Fixed-term marriage

Last August the papers were abuzz with chatter about the thesis of an Ottawa U student who proposed that marriage might work better if people entered into it as a short-term (perhaps 5 years) contract, instead of a contract for life. She suggested that at the end of the 5 years the couple could either renew for another term or consider it done and walk away.

Personally, I think it is a great idea for several different reasons. What do you think?

1. Are short-term contract marriages a good idea?

2. Why or why not?

I look forward to your answers!

http://ottawacitizen.com/storyline/why-get-married-for-life-when-you-can-married-on-a-five-year-contract

It might seem great at first glance but some thoughts occur to me

I take it marriage would then be five year fixed term.

It sounds ideal for people in their twenties, thirties, even early/mid forties but as you get older the dating world changes, single older ladies and gentlemen find fewer single ladies and gentlemen to date. So marriage options as you get older change (hope that makes sense)

Community property. What five year married couple would buy a house together, for example, knowing in five years it could be gone. You buy a house to be a home, not five year temporary accommodation.

What about children. Husband/Wife married and have a child. Five years up. Husband moves on to Wife 2. Wife moves on to Husband 2. Wife 2 and Husband 2 each have kids from previous marriages. It could get confusing for the children. Especially if they all get along then when five years up, husband and wife move on to wife 3 and husband 3 and so on

I don't see the advantage in marriage for five years. It sounds like you are married with one foot out the door when you take your vows

My take on it

RG

I'd have to agree with RoamingGuy. It seems interesting in theory, but may be a disaster in practice and could lead to a series of systematic abuse. The whole idea is bizarre. Why get married if it is only for 5 years? Why not just cohabitate then? A marriage is meant to be 'till death do us part (or 'till we get divorced).

In addition to RG's concerns about divided families, there are legal ramifications to consider. One of they key legal issues with marriage is the division of assets along with the obligation to take care of one's partner by providing and maintaining a lifestyle they are accustomed to. In a fixed-term marriage arrangement, the ''escape clause'' (if I can call it that) after 5 years would IMO legally necessarily have to involve a waiver of the right to spousal support. Otherwise, it can be disastrous.

Now I realize that even today there are many cases out there of failed marriages within the first few years, and one partner sees nothing wrong with seeking spousal support forever (I am not criticizing child support; I view that as a different and legitimate claim). It seems to me that the concept of the fixed-term contract (like any marriage contract) is to afford an early escape if it is not working out without having to carry the other person financially.

Think about it: Anyone can get divorced at any time. The fixed-term marriage contract would simply be a trick to avoid the financial repercussions of a divorce as the law surrounding marriage contracts as it stands now does not allow for a complete clean-break from a spouse.

Perhaps the author of the thesis was trying to suggest legislative reform.

The Green Party in Germany (not just one politician as suggested in the Citizen) proposed this.

Like many contracts there would be a notice period, if neither party gave notice then the contract would renew. Community property would be an issue, however please consider that in Europe people are less driven to buy a home, instead they rent. Also pension plans are more transparent. The philosophy is that there are three pillars to retirement planning. First pillar is the state plan (CPP or QPP) the second is the employer plan and the third is personal investment. Because there is so much discussion of these, both parties to a relationship plan together, but under the 5 or 7 year contract of marriage, they would need to plan for where the funds go at the end.

By planning up front for eventual separation of assets there is less surprise and bitterness when the parties do separate (since the majority of marriages do end in divorce this is a good idea). The same applies to issues of custody.

It is also important to consider the Green Party proposal was not conceived to encourage couples to break-up. In fact it was the reverse. Both parties, knowing that the contract would be up for renewal would be less likely to take the other for granted. Instead they would be inclined to engage in on going courtship, especially in the second half of the term when such things typically wane. Heck, this might have a negative impact on the business of some people, as both partners were more inclined to keep the spark going.

I am married for 30+ years so I would suggest that anything I might say about marriage might be seen as biased.... however that said I don't think the problem people experience with marriage results from it being open ended... so I don't see how a fixed term would change much.

