![]() |
Marriages should be allowed to end after 7 years...?
BERLIN (Reuters) - Bavaria's most glamorous politician -- a flame-haired motorcyclist who helped bring down state premier Edmund Stoiber -- has shocked the Catholic state in Germany by suggesting marriage should last just 7 years.
Gabriele Pauli, who poses on her web site in motorcycle leathers, is standing for the leadership of Bavaria's Christian Social Union (CSU) -- sister party of Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) -- in a vote next week. She told reporters at the launch of her campaign manifesto on Wednesday she wanted marriage to expire after seven years and accused the CSU, which promotes traditional family values, of nurturing ideals of marriage which are wide of the mark. "The basic approach is wrong ... many marriages last just because people believe they are safe," she told reporters. "My suggestion is that marriages expire after seven years." After that time, couples should either agree to extend their marriage or it should be automatically dissolved, she said. Fifty-year-old Pauli, twice divorced, is a maverick intent on shaking up her male-dominated and mainly Catholic party which has dominated Bavarian politics since World War Two. "This is about bringing ideas into the CSU and starting a discussion," she told German television on Thursday after she had unleashed a wave of criticism from other politicians. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070921/...itics_marriage |
I like this idea. One can dream right? lol
interesting. |
Very interesting given the fact that most marriages don't make it to 10 years anymore. :(
|
I could agree with this, as I see a clear distinction between marriage the legal institution (which would be what would expire and need to be renewed) and marriage the social/religious institution (which each couple would treat according to their own beliefs).
|
I agree, but I think 7 years is too long . . one year renewable, three year renewable, max 5 year renewable.
But a one year renewable would force the couple to constantly try and please each other . . . |
I'm not sure I see the point of having an expiration date when you can just get divorced. It says that Pauli herself is twice divorced, so must not be that difficult to do so in Berlin. If the argument is that people stay in it because its safe - well, if they're not working to improve it, or making the decision to end it, isn't that kinda their own fault? I don't agree with having the government step in with a timeframe.
|
Next thing you know they will have to negotiate these things like NBA and NFL contracts.....with incentives....
**shivers** |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
It may not be practical but this is a very intriguing idea to me.
I mean, it gives you a chance to pause at your 7th year and say, "Is this working for me?" "Do I want to continue?" And it kind of gives you an easy out without the whole mess of lawyers and divorce papers and courts. I love my husband, but I never needed the legal side to make it whole. And, for the record, I have been married six years last month! :) |
Question for the sake of discussion...I assume the paperwork would require BOTH parties to sign to make the renewal official...right???
Generally, in most marriages, there's a person who "takes care of the house" - pays the bills, signs the report cards, makes sure the taxes get done, etc... Isn't that just giving them one more thing to nag their partner about??? |
Quote:
|
So, if the couple decides, before their 7-year limit is up, that they don't want to be married, do they have to pay a divorce penalty? Or is a divorce even allowed before the expiration date?
AF hit the nail on the head with this one... this would just give the "household crap manager" one more thing to add to her list. (Yep, I said her. We all know the women take care of most of the domestic crap. But I'm not bitter... honest.) |
Quote:
Quote:
Good points. This is interesting. |
Well I was thinking more in terms of quality of life.
I think people try harder around deadlines and they fight harder to keep things going if they perceive a risk. So if the marriage contract was renewable every year, figure they would be extra nice to each other 2 months prior to the due date and keep at it out 2 months post due date. Fights relationship entropy. |
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...
|
Quote:
AKA Monet, I don't actually understand your question. |
Quote:
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 . . . .
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't think I like that option... |
Quote:
Whatever. I disagree with the concept anyway. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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.... :)
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
It's still stupid. |
Quote:
I tried to get a "covenant license", but Washington does not have one... Besides, if I decided to leave and divorce my husband, it would be a clean break... I'm outta there. |
I don't know what this world is coming to. Doesn't look like anyone is taking relationships and marriage seriously anymore. That's sad.
If you mention FWB (friends with benefits) or in other words "Let's just screw" jokers are down with that program 100%. That's trifling as hell.:mad: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I still believe marriage is an issue that should be maintained according to one's religion. This just seems like another opportunity for secular society to make divorce even more convenient than what it is. What ever happened to working through your problems. No one ever said it would be easy! |
Quote:
|
been lurking for a while now...hey GC!
^what about those that follow no religion. No marraige for them, then?
|
Quote:
Thus everyone could have the same rights. Just my opinion. |
forgot to comment on the OP:
While I find the idea interesting, I believe marraige is (or at least should attempt to be) a life-long committment. If for whatever reason, the marraige is not working, the option for divorce is still on the table...which kind of makes an expiration date useless. |
Quote:
Besides, where would that leave a homosexual who practices Christianity? |
Quote:
You cannot force a religion to practice its sacraments on anyone. A gay Christian would have legal recognition of his or her union, just not necessarily a religious one. Or he or she could convert to a sect that allows gay marriages. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.