quote: The new legislation, designed to avoid the hassle of the divorce process, would allow for temporary marriage contracts and give couples the freedom to opt out of a lifetime commitment. The reformed civil code would outline issues including custody of children and shared property, but only requires a couple to sign for a minimum of two years.
"The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends," said Leonel Luna, a Mexico City assemblyman and member of the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution.
posted
So, how would "divorce" statistics be counted in this situation, I wonder, if couples did just allow the contract to end?
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think in most of the Heinlein books, when you terminated your "contract," you still had to stay 18 years until those children were grown.
Posts: 289 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heinlein is far from the only sf writer who posited short-term marriage contracts in the future. It was quite in vogue among sf writers of the 60s and 70s.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hm. I think that sounds like a truly terrible idea for couples with children.
Honest question: Is it dramatically worse for children than divorce? How much lower would we expect divorce rates to be compared to lapsed-marriage rates when children are involved?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Pretty sure children are raised better with parents who divorce and move on then with a family forced to stay together and constantly fight and be bitter.
IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly, if you treat it as a binary situation between either a "happy divorce" or a marriage mired in fighting and bitterness, then it's clear that a happy divorce will often be better. But it's not a binary thing. A lot of people *could* and *do* "stay together for the kids," and I think it's likely that in many cases, that is the right thing to do for the kids, if the parents are genuinely capable of being amicable and getting along. And a lot of people are.
Perhaps limited marriage contracts would make sense for people who might feel the need to redefine their relationship after some period of time has passed. Say, if you're not really in love after 5 years, you can renew as "mutual parents," and work out new terms for your living together.
But I think really, a big reason for this making sense is just the fact that divorce as a process, aggravated by divorce attorneys, is often far uglier than the natural dissolution of a marriage that is no longer loving. Most marriages don't turn hateful on their own.
I've long decided that if I ever get married, I will have a prenup in place, and a binding commitment to divorce by arbitration, that either spouse can request. I think more people should do this.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Honest question: Is it dramatically worse for children than divorce? How much lower would we expect divorce rates to be compared to lapsed-marriage rates when children are involved?
It seems to me that people are prone towards defaults. If it requires active effort to "renew" your relationship, I think a whole, whole lot more people will let it fail than if the effort falls on the side of ending the relationship.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, some people are going to let it lapse, but you have to renew your car registration every couple of years right? You have to renew your license, your insurance, and everything else. They send you reminders. They could even set it to "automatic renewal" status, so that way you'd have to stop the renewal from happening. How about that?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is an interesting thought. I can see how marriages are problematic but I agree it would cause issues for families with children. I don't really have a problem with it for couples by themselves.
I'm trying to decide what might be worse for a child: Parents are arguing mildly but consistently and the renewal date is approaching, or parents are arguing mildly but consistently but married unless divorce proceedings are mentioned/begun.
My second thought is about if there is a default lapse, there has to be a default child-custody arrangement which I can see would both be beneficial (less long drawn out, painful divorce proceedings) and extremely hurtful (if the basis for the separation involves one parent really not pulling their weight). The same would need to go for purchases made as a couple (e.g. houses, vehicles).
While I don't think that a child needs two parents to succeed, I do think that they are far better off having consistant access to basically the same well-adjusted adults throughout most of their childhood.
My third thought is about what this says about my understanding of marriage. It's interesting to me that I am quite happy for couples alone to be married or not, but I would prefer that couples with children have some kind of consistent, perpetual arrangement. I guess this actually links into the historical idea that a marriage isn't a marriage unless it is consummated (which in the past meant there was a possibility of a child).
I find this a sort of problematic way of looking at things. Bah!
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds like the beginning of Homecoming Saga to me definitely not a good idea. Conservative as I like to think of myself, Mexico could set a far-left example if it worked. I can hear leftist activists from my country- it worked in Catholic Mexico, why not in Catholic Poland. Brrr.
Posts: 723 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: My third thought is about what this says about my understanding of marriage. It's interesting to me that I am quite happy for couples alone to be married or not, but I would prefer that couples with children have some kind of consistent, perpetual arrangement. I guess this actually links into the historical idea that a marriage isn't a marriage unless it is consummated (which in the past meant there was a possibility of a child).
It's a decent point. With a child you're going beyond the idea of an agreement that can be allowed to lapse. Having a child is a commitment that can't be easily dismissed. However- that responsibility exists as much in the current model of divorce as in this proposed model of marriage lapse. And at least marriage lapse has no specific unintended consequence, such as a fight over custody- assuming that is provided for in the original agreement, or as amended at the birth of the child. It seems to me that you can sign a joint or limited custody agreement as a backup to a marriage contract even before allowing that marriage to expire- so expiring the marriage would just default the partners to that agreement. Less messy than a divorce, for sure.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only if you assume that in the majority of the time, there would not then be a custody fight anyway, as one or both parents realizes they don't like the default custody arrangement they agreed to 5 or 10 years before.
