What if marriage was temporary?

Polaris said:
Lifelong marriage is up there with war and slavery in my book. It's archaic. Get rid of it. Monogamy is good enough.
Click to expand...

I was initially shocked by this flippant comparison. Then I said it out loud:
War. Slavery. Marriage.
I'll let it go.
 
I think that is a good idea. It should be more like a drivers license in that you have to renew it every few years. Society in the western world has changed so much over the past few decades, but our marriage customs do not reflect these changes. It should be easier to terminate marriages for one thing.

I suspect though that changing our marriage laws to make it easier to end the relationship or to have multiple partners will favor "alpha"/dominant men, while potentially hurting "beta" type men(their wives will leave them for socially dominant alphas more easily).
 
Zelenius said:
I think that is a good idea. It should be more like a drivers license in that you have to renew it every few years.
Click to expand...


That reminds me of the episode of Dinosaurs where they find out that their marriage license has expired (it expires after 20 years) and that they're no longer married. They have to go through a relationship test to get it renewed.

Part 1 (8 min) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6yGZuvZOZ0
Part 2 (8 min) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDrQpbvvej4
Part 3 (7:42) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLSfmLtKTKE
 
catsmate1 said:
There have been cultures/societies with short term or easily ended marriages.
Click to expand...

That is true. Shiite Islam allows temporary marriages, though it isn't very common in Shiite countries like Iran. I think they usually last around a year, maybe a little more in some cases. I think this practice is frowned upon by more conservative Shiite Muslims, though I've read about clerics in Iran propose ridiculous ideas like requiring prostitutes and their clients to be temporarily married for 30 to 60 minutes while they have sex, so that their sexual relations would be seen as "legitimate" in the eyes of God(this would effectively make prostitution legal).

This isn't exactly what I have in mind by "temporary marriage" though.
 
Last edited:
Back when this was written you couldnt just leave a marriage for no reason, now you can legally and socially its not really seen as that bad. No fault divorce is temporary marriage, unless "temporary marriage" did not split marriage assets and there was no such thing as alimony etc. No fault is stupid, because otherwise I dont see whats the point of marriage at all if you can just get up and leave whenever you want with no repercussions (other than the usually the man getting screwed of course) Marriage should mean.. something.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
No fault is stupid, because otherwise I dont see whats the point of marriage at all. Marriage should mean.. something.
Click to expand...
What should it mean, and to whom should marriage mean it?

Every marriage is different and "no fault divorce" allows the law to recognize marriage without defining exactly what it means for everyone.
 
Polaris said:
It would be great. The idea that two people will stay together for ever and ever is quaint and statistically highly unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Not so. Remember the divorce figures are skewed by people who get divorced several times.
 
Babbylonian said:
Every marriage is different and "no fault divorce" allows the law to recognize marriage without defining exactly what it means for everyone.
Click to expand...

If so, why doesnt it allow the couples to sort out who gets what, or just let people sue each other like normal in civil court?
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
If so, why doesnt it allow the couples to sort out who gets what
Click to expand...
It does. Divorce court, in the sense of the fight-it-out situation, is for couples who can't agree on the terms of their divorces (up to and including when one party simply will not agree to divorce at all).

Judges may also get involved if, upon review, an agreed-upon settlement either violates the law or is patently unfair (such as might happen if one party is able to exert undue pressure on the other).

Other than that, they're pretty much just going to take the submitted papers, review them, and then finalize them according to local law.
or just let people sue each other like normal in civil court?
Click to expand...
There are enough divorces that putting them into the regular system - which already tends towards clogging - would be dumb. Letting specialists handle them makes a lot more sense. It's the same reason there's a separate "small claims court." Small claims are more numerous and can be handled in an expedited fashion, just like most divorces.
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
It does. Divorce court, in the sense of the fight-it-out situation, is for couples who can't agree on the terms of their divorces (up to and including when one party simply will not agree to divorce at all).
Click to expand...


It makes rules and laws on who gets what due to the marriage contract. According to you, marriage is what ever the parties says it is. If MY idea of marriage is my partner gets nothing of mine, then how can the law enforce something like alimony?

Look if marriage really was legally the way you said it is, then that would be different, but it isnt.
 
Edx said:
It makes rules and laws on who gets what due to the marriage contract. According to you, marriage is what ever the parties says it is. If MY idea of marriage is my partner gets nothing of mine, then how can the law enforce something like alimony?

Look if marriage really was legally the way you said it is, then that would be different, but it isnt.
Click to expand...
The financial aspect is one of the primary reasons why we continue to have legally recognized marriage. When I said every marriage is different, I was referring to your contention that "No fault is stupid..." and that "Marriage should mean.. something."

Example: Let's say we have a marriage where one party commits adultery. They go to counseling and the other party decides to continue the marriage; then later, s/he decides on divorce. In a fault system, the adultery could be held against the offending party and the distribution of assets could be altered to reflect that. The offending party could believe that s/he was forgiven for the adultery but a judge could decide that it doesn't matter or it isn't credible. In a no fault system, the adultery is completely irrelevant and the community assets would be split right down the middle.
 
Last edited:
Polaris said:
Great, let them! It's the cultural insistence that everybody should get married and stay married until they die that I object to.
Click to expand...

Surely you are not talking about contemporary American culture?
 
Babbylonian said:
The financial aspect is one of the primary reasons why we continue to have legally recognized marriage. When I said every marriage is different, I was referring to your contention that "No fault is stupid..." and that "Marriage should mean.. something."

Example: Let's say we have a marriage where one party commits adultery. They go to counseling and the other party decides to continue the marriage; then later, s/he decides on divorce. In a fault system, the adultery could be held against the offending party and the distribution of assets could be altered to reflect that. The offending party could believe that s/he was forgiven for the adultery but a judge could decide that it doesn't matter or it isn't credible. In a no fault system, the adultery is completely irrelevant and the community assets would be split right down the middle.
Click to expand...

Then I see no difference between fault divorce and forcing people to pay alimony in terms of the governments involvement in what the marriage contract means.

The difference is that with no fault it means you can enter into a contract and nullify it whenever you like for no reason, which wouldn't be so bad except that you are being forced to split assets and make alimony payments of course.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Then I see no difference between fault divorce and forcing people to pay alimony in terms of the governments involvement in what the marriage contract means.

The difference is that with no fault it means you can enter into a contract and nullify it whenever you like for no reason, which wouldn't be so bad except that you are being forced to split assets and make alimony payments of course.
Click to expand...
Laws regarding spousal support vary greatly but in general it's going to be determined according to a variety factors including length of the union, whether or not a spouse is a homemaker/raising children, how one spouse contributed to the education/earnings of the other, etc. It's also probably not going to be assessed for life but rather for a length of time that would allow the spouse with lower earning potential to improve her or his situation.

The difference, therefore, is that alimony under a no fault system is going to be calculated in a way that is intended to be fair, and it is not assessed in a manner intended to punish some marital offense.

As for being "forced" to do something, almost anything considered to be potentially unfair can be addressed in a prenuptial agreement, perhaps most importantly outlining in advance what assets each party is bringing into the marriage that should therefore be protected from being considered as community property during a divorce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom