Temporary Marriages

[freescorfr]

One of my favorite quotes form him " Forgive him. He thinks that the customs of his village are laws of nature."

I like the whole post, but this last quote touches, I believe, a fundamental aspect of this debate. Marriage, as the institution we know it, is our current, but declining, structure for bringing children into the world.
As Olivianna pointed out, Islam used to have a form of temporary marriage. Christianity, too, did not initially have the present legal structure which grew up, in canon law, about 800 years ago. Couples lived together and formed bonds which were eventually recognised as marriage. Much of what we have today was designed to cope with material wealth and inheritance.

I imagine we can do better. I suspect each marriage has its own story, but it does seem to me likely that many individuals will grow within a good marriage, and each partner may not grow in a way which remains for ever comaptible with a close bond with the other.
PCG's proposal would simply make the parting on different paths less encumbered.

 

[Ishmael]

I don't see much difference in the proposed arrangement and what we have today.

The dissolution distribution is approximately the same as todays norm. About the only thing you'd save is attorneys fees if both parties agreed that the distribution of the collective assests were equitable.

For arguments sake, let's say that 3 years into the contract period (or the 7th year, or the 12th) one party finds that they can no longer maintain their part of the partnership. For whatever reason. In the 'contract' scenario would they still be obligated to fullfil the terms of the contract? If not, wouldn't that essentially be the same as today's divorce?

Re. Hienlein. Hienlein wrote of a future in which people lived an extrodinarily long time in good health. A perpetual middle age so to speak. Much of his experimentation was predicated on the concept that a marriage could not survive 100 or so years. He's probably right. But that day isn't here yet.

The other issue of no marriage whatsoever has been covered by the 'common law' marriage laws of the various states. Many of these laws were altered or abandoned altogether by popular demand back in the 60's and 70's.

Personally, I believe marriage to be a commitment. A commitment on both parties parts. One not to be taken lightly. I think that many's approach (myself included) to marriage is too cavelier and bad choices result. The other issue is the learning and practicing of interpersonal communication techniques. Techniques that have to be continually practiced by both parties for a long term marriage to survive.

Ishmael

 

[LittleMsNaughty]

Just my humble opinion....

I think an advantage would be if everyone was aware from the beginning that it was a temporary arrangement because the kids wouldn't have to go through the whole divorce/custody drama - as it would already be worked out before hand

but for me personally i like being married and the whole idea of growing old with someone for the rest of my life.... I am what you would describe as a hopeless romantic so I like the traditional way of doing things and therefore will anything it takes to save my marriage (ssshhh - that confession could be used against me !!)..... but I can see it working for some people!

 

[WhiteRose]

handfasting....you get "married" for a year and a day....
then you are free to end it or maintain it....

There's more than one definition of handfasting. You can be married for:
1) a year and a day
2) until the love ends
3) until the physical life ends
4) eternity

The difference between handfasting and a legal ceremony is just that. There is no legal documentation of the marriage in a handfasting. Some pagan couples never legally marry and opt only for a handfasting, but some have both a handfasting (for a spiritual union) and a legal signing of the document (the meet the qualifications in most places so both partners are legally covered by insurance, conform to the outside society, etc.) These days, many HP's and HPS's are legally ordained and can perform both a spiritual handfasting as well as a legally certified wedding ceremony.

A dissolution ends a handfasting the same way a divorce ends a marriage, but you can still end up with a lot of problematic legal issues if one of the parties decides to play mean.

***

Personally, I can't see the value in starting a "marriage" knowing that you don't have to put any effort into it because it's only temporary. If you go into it with the mindset that you can always get out of it, what's the point? A marriage, to me, is a blending of two lives. No, it's not always going to be an easy road, but that's where the strength of the bond comes from...working through the adversities TOGETHER. If you aren't going to play to win, don't bother playing the game. It'd only be a waste of time that ends in broken hearts.

IF you've both given it your all and still can't make it work together, then it's time to think about alternatives, but planning on "just trying it out" to see if you really want to be with that person...that seems like it should have been figured out before you ever walked down the aisle.

