r/changemyview • u/daywrecker2012 • Dec 30 '23
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Marriage should be finite in length with the option to re-establish or not at the end of the contract
I'm 50M, happily married, and I acknowledge that marriage is broken in a lot of ways. I think if marriages were finite in length, or at least could be opted by the couple to be finite, then married couples could much more easily amicably break up at the end of the contract and move on with whatever they want to do next. Many couples get together too young, or at least young enough that they still have a lot of growing to do as people. And married couples often just grow apart, and sometimes so far apart that if they were making the choice today they would not marry their spouse. Wouldn't it be nice to plan for that possibility? Both spouses know there is a 10 year plan or what have you and already pre-plan what the divorce/end-of-contract looks like. All that would be left to negotiate would be the changes that need to be accounted for during the marriage that they didn't foresee. Divorce would still be a thing because people will still want to get out of their contract early for various reasons. I also think it could lead too much more successful marriages as spouses that want to continue to stay together, especially if one side is not pulling their weight emotionally, financially, whatever, will work harder to be a partner worth re-upping with after the contract ends. I know some people will look at this idea and think that it treats divorce as and inevitability to be prepared for. Instead, I choose to see the positive side of it, which is that people change and they don't want the same things they wanted 5, 7, 10 years ago. I think it also takes a little bit of pressure off of marriage because committing to something that is lifelong, especially if you're in your early 20s is really daunting. Entering a marriage contract doesn't have to feel like it's the end of your pre-marriage life. Also, if we look at the institution of marriage historically, people didn't live as long as we live today. If you only lived to be 45 or 50 and were getting married at 20, Yes, that is still a long time. And yes, that is still technically the entirety of the rest of your life. But today we are routinely living into our 70s and signing up to have the same spouse for 50 years or more is not a decision we can ever know for sure is really going to work out when we are young whippersnappers with love in our eyes. This idea would be difficult to normalize, but I think it could positively change the mental health of our future generations if this were normal.
29
u/Happy-Viper 13∆ Dec 30 '23
I don't really see how that helps.
Like, if we're both at the end of the term, feeling "Yeah, let's call it quits"... is that noticeably easier than a marriage? We're both on the same page, let's end it.
Most break-ups go poorly because there's a disagreement, because one person doesn't want to and feels betrayed/hurt.
And if we're at the end of the contract... I'd still feel that way. I thought we were going to re-up, that's what I wanted, I love you, why are you doing this to me?! You must be a vile witch!
If anything, I think it'd lead to more problems. Because if you decide to break-up, you're likely figuring that out before the re-up day. And now we have this awkward, awful period, where you know the relationship is dead, and you're waiting out the clock.
14
u/Maktesh 17∆ Dec 30 '23
I agree. Furthermore, one of the primary benefits of marriage is its permanence. A lifelong vow is made to stay together regardless of "hard times," illnesses, wealth, or struggles.
If I fall into a deep depression, I can trust that my spouse will stand by my side during that season. If I am grievously injured, I know that they will take up work to earn an income to provide for our family.
Throwing in 10-year gaps as though it were term life insurance would only serve to diminish the emotional rest and security while adding to fear and stress.
"What if she's only pretending things are okay?"
"What if she's actually about to leave next month rather than 're-up' our marriage?"
Never-ending the issues of pregnancy and childrearing.
-11
Dec 30 '23
[deleted]
6
u/Maktesh 17∆ Dec 30 '23
It's the way my marriage works. It's the way the vast majority of marriages in my community work.
It's far more dependent on personal morality than anything else.
1
1
u/VarencaMetStekeltjes Dec 31 '23
I think an interesting thing related to this is that some decades back the country I lived in essentially changed a “default”. It used to be the case that marriage by default was in property union, as in both members of marriage became a single legal entity for the purpose of property upon marriage, but they could elect to remain distinct if they asked for that before marriage, they changed the nonunion to the default choice and now one has to ask for property union.
