Til death do us part? How about two years? What are your thoughts on Mexico's temporary marriage license option?

Hmmm, interesting. If they did make it law, it would need to be a law that every couple had to follow this path (which of course allows them to remain married). Failing that, if it is an option that people can choose pre-marriage, I would wonder why those that chose it were marrying in the first place.

Even as a divorced person (though as the years go by I don’t tend to think of myself in these terms anymore) I still absolutely believe that when people enter into marriage, they should do so with the intention for it to be a permanent commitment.

I think it might be on to something as well. However, it should have an added clause that they shouldn’t have children unless their 2 year license is renewed. I don’t want people getting into marriages, having kids and thinking it’s okay to just leave. Not that I think people should stay in marriages ‘cause divorce is hard to obtain, either or ‘cause there is a stigma to divorce. Overall, I don’t think many people not divorce ‘cause of how difficult the process is, they don’t divorce for other more important reasons like economics.

I had not heard of this. It seems like an unnecessary step, but I can sort of see the logic in it. I know a lot of people who are divorced within two years. But, knowing it is temporary, is it really much different than just living together? Plus, when does the couple have the church weddng if they want it? At the time of the temporary wedding, or the time of the permanent one?

Maybe it would be good for our military personnel who often have quicky marriages before beng shipped off.

I think it is a novel approach and even that 2 years might be too long!

@Cruiser Yeah, it seems the marriages I know of usually go less than 6 months, or at least 4 years. Just my experience, I have no idea the actual stats.

@JLeslie Perhaps we could even have marriages with term limits! XD

A learner’s permit!

@Cruiser I think being married helps people stay together, and in the long run there is something very special about having a relationship over the long haul.

@JLeslie I think it’s sad when that is what helps one’s marriage stay together. I literally can’t figure out why a binding arrangement is what binds two people. I know you didn’t mean that’s all that binds them, but still.

Well..“death” can hold multiple meanings, not just in the literal, physical sense.

I divorced when it became apparent that my soul was dying. When I realized the best parts of me were slowly being extinguished and replaced with someone whom I neither liked or recognized.

All relationships, marriages, friendships, jobs, need to be subject to regular, periodic evaluations to be kept in a space of growth and aliveness not blind loyalty and maintaining the status quo.

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I think plenty of people stay together or can without the binding agreement. But, I do think the social expectation of marriage being forever, means people have a harder time breaking the marriage. Maybe they feel more responsibility or obligation? I don’t mean someone should just stay out of obligation, but it’s like with family, we come through, we stay in it, we try to work things out more than we might with other people.

@JLeslie Yeah, I know. People shouldn’t do it out of obligation of what’s expected of a marriage either.

@JLeslie I couldn’t agree more. Once you hit the double digits in a marriage…there is a lot to be said for the effort you both put into it to make it all work out. Mine hasn’t lasted 17 years just because of a piece of paper either. We love and respect each other and appreciate each other and the efforts and sacrifices we have made for each other.

I favor this approach! I wish our (US) marriage agreements were much more contractual in nature—with service level agreements, attrition clauses, etc. I know that sounds cold, but for all the failed marriages in the world, both those who’ve divorced and those who haven’t, an easier settlement of affairs during a difficult time would be great.

A couple who’s going to end in divorce will end in divorce, no matter what kind of wedding. The only benefit I can see to this “term” marriage is if it prompts more people to make provisions up front for any children, the settling of debts and maybe some sort of set up for each person to be able to be at least minimally self sufficient after divorce.

I thought of this years ago. I did not realize that it was actually being done anywhere. People talk about marriage contracts. Specifying duration as well as prenups brings marriage contracts in line with other contracts.

Have not heard about this. First thing that comes to mind is wondering if this is a response to social pressures or if it is just a way to increase revenue? If you don’t like it after two years, you can opt out then marry someone else, after applying and paying for the proper paperwork.

Very practical.

Brings up the question of why the state has any say in personal relationships in the first place.

@Neizvestnaya I was just thinking that. I have said so many times people get married in the US without realizing the civil marriages is a contract about your money, the sharing of wealth and property with your spouse, and the legal protections that come with it. Only the wealthy think in those terms here. This two year thing forces the couple to know exactly how divorce will affect them financially. I hope they don’t have children in that two year period.

I’m going to guess the majority of people who do a temporary marriage don’t get a permanent marriage afterwards.

Can you say “greatest idea ever”?

@rojo It seems like it is less paperwork, than married, divorce, married again.

