictions automatically assign some rights and conditions to a common law relationship but that is really immaterial to my point. There is nothing stopping 2 people who want to live together negotiating a contract for their time together. This contract can cover the break-up or have an end date defined. Nareed can create any type of marriage she wants using civil contracts.

Interested in the seven years you mention. Is that the length of time for common law marriage rights to vest in some states? Some (all?) Canadian provinces use one year as the vesting time for a common law relationship including pension and tax status. If some juristictions don't extend the government benefits of marriage to common law relationships then extend the benefits to common law relationships. You don't need to destroy the traditional marriage structure to provide the benefits to non traditional relationships.

Quote: kenarman

We don't need to screw up traditional marriage, and the 50% it works for, to accommodate the 50% that have problems with it.

You know, just because a couple doesn't get divorced doesn't mean they have no major problems with their marriage.

I'm considering several factors. For one thing, people live longer than they used to. Sustaining a life-long commitment is harder. People change throughout their lives. For people marrying in their 20s, this means a 50-60 year commitment, call it the life expectancy of the marriage absent divorce. that's a very long time, and not necessarily something most people can really think about when they're young.

In a way my idea has kind of been informally adopted by many. We all know couples who've been living together for years before getting married. Not all couples, maybe not even most, but some. Some of these may be engaged, some may not. The thing is this works as a kind of marriage-trial which may expose problems early on before any legal commitment is made.

But the protections and rights inherent in marriage are absent.

Quote: Nareed

You know, just because a couple doesn't get divorced doesn't mean they have no major problems with their marriage.

Spencer Tracy never divorced to marry Hepburn
because his wife was Catholic and she refused to
give him one. They stopped living together decades
before he died.