posted on February 7, 2002 05:12:09 PM new
With many marriages ending in divorce these days, the term "marriage contract" has been tossed around.
The idea is that you make a contract for 5 years. You can either renew it or not. If you choose not to, you split what you have and that's it. I know there's children to consider etc., but I wondered if something like this would eventually become reality. What do you think? When you first became married, would you have opted for this?
"Sometimes when we touch, the honesty's too much....."
posted on February 7, 2002 05:44:10 PM new
Kraftdinner,a five year marriage contract is a subject my friends and I often discussed when we were young. Most of us were in favor of it. I'm not so sure now. I've known marriages that dissolved after two years and should have. Renewable contracts might make certain long term financial planning (estates, real estate investment,retirement plans,etc.)more complicated. Perhaps it should be available as an option, but I'm not sure it actually simplifies things.
posted on February 7, 2002 08:00:08 PM new
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but to me, marriage contracts and prenuptial agreements seem to say that a couple is almost expecting their marriage not to work.
If you ask me, marriage should be an all-or-nothing situation. No "his" and "hers" ... everything should be "ours" ... property, decisions, finances, EVERYTHING. And it should be a lifetime commitment.
In my opinion, if a couple isn't prepared to make that kind of commitment, then perhaps they should consider whether marriage is right for them.
In other words, why plan the divorce even before they're married?
I'm not saying I don't believe in divorce -- there are times when it's the only answer -- but I think more marriages would be successful if the couple had a "lifetime commitment" attitude from the very beginning.
posted on February 8, 2002 05:29:59 PM new
I know that you're going to beat me on the head by saying that I always bring politics into every thread, but I'm going to bring politics into this one, as it really does apply.
There is a theory (notice lower-case 't' in theory) going around that the best way to get people off of welfare is to get them married. This presupposes that families never end up on welfare or need food stamps or other assistance.
Pres. George Bush, Jr. is a big supporter of this improbable notion. He just went to bat in his budget request to increase this program to encourage welfare recipients to go get married by several tens of millions of dollars. Unfortunately, there is no accounting for WHO gets the money to do WHAT with it specifically. Your local church could get a grant to do as they see fit, because they are all for marriages.
More importantly, many women who are with child and on welfare are not there because of a death of a spouse or a recent divorce. Many are there because they have a habit of choosing badly when it comes to spouses. Add to that the fact that eligible spouses with good incomes are not that easy to find, let alone attract once after you've had a kid or two. The program is not designed to meet those requirements.
So, who's getting all that money? How are they using it? And do you think that this actually has a chance of working?
Borillar
"Friends don't let friends vote republican"
posted on February 8, 2002 08:41:58 PM new
Borillar -
Actually, I heard that and thought it was a joke. Just thinking a plan like this could be feasible is bad enough... I guess it's all part of his master plan...
"Sometimes when we touch, the honesty's too much....."
posted on February 15, 2002 01:24:12 PM new
" This vow you take is for life...
and here's an out in case you change your mind. " It's almost a subliminal message to take the easy out. Disolving a vow like this shouldn't be made easier to do, IMO
I'm a strong believer in mental wellness, so I would say you'd have a better situation if, maybe, it was required that a couple have psychological profiles before marriage. The two take some fill-in-the-blank tests, 2 weeks later the results are mailed back, and then the 2 decide if they want to go through with marriage after they're told that he has a tendancy for being passive aggressive and she has a habit of triangling and repressing.
Yeah, solving a potential problem before they merge seems easier than dealing with all the fallout after the fact.
posted on February 15, 2002 02:05:32 PM new
I have always said that if they charged $1,000.00 for a marriage license and $50.00 for a divorce, the divorce rate would go down. It would take a while for 2 young people to save $1,000.00.
Of course I started saying this 30 years ago when $1000.00 was a lot of money.
posted on February 15, 2002 02:22:50 PM new
well, since I bought 3 CA Lotto tickets ($3.00 of my hard earned money) yesterday for tomorrow's 200 million plus jackpot ...
I'm for them.
Edited to add a
also three dollars is all I ever spend. Two sets of numbers that correspond to the love of my life's and my birthdays and our ages. And one quickpick.
[ edited by arttsupplies on Feb 15, 2002 02:25 PM ]
posted on February 22, 2002 06:36:17 AM new
A Catholic friend and her fiancee asked their priest to marry them. They had to take marriage classes and then take a test. The priest told them that according to their tests, they were not psychologically compatible and explained why.
This happened back in the early 80's. Oops, there I go giving out my age again!
posted on February 22, 2002 11:16:47 AM new
"Has the priest been arrested yet?"
No. But remember this was back in the early 80's. She would have just gone to another priest, but he waited until a few days before the wedding to tell her.