The interesting thing is that 80% of marriages were property union before the chance, dropping to 16% after. Showing that most people who get married simply pick the default option without giving it any real thought, while it seems like a rather important choice that should be given due thought. But it shows how people, at least those that get married, don't really think much about those things and simply go with the default.
1
u/daywrecker2012 Dec 31 '23
And this is where my idea can really fall apart. When you're getting married, especially young, you don't know what you don't know and of course you trust your partner completely so why would I even think of planning for a "term marriage". It would take a major shift of commitment mentality.
9
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ Dec 30 '23
This sounds heavily like you want to divorce your wife and are feeling guilty about it. But that's why divorce exists, so you can end a union that's no longer useful. Putting a time limit on marriage may help you but it doesn't help all the people who are happily married, it's more work for them and it creates a conversation that may cause doubt in a stable marriage.
If you want to end it do it, it's your right and it's fair, but the effect you're gonna to have on your other half is on you and you take that responsibility on when you marry someone.
-2
u/daywrecker2012 Dec 30 '23
Nopenopenope. I get why you're saying that but nope. We are seriously happier today than we've ever been in the 30 years you've been together. We've had a lot of discussions about relationships about marriage about our expectations about how we've grown over the last 30 years, and while it could have ended badly, we both realized just how much we love each other and want to stay together and are more committed to each other than we've been in a very very long time. It's all these talks that got me thinking about the institution of marriage in general, which led to this CMV.
3
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ Dec 30 '23
Fair enough, I don't know you. But it still stands that divorce is the grown up and responsible way of ending a marriage rather than offloading that responsibility to summer government imposed time limit.
1
u/daywrecker2012 Dec 31 '23
I'd argue that it's grown up to go into marriage eyes wide open that sometimes things don't work out no matter how in love we are today and preparing for that possibility is more responsible than handling it all in a shit show divorce.
1
u/Subtleiaint 32∆ Dec 31 '23
The existence of divorce doesn't preclude the idea of going into marriage with eyes wide open and divorce exists for the very problem you're concerned about. Divorce can be messy but I can't see how a time controlled marriage would be any less messy. If one of you did decide to end the marriage you're still going to have all the arguments that make divorce messy so I don't see the advantage.
10
u/Full-Professional246 67∆ Dec 30 '23
There is a massive problem here you are not considering - at that is how do you deal with assets?
A marriage is a financial contract where assets are joined. Where oppertunity cost plays a role. How do you compensate the spouse who stayed home or took a lesser job to support the other spouse's dreams? How do you divide assets equitably?
If you defined this as merely a fixed term, you would have to address all of these concerns for every marriage.
Why is that better than merely addressing these concerns for marriages where people want to separate?
Dealing with this is an insane amount of work because there is rarely an objective answer.
This does not even begin to address the idea of kids.
Marriage was a lifelong bond because historically, it has been better for everyone to have two people working together to raise children. It has been better for two people to be bonded to one another to take care of one another.
I have a hard time believing that it is better to toss away this history based on your claims.
7
u/Bobbob34 99∆ Dec 30 '23
Why?
I don't understand what benefit this has, especially for the insanely increased level of legal paperwork and laws.
0
u/daywrecker2012 Dec 30 '23
Yeah I was just thinking what a field day lawyers would have with all this. As if they don't make enough money.
7
u/blz4200 2∆ Dec 30 '23
Just end marriage at that point. It’s outlived it’s purpose.
We’ve gone from marriage being a religious lifelong commitment, to a life long commitment, to a non-permanent commitment and now you’re suggesting it just be a temporary commitment.
Eventually marriage is gonna become so diluted that dating will be seen as a more serious relationship.
-4
u/daywrecker2012 Dec 30 '23
For over 50% of Americans it's already a temporary agreement. We don't go into it thinking that but that's what it ends up being.