And I think using the argument that it would be better for the kids because they wouldn't have to go through a divorce is a total copout and the parents are only thinking about their own desires. Do you honestly think a 5 year old child is going to understand why the daddy who has been there every night taking care of her and playing with her and holding her when she cries is suddenly replaced by some strange daddy she's now supposed to embrace just because mommy got an itch to wander? Kids need security. They need to know that their primary parent or parents will be there ALWAYS to take care of them. This year daddy leaves. What happens if next year mommy might leave because she believes in temporary families? Because that's what your little girl will be wondering. What will you be teaching her? That it's not safe to get too attached to people because they'll always be leaving her? Why would you purposefully do that to a child?

Total selfishness.

 

[Bidin~Time]

First of all, let me say to those LIT regulars who haven't put me on "ignore" already, better get that lil clicker ready to do so now.
Having forewarned you, let me say this. On the outside the idea of a temporary arrangement seems like a good idea. But it brings up so many unanswered questions as to boggle the mind. Noe divorce you say?? Oh but I beg to differ. When the contract is up who is to say the 50% of the material possession you want WON'T be the same 50% your partner wants? Then who decides on the split?? An attorney, of course. I can see the profession as a whole licking their chops over the very idea. And the idea of 5 yrs. to me shows an serious attention span problem.
Unfortunately, in today's society, " I better get mine" is the prevailing attitude. And for some strange reason people think of marriage as and means to an end, i.e. money, sex, material possessions, sex, etc. Oh did I mention sex? They seem to completely ignore the fact that great sex does NOT equal love. What about the idea of having a "best friend" ? Is there some obscure law I haven't been made aware of that excludes marriage from the realm of friendship? Ultimately, a husband and wife should be best friends. Your spouse is the one person who can and should kick your ass (not literally) and tell you you're full of shit when you need to be reined in, and conversely, the first one to praise you when you deserve it. It should be part of the idea behind marriage that the person you are marrying will always be in your corner....not necessarily cheering your actions......but there, just as any "best friend would.
No, I realize that for many people this is NOT how marriage is, but it's my contention that most people haven't thought out or talked out with their partner what they expect out of marriage.
The are times you wish the person your married to would find something else to do for 3 or 4 decades.....that's a sure sign you need to talk, and take a good look at yourself, not just your spouse.
To those of you who waited to read all of this before hitting "ignore", I appreciate your patience.
I just had to have my say.


emi

 

[Vivacia]

Re: Re: Temporary Marriages

Yes, let's fracture American families even more. What we need are more kids of divorce.

This is something that Rod Stewart brought up in the UK awhile back, and I think it would be a good idea really.

Look at it this way Russian, There are ALREADY alot of kids that are from divorced families both inside and outside of the States (I am one of them) but if it was contract based then it would remove alot of the hostility that tends to surround divorce. Which is what I personally found the most damaging, for me it was no big deal that Mum and Dad weren't living together as it was hell with them under the same roof, always at each other's throats... It was the nastiness and fighting over who got what that hurt me.

Also, if you have married for love (rather then just for a cut of the profit after the end of the term) then it will encourage you to work harder within the relationship. You will put all your effort into making sure that your partner will want to renew your contract when the time comes.

So for me I think the term is bring it on! (I have one failed marriage that I am trying to dissolve already, it would have been much easier if it was already this sort of system.) Please don't think that I am a cold-hearted bitch for agreeing with the idea, I am still a hopeless romantic at heart and intend it to be "till death us do part" next time for me, but this system has it advantages in my view...

Agreed it would still have it's share of problems too!

It is just a shame that the Churches would never allow it.

I think that marriage should be harder to get into then it is... there are very few people who walk down the ilse (sp?) intending it to be "till death us do part" these days anyway, you only need to look at the statistics to know that.

