It had been my observation that once couples say ‘I do’ the prevalent understanding is that because you said ‘til death do us part’, I can take you for granted because you promised not to leave me. Their argument was that if you love someone you want to commit yourself to them forever.
That suddenly gave me visions of white padded walls. I contended that I didn’t think being married was a vile idea. I believe in forever love. I just thought the current ideal was flawed. The concept that two people enter into a relationship with the exact same expectations is not likely. Marriage is a pairing of people from separate families and different life experiences. The vows themselves lend credence to the idea that there will be an inordinate amount of give and take, “for better or worse”. I thought the problem typically is that depending on the individuals, one may end up giving more and one may end up taking more, often the same person in each role. My proposed solution was to change marriage from ‘til death’ to a set period of time that periodically came up for review and renewal. My thought was that if your marriage contract had potential to be up for renewal, there would always be the incentive to be on your best behavior. It isn’t that I think everyday can be blissful. People are human. There will be good days and bad days, but I think it is important to make the attempt to be present everyday and strive to be your best for the benefit of the one you love. This ancient conversation came to mind because I was reading this week that Mexico City has an initiative to implement just that, a term limit on marriage licenses with an option for renewal. It appears I may have been on to something. Studies have shown that 50 percent of marriages in Mexico City end in divorce within 2 years, and since divorce is typically a very painful process, their solution is to implement a minimum 2 year marriage contract. A component of the marriage contract includes the terms for separation upon dissolution of the marriage contract. These terms predetermine how custody will be handled should the union produce children, how assets and debt will be divided, etc. If after 2 years, things are still going strong, the marriage contract can be renewed. If after 2 years, things aren’t measuring up, then you let the contract expire and the marriage is terminated. Divorce is avoided because the separation details have already been agreed upon.
While I can totally get on the bandwagon for this initiative, I am troubled by it as well. What is the point of getting married if it isn’t forever? In fact, what is the point of getting married at all? The gay community has been fighting over the privilege, but to what end? Are there benefits to being married that couples ‘in love’ just don’t have? There are employee health benefits. There are survivor benefits. There are retirement benefits. These are all financial tangible benefits that endorse marriage as a contractual agreement. What about intangible benefits? Are there any?
Well……..the only answer I can find regarding intangible benefits to being married is it depends. It depends on how important being married is to you. It depends on if you are deeply religious and feel that your marital union needs to be blessed by a church. It depends on if you are uncomfortable with not being considered part of the ‘norm’. It depends on if you can only find comfort in ‘til death do us part’ because without it you aren’t sure it will last.
The bottom line is that one size doesn’t fit all. There are advantages to being married that you can’t experience by cohabitating. There are advantages to cohabitating and not being married, especially if you don’t anticipate the union to last forever and don’t want to hire a divorce attorney. From my own experience, I have learned that whether you choose to marry or not, the most important choice you make is who you give your heart away to and choose to be your partner in love.
JJ
Section
________
vBulletin Message