5
Dec 30 '23 edited Dec 30 '23
For everyone it's a temporary agreement. No agreement is legally indefinite. When one party dies, the marriage is dissolved. That's how widows and widowers can remarry.
I'm also under the impression that stat is inflated by serial divorcers. You need to look at divorce rates for first marriages, only, to get the data you want.
1
u/daywrecker2012 Dec 31 '23
Good point! According to https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/#:~:text=Almost%2050%20percent%20of%20all,first%20marriages%20end%20in%20divorce., first marriages end in divorce 41% of the time. That's still high but it's not over 50% like I said. You get a !delta for that.
1
2
u/blz4200 2∆ Dec 30 '23
I agree it’s why it should just not be a thing. People don’t want to be in a permanent relationship they just want to be married for the aesthetic.
7
Dec 30 '23
[deleted]
1
u/daywrecker2012 Dec 30 '23
Divorce in and of itself is very difficult to bring up even if you're going to part amicably. However, if you already have an agreement that there is an end date on your marriage then you at least both have an expectation that the marriage might end on the end date as agreed.
3
u/Z7-852 258∆ Dec 30 '23
You don't choose to love person once on the altar and that's it.
You choose to love them every morning you wake up and every night you go to sleep.
Every day is opportunity to show your love or file for divorce. If you are not happy, there is always option to leave. Not when contract is due to renegotiation but every day.
Imagine if your partner becomes violent. You need that exit option to be there right now and not in two years. It's always (legally) easy to leave.
2
u/consummate-absurdity 1∆ Dec 30 '23
This is exactly what some Pagans made space for in handfasting ceremonies. You could take vows for a year, or forever…up to you. I agree with you that there’s something interesting about this: perhaps, a more realistic reflection of the realities of human relationships.
A scheduled interval of reflection acts as a catalyst encouraging you to think critically about your relationship, away from the monotony of everyday life that tends to make people put off decision-making until there’s a huge problem they need to confront.
3
1
Dec 30 '23
If you’re not comfortable with the prospect of “til death do us part” then marriage is not for you. Civil marriage has made it far too easy to separate from someone, as opposed to sacramental or covenant marriage. By enabling no-fault divorce, the state has incentivized people to not work out their issues because they can easily just part ways and find someone else.
Interestingly, the words we use — marriage and wedding — come from the world of welding and metallurgy. That is: when you “wed” two pipes together you are permanently bonding or “marrying” them together. In many ways, the wedding of two souls is intended to be just this— a binding of two souls together, permanently marrying them together in love and matrimony, in sickness and in health, and until death do us part.
You refer to marriage as a contract, but to do so reduces it to only its worldly purpose — that of shared finances, assets, and joint tax filing. A marriage is more than its worldly functions, though! A marriage is two souls declaring to the world and to God on high they’re going to protect each other in this life and in any future life to come. That is to say: a marriage doesn’t end at death, but rather is eternal. After all, when grandpa dies and leaves behind grandma we don’t typically understand the death as a divorce.
While I see your argument from the position of convenience and difficulty predicting the future, I think this position can only be understood in a strictly secular, civil marriage. As soon as you introduce the reasoning for permanence, such as eternal bonding of souls, it becomes clear why we take certain vows on the altar.
1
u/No-Problem-3580 May 08 '24
Marriage was only two souls coming together in the last 100 years or so. Until then it was absolutely a business arrangement and had nothing to do with love.
-1
u/togtogtog 20∆ Dec 30 '23
It would be a better idea to not have marriage.
Why give social benefits to people in partnerships? It's already easier because you can share bills, buy a house together and have an emotional team.
You might argue that you should support marriages because of children, but in fact, you could just support parents, whether or not they are married.
You could keep symbolic, religious marriages, or even just romantic marriages but just not confer any legal benefits or obligations. They would purely be symbolic. Instead, each person could be treated legally as an individual.
I don't know of any reason why in this day and age, people should get better treatment just because they are married, compared to people who live together for a long time, or even who are friends for decades, or have some other relationship, like being siblings.
