Mexico City about to enact "two-year marriage renewal" contract's.

[Romo 2 Austin]

http://loveisdope.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/two-year-renewable-marriage-contracts/


Local legislators in Mexico City are considering offering two-year renewable marriage contracts. The idea is that instead of a big messy, emotionally draining divorce, a couple could sign this two-year contract (which essentially has a built-in pre-nup that determines child custody and property division) and if the couple is unhappy at the end of the two years, they can simply part ways per the terms of the agreement. If they still want to rock it out, they can renew the contract.

According to the Globe and Mail , about half of Mexico City’s marriages end in divorce and many of those divorces take place in two years or less. So the legislature figures this is a nice happy medium.

I don’t rock with two-year renewable marriage contracts. Marriage is a lifelong commitment between two people (sorry fundamentalist Mormons). Sure, it doesn’t always work out, for a variety of reasons, but there needs to be a hard working spirit behind maintaining a life-long bond. If a marriage doesn’t work, it shouldn’t be because of a lack of trying. Sometimes people really do just grow apart, turn into different people, do something unforgivable, etc. It happens.




I think it's a good idea.

[peplaw06]

Ridiculous.

[Faerluna]

http://loveisdope.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/two-year-renewable-marriage-contracts/





I think it's a good idea.

I think it kinda negates the whole "till death do us part" thing and the idea of commitment.

You need 2 years to figure out if you may or may not want to stay married, then you need to not get married in the first place. You obviously don't know each other well enough.

[Faerluna]

Kinda reminds me of my old Jeep. I leased it first because I didn't know if I would like it or not. I bought it, but I could turn it back in and get something else if I didn't like it.

That being said, a marriage is not a car least. Not even a little.

[Sam I Am]

Ridiculous.

Why? Because they won't need you? :muttley:

[Sam I Am]

You need 2 years to figure out if you may or may not want to stay maried, then you need to not get married in the first place. You obviously don't know each other well enough.
I think that is the point of the law. Most people shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Give them a preset easy way to terminate that mistake.

[poke]

New ??? Mexico ?

[CowboyMike]

Um, check the thread title. The article says Mexico City, as in Mexico City in the country of Mexico. Not NEW Mexico.

[Heisenberg]

I think that is the point of the law. Most people shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Give them a preset easy way to terminate that mistake.

Yup. I think it's a good idea. The "til death do you part" thing sounds nice, but that's just not where we are as a society anymore. It's time to adapt.

[peplaw06]

Why? Because they won't need you? :muttley:Please. A two-year "marriage contract" would give me MORE business.

[theogt]

Please. A two-year "marriage contract" would give me MORE business.:money:

[Cajuncowboy]

Without a doubt, one of the dumbest things I have ever heard of.

[roughneck266]

Seems to me if you are in doubt about your relationship, you are either not meant to be or you havent been together long enough to consider marriage. Divorce has become so easy we had to add an express lane.

[Sam I Am]

Please. A two-year "marriage contract" would give me MORE business.

In that situation, it might not. "Have what you have" is an easy way to log you out.

[nablives]

Maybe it's just too late in the evening and my eyes are too far closed, but I'm trying to think of a reason this idea is so horrible, and I don't mean in a bible-thumper kind of a way.

[Heisenberg]

Maybe it's just too late in the evening and my eyes are too far closed, but I'm trying to think of a reason this idea is so horrible, and I don't mean in a bible-thumper kind of a way.

It's kind of in the same vein as the 72-hour waiting period in Texas. That was a way to make sure people didn't rush into marriage. This is a way to let people have a non-messy way out of marriage if it's not working out.

[Cajuncowboy]

Maybe it's just too late in the evening and my eyes are too far closed, but I'm trying to think of a reason this idea is so horrible, and I don't mean in a bible-thumper kind of a way.

Imagine all the children who will end up in a broken home because their parents had an "easy out" instead of trying to work things out like adults.

