New Spin on the Marriage Contract

[Guest mormonmusic]

'Til 2013 do us part? Mexico mulls 2-year marriage - Yahoo! News

Mexico is considering short-term, renewable marriage contracts.

[Jennarator]

This is such a sad story!!

[Jennarator]

I know how horrible divorce can be, but I also know how amazing marrige can be. I can't imagine getting married, just knowing it would end.

So do they just do a small court wedding and if it lasts the two years, get re-married with a big wedding and also to celebrate that they made it thru the two years "trial" marriage? Just seems so sad and silly, really....

[Gwen]

sounds good when you say it fast? I guess if you look at it from stats it's "good". If half of their marriages end in 2 yrs then why not. Saves the state some time on divorces and solves the problem of estranged marriages.

However, I can't imagine these "marriages" would be free from the same ills that affect ppl that choose cohabitation. I could see it being abused. Like when a divorce settlement says they can't cohabitat without the ex's permission. It's a marriage but not really, it's cohabitation but not really. I could also see ppl abusing it for religious reasons. Get married instead of steady dating, agree to date exclusively for 2 yrs with all the "perks" and if it's not working don't worry about it, time to move on. When you find someone you want to "renew your contract" with then you can talk about sealing or whatever.

I hope churches fight this as much as they do gay marriage. It will promote a contract thinking of marriage to the point that covenants and commitments mean nothing. You will see a lot more broken homes with such a game.

[Vort]

I hope churches fight this as much as they do gay marriage.

If homosexual "marriage" is a mockery and a desecration of real marriage -- and it is -- then the two-year marriages are doubly so. I have little doubt that churches opposing homosexual "marriage" will vociferously oppose this abomination, as well.

[HoosierGuy]

This is an excellent thing to do and it might be good to try in the U.S. It sounds like those behind the law in Mexico are dealing with the real world, the REAL world. The U.S. government should offer this and it should be in the sole control of the U.S. government. Let all, hetro/homo/bi's marry for two years and it's recognized in all fifty states. Plus tax on the marriage and everyone can make money from it!

Edited September 30, 2011 by HoosierGuy

[pam]

This is an excellent thing to do and it might be good to try in the U.S. It sounds like those behind the law in Mexico are dealing with the real world, the REAL world. The U.S. government should offer this and it should be in the sole control of the U.S. government. Let all, hetro/homo/bi's marry for two years and it's recognized in all fifty states. Plus tax on the marriage and everyone can make money from it!

I seriously hope this is said tongue in cheek.

[Just_A_Guy]

This is an excellent thing to do and it might be good to try in the U.S. It sounds like those behind the law in Mexico are dealing with the real world, the REAL world. The U.S. government should offer this and it should be in the sole control of the U.S. government. Let all, hetro/homo/bi's marry for two years and it's recognized in all fifty states. Plus tax on the marriage and everyone can make money from it!

Umm . . . we already have something like that. It's called a general partnership. Granted, such a relationship is traditionally recorded (if at all) by state governments; but the association is legally binding nationally and, usually, even internationally.

[HoosierGuy]

I seriously hope this is said tongue in cheek.

Nope. And it's really a good idea. The divorce rate is already sky high in the U.S. And all the studies show traditional marriage seems to be on the down slope. There would be no "divorce" after two years, it just ends. That would let all kinds of people in all age groups to try out marriage with someone who they think they want to spend the rest of their life with but is not 100% certain. Give it a two year shot. After two years they can renew again for two years or get a traditional marriage or simply walk away from each other. Of course there should be a few provisions - two year marriages should not be used to make an illegal person a legal person in the country.

[Guest mormonmusic]

What about the fact that kids are brought into these marriages, and the fact that reducing the exit barriers of marriage will lead to even more single parents?

[Just_A_Guy]

Of course there should be a few provisions - two year marriages should not be used to make an illegal person a legal person in the country.

So, you propose a federal system whereby two people can become a single legal entity . . . except that that they don't.

[HoosierGuy]

What about the fact that kids are brought into these marriages, and the fact that reducing the exit barriers of marriage will lead to even more single parents?

That argument is long gone and dead. Again, nearly half the marriages in the U.S. end up in divorce and most reports show marriage is on the decline.

As for the kids and single parents, you are going to have that anyway. Keep doing the same and more more divorces or non marriages will take place while the couples have kids. At least if you give them the two year option, those that don't want to get married might try it.

The Mexican law sounds very practical.

[beefche]

I'm so confused. First, why marriage with these provisions? Why not just live together? Second, wouldn't pre-nuptials take care of the details of property and children?

And Hoosier, honest question, is there anything that you think the government should NOT control?

[annewandering]

So now we should have not only eternal, lifetime, but a couple of years marriage? What does marriage even mean?

