19 13

I sometimes feel that Marriage contracts should be for ten years, with a "rollover" option to mutually agree to renew it for five more years, every five years.
I bet many couples would be nicer to each other, were that the case and the rollover period was looming!
... and if not, divorce would be a lot easier and less beneficial to lawyers!

Petter 9 June 3

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Actually seems pretty reasonable.


Having never been married, and having only contemplated it a few times, it seems a bit to me like this is just a formalisation of the way huge sections of the population treat it anyway.

This way would as you say save a lot of legal fees, and keep some people out of the lazy headspace of "Have aquired a partner now, that's finished, on to focus on something else"

On the other hand, one of the lovely things about marriage or any real commitment is that it's not just when it's fun, it's for those times when you go through a patch of hating your partners behaviour or are going through difficult circumstances.


Sounds like a good idea, it's a hassle if people want to stay together anyway.


What a brilliant and clever idea. I must admit it sounds like a great way to keep things more fresh and free and mutual rather than stale and tedious and claustrophobic.

It would in all probability lead to fewer petty divorces.


This sort of renewable contract thing was suggested years back, and it was thought to be a rather good idea. Not sure why it never caught on ?

Probably that old bète noir, religion.


What a ridiculous, not to say degenerate idea?! Don't you have any idea what family breakups do to 10 or 11 year old children?!!!

My father had 2 marriages, my mother had 3. I was 4 when they split. I lived with my mother and her second husband, the father of my step-brother, and was 9 when they split. I was 11 when my father re-married and 14 when my mother re-married. I was 20 when my mother divorced for the third time. So yes, I do have a slight inkling...
I've been married for not quite 50 years, by the way.

Because going through an acrimonious divorce has never done anything to a 10 year old?

@Petter You cannot ask for comments and complain when they do not go precisely your way! Your history is almost a caricature of the way Europeans view mariage "à l’américaine"... Perhaps if your education did not encourage competition and "prevailing at all costs" to such a degree, these situations would be less frequent in your country? Not your fault of course, and I am glad you managed to survive it all ! (It's "bête noire", if I may...)

@LoneJungle I wasn't complaining, merely answering your question about whether I had any idea what divorce did to young children?
I and my 3 siblings have extensive first hand experience of its effects and of being shuffled from home to home.
I don't know where you think I was educated, perhaps you should read my profile before ranting ridiculously.


If there needs to be an omnipresent threat of abandonment to get people to "be nicer to each other", maybe they shouldn't be together.

It would mainly help them to appreciate the good things about each other rather than be niggled about the bits they don't like, No couple is 100% compatible, and sometimes little things can assume giant proportions after many years. (I've survived 49 and and a half so far.)


I’m just done! Been divorced


When I got married, I did not expected to last more than 10 years, my heart has a short attention span and a very active revolving compass. She was a very jealous person. So it lasted officialy 19 years. That was 18 years ago. Never missed her. Never missed anyone. Is how I am. "Women are a poem to be written, a song to be sung, dedicated before midnight, forgotten by dawn"..... hey that is the beginning of a song right there!!!!! Dibs! Gotta Go!

Men are an instrument to be strummed, a string to be plucked, an air to hum 'ere the dawn light comes.... more words for you.

@Petter thank you.


I gave up on marriage 20 years ago. Living together is fine with me.

As it is with many other people - much to the chagrin of the church.


I knew a couple that ran away and got married, within 2 years got divorced and told no one except a few close friends. When time come to separate will be easy since already divorced.

My brother was the opposite. He got married so quietly that everyone thought they were living together, even her parents, who kept dropping hints about making it legal. They finally confessed 7 years after the wedding.


Yeah, 10 years is about how much I could stand it.

Par for the course, really. 7 years to start itching and 3 more before it becomes unbearable.


With the separation documents included in the marriage documents sort of a post-nup.


Sounds like a good idea to me!


The ABA would fight that to the Supremes.


A 2 year contract (temporary marriage license) was proposed in Mexico but didn't pass. The church criticized the proposed change. Surprise, surprise. The Church holds considerable sway there.

"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.

“The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends,” said Leonel Luna, the Mexico City assemblyman who co-authored the bill."



Not sure if I believe in marriage. Getting a certificate of monogamy from the state just seems meaningless to me.

Then the state makes when you want to cancel the contract and their lawyer buddies.


That is an excellent plan and I'm sure the religious right would fight that one bloody.


Sounds reasonable, but since it has never been put into practice, it is unknown the ramifications and consequences of such a condition.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:98030
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.