"To Death Do Us Part." It's been in there for a very long time, but the problem is that now people no longer live until 30-40 years old. With modern medicine, people can live over a hundred. So the question is with the divorce rate through the roof and millions of couples out not all, mind you, being miserable. Should a marriage be for life? Or should be there a renewable contract for every certain amount of years? If so, how long should the contract last and what provisions should be in place for said contract? And yes, I know about annulments and pre-marriage contracts which I forgot the name of off the top of my head. I meant in general. I think honestly it should be a contract. A contract is so much easier to get declared null and void. Especially when there's terms or conditions that either party broke. An abusive husband who's wife wants to get away from is an example, or if the wife/husband goes through bankruptcy which almost always leads to a divorce afterwards is another. It can last at the most 20 years. I already listed partly what I'd like to see in such a contract, but I haven't mentioned a child. If a child is born under the marriage, there should be a trust fund set up not allowed to be touched by the parents where an allowance is given to the child every week for the parent to use for the child's needs and/or the child itself depending on the age. Or it should be an automatic withdrawal from the other parents check every week in child support. I have worked at a law firm office where there's hundreds of thousands in the state alone who are struggling raising a child on their own with no support from the child. It happens sadly all the time.
Well there's a difference between a wedding and a marriage. You're obviously talking about marriages, which are not done by church but by state but you already know that. Anyways, I don't see a problem with a marriage being seen as a contract. Maybe not with any kind of "time limit" to it but rather something that can become null and void if there's domestic abuse, cheating, or other criminal activity(I'm not implying cheating is illegal! Though I think it used to be funnily enough). It could really make things easier on the spouse who's been...injured or something by the other. They wouldn't have to get stressed out on getting someone to sign divorce papers or whatnot. As for weddings by church, yeah that definitely shouldn't be a contract type deal. There's nothing legally binding about it from what I know(aside from, you know, GOD XD) so that wouldn't really matter anyways.
I think the wedding in a church is legally binding, correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, divorce is hell for everyone involved usually. Also by the fact that most people don't marry over 25. My parents married before then, and well... It didn't go well. My godparents married AFTER 25 and they're happy as clams. What's the big deal of 25? The brain doesn't fully develop until you're 25 years old. Most people's personalities change when they reach adulthood and mature. What you loved and thought was great at the age of 20 can be annoying as hell at 25. There are probably a lot of successful couples who married before 25 who are happy all their lives, but it's an example. If both couples are miserable, they should be able to leave the contract willingly without going through divorce hell to do so.
Marriage is a contract. Depending on where you live, the wedding ceremony isn't legally binding, the marriage certificates you sign either during the ceremony or at the Marriage Licence Office is - This is true for most western countries, if not all. It's a contract between the two people, which is then recognised by the state, who then gives certain benefits (Tax breaks for couples, family credits, etc etc). That's why a divorce is a big deal and is dealt with by the courts - because they are breaking a contract. In an unrelated note, the fact that as far as the state is concerned a marriage boils down to a contract that two people sign, that the state then recognises and gives certain benefits to the couple, is one of the (many) reasons I support marriage equality. In states/countries (which are supposed to be separated from the church) where marriage equality is not recognised they are essentially saying they won't accept a contract signed by two men or two women - which is legally ridiculous (and breaches most countries Bill of Rights to not discriminate based on gender).
I edited it a bit due to confusion. I'm asking whether or not marriage should last forever or instead of having to go through divorce, should it just be a cancellation of the contract. Marriage as of right now is for life unless you have a different arrangement or you go through divorce which can be extremely messy and hard on children especially. I honestly don't know about other cultures other than the US and haven't gotten married myself, so it might be different. I still think there should be a time limit on a marriage. Times have changed, the vows made a long time ago was before modern medicine so people have to live much longer with the same person. Or go through divorce which ties up the courts and is hard on everyone.
I think you were looking for 'prenuptial agreement'. It keeps everything you have from before marriage from being divided. Marrying a rich widow for her money, let's say, would be pointless if you'd have to sign a prenuptial agreement. Just a for instance. I don't believe in marriage in the first place, honestly, because it's just a piece of paper. I've seen couples who go years together without marriage, happy as can be. Finally the decide to get married and for some reason everything goes wrong. That's a discussion for another day, however. If you're going to go through marriage, I actually would prefer the renewable contract method. Most marriages end early nowadays, well at least in the states. Rather than make things complicated, let each other know you're only together for a little while. If you want to stay together, you better make signing that paper again worth it. So I'm going to say the renewable contract method.
I always had the idea that once people get married it should be on a timed basis. Like, every five years they get their marriage license renewed or something like that. I mean, it's not in human nature to be with one person for that long. There should be some interest checks along the way. It'd prevent a hell of a lot more divorces. At least...in theory. :P
I think marriage already is a contract, or at least on the fast lane to becoming one. In Belgium, the steps to getting a divorce are about the only thing that are consistently made cheaper and easier. I think a mandatory renewal every few years would be too much of a hassle, but if a couple were to part ways in mutual agreement, they should be able to do so smoothly.