I have reading a science fiction series lately. One of the structures in that society was the trial marriage and the long time marriage. One thing interesting about them was this that differs from the mexican version. If the woman got pregnant it automatically became a permanent marriage and by permanent it meant permanent. No divorces given. the society recognized the temporary marriage but it was not favored by the society even though it was common.

We have temporary marriages already. And we have permanent ones. Temple and nontemple. Frankly dont see a need to debase marriage any more than it already is.

[ADoyle90815]

In a way, this isn't really new as I've heard of something called handfasting where a couple commits to each other for a trial period, then at the end of the trial, they have a second ceremony to make things permanent. It's basically like a LDS couple in countries where temple ceremonies are accepted as legal weddings, where those who have a civil wedding wait a year before going to the temple for their religious ceremony.

One thing the LDS church could do in Mexico is have couples get the civil ceremony for 2 years, then allow them to be "sealed" after the 2 years is up, and any children they have could also be "sealed" to them.

Edited October 1, 2011 by ADoyle90815

[Just_A_Guy]

Frankly, it seems to me that the main socio-religious value to this type of thing is to give the couple an excuse to "legitimately" engage in sexual relations without undertaking the full panoply of marital commitments.

It would be most amusing if the Church refused to administer ordinances--and even meted out Church discipline--to members who were party to such short-term commitments.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I want to play devil's advocate here, or at least raise an issue that perplexed me when I was considering marriage.

Many people have prayed and fasted about whether to marry certain people, and had revelation they should marry them. Others get no answer at all, but feel they are in love, and get married.

But then, many learn almost instantly that they aren't compatible. Things they didn't know about would have factored into their decision, if only they could experience them. This is due to the fact that there is no way to legitimately experience what life will be like in the relationship in the LDS culture since we dont' belive in premarital relations, living together or other things that give you and idea what life will truly be like with the person.

With divorce being such an apparently prevalent phenomenon, and the valuable information that such experiences provide about what life will be like with such a partner, how do you really know what life will be like with the person if you don't actually live with them in an intense situation prior to marriage?

Now, I am committed to the law of Chastity, and to the marriage institution as we conceive it as Mormons, but the limitations these commandments place on us in even gathering information that is important for making the decisions have left me wondering many times if many of us make bad decisions because we don't have this information due to LDS commandment-keeping.

[HoosierGuy]

Frankly, it seems to me that the main socio-religious value to this type of thing is to give the couple an excuse to "legitimately" engage in sexual relations without undertaking the full panoply of marital commitments.

Some say marriage is legalized prostitution. And they would be undertaking marriage commitments - for two years.

[Vort]

I want to play devil's advocate here, or at least raise an issue that perplexed me when I was considering marriage.

Many people have prayed and fasted about whether to marry certain people, and had revelation they should marry them. Others get no answer at all, but feel they are in love, and get married.

But then, many learn almost instantly that they aren't compatible.

I don't believe this. We are human beings, not automotive parts.

This is due to the fact that there is no way to legitimately experience what life will be like in the relationship in the LDS culture since we dont' belive in premarital relations, living together or other things that give you and idea what life will truly be like with the person.

My wife is not the same person I married, and I am not the same person she married. We have changed. In being married and striving to make a good marriage, we have changed and grown together. There is truth in the idea that some personalities get along better than others, but that should never be an excuse for failure in marriage. Again, we are human beings and children of God, not automotive parts.

With divorce being such an apparently prevalent phenomenon, and the valuable information that such experiences provide about what life will be like with such a partner, how do you really know what life will be like with the person if you don't actually live with them in an intense situation prior to marriage?

I have heard many who "lived together" (i.e. lived in fornication) before marriage that being married was "different" from living together. We have a dating/courting situation so that we can get to know people. That does not require sexual contact. I know my parents and siblings very well, despite not having had sex with any of them.

Now, I am committed to the law of Chastity, and to the marriage institution as we conceive it as Mormons, but the limitations these commandments place on us in even gathering information that is important for making the decisions have left me wondering many times if many of us make bad decisions because we don't have this information due to LDS commandment-keeping.

I think you can put those fears to rest. Whatever small concessions we make for the sake of keeping God's holy commandments, we far more than make up for in the blessings we get from obedience.

Some have suggested that drinking a small amount of wine might actually be healthful. If we assume that they are correct, does that mean it's a good idea for us Latter-day Saints to start drinking wine? Considering the horrific misery, devastation, and destruction caused by alcohol usage, are the supposed minor "health benefits" from drinking wine worth the risks of alcohol usage to which we would expose ourselves by disobeying God's words to us?

Obedience is always better than disobedience. We are human beings, not automotive parts.