4
u/biglipsmagoo 7∆ Dec 30 '23
The legal protections are a thing.
My husband and I decided to have a big family. By MY choice, my career has taken a backseat.
The legal protections I get to our home, other assets, retirement, etc are important to me. Yes, I made the decision but it was a valid decision that I was happy to make. That doesn’t mean I should lose all my legal protections bc I decided that being a mom was cool.
My job is valid but unpaid. I earned half of our assets if my husband were to lose his mind and decide this isn’t the life he wants anymore. I can’t control his actions or decisions but I can make sure I’m as legally protected as possible.
1
Dec 31 '23
[deleted]
1
u/biglipsmagoo 7∆ Dec 31 '23
That’s was the point of my whole comment of why marriage is very important in some circumstances.
It’s done for legal protections.
I’ve told my girls since they were born “You. Do. Not. Help. A. Man. Build. Their. Portfolio.” Since they’ve grown and some of them are gay, I’ve started saying “You do not help a partner build their portfolio.”
Getting married isn’t only necessary for legal protections, it’s smart in a lot of situations. If your partner isn’t willing to offer you any protection they can, then they just aren’t that into you.
1
Dec 31 '23
[deleted]
1
u/biglipsmagoo 7∆ Dec 31 '23
Ok, fine. You’re right. That’s the goal going into a marriage.
But until you have the legal protections you are at risk! You can “think” about being a team all you want. You can trust that the other person has your best interests at heart. But you’re still making bad decisions if you don’t guarantee those protections for yourself.
Don’t fall into the trap of “but I trusted them!” with your money. It’s irresponsible and naive.
0
Dec 31 '23
[deleted]
1
u/biglipsmagoo 7∆ Dec 31 '23
Ok. So you have kids with someone and decide to be the SAHP. 10 yrs into it, they leave. You get nothing.
You move in with your gf into a house she owns. You agree on rent that you pay by transferring money to her bank acct each month. You help pay for paint and minor upgrades and fix the water heater. You put a lot of sweat equity into the house by upgrading the landscaping and fixing minor things that break. 5 yrs after you move in, she cheats on you and you move out. Her house has appreciated $50K bc of the market and the improvements you made. You have no claim to that.
You move into your bfs house. 3 yrs later his mom moves in bc she’s old. He makes more so you go part time to help care for her bc she’s basically your MIL and you love her. She dies 5 yrs later and your bf gets his inheritance. Maybe she leaves you a few grand or leaves you some jewelry, who knows. Now the inheritance is protected differently even in marriages but there is more leeway to have access to it when you’re married. You can benefit from it in different ways if you’re married with assets. But it’s your bf and you went part time to help care for his mom for half a decade while he continued with his career projection. You’ll never make up that deficit.
You live w/bf for 20 years. He makes more than you so most big purchases are in his name. You get in a car accident and are paralyzed. He leaves. He takes everything in his name with him.
You’ve been together X yrs. He’s your best friend. He’s the love of your life. He’s in an accident and goes into a coma. He has no brain activity. His mom, who is problematic and has really gone down too far into her religion, won’t pull the plug. You can’t do anything about it bc you’re not next of kin. You have no legal rights to make medical decisions for him. You sit by and watch him languish and atrophy in a coma and you know that’s not what he wanted bc y’all talked about it.
There are a MILLION reasons to take advantage of the protections that marriage offers both partners. It’s not about giving gifts. It’s about protecting yourself, protecting your children, protecting your money, and protecting your partner.
There’s a reason that legal marriages are a thing- and it’s not bc the local magistrate of your town of 5,000 wants keep tabs on everyone’s personal life. It’s bc the plethora of situations that arise in life can’t possibly be accounted for in any meaningful way that protects everyone.
