Jump to content

Renewable Marriage Licenses


dropdeadlegs

Recommended Posts

I saw a celebrity on a talk show state that she thinks marriage licenses should be like drivers licenses. After four years you have to go into town as a couple and "renew" the marriage for another four years. You don't renew, you're no longer married. Makes sense to me, so I agree. What do you think?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw a celebrity on a talk show state that she thinks marriage licenses should be like drivers licenses. After four years you have to go into town as a couple and "renew" the marriage for another four years. You don't renew, you're no longer married. Makes sense to me, so I agree. What do you think?

 

Sounds kind of silly, but imagine how much time and money would be saved doing that rather than going through a divorce.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, works for me.

 

My only serious opposition to this idea is when a couple decides to have children. At this point, no more right of rescission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

RE:

 

What do you think?

 

I think that just re-enforces the role of government plays into marriage. I don't see the point in renewing one's marriage.

 

It is called a marriage for a reason. Having to evaluate the marriage every four years is kind of stressful. Entail bringing issues -complex and sometimes ugly issues to the surface can be nauseating.

 

What happens in the time in-between renewals? Processing takes time.

 

Just my $0.02.

Sand&Water

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why bother marrying at all? Just shack up. Since the point of marriage is to declare an indissoluble bond, it's silly to do it at regular intervals. Just don't do it at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Divorce would be just not paying the renewal fee

 

Yep, no more costly, messy divorces, we just split the blanket and be on our separate ways. Divorce attorneys would be out of business.

 

The thing about kids....people with children are divorcing every day so I don't see why the involvement of children should make any difference on this issue. Yes it does force us to reevaluate our relationship happiness and overall compatibility on a regular basis, but aren't we more or less doing that all the time anyway?

 

On the flip side, you would be married for at least four years and even if you split with your spouse, you would not be able to remarry until the term expired. That doesn't sound so awful to me either. Some folks are jumping around from marriage to marriage far faster than that. I knew a man who got married four times in 6 and 1/2 years.

 

The possible problem I see involves financial aspects and community property states. Say you couldn't do the entire four years with your prince who turned into a toad. You would be tied to him financially until your license expired. There is probably an answer for that somewhere out there.

 

I still think it's an interesting concept as "happily ever after" is a joke to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

kind of a faulty proposal – shouldn't spouses renew their desire every day to stay married? Dragging in a civil system doesn't really solve any problems, but rather creates more bureaucracy. Stay married, but have to "check in" with an agency every 4 years; choose to divorce, that's just one more office to have to file paperwork in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said this for years. I think marriage licenses should be renewed every 4 years, myself.

 

If you can't handle having to renew your vow of marriage every 4 years, I don't see why. If you have a strong relationship it would just help remind you of why you're married.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've said this for years. I think marriage licenses should be renewed every 4 years, myself.

I think its a superb idea as long as there aren't any kids...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then perhaps it should be considered a "civil union" from the beginning. I am not religious, but marriage is uniting under God til death. ( Idealistically anyway ) It negates the idea of marriage. Just shack up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Then perhaps it should be considered a "civil union" from the beginning. I am not religious, but marriage is uniting under God til death. ( Idealistically anyway ) It negates the idea of marriage. Just shack up.

 

ostensibly individuals who request this type of union would want the benefits of marriage, all the formal ones anyways, which is why they wouldn't want to "just shack up."

 

I'm just saying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ostensibly individuals who request this type of union would want the benefits of marriage, all the formal ones anyways, which is why they wouldn't want to "just shack up."

 

I'm just saying.

 

 

That's great as long as they are willing to accept the responsibilities that go along with those benefits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...