Ads are not an endorsement by the blog author.

By The Way...

Public Journal
 Back to Journal Archives | Subscribe to Alerts Alerts Subscribe to Alerts | Feeds
< Something I've Pe
Friday, September 21, 2007
Wait... what? >
Friday, September 21, 2007
September 2007
I'm Never Driving in Chicago Again
Bears On Bridges -- There's a Children's Book in Here Somewhere
Just So Every Entry Today Won't Be About Me Trying to Drive
Made It
Audio entry
Movin' Out
News From The Land of People Who Have More Time For Their Pointless Hobbies Than You Do
Which Way to Mecca?
Weekend Assignment #185: Bad Clothes! Bad!
Catch the Red Eye
A Penny For Your Thoughts
24 Years Ago Today, The World Didn't Blow Up
Some People Can Have Fun With Anything
You Think Like a Caveman
Something to Distract You This Tuesday Afternoon
Attack of The Space Germs
Things You Don't Want to Eat (Or at least, I Don't)
When Geeks Propose
Oh, Goody. More Books!
Houston, We Have a Job Application
Your Monday Photo Shoot: Red Eye!
Why I Don't Drag Race
What's Another Foot, More or Less
Why Women's Images of Themselves Are Kind of Messed Up, Part the Infinite
First Day of Fall
Wait... what?
Time-Limited Marriage?
Something I've Personally Thought for a Very long Time
Out of Date
Weekend Assigment #184: From the Top of Mount TBR
Yes, But How Many Were Likely to Have Sex to Begin With?
Arrr! It Be That Day Already!
When Internet Memes Collide!
Nothing in Your Life Has Prepared You For This
Bye Bye Belgium?
Why, In My Day, We Had Rough Wooden Slats! And We Liked It!
If You Look at Only One Exploding Volcano Picture Today...
To The Moon!
That Twinkie's Gonna Cost You
From the "Oh, ICK" Files
Reminder: The Computer Cannot Be Your Whole Life
Lots of Polls
Monday Photo Shoot: Personally Obsolete
This Science Seems Fishy to Me
Is it a Shig? A Heep? A Peep?
Your Unspeakable Cuteness for a Friday Afternoon
Chew on This
This is Why I Tell My Daughter to Go Roll in Mud Every Day
If You Wear Pink That Means You're Taunting the Bullies
Where's Pink Floyd When You Need Them?
Weekend Assignment #183: Make a Poll
Mugging for the Camera
More Fun Than You Ought to Have With a Periodic Table
More Reminders That Not Even Celebrities Are as Attractive as Celebrities
Boom!
Recycle This, Pal
Pets Interested
An Inquiry Into the Nature of Pain
Because Watching on One Screen in Your House Just Isn't Enough!
Reclining Bucket Injury
Your Monday Photo Shoot: Get Mugged
Our Fuzzy Twins
Fog Day!
A Big Collection of a Whole Lot of Nothing
Cars! Cars! Cars!
In Today's Edition of Questionable Household Tips
And Now, the Happiest Dog in the World
Your Friday Game: Sproing!
The Latest Haute Cuisine Craze I'm Not Sure I Can Get Into
If You Give a Meerkat a Camera...
Weekend Assignment #182: You're an Animal
An Emotional Moment
Speaking of Burgers...
The Cleanest Cars You (Probably) Can't Buy
Don't Annoy the HR Department
New Update
The Weirdest Story You'll Read Today
Cigarettes are Driving Us Crazy
Burning Out Rather Than Fading Away
End of Summer Sign
Lies! All Lies! (Well, One out of Three, Anyway)
Your Monday Photo Shoot: Expression
An Interesting Compare and Contrast
Here, Eat This
« September 2007 Archive
Friday, September 21, 2007
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)
  • #7 Comment from psychfun 
    10/18/07 8:59 PM Permalink
    Can you "re-enlist"? HA! Lets see then that would mean my youngest brother would not have been born? HA!
  • #6 Comment from sanguinityx 
    9/21/07 6:00 PM Permalink
    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?
  • #5 Comment from mariebm56 
    9/21/07 1:45 PM Permalink
    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
  • #4 Comment from cabaldevin 
    9/21/07 1:33 PM Permalink
    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.
  • #3 Comment from fisherkristina 
    9/21/07 12:46 PM Permalink
    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
Show all comments (2 more)