“Honey, our 2 year agreement is almost up. Can I interest you in a 3 year extension with a signing bonus?”

It does sound a little silly compared to what marriage has meant for centuries, but I like it. Makes more sense to me than divorce or suffering for the entire rest of your life. Also, it will alleviate some of the court time spent on divorces.

It’s not exactly novel, considering that (at least during the Renaissance) people were commonly handfasted for a year and a day at a time. After the initial year and a day, the couple could choose to renew the handfasting, to marry, or to part without any legal or social ramifications. Any children conceived during the handfasting were considered legitimate, regardless of whether the couple stayed together.

Yeah, i’ll give it about 6 months.

@amujinx What marriage ‘has meant for centuries’ had nothing to do with love or committment.

Further perversion of the real thing. I oppose. Really, I’m surprised that such a heavily Catholic country is even considering it.

I can’t imagine what could possibly be the point of having a two year trail marriage. Why bother? I sure wouldn’t bother showing up to a wedding based on that.

Genius.

I believe all marriages should come with a one year “no fault” opt out option during which one can get an automatic annulment without the whole messy divorce thing.

Totally defeats the point of getting married, why not just live together for another two years before you get married?

“Honey, I love you so much… I want to spend the next few years or so with you, wanna sign a 3 year “what we are doing now already anyway” contract with me?”

Something does not smell right here, it smells like either religion is trying to gain popularity or government trying to keep tabs on people. Why do we need this marriage stuff anyway? if its not for life I just don’t see the point. Scrap tax benefits for married couples, give everyone an equal share, and keep your nose out of who is fucking who and having kids with who.

“Scrap tax benefits for married couples, give everyone an equal share”

Yet another great reason to move from an income to a consumption tax.

@YoBob What would be so hard about income tax being simply individual?

@poisonedantidote – Marriage benefits for married couples? Umm…ever heard of the Marriage Tax? Perhaps you aren’t in the US.. because in the US it is actually beneficial to NOT be married here (from a taxation perspective).

I agree with you that something seems odd about this—but it’s likely because of the highly Roman Catholic population in Mexico where sex outside of marriage is strongly frowned upon.
Think of it this way: if you lived in a nation where, culturally, pre-marital sex was so deeply frowned upon that you were forced into marriage at a young age…then perhaps legislation like this would be a lovely loophole for your 20s. You could be “married” to each of your partners for a short duration and have the blessings of both the church and the State (Gov’t) —because you weren’t having sex out of wedlock.

I went to an uber-religious high school and had classmates that married at 18 because raging hormones made marriage look like a good idea (because they couldn’t have sex until they were married). It’s the rare 18 year old that has the maturity to successfully pick a mate (and grow together with them and remain married) for a lifetime. Perhaps a “term marriage’ would be a better option for those scenarios.

Not saying it makes sense to me—just saying, it might be a way around this particular religious/cultural issue in Mexico.

@geeky_mama Wow, really? here in Spain you get tax cuts. In the UK also I believe.

I think it’s a good idea (I am sure there maybe some flaws but I haven’t looked deeply enough into it yet to find them) but, then again, I am the girl who doesn’t believe in marriage because promising to love/want to be with someone forever doesn’t make sense to me as we can’t possibly know how we will feel in a years time, let alone 10, 20, 30 etc years time.

@geeky_mama @poisonedantidote Here is the tax table for last year. Married filing jointly has a lower tax rate (low income there is no difference).

@JLeslie – Erm… having to deal with filling out the tax forms at the end of each year.

A consumption tax is an individual tax.

Regarding “marriage benefits”, I remember filling out our first income tax form after getting married. My first words to my wife after looking up from that hellish pile of paper (I shit the not): “Honey, we need to get divorced!”

@YoBob As I said on another Q, if I buy $50k worth of stuff all year long, and put the extra $50K we make in my pocket (I’m not using accurate numbers) and the guy next to me only makes $50k and has to basically spend everything to make ends meet, I get 50% of my income tax free, and he gets none. Well, his groceries might be tax free, but so are mine. As long as you are ok with that sort of imbalance, then stand by your fight for consumption tax. i find it incredibly regressive to have solely a consumption tax.

@JLeslie – You seem to be forgetting that extended discussion of a tax free credit (otherwise known as a cost of living allowance, or COLA). But let us not hijack this thread as that is a completely different topic.

Well, not being able to pull the article up after all these years, I would have to say it is a testament to our neighbors south of the border being just a fickle and non-committed as some are here, a further cheapening of marriage to make it a shell of what it should be.