I think that any expectations that this would be less messy, on average, than divorce are naive at best.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now this seems to me to so much less a marriage and more a civil union than two people of the same gender making what they intend to me a lifelong commitment. In fact, it seems like the perfect use for the term "civil union".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with "short-term marriage contracts", as I see it, is that it takes commitment and work to make a marriage last for the long term. It's not something that just happens spontaneously. If two people opt for a "short term marriage", what they are saying is that they aren't willing to commit for the long term. There is no doubt in my mind that that kind of marriage is far less likely to survive than one where people start out committed to making last.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that if you establish a short-term marriage contract, then it doesn't make sense to evaluate that using the metric of something like "how successful are these short-term marriage contracts at living up to the ideal of long-term marriage contracts?"
Judging by this
quote:"You wouldn't have to go through the tortuous process of divorce."
The marriage contracts would include detailed provisions on how children and property would be divided up if the marriage ended at the two-year mark, Reuters reports.
"Two years is the minimum amount of time it takes to know and appreciate what life is like as a couple," Lizbeth Rosas, another supporter of the proposed legislation in the Party of the Democratic Revolution, told BBC Mundo in Spanish.
, more appropriate metrics might be "how much does this reduce the expected time spent in divorce across all couples?" or "How successful are short-term contracts at discouraging unsuitable couples from pursuing long-term contacts?"
It may very well be the case that they fail at these two. I have no opinion beforehand, it just doesn't seem to make sense to re-use the same metric as before.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It seems to me that if you establish a short-term marriage contract, then it doesn't make sense to evaluate that using the metric of something like "how successful are these short-term marriage contracts at living up to the ideal of long-term marriage contracts?"
But that rather begs a few questions, such as what that proposed change means, to society and to the children of such unions.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The children are the only part of the old contracts that seem to be actually worth dealing with long term consequences, and regardless, in this day and age, "Till the children graduate" is very different from "Till death do us part."
I don't see any problem with 2-year contracts that default to a variant 18-year contract if kids become involved.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: But that rather begs a few questions, such as what that proposed change means, to society and to the children of such unions.
Yep, those are interesting things one might want to measure too.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would it be possible to implement a civil union contract option instead of changing how marriage licenses work? That way long term couples who are uncomfortable with being "married forever" could have the same legal presence with less mess than many divorces.
Just leave the marriages alone and let happy unwed couples renew their civil unions.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: The children are the only part of the old contracts that seem to be actually worth dealing with long term consequences
I suspect you say this because you have never had to deal with disentangling finances that have been legally entangled. "Worth" dealing with is irrelevant.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough, but I would think the shorter term, renewable contracts would make that simpler, if anything.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
They would require major changes of a lot of state and federal laws. Community-property laws, laws affecting how joint bank accounts work, laws affecting who is considered the default heir for various types of property.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do those laws currently handle divorce? What would be the difference between divorce and expired contracts?
I can definitely see the laws needing to change as the societal expectations they were based on change, but that can happen with or without adding expiring contracts to the mix.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:How do those laws currently handle divorce? What would be the difference between divorce and expired contracts?
Under current law, those details are handled on an individual basis in the divorce process. There isn't a simple cookie cutter solution because there is so much variability in the financial situations in a divorce.
If the marriage contract just expires, all the eventualities have to identified and codified before hand.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I think that any expectations that this would be less messy, on average, than divorce are naive at best.
Why? Divorce proceedings are often the *cause* of custody battles- that why arbitration exists as an alternative.
quote: Exactly. Divorces are complicated because the many legal issues related to them are complicated.
Handwaving does not change that.
Again, I beg to differ. Divorces are often complicated *by* the unwillingness of one or the other party to come to a mutual resolution quickly. This process is often encouraged by the lawyers who stand to profit from the mess.
IF you don't even *have* a divorce proceeding, the whole process of divorce *can* be avoided. And anyway, much of what divorce has become in America is just an excuse for legal wrangling and picking the bones. After all that fighting and money spent, people often end up with exactly what they would have settled for at the beginning.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
This doesn't strike me as handwaving - it's a built in prenup. The article doesn't clarify if there's supposed to be a "cookie cutter" ruleset for splitting assets, or if there's a few you choose from, or if each couple works it out for themselves. B and C seem like reasonable options (maybe have a few sample arrangements to choose from, with the option of designing it specifically for your needs).
I don't see how that can be *worse* than what we currently have, so long as provisions are in place for children.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
