Imagine if marriage contract, like any other contract, has an expiration date, rather than being a lifetime legal binding that could only be ended through a divorce, annulment or through death, could it be better?
I know this is something the society is not ready for especially the religious sect. But with the growing rate of divorce and annulment cases going on, it can be a possible solution whereas:
A soon to be married couple, before signing their marriage contract, would be given an option how long they prefer their marriage contract to be valid before its expires. -5 years -10 years -15 years
If the married couple decides NOT to renew their marriage certificate after it expires, they are free to go their separate ways without having to go through a divorce, annulment or legal separation process.
If a married couple wanted to remain married, they would simply fill out a renewal form for another contact.
If a married couple wanted to end the marriage before the expiration date of their marriage, they could simply fill out a form for a divorce, annulment or legal separation proceedings.
What's your take on the idea of a "Renewable Marriage Bill" whereby you would have the option to renew your marriage contract or not?
I solved the problem by not getting married in the first place. I grew up wanting to get married, and I even had a potential partner (it didn't work out), but as I got a little older and guys I knew were getting divorced, I saw what they were going through, and at first, I didn't believe it - there MUST be something going on that I don't know, because the system couldn't be that one-sided, I thought. But it is, and there have been many more examples since then.
I've also heard women discussing how to manipulate their husbands to maximize their rewards for divorcing him - and it wasn't that she even disliked her husband, she just wanted an easy life at someone else's expense and didn't care a bit about what she was doing to him.
I'm not bitter about women or even marriage - I just came to understand what an absolutely awful deal it had become for men legally, and I elected not to sign up for such an incredible risk.
I still have relationships and my ex's almost universally have good things to say about me, but that's because we had equality in our relationship (legally), rather than massively one-sided risk/reward legally.
There’s zero chance of this happening as it goes on the opposite direction or where government pushes law around marriage and divorce.
Basically government quite likes forcing the wealthier partner to continue supporting a less well off one even if marriage ends, since it removes the need for the government to do so.
Yeah I agree that there are some drawbacks of this proposal. Its not necessary or right for everyone. However, it highlights the need for dynamism in our laws to adapt to the changing times and prevailing situations. In the event this bill is considered, existing laws on marriage must be amended stipulating that couples who entered in the agreement consents that after their contract, marital obligations will cease.
Ya know... a few years ago the MAJORITY of people pushing gay marriage were ALWAYS saying gay marriage should be allowed because "if you love someone...". (A stupid definition of marriage.)
NOW... This ridiculous idea? So much for getting married because you "love" them. A Contract marriage is NOT a marriage. It's simply people agreeing to live together under the same roof for a period of time.
Lemme guess, this is some liberal idea too? Liberals, who have tossed out the "rule book" (Bible for those who don't believe in God), have no CLUE what marriage is all about. They're redefining it in their own ways and missing completely what marriage is all about. Lemme guess again... the people that came up with this dumb idea have also never been married either?
Well, the society is evolving and there are social issues that cannot be resolved by the Church alone. That's why the government, in its endeavor to promote order for common good, is trying to resolve these issues. If you know a most effective solution to the growing number of married couples separating nowadays, then by all means, enlighten us, sir
1. The church hasn't changed their position on marriage in a couple thousand years, and what marriage is. It's only secular beliefs that have "evolved" their thinking because they disagree with the church. The problem is, they don't LIKE what the churches tell them, therefore, they make up their own definitions and call it "evolving". Words like sin, adultery, fornication, obedience, love, care, putting her above yourself, etc...
2. As for couples separating... that number grew largely because in the late '60's the courts started accepting the excuse - we/I don't want to be married anymore instead of "proof" that one or both the individuals in a marriage were cheating or doing some other immoral action perverse to the marriage. That number has pretty much stabilized around 48% ever since.
3. That means roughly 52% of marriages last for a lifetime from the start. To reduce the number of separations, BOTH men and women need to choose their future marriage partner better. Although schools teach sex education, they teach ZERO about human interaction, morals, acceptable behaviors, and something simple like what to look for in a wife/husband. People are too easily led to the bed LONG before they THINK about what a LIFETIME together means. GETTING physically satisfied means more to them than what it means to GIVE to another individual.
4. People make "promises" during their marriage vows but they aren't even taught what making a "vow" means. To them, it's until I'm no longer satisfied, until I get tired of the routine, until I find someone younger, prettier, that makes ME happy. It's all an act they put on disguising their own inner selfish desires.
I PROMISE you, any other version of "marriage" like you stated, will see the SAME thing. Until you change the selfish "me" fixation thing, any definition of marriage won't work any better. In fact, expect even worse results.
People are already free to go their own way anytime they want with no fault marriages. That’s the problem in the first place... A marriage is basically a contract written by the worst lawyer to ever walk the Earth. You can cancel the contract whenever you want without any reason and take no penalty and the person with the penis always pays the cost. The timing of the contract isn’t what needs fixing. It’s the distribution of wealth/title, custody of children, child support, and alimony that needs to be fixed.
I see situations coming up like: '... if you don't get me this or that, I'll not sign the extension' or: 'do as I want, or forget about the renewal' But then: isn't a 'divorce case' the same coin, but from its other side?
I see the basic idea. And I support the thought to 'update' the legal framework of marriages/divorces. But I fear that the actual problem lies in the 'culture' of present day marriage (s).
Indeed. Actually, it's a big issue in a country like mine, where the sanctity of marriage is still highly valued. Why, even divorce is not option here. Although the government is considering it now with the growing number people demanding it's legalization.
Sounds like a good idea in theory. So would there be alimony or child support? How do they split up their belongings that have acquired during the marriage?
Of course there will be a marital settlement agreement before they can finalize their contract. Conjugal properties will still be divided equally, exclusive properties goes back to respective owners and the child/children's welfare will remain the responsibility of both parent regardless. On child support, they can stipulate their own agreement regarding the amount, frequency and methods which can be modified by the existing laws.
Marriage works best where the people are completely committed to each other. If they knew it was time limited, there would be less reason to work together, less reason to trust each other.
How would this simplify anything? Ending a marital contract in itself isn't the problem. Issues arise when dividing finances, possessions, parental rights, etc... this makes divorce a difficult and intricate process. As far as I can tell, the idea only unnecessarily complicates a desire to remain married
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
It wouldn't address any of the issues that are making marriage unappealing to men and destroying the institution of marriage.
Actually the institution of marriage has long been tainted with the legalization of divorce, legal separation and annulment, what makes it any different? There's an option of "renewal" for a reason. And in this modern day, most married couples don't adhere in the sanctity of their marriage vows anymore. And it's not relative to the issues of men becoming repulsive in the idea of marriage. It's their prerogative whether they want it on not.
We can't have marriage without having some way to get out of it if things go badly, which is the reason we need divorce. But I agree with you that many people, especially women, tend to opt for divorce rather than trying to work things out. That's why 85% of divorces in the US are filed by women.
Of course men can choose whether or not they want to get married. And they are choosing to avoid marriage in record numbers today because marriage has become very unappealing to men in recent years. The benefits to men of marriage have declined significantly while the risks and costs to men have risen. Today, getting married is an unwise choice for men for this reasons, at least in the US. Of course I cannot speak for the Philippines.
Is this about complex issues of gender norms? About the roles men and women being switched? Or because women are now dominating the employment industries and earning better that their counterparts? Or you feel that women are dissatisfied with men who earns or contributes less in their marriage? It's more like the male ego doing the trick right there. I dunno. But the Philippine culture have somehow adapted to these changes because their principles and understanding about marriage is different. For most, being married, they uphold the entire meaning of partnership. They share equal responsibilities without regard to who earns more or less, or who will do the housework, look after their kids or who goes to work. They have common goals. But there are exceptions of course.
I live in the US so I am not aware of how things are in the Philippines. Here in the US women are not dominating in business, nor are they earning more than men. In fact the opposite is true here, which is why feminism is always complaining about those things.
Roles are not reversed here, either. Men are still expected to be the primary breadwinners, but yet are also expected to take on many other roles as well. That is part of the problem. But most importantly, in divorce the court system favors women, who get more of the assets, alimony, child support as well as custody of the children. In other words, women benefit more from marriage, and then they also benefit ore from divorce. Men are seeing that more and more and are realizing marriage is a very unwise choice for them.
What's the point of a contract you can get out of? Marriage in a legal sense is worthless as long as you can easily divorce. Currently if you are not part of a religious group that will ostracize you if you divorce there is no point in marriage.
Home > Marriage & Weddings > Questions > What's your take on the idea of a "Renewable Marriage Bill" whereby you would have the option to renew your marriage contract or not?
Most Helpful Opinions