Marriage should be for those individuals who choose it as the way they want to make a commitment to each other and like any other contract the parties should have the right and ability to end the relationship when it no longer meets either or both parties needs.

I am by no means anti-divorce but would fine it a little demoralizing to think that the start of my relationship was like, a carton of milk and had a predetermined expiry date.

But you know what to each their own if that type of arrangement suits your needs wonderful.

Just my Opinion

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

I think it's a rather unpractical idea. You still run into the same problems of divorce during the life any contract. Also, I don't think it's a very strong starting point when one goes in knowing there is an easy way out.

In making the decision to get married, I think there are several positive factors which are the basis for going ahead. One has to consider that the institution forms a stable long term platform for having kids. Also, in bad health and difficult times it provides a committed partner to provide support, and one has to assume you're totally committed to the venture long term.

Being a widower and of advancing age I had a fleeting thought that maybe this might be for me. But with a little sober second thought it became apparent that the issues were probably more problematic, issues of potential ill health and estate planning come to mind. Better to just have a live in girl friend.

The Green Party in Germany (not just one politician as suggested in the Citizen) proposed this..... <snip>

 

By planning up front for eventual separation of assets there is less surprise and bitterness when the parties do separate (since the majority of marriages do end in divorce this is a good idea). The same applies to issues of custody.

 

It is also important to consider the Green Party proposal was not conceived to encourage couples to break-up. In fact it was the reverse. Both parties, knowing that the contract would be up for renewal would be less likely to take the other for granted. Instead they would be inclined to engage in on going courtship, especially in the second half of the term when such things typically wane. Heck, this might have a negative impact on the business of some people, as both partners were more inclined to keep the spark going.

Yes, this is more in line with my thinking, too. Some people may be less inclined to take the marriage for granted once married and keep working at it if they want the marriage to continue.

Communal property and finances--I see the term contract as an easier way to untangle things. Having been married almost 20 years myself, untangling finances at the end was the most difficult. In the future I will never entangle my finances with anyone again. I don't know why I ever did do it. We should have just shared expenses all those years. It would have been easier. I never asked for spousal support, so that was never an issue.

Why not just cohabitate? I think there would be some advantages, such as insurance plans, benefits, tax brackets, etc.

Succession of parents, or perhaps the mushrooming of the number of parents: that is already happening to kids today. My own marriage was the longest-lasting one of all my kids' friends. ALL their friends had divorced parents. We were the oddity. We planned to never divorce. We were in it for the long haul. Then in the end, we divorced, too. Looking back, we probably should have divorced much sooner.

I remember years ago being shocked to read a line in a magazine about marriage trends that the current thought of someone thinking of marriage was: I love you so much that I want you to be my first spouse! I was horror stricken at the time, but now.......not so much. Fifteen or twenty years later, it is today's reality.

Times have changed, and I think it a very good proposal. It would have to be tweaked, for sure. but.......I think it's a good idea

Other thoughts? Please chime in!

:-)

Nowadays the term "starter marriage" is commonly used to indicate a shorter term commitment(5yrs?) with the intent to get out at some point (unless things strangely work out). Given the quality of many of the men out there under 25 or 30 I can understand the thought process, but still...

I don't see much difference between the starter marriage attitude and a 5 year commitment to stay married. Both seem half hearted. If you can't handle an open ended marriage why bother with marriage? Just stay boyfriend/girlfriend and try not to have any babies together especially if you're unsure about each other as mates.

I wouldn't marry someone who wasn't fully committed to us. I mean, how would she react when I ask her to take my last name?? :)

p.s. Marrying for tax purposes is not something I would suggest. It's like marrying solely for a resident/green card. It's got doom written all over it.

I think all marriage (fixed term, open term, same sex, man/woman, polygamy) should be illegal!! Now that's equity!!

lol

p.s. Marrying for tax purposes is not something I would suggest. It's like marrying solely for a resident/green card. It's got doom written all over it.