 

[WhiteRose]

The contract is for five years. What happens when in year two the couple starts having the fights, yelling, screaming with their kids in the same house. How is that any different than a divorce? They're still stuck together for three more years, during which, the kids are the ones that suffer the most. If the couple is breaking up after five years, it's for a REASON. They obviously are not getting along. Remember that it's the PARENTS who signed the contract. Not the kids. So the parents can just "get over it". You'd be purposefully messing with your own children's emotions.

Some messages you'd be passing along to your kids:
1) Committment doesn't really matter
2) Working together to solve your problems...well they wouldn't have learned how anyway...
3) Don't bother loving anyone because they can always choose to leave you, and you'll always get hurt
4) Putting any effort into anything is useless
5) You can't trust that mommy and daddy will be there for you tomorrow because relationships are only "temporary"

 

[Bidin~Time]

The contract is for five years. What happens when in year two the couple starts having the fights, yelling, screaming with their kids in the same house. How is that any different than a divorce? They're still stuck together for three more years, during which, the kids are the ones that suffer the most. If the couple is breaking up after five years, it's for a REASON. They obviously are not getting along. Remember that it's the PARENTS who signed the contract. Not the kids. So the parents can just "get over it". You'd be purposefully messing with your own children's emotions.

Some messages you'd be passing along to your kids:
1) Committment doesn't really matter
2) Working together to solve your problems...well they wouldn't have learned how anyway...
3) Don't bother loving anyone because they can always choose to leave you, and you'll always get hurt
4) Putting any effort into anything is useless
5) You can't trust that mommy and daddy will be there for you tomorrow because relationships are only "temporary"

**stands and applauds in agreement**

Very well said

emi

 

[Samuari]

Let me say first that I'm still married to my first wife (yes, she is still putting up with me.) of 27years, and I cann't really imagine me living any other way. It is an open marriage where we have both had affairs that we told each other about, but I am emotionaly bonded to her in ways that I cann't begin to understand. It is working for us, and has given us the frame work to raise four wonderful girls.

I have also seen very dear friends have their whole being shaken by attempting to hold a marriage together "for the children", when disolving the relationship would have been so very much better for the kids in every way. I have also seen couples simply grow apart to where 10, 15, 20 years after the wedding they are no longer the same people that said those vows, and the these new people just aren't very compatable any longer. These folks need to have a way of moving on with thier lives.

There need to be options in selecting the frame work that we and our partners will build our lives arround. I am so very blessed that the "traditional" concepts were so eaisly adapted to our needs. Not every one is as fortunate, and they need more choices.

 

[Calamity Jane]

I find it ironic that people are so blown away by this idea, and they use the divorce statistics to prove their case. Obviously, if the current system of marriage was working, divorce wouldn't be so commonplace.

I'm not going to quote everyone, but some things I found interesting...

The idea that if the daddy was there every night hugging his kids, reading them stories and playing with them, and then all of a sudden mommy decides to move on. Do you really believe that a marriage based on love and mutual respect, in which the father was an active participant in the lives of his children, and was a best friend and confidant to his wife... would end just because the initial contract had expired? That's a prime example of a marriage contract that would be renewed.

The marriages in which people had gotten together for the same reasons, but then grew seperately, until they were no longer compatible people. Who knew they were setting an example for their children of "we made a promise, so we're sticking to it no matter what, and no one really deserves to be happy anyway" are the ones that would dissolve the contract after 5 or 10 or 15 years.

I'm very concious of the examples I set for my little girls. Sometimes, when a parent leaves, the example isn't "Ah well, it wasn't working, so fuck it" it's "we all deserve the opportunity to be happy and fulfilled, even if we have to do it the hard way".

 

[patient1]

I'm struck more by the realization that so many parents aren't committed to their kids. Isn't that the real problem?

Whatever the norm for marriage is or could be, doesn't a lot of this have to do with failed parenting more than failed relationships?

A five year deal is an interesting idea.

 

[Calamity Jane]

Yes, parenting is a large part of it. When we become parents, we change. We sometimes forget that we had a relationship as husband and wife before a relationship as co-parents. Things get lost.

