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**

I agree. Plus, what if you don't WANT to have to renew it. Imagine the legal issues if you miss the deadline by accident.

Exactly. I can't even remember to renew my license plates each year. I don't need anything on top of it to remember. If something like this ever passes, I think I'd just consider it a tax on marriage, because calling it a tax is about the only way I can see it making it through the actual legislation process....

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???

And if one partner wants to remain married and the other doesn't.. this wouldn't necessarily be an amicable easy split. Partner number two could use it as leverage to get x, y, and z.

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.)

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...

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.

Now that I can agree upon... I would not want a "renewable marriage license"...

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:

Exactly. For heaven's sake, it's a MARRIAGE, not a gym membership.:rolleyes: I can't even remember to renew my driver's license, let alone my marriage license. I'm glad I don't live in Bavaria...though I hear their creme is off the chain.:cool:

I think this is a lame attempt from their government hoping people WILL forget to renew it and charge some outrageous reinstatement fee.

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!

I'm all for having all civil unions be called that and making marriage a religious-only term. But not this renewal thing....

been lurking for a while now...hey GC!
 

^what about those that follow no religion. No marraige for them, then?

I think people will still call it marriage either way. However if what the state gives is legally given a completely secular name it will keep people from claiming that a civil union of two gay people infringes on their religion.

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.

I can see where you are coming from with that, but it seems like giving gay marraige/civil union/un-religious marraige a different name would create a "seperate but equal" type of thing. It more than likely will create a stigma where marraige (as in the religious union) would be put on a pedistal, while [enter the new secular union name] would be shunned.

Besides, where would that leave a homosexual who practices Christianity?

Every married couple would receive a civil union. When you get married you have to have a license from the state.. that would be a civil union license. IF you wanted a marriage ceremony from any religion then that's your choice.

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.