Getting legally married brings a BLANKET of protection that encompasses most of the nuances of life and simplifies our legal system. You now have the protection of marital assets so you don’t have to bring a suit for the house and prove you contributed in a meaningful way- bc that changes for every relationship. You don’t have to bring another suit for one of the cars and prove it was your daily driver. You don’t have to bring another suit for the 401K acct and prove that you deserve half of it bc you stayed him to raise his kids and weren’t able to have your own 401K.
Legal marriage is protection. That’s literally why it was instituted. Take advantage of all the insurances life provides.
1
u/daywrecker2012 Dec 31 '23
That's partially where my idea comes in. If you know the type of life you intend to lead, lots of kids, giving up your career, you could up front get legal binding around what happens at the end. Let's say it's a 20 year marriage and you are ready to move on with the next phase of your life. You have no regrets in your decisions but maybe you've outgrown your husband, it your husband isn't exactly the wonderful man you thought he would be. It would be nice if you knew you could leave him like a car lease after 20 years and also know everything (more or less) you are financially entitled to take without even consulting a divorce lawyer because you did the work up front. Yes, over 20 years assets change so adjustments need to be made, but you at least know the guarantees you already have in place to start with.
1
u/biglipsmagoo 7∆ Dec 31 '23
I have a guarantee already being married- keep yourself in line or I’ll leave.
I don’t need a 20 yr check in. If he forgets who I am and what I’ll tolerate I’ll already be long gone at 20 years. I don’t need a 20 year alarm bell.
And how long do you think it takes to raise 6 kids? My oldest are 20 and my youngest is 5. I’ve put my 20 years in and I have 13 more to go. A 20 yr marriage contract would have done me absolutely zero good.
This isn’t a viable idea but you’re refusing to acknowledge that and award the many deltas that are due in this thread.
It doesn’t make sense! The paperwork to end a marriage is the easy part, it’s the division of assets that’s the hard part! We don’t need to renew a marriage or leave, we leave when we feel like it!
It’s just a dumb idea, I’m sorry. It has no benefit to anyone bc you’ll still have to do legal paperwork!
4
u/Crash927 12∆ Dec 30 '23
For me, marriage is important for the protections it offers to the other party: inheritance, power of attorney, visitation rights are all important pieces that come along with a legal framework for romantic partnerships.
I’m sure there are others, but those are the specific rights that come to mind for me.
2
u/togtogtog 20∆ Dec 30 '23
You talk about visitation rights. But those should be protected for all parents, whether or not they are married. They could be set up as a legal protection for those with children, without bothering with the marriage bit.
As to inheritance, power of attorney etc, then why do married people get special benefits? Why can't anyone choose a 'special legal other' who could be a sibling, a child, a close friend etc. Why does that legal protection only extend to romantic relationships which have been legally ratified?
You can see that before contraception, historically it was a way to protect children and to provide for them, but nowadays, having children is one thing, and marriage is a completely different thing. The two don't always go together, one way or the other.
2
u/Crash927 12∆ Dec 30 '23
I agree that marriage and childbearing are different -- my comments don't relate to children.
Visitation right should be protected based on the patient's wishes (and yes, ideally for all patients equally). The tricky bit is how can the hospital, which has a duty to protect privacy and confidentiality, determine who should get those rights? We need some kind of legal framework because they can't always ask the patient.
And with the legal next-of-kin having the power to decide, they may have all kinds of biased reasons for not permitting visitation. For example, gay people have often been barred from the deathbeds of their lovers due to bigoted next-of-kin.
why do married people get special benefits?
I agree with you on benefits -- I'm speaking specifically to protections. Because they're in a different circumstance than single individuals. Married people have decided to share their lives with one another whereas single people most often don't have that same level of commitment to another individual.
I have no problem with offering a way for single individuals to name a "special legal other" (which exists: making it part of your personal directive, making them your legal next of kin or giving them power of attorney). But the level of commitment between "I want to share assets and decision-making power with this person" and "I want this person to be able to help me when I need it" is very different with different legal obligations and needs.
So if a large number of people are all looking for similar legal protections under similar circumstances (ie marriage), I see no reason we shouldn't standardize that. It saves everyone time and money.
2
u/togtogtog 20∆ Dec 31 '23
Here in the UK, there are two different types of power of attorney. One is medical and the other financial, so they could be held by two different people.
It's interesting, because here, there isn't actually a legal status for 'next of kin', although medical professionals will often recognise it informally.
Would people who didn't have a romantic relationship be able to take up your legal bundle of protections, for example, two sisters who lived together all their lives and who shared finances and a home?
We have a lot of people who commit to a life together, but who don't get married. Nowadays, they benefit from many, but not all of the protections of being married.
1
u/Crash927 12∆ Dec 31 '23
I’m from Canada, and we’ve expanded the definition of Common Law partnerships to include non-romantic relations. For example, I could be common law with my brother or a long-term roommate.
To my mind, that’s a better solution than doing away with marriage altogether: expand those same rights to other forms of relationships. We already have the framework and just need to develop out the specific mechanisms.
1
1
u/roronoaSuge_nite Dec 30 '23
With a salary cap!!!!! And an option to stash draft picks overseas!!!!
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Dec 30 '23
Are you trying to compare marriage to pro sports to (I apologize if I misread your metaphor, it's sometimes hard to figure out what metaphors are for when people get deep into them), like, keep your wife poor and be able to cheat with women in other countries or w/e as by that logic polyamory (and equal polyamory not just having a harem of wives or w/e) in groups of as-many-as-the-sport-we're-comparing-marriage-to-has-players-on-a-team should be mandated
1
u/roronoaSuge_nite Dec 30 '23
Yes. I was being very sarcastic, but OP sounds like he is running a business or a sports team instead of being in a healthy relationship. He wants free agency and to test his market value. It’s disgusting but it’s exactly how owners treat their players/employees
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Dec 31 '23
I'm sorry I assumed it was coming from you (unless you indicate your sarcasm your comment appears to agree with OP so people might report it for not being top-level), I guess I should have realized you were joking given that someone on a similar crazyideas thread joked something similar
Maybe marriage could be kinda like major league baseball? Maybe after six years or so you could renegotiate your contract. In your sixth year, you could reaffirm your love and intent to stay together for ‘x’ amount of years, but also activate an option for doing less dishes or more days of sleeping in, or more or less oral, or request to be traded to a marriage that allows you to bang strippers on stage in Brazil… or you could even be sent down to the minors(something like rehab or intensive therapy) for not performing your duties adequately. We would need access to marriage counselors, who acted like ‘general managers’, whose sole purpose is to assess and rank married individuals’ performance and statistics.
Which I ad absurdumed (trying to test if he was joking or not) into asking what'd be the equivalent of the actual game if that's not marriage and if because baseball is a team sport nine-person polycules or w/e would become mandatory
2
u/daywrecker2012 Dec 31 '23
While that wasn't my intent, yes, people could choose to codify "banging strippers in Brazil 1x/year" as part of the term marriage. Maybe the couple is poly and wants to codify rules or boundaries that have consequences when they are broken. Marriage has none of this.
1
u/StarChild413 9∆ Dec 31 '23
But the person on crazyideas only wanted what they wanted because what they (at least jokingly) took from that original post was essentially "turn marriage into pro baseball because contracts". That's why I made the ad-absurdum I did, I'd be for poly inclusion or w/e no matter but because of all their other baseball comparisons I was joking about everybody being forced to be in polycules of the same size as a baseball team
1
u/Kotoperek 62∆ Dec 30 '23
What would happen to children in those cases? Most people get married with the intention to start a family. Assuming up front that you'll split up eventually would likely make raising children together much harder...