[Just_A_Guy]

Some say marriage is legalized prostitution.

And you propose a course of action that embraces, rather than corrects, that worldview. Congratulations.

And they would be undertaking marriage commitments - for two years.

The term "commitment", applied to legal relationship, implies specific responsibilities and specific legal penalties for failing to observe those responsibilities.

So I'm sure you're prepared to tell me exactly what these responsibilities and penalties are.

[pam]

Nope. And it's really a good idea. The divorce rate is already sky high in the U.S. And all the studies show traditional marriage seems to be on the down slope. There would be no "divorce" after two years, it just ends. That would let all kinds of people in all age groups to try out marriage with someone who they think they want to spend the rest of their life with but is not 100% certain. Give it a two year shot. After two years they can renew again for two years or get a traditional marriage or simply walk away from each other. Of course there should be a few provisions - two year marriages should not be used to make an illegal person a legal person in the country.

May I just state for those investigating or lurking, these are the comments and thoughts of an individual and do not represent the Church or the mission of this website.

These are contrary to what we teach about the sanctity and sacredness of marriage.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I don't believe this. We are human beings, not automotive parts.

What I described in the first paragraph actually happened to me.

My wife is not the same person I married, and I am not the same person she married. We have changed. In being married and striving to make a good marriage, we have changed and grown together. There is truth in the idea that some personalities get along better than others, but that should never be an excuse for failure in marriage. Again, we are human beings and children of God, not automotive parts.

When one partner is not willing to do their part for decades on end, this argument falls flat on its face.

I think you can put those fears to rest. Whatever small concessions we make for the sake of keeping God's holy commandments, we far more than make up for in the blessings we get from obedience.

The man who declares with exactness that whatever sacrifices made are small, is not an exact man.

Some have suggested that drinking a small amount of wine might actually be healthful. If we assume that they are correct, does that mean it's a good idea for us Latter-day Saints to start drinking wine? Considering the horrific misery, devastation, and destruction caused by alcohol usage, are the supposed minor "health benefits" from drinking wine worth the risks of alcohol usage to which we would expose ourselves by disobeying God's words to us?

Obedience is always better than disobedience. We are human beings, not automotive parts.

REAL confused about the repeated automotive parts analogy Vort. REAL confused. Guess you'll have to expand on that one if its' going to make any real sense at all to me.

Edited October 1, 2011 by mormonmusic

[NeuroTypical]

This is an excellent thing to do and it might be good to try in the U.S.

This is a horrible thing to do, something that attacks the sanctity of the family unit, and is something detrimental to the health of societies, nations, and cultures who think that way.

The idea of a temporary marriage is in direct opposition to God's plan of happiness, as expressed in scripture and via prophetic counsel.

I'm rather surprised that anyone claiming to be LDS would embrace such a plan. And I don't get surprised easily.

[Vort]

May I just state for those investigating or lurking, these are the comments and thoughts of an individual and do not represent the Church or the mission of this website.

These are contrary to what we teach about the sanctity and sacredness of marriage.

From what I can tell, HoosierGuy's modus operandi consists of following this algorithm:

• Find a topic.
• Determine the feelings of most Latter-day Saints on the issue.
• Stake out a position diametrically opposed to that determined in Step 2, even if such a position is contrary to the spirit of (or even express teachings of) the Church.
• Lecture everyone who disagrees on the moral superiority of the contrary position. Don't be afraid to call into question the ability or inspiration of Church leaders, if necessary.
• Return to Step 1.

Speaking more generally, and not necessarily to HoosierGuy's particular case:

I appreciate those willing to stand courageously by an unpopular opinion. I have little patience for those who take contrary positions just to be contrary, or (perhaps worse) who claim membership with the Latter-day Saints but who refuse to modify any of their social or political beliefs that are shown incompatible with LDS teachings.

[Vort]

What I described in the first paragraph actually happened to me.

When one partner is not willing to do their part for decades on end, this argument falls flat on its face.

Tell that to the guy who gets married and finds his wife is incapable of intecourse for over a decade or longer.

For some, the sacrifices can be overwhelming.

I am sorry about your horrible experience with a wife who abhors sex. I have to believe she is the exception. We make regulations for the rule, not for the exception.

REAL confused about the repeated automotive parts analogy Vort. REAL confused. Guess you'll have to expand on that one if its' going to make any real sense at all to me.

You had written:

But then, many learn almost instantly that they aren't compatible.

Compatibility is an issue with automotive parts. In most cases, I can't put a Chevy part into my Hyundai. They are not compatible. But human beings are living organisms with free will, so it is not simply a matter of finding out which parts fit together. "Compatibility" becomes a hugely complex issue -- one not solved merely by fornicating.