Marriages should be allowed to end after 7 years...?

[DaemonSeid]

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

[AlethiaSi]

I like this idea. One can dream right? lol
interesting.

[AKA2D '91]

Very interesting given the fact that most marriages don't make it to 10 years anymore.

[DSTRen13]

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).

[James]

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 . . .

[Cardinal026]

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.

[mulattogyrl]

Originally Posted by AKA2D '91

Very interesting given the fact that most marriages don't make it to 10 years anymore.

Originally Posted by LPIDelta

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.

Good points. This is interesting.

[James]

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.

[AKA_Monet]

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...

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by James

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.

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.

[coco_swing]

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.

[coco_swing]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Sorry but can you spell it properly please?

There's no constitutional issue if the name is changed for everyone. As I said, I don't anticipate the majority of people changing the terminology that they use just because the government does. Civil Unions would not just be the term used for people who don't "fit the mold" by which I assume you mean same-sex couples. Currently marriage licenses are governed by the state, all I'm suggesting is changing the name to union licenses or civil union licenses.

This isn't redefining the concept of marriage, it is an attempt to keep people who feel that marriage is a religious rite from preventing same-sex marriages on those grounds. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be necessary, but just because this isn't the best solution doesn't mean it isn't a viable one. And many of the "best" solutions are just not going to happen any time soon.

Same sex couples would be able to get married in any sect that allowed it just as they are today. However, with or without that they would be afforded the civil recognition and the rights of any married couple today.

There's the conflict. A marriage liscence is a legal document, and I see a conflict with the government changing the letter of the Law because one may feel that it is a religious rite. It is a constituional issue as far as the seperation of church and state is concerned. It can also raise questions/concerns of federalism, since marriage laws are governed by the state. I guess if enough people petitioned the leaders in your state about changing all marriages liscences to civil union liscences, that would only change it your state. The federal government would have no way to impose that change in the entire U.S. without overpowering states rights.

Same sex couples can get married in any state that allows it. If they can find a religious institution in that state to perform the actual ceremony, I guess that's an added bonus for them. But a religious ceremony is not necessary for ANY marriage. One can just as easily have the Justice of the Peace perform it in Court or just sign the papers and oaths and go on about their day. Then, there's also Vegas.

Thanks for pointing out the spelling error....hate to think my years in school were a total waste...lol!

[coco_swing]

looks like I like to spell license wrong too....oh, well.