This society has become so preoccupied with trying to figure out ways to avoid consequences of their actions and trying to avoid responsibility that we have become a shell of our former selves, and thus, our former greatness.

And there is nothing wrong with using the Bible as a compass.

[Rynie]

The whole institution of marriage is pointless.

[ZeroClub]

Couples can choose to get married or they can live together unmarried.

Having another choice doesn't seem so bad.

... might be more popular among those who have already been through one divorce.

[zrinkill]

Kid cannot even read.

[Hostile]

And people wonder why I think sterilization should be free. In some cases mandatory.

[Romo 2 Austin]

And people wonder why I think sterilization should be free. In some cases mandatory.

Because I misread?

[notherbob]

I like the idea of having an optional term-renewable marriage contract of whatever length the parties want to agree to with the divorce terms already worked out before people actually get married while they still love each other and are tolerant not later on when they hate each other and their intolerence has become hardened. JMO

Others may not agree and that is their right but I think it would be nice if people could work out their own terms and conditions intead of having to comply with one size fits all. My wife and I wrote our own wedding vows rather than using the same old staid standard phrases and we didn't care what society's expectations were and it has worked out nicely for us for the last 25 years or so.

In my view, the marriage should be for the people involved and according to their values not for the greater society or to obey some church's tenets.

[Romo 2 Austin]

I totally agree. Society should not be able to control things that do not lead to crimes. Atleast thats my opinion.

I like the idea of having an optional term-renewable marriage contract of whatever length the parties want to agree to with the divorce terms already worked out before people actually get married while they still love each other and are tolerant not later on when they hate each other and their intolerence has become hardened. JMO

Others may not agree and that is their right but I think it would be nice if people could work out their own terms and conditions intead of having to comply with one size fits all. My wife and I wrote our own wedding vows rather than using the same old staid standard phrases and we didn't care what society's expectations were and it has worked out nicely for us for the last 25 years or so.

In my view, the marriage should be for the people involved and according to their values not for the greater society or to obey some church's tenets.

[Hostile]

Because I misread?I wasn't talking about you.

[peplaw06]

In that situation, it might not. "Have what you have" is an easy way to log you out.
First of all, someone has to draft a contract. $$$

Then, there is the inevitable litigation over the enforcement of the contract. There is no way you can create a contract that covers every possible scenario that could happen over two years time. Not to mention the public policy of most states is that you can't contract over custody issues.

Finally, according to the "article" this is an optional contract. Not everyone's going to do it. I will still have business from divorcing couples who don't have a contract.

Then what do you do when there are kids, and the divorce is done over with and you want to change custody, child support, etc.?

So like I said, more money. My opinion is still that this is stupid, despite the fact that I will stand to have more business.

Prenuptial agreements were likely started with the same goal in mind. Yet I draft prenups and litigate over them when the couple divorces. People who are at a disadvantage in a prenup don't usually just throw their hands up and walk away if and when they divorce.

It's kind of in the same vein as the 72-hour waiting period in Texas. That was a way to make sure people didn't rush into marriage. This is a way to let people have a non-messy way out of marriage if it's not working out.I don't think it will work.

Imagine all the children who will end up in a broken home because their parents had an "easy out" instead of trying to work things out like adults.

This society has become so preoccupied with trying to figure out ways to avoid consequences of their actions and trying to avoid responsibility that we have become a shell of our former selves, and thus, our former greatness.

And there is nothing wrong with using the Bible as a compass.:hammer:

I totally agree. Society should not be able to control things that do not lead to crimes. Atleast thats my opinion.You got a lot to learn kid.

[theogt]

I'm not keen on the idea that the government should force social relationships on people because the government thinks it's good for them.

[Cajuncowboy]

I'm not keen on the idea that the government should force social relationships on people because the government thinks it's good for them.

Who's forcing relationships on anyone?

That doesn't even make sense.

[roughneck266]

ITs funny, the lawyers are already finding ways around the "contract" lol.