I also think that a lot of the 'trauma' of divorce comes from failed parenting. When caught in the throes of 'getting what's mine', the two adults forget that the children are the first and only real priority. Their health, safety and security are all that really matter once it's all said and done.

 

[patient1]

So what if-

All the property goes to the kids & parents have to start over from scratch in the event of a divorce? It would save on court fights.

 

[VeryBadGirl]

I could be wrong, but I remember having a long conversation with somebody about the history of marriage. They said it was "invented" to legitimize children for the sake of inheritance. Before marriage, if you weren't married, and you fathered children with more than 1 woman, there would be disagreements about the father's stuff when he died. It's simpler to just leave it all to the oldest legitimate son. Totally legal - nothing to do with healthy relationships.

On to PC's idea.

Even with all the explanations, and even as a simple theory, I don't see any difference in 5 years vs. forever. I can't imagine myself having the attitude of "I'm going to work harder to ensure that he still wants me at the end of the term." In RL, I honestly work hard every DAY to make sure he wants me tomorrow.

What makes me consciously work at my marriage (and some of it IS work - planned, scheduled, paid for, etc.) is that it IS happy now, and I want to keep it that way. If it weren't a happy marriage, I DO agree that parents shouldn't stay together if their bad relationship is creating a hostile unhealthy environment. I was raised in that, and it was horrible.

And both my parents were too asshole-ish to concern themselves with what the kids were going through - a 5 year thing wouldn't have broken them up - they are still together (40 years), and their marriage is still terrible.

Also, what if the wife (for example) just likes a little variety - she never has any intention of renewing the contract. The husband would be doing all this work, in good faith, for nothing - the wife could just say, "gee whiz, why the tears? you knew going in that it was legal and reasonable for me to leave you at the end of the term."

Interesting idea, but I just don't know.

VBG

 

[MorgaineLaFay]

Do you think more people would get married... and stay married... if it was a temporary arrangement?

Let's say you sign a marriage contract for a 5 year term. At the end of 5 years, you have the option of renewal or the option of walking away with 50% of the assests accrued during the marriage. Both partners know going into the contract that it's for a limited term. Support for the children of any union is agreed upon prior to their births... each parent providing 50%, with monetary values applied to physical custody.

You don't have to worry about waking up one morning and thinking "Oh, my god. This is the person I'm going to wake up with for the next 50 years."

Makes sense to me biologically too. There would be more options for diversity in the gene pool if we didn't stay with the same people forever and ever.

My five years have come up...I'd like to find out about returning my current mate. I'll let ya know when I need a new one...

 

[BigDawg69]

My 5 years are up too. I need to return this mean cranky model for a new one. Any ideas?

 

[perks]

I have an idea for the both of you.

 

[MorgaineLaFay]

I'm afraid to ask

 

[April]

Every time I see this thread, I think it says "Temporary Massages ".

 

[GreenEyedGirl]

PCG

You have brought up an incredibly interesting, and hot, topic.
Marriage was originally created by organized religion for a few different reasons, one was to legitimize children, as VeryBadGirl posted. Another reason was to try to stop venereal diseases, and a third was to create a congregation for the church.
A bonus reason introduced was tax benefits, because church and state are always in each others pants.
So, you have two people in some heavy degree of love and lust and they decide that they can not spend another day apart. And being commonlaw spouses is frowned upon.
So they become forever.
But forever changes on a yearly, monthly, and even daily basis.
Yes, children benefit from a stable home life, so if that home life constitues one, two, or more parents is not as important as the stability and love created for that child.
Lots of people have said that awful relationships that are held together for the "sake of the children" are more harmful than separating and then raising the children that way.
People cause broken homes. Simply and truly. When people use the children to exact some sick form of revenge of each other, or otherwise phsychologically damage their kids by using their children as opposed to raising them, the real problem raises it head.
So marriage is antiquated, but it still works for some people. And it does not work for others. There is no real answer to this question, because it is not a simple issue. But there are choice to be had in love, and the real challenge is to make the choices that are right for you, your love, and whatever children issue from that union.