It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should marriage licenses expire?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Should marriage licenses expire?


That is what divorce is, the expiration of a marriage and there is No need to make it any easier then it already is to dissolve. If people want out of a marriage they should earn their way out by doing everything possible to avoid it and not go into a marriage with an "out" written into the contract (whether you believe that contract is just a legal document or a promise before God)...


edit on 27-6-2011 by LadySkadi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Well, so much for this idea.

WIth the divorce rate at 50% these days, I thought this might be something that would be looked at as a fresh idea. Sure, most people enter into a marriage hoping that it lasts forever, but for those who discover that they've made a mistake, they're doomed to spend possibly thousands of dollars on a divorce attorney and hoping they at least get out with the clothes on their backs if the other person has a better attorney.
Yeah, great system we got.

To those of you who seemed horrified at this idea, I won't apologize. I see it as a way for people to work towards desiring mutual happiness and feeling proud that they were able to reach the first milestone. People get married and they stop courting each other and let themselves go. My idea would at least add a little pressure to keep the fire burning. I'd much rather have to declare why I wanted to stay married to someone instead of the nightmarish opposite.

At least when the expiration date was approaching, both individuals would know in their hearts what was coming and nobody is pressured to utter the infamous "I want a divorce". Let's face it, nobody wants to be the bad guy. An expiration date would basicly eliminate this, but I do realize that special circumstances would negate this all together. If a person discovered that they married a cheater or an abuser, special considerations would of course be administered.

Even though I didn't want to mention children, I might as well.
If kids are involved, at least mom and dad can say, "Well, your mother and I figured that we'd rather let the license expire since we decided that it would be a gruelling wait until one of us expired." (I'm kidding with this one - just wanted to add a little humor for the ones I ticked off)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   
OMG! That makes perfect sense! Marriage is so over-rated and religion has gotten people into a serious guilt trip for leaving the family without the ideal set of parents. But honestly, it is all about the children, and staying together through "tooth and nail" would be preferable until each child/ren has reached the ripe old, legal age of 18/19.

Off the tangent, I'd say renew the marriage license by paying annual fees (as revenue back to the state) and a "BS" test/check every two years (again another fee-based revenue paid to the state) to determine how well they know each other and how the feel about staying in a relationship.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   
I don't think they should expire, but I think marriages should come with a written test.

If you don't pass, you don't marry.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Personally I don't see why you need a license to get married. It is a personal choice between two people, either because they love each other and want to make a life together (personal commitment) or because it is a contract between two people/ families (legal contract) or because of religious reasons (can't comment too much on the religious angle since I'm not religious).

I don't see why the government has to get involved in the first place and I definitely wouldn't want the government to get more involved in my life!

I also think that having a license or any other piece of paper from the government/other institution providing an expiry date on what is supposed to be a life-time commitment (for whatever reason) rather defeats the whole purpose of getting married in the first place.

Sorry if I have repeated anything already said on here
I'm trying to help the kid study for exams but the crap they have to learn and the way it is taught/not taught is making my mind slowly leak out my ears.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
How about we just make marriage as hard to get as a divorce?



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
If I were going to make any changes to marriage, it would be to completely remove the government from it, not give them more interest in my personal relationships. I don't need to prove ANYTHING to ANYONE about my desire to be with my spouse or the love we share.

I love being married but if I could do it over again, I would not ask the state to grant me a license to spend my life with the person I love. We have been brainwashed to think that it's necessary to involve the government in this one specific relationship. And I feel 'duped' for buying into it. Seriously, I have considered getting a divorce just to get the state out of my relationship.

So, no. I'm not keen to support further government involvement in my marriage.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
No! It sounds like you'd be putting a time limit on your marriage. I don't like that idea at all.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 08:29 AM
link   
To those of you who are commenting about how this would allow more government into your lives. It really wouldn't. Besides, I thought that a license to get married was mainly for the protection of the parties involved. At least when someone applies for a marriage license, the state checks to make sure that the said individual isn't currently married to someone in another state. It's sad that some people, mostly women, have discovered that their boyfriend already has a wife somewhere else. There have also been instances where people have discovered that their "honest" mate is really living under an assumed identity and is a con artist. It's quite scary what people will try to get away with.

Also, at least a marriage license ensures that blood tests are conducted. I'd like to believe that people are responible enough to have these done, but most probably aren't. Especially if you're going to have children within the union, any diseases and potentially genetic disorders can be detected and avoid the heartache later.

The government really only needs to be concerned with the safety of those involved. I'm not in agreement for anything more than this.

On the religious aspect, marriage has to be the one thing where separation of church and state doesn't apply -- most of the time. I think this is a problem because I'm not religious and I'm not for further government interventions and I hate the idea of a nanny state, but if you're making a lifetime commitment, at least the guidelines are in place to make certain that everyone is being honest and there's no surprises health wise.
edit on 28-6-2011 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 



Also, at least a marriage license ensures that blood tests are conducted. I'd like to believe that people are responible enough to have these done, but most probably aren't. Especially if you're going to have children within the union, any diseases and potentially genetic disorders can be detected and avoid the heartache later.


I had no idea that blood tests were still done for a marriage in the USA. We don't do that in Canada, it's just pay for a licence, wait 24 hours, and get married within 90 days. The marriage commissioner again costs money.

Never a blood test done. No medical questions either. Only paperwork.

Also, up here, common law is accepted by medical insurance, and the tax department. My husband and I lived together for 10 years as legally commonlaw ( declared to the tax department and medical) before we actually got married. I was even allowed to use his last name on some things, I've gone by both my last name and his for the last few years. It's hard to remember to now legally use his last name. I haven't even changed ID over yet.


I think commonlaw is more common up here for some reason, it's recognized as a marriage is - if the couple splits up after a certain amount of time, property is divided up as though the couple was actually married, and children are also part of that package - child support, joint custody, etc.......



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
Besides, I thought that a license to get married was mainly for the protection of the parties involved.


The more people get accustomed to the idea that the government is needed to protect them, the more dependent we become on the government to protect us. I don't need the government protections in my personal relationships.



Also, at least a marriage license ensures that blood tests are conducted.


If I decide to marry someone and I want blood tests, I will see that they are done. I don't need the gov't to do that. If people aren't responsible enough to do that, it's THEIR problem, not the government's.



Especially if you're going to have children within the union, any diseases and potentially genetic disorders can be detected and avoid the heartache later.


A great reason to get blood tests. NOT a good reason to have the government involved.



posted on Jun, 28 2011 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elentarri
Personally I don't see why you need a license to get married. It is a personal choice between two people, either because they love each other and want to make a life together!!

I agree with this comment!!

If you feel Marriage is not for you then dont get Married!!



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


The government needs to be involved because of medical decisions and the division of property. The more complicated your estate, the more complicated it comes to who gets what.
And don't think for one second that most people handle this fairly. Anyone on here has personally seen a family rip out adamantium claws over the remaining estate, despite specific wishes of the deceased.
The state isn't regulating love, the state is regulation estate.
If in the event that the spouse is hospitalized, the remaining spouse makes the decisions.
edit on 1-7-2011 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I think "to death do us part" was reasonable, when the average life expectancy was 35.

The renewal process could also be fun. Parties, ceremonies, honeymoons.


Might also serve to keep people on their best behavior.

"Oops. Our contract is coming up next year, maybe I should try a little harder".

Not to mention, that divorce rates will plummet. We would have "non-renewal rates instead, I guess.

Of course, upon the first time, people could opt for the contract version, or proceed with "death do us part", if they wanted to take that route.

I like it. At least having the option.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Another thought. Since many lawmakers are attorneys, I don't know if they would permit this or not, because they typically make a good chunck of change from divorces.

And it does present legal problems, If it is decided not to renew the contract, how will joint property be disposed of, and child custody decided? Sounds like a divorce to me.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misterlondon
the idea of marriage is that it is a union of 2 people for life... yeah sometimes it doesnt work, but your proposal kind of defeats the whole point of getting married in the first place..


edit on 27/6/11 by Misterlondon because: (no reason given)


That is why I think there should be something called a marriage contract that would be signed for a set amount of time , after which it could be renewed if both parties agree . I read that once in a book and I loved that idea



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Sounds feasibile, I agree, I like the idea, of course Ive always thought that it ought to cost several thousand dollars to get a marriage license and seven dollars to get divorced too. So who knows, but I like the idea of a renewable license, there would certainly be alot less sessions in divorce court, and (from someone who was amicably divorced from her first husband) alot less pain for everyone. The division of property would take a bit of working on though.



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
I'm glad to see that this, obviously abstract, idea is getting responses from both sides of the table. Thanks to everyone for their comments!

Of course I don't believe that marriage vows should ever be taken lightly, but I also agreed with the person who stated that "til death do us part" made more sense when a person's life expectancy was much younger. Great point!

I also agree with the people who said that government has to be involved in a separation. No matter how much you don't want the government in your life, they have to be there to assist in the division of property and hopefully ensure that things are done properly. Funny I just noticed that the word properly becomes property. Just cross the 't' and you're done. I believe that this is a good analogy for how easy it is to get married, too. Young people certainly have a difficult time imaging the future in a mature and responsible fashion. Older individuals can have this trouble, too. If you prefer to not have the government involved in your life, I would suggest not getting married and opt to have a life partner instead.

Of course it comes down to love and communication. Even if a couple were to agree to a "leased" or temporary marriage, it really never has to end. Paper is just paper after all.

I'm glad though that one person did agree that it would add more spice to the marriage and make people mind their p's and q's more than they would in a traditional union. More parties, more celebrations! That's how I feel about the renewal process anyways. Nobody likes the dreaded phrase "the honeymoon's over", but if every time a couple decided to renew their license was an opportunity to rejoice and celebrate their union, well all the better.


No matter how you ultimately feel about my suggestion, I'm happy everyone is able to discuss this without letting it dissolve into an argument between legalities and religions. Thank you, everyone, for that!

edit on 1-7-2011 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ladyinwaiting
Another thought. Since many lawmakers are attorneys, I don't know if they would permit this or not, because they typically make a good chunck of change from divorces.

And it does present legal problems, If it is decided not to renew the contract, how will joint property be disposed of, and child custody decided? Sounds like a divorce to me.


I see what you're saying, but the couple would not have to discuss and explain WHY they don't want to be together anymore. The license is expiring and that's all that would need to be said.

When you go to renew, THIS is when you have to explain why you both want to STAY TOGETHER. Then, there's good times all around!



posted on Jul, 1 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
If you want your marriage to be able to expire then why get married in the first place!!



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join