I am not aware of any real tax benefit from being married

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

Well I was born in 1961 and raised with the idea marriage was till death do us part. My take on it, it was rare to find anyone divorced/separated when I was growing up. For better or worse meant even in bad times, you stayed together, worked through the bad times together.

But it has become easier and less of a stigma to get divorced. Marriage seems a disposable institution...death do us part means split when we get tired of one another, and want to see if the grass is greener elsewhere

But lets not spend a lot of effort working out problems

For what it's worth

RG

I am married... yes we have major problems in our marriage... not things that I would blame on either of us... life happens... issues arise some we are equipped to deal with some we are not... do I love my wife less than 30 ago certainly not... she is the most important woman in my life... the mother of my children... my soul mate and only true love of my life. Sometimes Love is just not enough.

If i was to think about what the major challenge to marriage is based on my experience it would simply be our inability to effectively communicate.

Just my Opinion

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

I am not married and have no children but have been with the same woman for more than 25 years. We have an annual review where we set a time to talk about us and how we're doing, plan vacations and review finances, RRSP's etc. It's work well for us.

Once you go through the loss of parents and friends and mourn together you become bonded in a different way. Sometimes the grass might look greener but you're too old to try and jump that fence and you've learned that when the going got tough neither one cut and ran and that means a lot.

Peace

MG

So many people now don't want to do anything if it involves effort.

Two of my nephews have had three marriages! No commitment at all. The real tragedy is the young children that feel abandoned by their lazy self indulgent fathers. Both those nephews I have completely written off and ignore. They still ask for money though.

Their brother has a steady marriage, almost twenty years, three terrific children, a wonderful wife and a very good job.

Same parents, same upbringing, completely different ideas about responsibility.

Makes you wonder eh?

A couple of co workers were stuck working to 65 because of divorce. Two retired with nothing except a rusted out car and a bachelor suite, and half a pension. They don't accept any responsibility and blame everything on their wives. But I knew these guys for decades, I know they spent most of their time and money drinking at the bar and hitting on everything they could. After paying no attention to their wives and kids for twenty years they are shocked when the wife kicks them out.

I went shopping with a girl the other day. We had a great time together. When I mentioned it to one guy he said I must be gay. This is a more common attitude than anyone wants to admit.

I might actually get some power back in my relationship every half decade! Cool!

Seriously though. It could change the power dynamic in some cases. Especially where there is a difference in income or earning potential. Keep me happy or I won't renew. This could perhaps be an added weapon in a relationship that is already unhealthy. I know that marriages often end in divorce as it is, and some already use this type of threat as leverage, but it may be more of a threat when staying in the relationship is not the default. Just my initial thoughts.

I am not aware of any real benefit from being married

Fixed that there for ya! :P

Lots of crazy ideas have always spewed from the lips of all those virgin university students, yes it is a interesting idea but my guess is this student may have overstepped her virgin boundaries.

Fixed that there for ya! :P

Well to each their own... for me personally my marriage is one of the things that was right in my life... no not perfect but no relationship is.

Just my opinion

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

I don't care if people make up some sort of agreement for a 5 year marriage, or 1 year or 20 years. As long as they are doing it happily on their own free will, it's their choice. I just hope that the children are considered when making this arrangement.

It's not for me though. If I marry, I plan it to be a life long commitment, and yes I do leave the option for divorce if things get bad. I respect people who don't get marriage and decide it's not for them. What I don't get is some of those people who claim marriage is useless and a relic of the past (and not in a joking manner). I get the impression that some of those people get some joy in putting down marriages and the people who believe in their importance. I just don't know why though.

Basically, you stay out of my way, I'll stay out of yours.

I get the impression that some of those people get some joy in putting down marriages and the people who believe in their importance. I just don't know why though.

 

Basically, you stay out of my way, I'll stay out of yours.

I hope I didn't give the impression I was putting down marriage or people who believe in them, but if I did, I have miscommunicated and I apologize. I simply like to think outside the usual box and prompt discussion.