Thursday, March 18, 2010
"...to love, honor and cherish, for the next three years..."
I had an epiphany. Don't freak. I don't think I am Jesus or Mary or Isis or anything. And I'm not starting a cult. I just had a moment of clarity. Here it is:
Why don't people get married for periods of time shorter than "'til death do us part?" More than half of modern marriages end in divorce, so why don't we change marriage to allow couples to marry just for periods of time that they agree to.
Marriage is a contract. And a contract can specify a period of time. So why not?
Judeo-Christian morality aside ('cause clearly that's not helping prevent adultery, domestic violence, or divorce) can you think of a reason?
One could argue that children are involved. But they are involved in divorce too. This way, there's way less emotional upset and shock, and expectations are different. The same support laws could apply. I'm just not seeing the problem here. Some people just need to start seeing marriage for what it is in our modern world. For most people, it is not permanent. It is temporary. Why not adjust our expectations and laws to address reality?
Advantages of the RampantAnthem Marriage Construct:
1 - Allows horny religious people who refuse to engage in sex outside of marriage to comply with moral constructs and not completely ruin their lives.
2 - Allows/requires people to reassess their relationships when the end date of their marriage approaches. This can't be a bad thing.
3 - Reduces the commitment phobia by allowing people to "try" marriage.
We are basically serial monogamists anyway. Lets just make it legal and make honest men and women of us all, and reduce the burden on divorce courts.
Slightly unrelated note: Divorce should be automatic when one spouse is found guilty of abuse, or any crime that results in imprisonment. Wouldn't that simplify things?