My question is that divorce only leaves the couple's poor or at least one person in the relationship poor. So, what would happen to no-fault divorce in Germany? That question has to be answered by the Germans...

I'd argue that it would cause it. No one likes deadlines hanging over their head. And if they're only faking the happy times, the angry times will get that much worse.


AKA Monet, I don't actually understand your question.

Most "states"--meaning "d'Etat" have formal legal ramifications for allowing divorce. A couple just doesn't go down to the "liquor store" and request a divorce. There is legal paperwork that is filed with the "d'Etat", government entitites and maybe religious entities, indicating that this couple is no longer a family.

Changing into a licensing structure like your passport or driver's license, would wreck havoc on "d'Etat" causing gross disruption of many things, including commerce. If anything, "d'Etat" regulates the beginning of marriages rather than the "freedom to end" it. How to end it, is up to the pair-bond. But, most "d'Etat" make ending it difficult, because of the tax proceeds collected by an intact family.

I am unsure if economists have calculated how non-nuclear families add to the success of "d'Etat". Most economists steer clear of not adding value to the system.

So, my question is, there is an economic relevancy to keeping "d'Etat" intact for marriages, how good will the economic "bounce back" of "d'Etat" be if the regulation of marriages was removed, then changed?

Because if removed, then changed, there would be a lot of poor hungry children in Germany, again.

Physical custody of kids goes to the primary wage earner . . . .

And if primary wage earner does not want them?

Well I was being glib .. . so give them to the less primary wage owner . . put them up for adoption . . send them to explore the wild spaces in nature . . whatever is convenient.

Or discover they are a military mastermind thug who is a vegetarian?

I don't think I like that option...

While you clarified your question a bit, I'm not sure why you chose to make it more complicated in the process. You could have just said the State.

Whatever. I disagree with the concept anyway.

How come?

I disagree with the idea that marriages should be renewable.

If you don't want to make a commitment that is ostensibly for life, then don't. Or choose to get divorced when it is no longer working. That's why no fault divorces exist these days. Having one more "thing" to get renewed every X number of years (for a fee I'm sure) will add stress to a marriage, not remove it. Dysfunctional marriages would likely have broken apart by then anyway, and some will still stay together, but have one more thing to fight about.

I think family stability should be encouraged, not discouraged. I agree that family stability benefits society.

It's not called "The Seven Year Itch" for nothing.... :)

Oh, okay, I agree with what you are saying, wholeheartedly. :D

I was just wondering what would happen to the economic state of governed society if there were renewable marriages? I think the entire state will fall. That is my opinion.

I doubt it, the state would adapt.

Well, it would have to, but it would fall before it would adapt. And I am always thinking about "potential children's lives" when it would happen.

Knowing people, what if they forgot to turn in their forms like most people do and the bureacracy frustrates them more that it is better to just live together? I guess, they could just get married again depending on the fee?

I hate bureaucracy right now. I am really not a fan of queueing.

No I really don't think the state would fall first. This isn't something that would bring the country crashing down on itself. It would simply lead to people cohabing instead of marrying. There would be more turmoil in children's lives, but not enough to screw everyone up. The fact that all of their peers would be going through similar situations would provide social support for kids as well as parents.

It's still stupid.