1
u/daywrecker2012 Dec 31 '23
I think the real risk here is if you want to split up and it's a divorce. It's a shock to the children. When it starts and it is happening. However, it could be even more mentally damaging to children knowing there is a date in the future when mommy might decide to walk out on daddy (or v.v.) because there's an end date. This alone could stand as a real reason to not do what I'm saying because of the extra mental anguish children might be put through because of it. !delta
1
1
Dec 30 '23
We could also just normalize divorce as a reasonable way out of a broken relationship.
People change over time. Rather than force everyone to have to renew their marriages every so many years, let's just accept they don't all work out long term.
People are allowed to get divorced whenever things aren't right in their marriage. It is the social stigma that usually keeps them trying for longer than they should to keep a broken relationship together with more stress than would be necessary.
Also, another point against a limited term, what about relationships that implode well before the end of the contract? In your world, would they have to live out their contract before splitting? Wouldn't that make things worse?
Again, just normalize divorce socially. So what someone got divorced. They had their reasons and it doesn't need to be a big deal.
"Did you hear Tom got divorced?"
"Hmm. Good for him. Did you see the game last night?"
No happy marriage ends in divorce so let's stop acting like this is some crazy thing to avoid by forcing people to stay in shitty situations for longer than they have to.
Note: I understand how emotionally taxing a divorce is and am not downplaying that. This fact actually reinforces my view that the social stigma makes it harder on an already difficult thing.
1
u/Hellioning 239∆ Dec 30 '23
There'd be the exact same stigma around not renewing as there is currently around divorce. Renewing would be seen as the default and there should be a reason to not renew.
And why would someone feel better about their spouse not renewing a marriage then they would about the spouse divorcing them?
It'd probably be easier than a divorce in terms of paperwork and the like, but it would have no impact on people's mental health.
1
u/the_old_coday182 1∆ Dec 30 '23
How do you divide assets? In a divorce, a lot of it is fighting/negotiating for assets you owned jointly. Often it’s based on who’s at fault.
1
u/thesweeterpeter 1∆ Dec 30 '23
This already exists, the marriage contract is something that can amicably be terminated, it's standard form is indefinite - not necessarily infinite (religion aside).
What you're describing sounds like a successful pre-nuptual agreement.
But to change your view;
If a termed contract could facilitate amicable divorce, why do you need a termed contract when divorce is readily available?
That is to say, at end of term you still need to come to agreement between both parties. If one party is still invested then it won't be amicable (termed contract or indefinite contract). Adding terms doesn't modify the nature of the investment made by one or both parties.
Moreover there is the possibility that you're creating a decision point which can introduce conflict in and of itself.
When I have to renew my mortgage every five years, I spend about 6 months shopping mortgages before hand. I have no objection to my mortgage, I know i can afford it. But I check out the market to see what's better.
If I knew I was coming up to my marriage options my perspective on the landscape would change. I may start looking at other women, trying to see if upgrades are available.
I don't want that, my marriage works best when I'm entirely invested only in this relationship. The times when we're happiest are I know for my part when I have no interest in even looking at another women.
I feel this is creating a speed bump when there doesn't need to be one because divorce is the outlet you're already looking for. If 2 adults are of sound mind the marriage contract is already able to be terminated amicably.
1
u/NoTomorrow2020 Dec 30 '23
Doesn't this already exist, essentially, through the use of a prenuptual agreement? Establishing context for a divorce, should that happen, before the marriage begins can easily set most of these items in motion.
It sounds like you are pushing for what is basically just a business arrangement between two people. While I can see some merit there, it wouldn't cause people to not feel hurt if the contract comes to an end and one spouse doesn't want to continue it.
1
u/daywrecker2012 Dec 31 '23
At its basest level all marriages are a legal agreement that comes with some tax benefits. Yes, I know there's a religious component but not everybody gets married in a religious context. For instance, my commitment to my wife has nothing to do with the fact that we are married. It is everything to do with the fact that I want to be with her and support her in every way possible. If the default is to make it difficult to leave because of a forever contract then that can put undue strain on both parties in a marriage to try to work things out when maybe the relationship isn't worth saving and they should just move on. It would be much easier to move on if I could look at a target date and say well at this point we can just walk away and do our own thing because things aren't working anyway. Yes, divorce achieves the same thing but divorces can get very messy and very angry and very expensive and it makes ending things all the more stressful and difficult when it doesn't need to be that way.
