September 2007
9/30/07
9/29/07
9/28/07
9/28/07
9/28/07
9/28/07
9/27/07
9/27/07
9/27/07
9/27/07
9/26/07
9/26/07
9/26/07
9/26/07
9/25/07
9/25/07
9/25/07
9/25/07
9/24/07
9/24/07
9/24/07
9/24/07
9/23/07
9/22/07
9/21/07
9/21/07
9/21/07
Time-Limited Marriage?
9/21/07
9/20/07
9/20/07
9/20/07
9/19/07
9/19/07
9/19/07
9/19/07
9/18/07
9/18/07
9/18/07
9/18/07
9/17/07
9/17/07
9/17/07
9/17/07
9/16/07
9/15/07
9/14/07
9/14/07
9/14/07
9/14/07
9/13/07
9/13/07
9/13/07
9/12/07
9/12/07
9/12/07
9/12/07
9/11/07
9/11/07
9/11/07
9/11/07
9/10/07
9/10/07
9/10/07
9/9/07
9/8/07
9/8/07
9/7/07
9/7/07
9/7/07
9/7/07
9/6/07
9/6/07
9/5/07
9/5/07
9/5/07
9/5/07
9/4/07
9/4/07
9/4/07
9/4/07
9/3/07
9/3/07
9/2/07
9/1/07
Friday, September 21, 2007
10:30:00 AM EDT
Hearing Nothing at the moment
Here's an interesting idea, and by interesting I mean "not something I would want":
Bavaria's most glamorous politician has shocked the Catholic state in Germany by suggesting marriage should last just 7 years.
Gabriele Pauli... told reporters at the launch of her campaign manifesto Wednesday she wanted marriage to expire after seven years...
"The basic approach is wrong ... many marriages last just because people believe they are safe," she told reporters.
On the surface I think this is probably not a great idea because marriages are more than just two people being together; eventually things like property and children and family and so on get caught into it as well. Anyone who has been through a divorce knows how difficult it is separating all this stuff out; doing it because of a time-limited marital contract would not be any easier.
That said, I do think the intent of the idea -- to get people to think seriously about the health of their marriage -- is not a bad one; it's be good for most people to do a systems check every few years. I don't think it requires a sunset clause on the marriage, however.
Your thoughts?
Written by johnmscalzi Blog about this entry
10:30:00 AM EDT
Hearing Nothing at the moment
Time-Limited Marriage?
Here's an interesting idea, and by interesting I mean "not something I would want":
Bavaria's most glamorous politician has shocked the Catholic state in Germany by suggesting marriage should last just 7 years.
Gabriele Pauli... told reporters at the launch of her campaign manifesto Wednesday she wanted marriage to expire after seven years...
"The basic approach is wrong ... many marriages last just because people believe they are safe," she told reporters.
On the surface I think this is probably not a great idea because marriages are more than just two people being together; eventually things like property and children and family and so on get caught into it as well. Anyone who has been through a divorce knows how difficult it is separating all this stuff out; doing it because of a time-limited marital contract would not be any easier.
That said, I do think the intent of the idea -- to get people to think seriously about the health of their marriage -- is not a bad one; it's be good for most people to do a systems check every few years. I don't think it requires a sunset clause on the marriage, however.
Your thoughts?
Written by johnmscalzi Blog about this entry
This entry has 7 comments: (Add your own)
-
One of the points of marriage is that you're pooling your future well-being with your partner's, thus making it easier to take risks that jeopardizes your personal welfare somewhat (like giving up your steady income) in order to increase your joint welfare (raising the kids, starting a family business).
Unfortunately, if you both know that you're only in this relationship "for now", any jeopardy to your personal welfare isn't going to be counter-balanced by the increase to your joint welfare. Some of the biggest benefits of marriage simply aren't going to be in that contract.
I really don't think this is a great idea. "Living Together Agreements" already exist. Why downgrade marriage to simply another temporary living-together contract? -
I feel if you make a commitment it is for a lifetime.
I am divorced but would have stayed to make things work out b/c of the children.
Instead of focusing on 7 year marriages, they should make it more difficult to get married, take a class on what commitment/marriage is. Maybe this should be taught in HS as a requirement.
It's difficult to split property, but even worse to split up a family. Kids do suffer, holidays are difficult...there is so much to consider.
Yes, marriage is a sacrament, it is a partnership, it's not just about loving someone & should be taken seriously. IT SUPPOSED TO BE A LIFETIME COMMITMENT.
Marie -
I'll buck the trend here and state that I think it's a good idea as an *option* for marriages, rather than a requirement. But then again, I'm one of the people who'd like to see the civil and religious parts of marriage separated -- let the civil side be more businesslike and include clauses that talk about separation of assets, provision for offspring, renewal terms/expiration dates, things of that nature. Then let each religion define the types of civil marriage contracts that it will bestow the sacrament of marriage upon.
It's still really strange to me that it was harder for me to join a business partnership or get my first book contract than it was to get married. Granted, I'm not the norm -- my wife and I got married 3 weeks after we met in a quick civil ceremony; we spent just under $200 for the license, ceremony, outfits, rings, and celecbration dinner for our three witnesses, and we didn't have a church blessing on our marriage until five years later. -
Marriage is a sacrament. It is also a lifetime commitment. To think you are going to enter it, and just get out of it in a few years is beyond deplorable. Whether or not a marriage should exist should be thought about before it is entered into. Once it is entered into, it is "death till us part". That is the only way there is security. And two people helping each other throughout a lifetime.
Krissy :)
http://journals.aol.com/fisherkristina/SometimesIThink
10/18/07 8:59 PM