maybe we should lease a mate with a 5 year option to renew or buy. Or maybe open marriages, but is that natural? or maybe the better looking people should marry less attractive people who will stay faithful to them and let them cheat? Or maybe it's a problem with Morals and values?
2007-04-06 13:03:40 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Family & Relationships ➔ Marriage & Divorce
It's not a totally obsolete institution. There's a lot of room for improvement, though.
There should be options.
I like the idea of limited term marriages where you can choose the length of time you want to stay married. At the end of the term, you can renew or just let it lapse with a standard arrangement for dispersal of assets.
I like the idea of a "trial marriage", as well. Make it good for a month, or a week, or even a weekend! Try before you buy.
I think the implied contract of marriage really does make a difference between two people, sometimes for the worse, and sometimes for the better. It has it's uses, but if the only flavor it comes in is "for better or for worse, for life", then count me out.
I want options, or I don't want to play.
2007-04-06 13:16:30 · answer #1 · answered by DiesixDie 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Acting upon the request of the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives, The General Accounting Office identified 1,049 benefits, rights, and privileges only offered through legal marriage. These rights are not afforded through civil unions. Since some religious denominations perform same sex marriages, the denial of legal recognition of same sex marriage constitutes discrimination on both religious and civil rights grounds. The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." When the law says that all marriages by a church only performing opposite sex marriage will be recognized while only opposite sex marriages by another church will be recognized, this is unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says that states cannot "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." When a same sex couple is denied marriage afforded to opposite sex couples, they are being denied the equal protection of the laws, which is also unconstitutional.
2016-05-19 00:33:28 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Believe it or not, Dear Abby (or was it Ann Landers?) had an answer for this one. She said, "Get married in a church with your friends and family if you have the need for it, but do NOT involve the state in any way, such as getting a marriage license." She was referring to an older lady and gentleman who wanted to get married, but who would mess up their social security if they did. Yet they were of a generation that was not comfortable in simply 'shacking up.' I think her advice is sound.
However, if you should go ahead and decide to get married, you MUST each both get a pre-nuptial agreement. You must each have your own lawyer, and each pay for your own. (If you can't afford that small thing, then you are not ready for marriage and all it entails!) Pre-nuptial agreements are not only for the rich. Many things change, sometimes in as swiftly as a year. Not only that, but a pre-nuptial agreement forces both parties to sit down and TALK about their expectations for the marriage, i.e., financial outlook, children, owning of property, working versus staying home, etc.
2007-04-06 13:44:13 · answer #3 · answered by D 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO it's not, as long as people HONOR their wedding vows and don't treat marriage like it's a piece of paper. Marriage is a beautiful and sacred institution. And it sickens me at how people feel that they can just throw away marriages like they do garbage. When I took my vows I said to my wife as long as we BOTH shall live, not till something better comes along.
2007-04-06 13:37:46 · answer #4 · answered by Bryan M 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Better idea...buy a Harley and see the world. Find a hobby or anything else. Person does not have to get married.
2007-04-06 13:09:13 · answer #5 · answered by clbinmo 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
There is no better environment for children to grow up in than a loving home headed by a committed husband and wife.
2007-04-06 13:07:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I never want a piece of paper saying someone owns me. I would rather shack up for the rest of my life. My boyfriend understands that. Then I can trade him in on a newer model if he gets on my nerves.
2007-04-06 13:07:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think you should have to renew your marriage license every 3 years, hell we do our drivers licenses... then if we are tired of being married let them expire lol...
2007-04-06 13:08:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
haha, the leasing option cracks me up. I'm a girl of my word...it's unfortunate that for others, it's such a flippant thing these days.
2007-04-06 13:08:23 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Perhaps if it costs $100,000 to get married and $2.00 to get divorced people might try harder to keep that marriage intact.
2007-04-06 13:11:44 · answer #10 · answered by Albannach 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