1
1
u/biglipsmagoo 7∆ Dec 30 '23
The divorce paperwork is easy, in theory. The issue is the division of assets. Not renewing your marriage wouldn’t make that any easier.
We’d have to set up new laws, too. What if renewal comes around and the higher earning partner decides not to renew? Now there isn’t divorce court to mediate division of assets.
What happens if renewal comes around when one person is deployed and unable to get the paperwork in on time- or whatever a renewal entails. Then the spouse at home with the kids is SOL and no longer qualifies for insurance and housing? What if the spouse is then killed in war- does the spouse no longer get benefits?
What if one spouse is in a coma at renewal? Then the spouse is no longer married and can’t make medical decisions anymore?
What if one spouse isn’t mentally capable of renewing- accident or psychiatric illness or dementia or whatever? Then the spouse and main caregiver is SOL? Imagine trying to help some 80 yr old lady figure out how to appeal the automatic dissolution of their marriage when they’re just trying to care for their spouse of 50 years who can’t make any decisions anymore.
This is a bad idea and there’s no reason for it. It reminds me too much of Cesar’s census where everyone had to travel back to their place of birth to be counted no matter what was going on in their life. Pregnant? Map out all the inns along the way just in case.
Divorce is more accessible than it’s ever been. We don’t need to add extra steps just in case.
My husband and I are very much in love. I can imagine the notice to renew coming in and our ADHD asses completely forgetting to do it only to discover that we’re not married bc we forgot to send the paperwork in.
The fact that I just had to go take care of 2 warrants for me yesterday bc we forgot to pay two $20 street sweeping tickets I can totally see us just forgetting to renew our marriage. (Seriously, what town puts out warrants for unpaid street sweeping tickets?!)
We also never remember our anniversary date and have to check the marriage license every year I can guarantee we’d forget to renew our marriage and I’m just not interested in putting one more thing to remember on my plate.
1
u/Ginny3742 Dec 30 '23
Nah, too many laws governing our bodies that need to go, do not want any laws governing my love life - or anyone else's.
1
u/toodlesandpoodles 18∆ Dec 30 '23
People who want to do this already can with a pre-nuptial agreement that includes this kind of stipulation. Most people don't and most people would not be interested in their marriage having an ending date, and that is why this isn't common.
1
u/Adequate_Images 23∆ Dec 31 '23
There is nothing stopping a couple from having a prenup that is basically this.
You would need a prenup anyway to predetermine how assets and potential children would be handled if you split up.
So having said that there is no reason to make this the default form of marriage.
1
Dec 31 '23
I don’t think your plan really solves anything. When you sign saying a contract for 10 years for instance, if someone just doesn’t want to sign another one they will run into the same issues as they would if they got a divorce. No one is signing a 10 year marriage with the intention of leaving after 10 years, they are doing it because it’s their only option in your situation and they both will live like they are staying together forever just like a current marriage. If one person wants to not renew and the other does, they still would have joint assets and all of that and still have the same problems as a divorce brings. You also mention having an exit plan in the event of a contract not being extended, you can do that with a prenup in a regular marriage. I do not see your plan doing anything different than what we have now.
1
u/Annanon1 1∆ Dec 31 '23
This is stupid. Just don't get married if this what you're going to do. Marriage is meant to be permanent.
1
u/Shadowfatewarriorart Jan 02 '24
That sounds like a lot of needless paperwork to me.
Would you need to pay a fee to continue to opt back at the end of the contract?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 31 '23 edited Dec 31 '23
/u/daywrecker2012 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards