Mach said:

Co- sign.

superspaceboy said:

I'm sorry, but I'll be damned if they are going to take away the thrill that I experienced on my wedding day, knowing that I was to be linked for life to my beloved Tracy. What a buzzkill it would have been to go through the extreme emotions of the day, make our vows of eternal love, only to sign a license that expires in 7 years. Again, if a couple wants to define their relationship according to their own parameters, I'm all for it. I think the rights to marriage should be extended to just about anyone. But including a caveat for a way out is just disgraceful, in my view. Why should my happiness be tainted by the failure of other couples?

Moonbeam said:

i'm not sure how committed i am to the other side of the argument, which in this case kind of sounds like a steven wright joke.

BUT. why should people who really need to get from one place to another be punished by having to take tests and by having to endure a beginner's license? "safety", you say? some would argue that a poorly-planned marriage would result in an unsafe or at least unhealthy environment for children. is one a less important consideration than the other?

i don't know if this idea is a good one or not, though i do see the principles behind it and i do believe those principles need to be addressed, one way or another. for that reason, i MAY not 100% agree with the idea, but i would hardly find it appalling.

Moonbeam said:

i don't see it that way. i see it as less of a "way out" as a "trial period" before actually planting the tree and letting the roots grow. it could be a period of counseling and planning and establishing the relationship, and the final commitment ceremony/wedding/etc. would be a confirmation that all those considerations have been addressed successfully. sure, there's the romantic and idealistic aspect of love and marriage and those things are beautiful and important, but i can't help but also think of a marriage as something akin to a business relationship, which it really is: you're working on a household and supporting each other's livelihoods, and that takes a lot of work, planning and logistics that don't always involve flowers and kittens and fat winged babies with bows and arrows. i think a SEVEN year "holding pattern" is a bit steep...my suggestion would be closer to a year or two, and i think it should involve a counseling/strategic planning schedule of some kind just so couples can enter a state of matrimony with their houses in order.

of course, i can't get married anyway so i'm just talking out my ass.

Anxiety said:

Anx, you've got a point there. Good one.

Moonbeam said:

Why would your happiness be tainted by reaffirming your feelings every 7 years? I think it would be a fun opportunity for celebration. Sort of an extra-special anniversary every so often.

Is marriage what MAKES love eternal?

What's marriage got to do, got to do with it?

Why change the rules of marriage? why not just add it as an alternative? Call it temporary marriage or something like that.

Anxiety said:

Maybe instead of having to renew the marriage after seven years, they'd just have the proviso that if you want to get divorced, you have a seven year period in which to do so only needing a couple signatures. After that, it's the whole divorce rigamarole.

Anxiety said:

What you are defining there should be what people go through during their engagement. I'm sorry, but the government can fuck off with its policy to try to create happier statistics with a lower divorce rate by imposing a completely arbitrary 7-year marriage license, whether it is viewed as a "trial period", a "way out" or whatever. Either excuse assumes that people can't take the responsibility of planning a marriage themselves without government imposition. And again, why should my marriage be infringed upon due to the failure of other marriages.

HereToRockYourWorld said:

Reaffirmation of feelings is not the point here. I'm all for grandiose displays of love. While marriage itself isn't the tie that binds, I love the symbolism that thrilled me so much on my wedding day of making eternal vows to my beloved Tracy, and will defend my right and that of others to do so.

Moonbeam said:

Yup. you got a very strong point there.
Is "I vow to love you for 7 years. After that, who knows?" as strong as "I will love you for as long as I live."?
If people aren't sure they can hold their marriage for life, then don't get married, just live together.

ArielB said:

I'm sure everyone enters into marriage feeling that it will last forever. Sometimes even with love and the best intentions it doesn't work out that way. Forever is a looooong ass time.

hokie1 said:

That's the point! If you feel that it'll last forever, why marry for only 7 years. It shows distrust. You should marry the way you feel. if you feel and want it to last forever, that's how long the marriage should last on paper too. If that doesn't work, divorce.

ArielB said:

OK Mr. Idealist.

hokie1 said:

ArielB said:

In all honesty...IMO it doesn't really matter if you get married or not. Even if you live with someone long term and the relationship doesn't last it will still hurt just as bad and have legal issues to work out. Love can be so blissful and so painful too.

Moonbeam said:

Right, but I think my wondering was, what does the legal contract have to do with your ability to make that eternal vow?

After all, a legal marriage is NOT an eternal vow. Divorce is always an option.

An eternal vow seems to me to be a more personal decision, regardless of state participation. A "permanent" marriage is not necessary for that commitment; ask the many queer people share your level of devotion to their partners.

Anxiety said:

This just struck me as funny comparing marriage to driving. What would an marriage instruction manual look like, who gets to mandate the rules of each activity in the marriage? Will it differ from state to state? What basic rule of marriage would one start teaching in pre-school?

HereToRockYourWorld said:

I understand and respect that, but I still feel that this would be a depressing and disturbing intrusion- for me anyway. I understand that a marriage is not the same thing as an eternal vow- Tracy and I made an eternal pledge to each other long before we were married. However, the option to have that personal eternal vow mirrored by a legal one should always be available, I think.

Spelling edit.
[Edited 9/23/07 21:54pm]

Moonbeam said:

Well, I guess it is what you make it.
[Edited 9/24/07 7:48am]

Is the government going to charge for the extension?
[Edited 9/24/07 8:32am]