[Sam I Am]

Setting up a contract would be a lot cheaper than an ugly divorce. It wouldn't be any more than a lawyer used in mortgages. Probably less considering both parties would be quite willing in this circumstance. Almost everything would have been figured out well before they even call a lawyer to draw up the prenup.

[Hostile]

This is just another attack on the family. This is just my opinion, but the number one reason why our country is in the mess it is in is because of the eroding state of the family.

[Sam I Am]

This is just another attack on the family. This is just my opinion, but the number one reason why our country is in the mess it is in is because of the eroding state of the family.

The funny thing is, I saw an article about a month or so ago that said they anonymously polled a large sum of married men. They said something like 16% admitted to having an extra marital affair. That was down from 28% in 1960.

[peplaw06]

Setting up a contract would be a lot cheaper than an ugly divorce. It wouldn't be any more than a lawyer used in mortgages. Probably less considering both parties would be quite willing in this circumstance. Almost everything would have been figured out well before they even call a lawyer to draw up the prenup. I didn't say it wouldn't be cheaper than an ugly divorce. I just don't think it would prevent the ugly divorce. People have an uncanny ability to fight contracts when they don't think its result is fair.

[Faerluna]

It just feels like you're setting yourself up for divorce by saying - before you are even married - that you might not want to stay married in as little as 2 years.

Even considering having this as an option would leave such a bad taste in my mouth about the entire issue that I probably wouldn't even get married in the first place.

[Hostile]

The funny thing is, I saw an article about a month or so ago that said they anonymously polled a large sum of married men. They said something like 16% admitted to having an extra marital affair. That was down from 28% in 1960.No idea what is funny about it.

[Hostile]

It just feels like you're setting yourself up for divorce by saying - before you are even married - that you might not want to stay married in as little as 2 years.

Even considering having this as an option would leave such a bad taste in my mouth about the entire issue that I probably wouldn't even get married in the first place.Exactly. Why bother believing in each other?

My brother once bragged to me that he had slept with 38 women. Big deal, I am sure he found 38 sluts. My friend Wayne was married to his wife for 68 years. Had she not passed away it would be 74 years this year. That is far more impressive to me.

I never would have married unless it meant something to me.

[Sam I Am]

No idea what is funny about it.

The fact that it contradicts what you would think would be common sense. (that cheating is increasing)

[basstapp]

stupid, if you are not in it for the long run don't get married. These two year contracts will only allow less responsible people to get married and end it with little or no repercussions.

[Hostile]

The fact that it contradicts what you would think would be common sense. (that cheating is increasing)That isn't what I said at all.

[casmith07]

Ridiculous.

:laugh1:

you'd be outta work :)

I think we should head that way in this country. Particularly with my legal focus driven toward contracts ;)

[Sam I Am]

That isn't what I said at all.

All I did was follow in with your "eroding state of the family" statement. Cheating on a spouse would in effect be the same thing.

[CowboyMcCoy]

This is just another attack on the family. This is just my opinion, but the number one reason why our country is in the mess it is in is because of the eroding state of the family.

Anti-family sentiment is becoming more and more of a lifestyle that the governments, including ours, are becoming more and more in favor of. It's frightening to see it being broken down like this. Marriage has been belittled to a business and a pinky promise. Family and children are seen as byproducts of a familial society. Governments are trying to figure out more and more ways to reduce the population (or abandon those who need family the most)... as we can see here.

[CowboyMcCoy]

I'm not keen on the idea that the government should force social relationships on people because the government thinks it's good for them.

I'm not keen on the idea that government should impose anti-family legislation because the government thinks it's not good for them.

[Ren]

Just another way to make money, you can already buy a residency and work permit there by paying a annual fee

[Hostile]

All I did was follow in with your "eroding state of the family" statement. Cheating on a spouse would in effect be the same thing.Is it the only thing? I certainly never claimed it was. If I didn't lead there, what exactly did you follow?