1.The Marriage Contract has an expiration date or renewal,
2.Three wives -for companionship, for wealth and for sex only,
3.The property of each are recorded when introduced, and
4.Annulment of marriage is not costly and tedious.
2006-07-22 01:42:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I wouldn't change the law except to require all couples to go before a board of old married folk and obtain permission. And I would require a 2 year waiting period before any marriage license would be granted.
2006-07-22 01:41:29
·
answer #2
·
answered by arewethereyet 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most religions require this, but it's not quite a "law" about marriage, as some religious figures will not require it, but I think premarital counceling should be required. My husband and I actually enjoyed these sessions and looked forward to them, and they gave us wonderful help in terms of communication. (And communication is usually an issue in most marriages at one point or another.)
2006-07-22 01:50:01
·
answer #3
·
answered by Melissa 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
A person should not have to spend thousands of dollars on an engagement ring as well as spend thousands of dollars on a big wedding party..
All that money could be used for a down payment on a house that will last as long as the marriage will last rather than four hours of partying.
2006-07-22 01:42:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by gwad_is_a_myth 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
hi, there's a diverse enormous difference between 'Christendom' and 'Christianity'. Jesus' representation of the wheat and the weed shows this in Mat. 13. specifically, actual Christianity has no longer replaced because it is Founder Jesus began it interior the first century. The regulation of love of Almighty God Jehovah, besides as of neighbour, quite 'the kingly regulation' continues to be being upheld by using actual Christians at present. What has replaced is 'Christendom' seeing that they're component to this international, beautiful in wars, etc. Christendom continually has, and probably continually will until eventually it is destruction by using (possibly) UN forces, 'hangs it is colors' in accordance to 'the political maximum magnificent' view on the time. variety regards,Günter
2016-11-25 01:30:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mandatory pre-marriage counseling. It would reduce the rate of bad marriages and therefore reduce the rate of divorce. I would also like to see a mandatory one year engagement period---an engagement license, if you like. Too many people get married on a whim and do not know each other---another reason for the high divorce rate.
2006-07-22 01:43:07
·
answer #6
·
answered by Preacher 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
My marriage did not require religious approval.
Only thing I would change is marriage for anyone who wishes to be married regardless of sexual orientation. Otherwise, I like things as they are... if you want a religious ceremony have one, if you don't then don't. Pretty easy really.
2006-07-22 02:01:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by genaddt 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Having a marriage is not required in my religions
but, I would change the fact that gays can't marry. I know a few people who are gay and think Bush's new law is full of sh**. You go gays!!
2006-07-22 01:42:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The law that states that once your married, your spouse has a marital interest in what's yours. Just this week I withdrew some money from my 401K. If I had been married I could not have done that without his signature, even though every dime of it is money I earned.
2006-07-22 01:40:21
·
answer #9
·
answered by Classy Granny 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I would eliminate all civil laws related to marriage.
Marriage would be whatever a person wanted it to be, but it would have no legal standing.
The number one reason for divorce is financial (lack of money). Counseling people is pointless unless you also teach them how to manage their money.
2006-07-22 01:59:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Left the building 7
·
0⤊
0⤋