Ernya.com

What is your take on this?

Leftists in the city's assembly – who have already riled conservatives by legalising gay marriage – proposed a reform to the civil code this week that would allow couples to decide on the length of their commitment, opting out of a lifetime.
The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stays happy. The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits.
"The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends," said Leonel Luna, the Mexico City assemblyman who co-authored the bill.
"You wouldn't have to go through the tortuous process of divorce," said Mr Luna, from the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution, which has the most seats in the 66-member chamber.
Mr Luna says the proposed law is gaining support and he expects a vote by the end of this year.
Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years.
The bustling capital, one of the world's largest cities, is much more liberal than the rest of the country, where the divorce rate is significantly lower although on the rise.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/mexico/8798982/Mexico-City-proposes-temporary-marriage-licences.html

I'm half and half on this. I think it's not a bad idea if done properly such as covering the legal side of things and simplifying an issue that's already there. Though it can mean the breakdown of the family unit, more single parents and so on.

Temporary marriages already exist, I'm in one myself under Shia Islam. Though, I'd rather be properly married eventually as there are more protections and so on and it doesn't actually deter full marriage.

In a country where about half of our marriages aren't forever anyway, I see this as a fairly logical step toward streamlining the process of getting married and divorced. A lot of people get divorced, and it's always a difficult and time-consuming process.

I'm sure tons of people are going to have a problem with this, but the reality is that this will probably lower the amount of divorces, which take cost people millions of dollars a year.

I do think people should avoid having kids until they're sure their marriage is going to stay together.

I'm in agreement over kids. But people are people and I don't think they tend to think about the consequences are much as we'd hope for.

lateralus es helica wrote:My first question is what the HELL are you doing having kids if you don't know whether or not you can make your marriage last?

Nobody knows for sure that a relationship will last, and sometimes people have kids before they decide to try getting married. It's not like you have to be in a stable marriage to have kids...

In response to the OP, I think this is a great idea and I don't know why nobody thought of it sooner.

lateralus es helica wrote:

There's a difference though between entering a marriage in which you are going for life and entering marriage under a temporary contract. It's all about the intent there. One form of marriage even if it doesn't last you're at least committed to making it do so. The second form temporary marriage, that same commitment doesn't exist.

I can understand if kids accidentally happen under a temporary contract but if you enter a marriage without the hopes that you will stay together, you shouldn't be trying to have kids.

I'm not saying that temporary marriage is wrong per se. As a matter of fact depending on the length of your courtship and dating before marriage it might be a good idea to make it a requirement with the option to be permanently married after say two years if it held together. Raising kids though takes full time commitment and you can't just change circumstances on them without dire consequences to their development. Don't tell me you haven't seen how messed up kids get after a divorce. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't be planning on having kids under a temporary contract, you have to think of the kids.

Hell pushing it, but maybe as well there should be a rider in which when married under a temporary contract, some sort of birth control is required. Would people feel like their rights are being trampled upon? Probably, but I'm thinking of the children.

I understand your point, but I don't think it's as hard on children to have divorced parents as many might assume. That usually depends more on the parents themselves and how they react to the situation. I would agree that it's wiser not to go through the trouble if you honestly don't expect your situation to last and your children are/will be beyond a certain age when the inevitable split should occur, but growing up with single parents isn't generally traumatic on its own, especially if the children are young enough when it happens that they will not be notably affected.
On the difference between the two types of marriage, I see it more as an expectation and acknowledgement of possibilities than an issue of commitment. When I got married, I may have expected or at least hoped for things to last, but I still acknowledged that they might not; and I see this temporary marriage idea as something which takes that acknowledgement a step further in creating a much simpler alternative way of providing for the "what if". Whether everyone who enters such a contract uses it that way is up to the individuals, of course.
And going back to the issue of children, the birth control thing is a huge turn-off to me not necessarily because of "reproductive rights" but because of the health issues that it could imply. Birth control methods do have side effects. I also don't think it's a big enough issue to take such drastic measures; children of divorced or single parents have grown up perfectly fine and healthy and there is no guarantee that the situation will be a problem--much less a big enough problem to insist on tampering with someone's biological state.

if people wouldn't jump into choices they're not ready for, or work things out correctly, this wouldn't be needed.
if you can't get married, or don't know you're going to last, then why would you even waste two years together for a joke marriage?

Breaking up a family is such a hard thing to do. But sometimes it's the right thing.
Anyway I don't think it makes a difference my parents were together for what 20 years? They divorced.
And me being 10 lived through the end of that relationship. Today I still have issues with the parents, even if they are divorced.

No, I think that there shouldn't be allowed temporary marriages. If you don't think that you'll be with that person forever then don't get married. Id be offended if a guy said hey lets get a temporary marriage.

divorce should be tough so people won't just get married just to be married.