Would a Marital End-Date Prevent the Debacle of Divorce?
Couplehood is laid out in chapters. One chapter is rife with romance as your peers get hitched. The next is replete with pride as your peers have babies.
The next—the one I’m in now—is saturated with shock, anxiety, and discouragement as your peers bicker, cheat, and surrender their once-happy marriages to the life-hacking bandsaw that is divorce.
Starshine Roshell
It’s ugly. Though my marriage feels sturdy, it’s hard not to wince and take cover, whimpering, under the storm of blame lobbing, heart wringing, and estate dividing that so many friends are weathering.
With national divorce rates around 50 percent, are half of us doomed to betray or grow apart from the partners we promised to have and hold? Are we damned to disillusionment for failing to cherish ‘til death do us part?
Our grandparents managed to stay married, either through a stronger commitment to wedlock or a greater tolerance for misery. But if splits are inevitable in today’s live-for-the-moment culture, then can’t they be—shouldn’t they be—less painful?
What if, when our spouses’ faults begin outshining their favors and that irresistible yen for newness comes a-knockin’, we could gracefully excuse ourselves from the union with no hard feelings? What if marriage were a temporary construct? What if it simply expired, like milk?
Last year, the Australian Bureau of Statistics floated the idea of fixed-term marriage contracts: A marriage license would expire after five years, and 10 years, unless the couple renewed it. They hoped such a construct would encourage partners to work proactively toward surpassing those milestones, and remove the stigma associated with divorce so that it wouldn’t feel like a failure, but the natural course of many relationships.
If we had to “re-up” every five years, perhaps we wedded folk would be on our best behavior: attentive, communicative, engaged, and more apt to slip into seductive satin than saggy sweatpants at the end of the day. Then again, maybe a looming renewal date would create anxiety, rendering null one of the best parts of marriage: the not-having-to-always-be-fabulous-because-they-love-you-anyway perk.
“I think if you’re going into a marriage with an ‘out clause,’ then you probably shouldn’t be getting married in the first place,” said a friend of mine.
But if we stopped imagining marriage as an everlasting fairy tale, if we instead approached it is as a series of satisfying, self-contained chapters, we might be more successful.
“It works for jogging,” another friend concurred. “I can’t quite commit to jogging a whopping five miles, but I can commit to going to that next tree, and then the next fence, and then that mailbox. Pretty soon, I realize I went the whole five miles.”
A divorced friend of mine doesn’t like the idea. “I am not available for lease,” she said. “I don’t want to be driven around for a few years and then traded in for a newer model just because hey, it’s in the contract.”
It would be especially sticky if children were involved, but let’s be honest: Couples divorce despite the proven benefits of a two-parent household. If they could walk away with a handshake and a “thanks, that was fun,” it would be less taxing on the kids than an unplanned, unbridled war.
The greatest drawback to marital expiration dates, I think, is that couples who didn’t expect to stay together wouldn’t make long-term plans together. They wouldn’t build. They wouldn’t dream. They wouldn’t hope.
And shared hope is really the brass ring of coupledom. In fact, if fixed-term marriages can’t eradicate the perpetual threat of divorce, then mutual, matrimonial hope may be the best we can do. Eager to see what life’s next chapter brings, I’m still hoping for a happy ending.
Starshine Roshell is the author of Keep Your Skirt On.
Revealing the direct connection between the history of U.S. intervention ... Read More
Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Facebook
Twitter
Google+1
del.icio.us.
Digg!
Yahoo! Buzz
Diigo
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Yahoo!
Myspace
Previous Month
Comments
I don't know....5 years is a long time. Great article for thought and action. You're a very good writer.
hunkymon (anonymous profile)
May 4, 2010 at 11:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Marriages should not be based on hope, but on commitment. Society, and couples without children are too concerned with the institution of marriage, and society and some couples WITH children are too little concerned. Marriage is a life-term contract to protect a non-wage-earning spouse and any children. As such, marriage comes with a default contract due to existing law and legal precedent. There should be no default contract, but instead a written contract with clear terms, signed, before a couple marries. ( My divorce went smoothly because I did not get angry with my cheating ex, and treated her with respect as we separated. )
neworion (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2010 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Very nicely put, neworion. My thought is that instead of further weakening the institution of marriage, those wanting an "out" should opt for cohabitation.
winddancer1562 (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2010 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Such contracts take the romantic emotion out of it all.
I wed thee but only in five-year increments?
Marriage means wearing the hat (i.e., a commitment to put up or shut up). That is why I support real legal marriage for couples of same or mixed genders, but I do not support the half-assed legal recognition of domestic partners.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
May 5, 2010 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If people would grasp the concept that you can be attracted to someone romantically and still be their friend, there wouldn't be these problems.
Today, people want instant sexual gratification and wonder why their marriages fall apart at such a high rate. Even sadder is that they keep dragging kids into their messes.
Life really isn't so complicated; look at long-term happily married couples and learn from them if you intend to get married.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
May 5, 2010 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There used to be a social and economic need for marriage. Our society has evolved for better or worse. Maybe lifelong marriage is an outdated ideal.
iriesouljah (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2010 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh great. I could hear the vows now: "Until death do us part" becomes "check back with me in 5 years"
netnolimits (anonymous profile)
May 7, 2010 at 3:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For most of history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.
From the early Christian era (30 to 325 AD), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter with no uniform religious or other ceremony being required. However, bishop Ignatius of Antioch writing around 110 AD to bishop Polycarp of Smyrna said, "It becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust."
Maybe a return to lust could save the institution?
Georgy (anonymous profile)
May 8, 2010 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interesting proposition.
While some fight to get out of marriages, others, namely gays and lesbians, are fighting for the right to enter into marriages. It's a fascinating symmetry
I don't think there is any magic equation to a successful marriage.
My great grandparents, who entered into an arranged marriage, after having a large family were divorced in the late 1800's. My paternal grandparents were married for over 60 years until their passing while my maternal grandmother was twice divorced. My parents, on the other hand, have been married for over 50 years and counting. Go figure.
.
HueyChapala (anonymous profile)
May 10, 2010 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Despite the tidal rise and fall of marital popularity through the centuries and the anecdotal discrepancies or deviations from the trend of the day (as per HueyChapala) we ultimately yearn for the comfort and security of permanence in our relationships. What I find disconcerting is the lack of respect and the betrayal through which some are willing to put their once-oh-so-loved one, i.e. abuse, adultery.
Why the deception and pain? Why not make a clean break first and THEN move on to fresh meat?
As you've probably already guessed, I'm still reeling from a recently discovered "contractual infraction" of my own...
Without the stigma once carried by the cheater in past generations, today's thrill-seeker gets away with "murder" and the jilted party is left with a life in shambles, particularly here in "no-fault" California.
We are probably the only victim group without any recourse. Is anyone out there willing to take on this cause?!
Please?!
At 51, I now have to start life anew: alone, away from the house that was our home for so many years, and with a whole new set of financial challenges.
In the meantime, my ex is carousing with impunity. Not even our church community, in which we are so active, is taking a moral stand.
You can't work on a marriage if both parties are not open, respectful, and honest about the current chapter, as Starshine puts it, that they are in.
So all this talk of lifelong vs. time-limited re-enrollment marriages is fine and good, but without honesty and respect no relationship can work, no matter the format.
carp_dad (anonymous profile)
June 10, 2010 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)