Marriages should be allowed to end after 7 years...? - Page 3

AKA_Monet · #31 09-22-2007, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It's still stupid.

Now that I can agree upon... I would not want a "renewable marriage license"...

I tried to get a "covenant license", but Washington does not have one...

Besides, if I decided to leave and divorce my husband, it would be a clean break... I'm outta there.

PrettyBoy · #32 09-22-2007, 02:31 AM

I don't know what this world is coming to. Doesn't look like anyone is taking relationships and marriage seriously anymore. That's sad.

If you mention FWB (friends with benefits) or in other words "Let's just screw" jokers are down with that program 100%. That's trifling as hell.

christiangirl · #33 09-23-2007, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I disagree with the idea that marriages should be renewable.

If you don't want to make a commitment that is ostensibly for life, then don't. Or choose to get divorced when it is no longer working. That's why no fault divorces exist these days.

Exactly. For heaven's sake, it's a MARRIAGE, not a gym membership.

I can't even remember to renew my driver's license, let alone my marriage license. I'm glad I don't live in Bavaria...though I hear their creme is off the chain.

Educatingblue · #34 09-25-2007, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I agree. Plus, what if you don't WANT to have to renew it. Imagine the legal issues if you miss the deadline by accident.

I think this is a lame attempt from their government hoping people WILL forget to renew it and charge some outrageous reinstatement fee.

I still believe marriage is an issue that should be maintained according to one's religion. This just seems like another opportunity for secular society to make divorce even more convenient than what it is. What ever happened to working through your problems. No one ever said it would be easy!

Drolefille · #35 09-25-2007, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Educatingblue

I think this is a lame attempt from their government hoping people WILL forget to renew it and charge some outrageous reinstatement fee.

I still believe marriage is an issue that should be maintained according to one's religion. This just seems like another opportunity for secular society to make divorce even more convenient than what it is. What ever happened to working through your problems. No one ever said it would be easy!

I'm all for having all civil unions be called that and making marriage a religious-only term. But not this renewal thing....

coco_swing · #36 09-27-2007, 10:25 PM

^what about those that follow no religion. No marraige for them, then?

Drolefille · #37 09-27-2007, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coco_swing

^what about those that follow no religion. No marraige for them, then?

I think people will still call it marriage either way. However if what the state gives is legally given a completely secular name it will keep people from claiming that a civil union of two gay people infringes on their religion.

Thus everyone could have the same rights. Just my opinion.

coco_swing · #38 09-27-2007, 10:39 PM

forgot to comment on the OP:

While I find the idea interesting, I believe marraige is (or at least should attempt to be) a life-long committment. If for whatever reason, the marraige is not working, the option for divorce is still on the table...which kind of makes an expiration date useless.

coco_swing · #39 09-27-2007, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I think people will still call it marriage either way. However if what the state gives is legally given a completely secular name it will keep people from claiming that a civil union of two gay people infringes on their religion.

Thus everyone could have the same rights. Just my opinion.

I can see where you are coming from with that, but it seems like giving gay marraige/civil union/un-religious marraige a different name would create a "seperate but equal" type of thing. It more than likely will create a stigma where marraige (as in the religious union) would be put on a pedistal, while [enter the new secular union name] would be shunned.

Besides, where would that leave a homosexual who practices Christianity?

Drolefille · #40 09-28-2007, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coco_swing

I can see where you are coming from with that, but it seems like giving gay marraige/civil union/un-religious marraige a different name would create a "seperate but equal" type of thing. It more than likely will create a stigma where marraige (as in the religious union) would be put on a pedistal, while [enter the new secular union name] would be shunned.

Besides, where would that leave a homosexual who practices Christianity?

Every married couple would receive a civil union. When you get married you have to have a license from the state.. that would be a civil union license. IF you wanted a marriage ceremony from any religion then that's your choice.

You cannot force a religion to practice its sacraments on anyone. A gay Christian would have legal recognition of his or her union, just not necessarily a religious one. Or he or she could convert to a sect that allows gay marriages.

Lady Pi Phi · #41 09-28-2007, 07:20 AM

What they really should do is make it harder to get married and easier to get divorced.

coco_swing · #42 10-01-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Every married couple would receive a civil union. When you get married you have to have a license from the state.. that would be a civil union license. IF you wanted a marriage ceremony from any religion then that's your choice.

You cannot force a religion to practice its sacraments on anyone. A gay Christian would have legal recognition of his or her union, just not necessarily a religious one. Or he or she could convert to a sect that allows gay marriages.

I was referring to the term "marraige", not the religious ceremony....they are not mutually exclusive. I agree, no religious leader should be forced to perform a marraige ceremony he doesn't agree with, no less one that deviates from his religion. It is his/her right to refuse to do so.

However, I tend to disagree with the suggestion that the term "marraige" be replaced with the term "civil union" for people who don't fit the mold. Marraige is a legal union and can be a religious union, if one do so chooses. But, marraiges and marraige liscenses are both governed by the state, not the church/mosque/temple/etc. I believe any changes in the law to redefine the concept of "marraige" and who is elligible under the new term is not only unnecessary, but unconstitutional.

coco_swing · #43 10-01-2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Pi Phi

What they really should do is make it harder to get married and easier to get divorced.

lol! I'm for it!

Drolefille · #44 10-01-2007, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coco_swing

I was referring to the term "marraige", not the religious ceremony....they are not mutually exclusive. I agree, no religious leader should be forced to perform a marraige ceremony he doesn't agree with, no less one that deviates from his religion. It is his/her right to refuse to do so.

However, I tend to disagree with the suggestion that the term "marraige" be replaced with the term "civil union" for people who don't fit the mold. Marraige is a legal union and can be a religious union, if one do so chooses. But, marraiges and marraige liscenses are both governed by the state, not the church/mosque/temple/etc. I believe any changes in the law to redefine the concept of "marraige" and who is elligible under the new term is not only unnecessary, but unconstitutional.

Sorry but can you spell it properly please?

There's no constitutional issue if the name is changed for everyone. As I said, I don't anticipate the majority of people changing the terminology that they use just because the government does. Civil Unions would not just be the term used for people who don't "fit the mold" by which I assume you mean same-sex couples. Currently marriage licenses are governed by the state, all I'm suggesting is changing the name to union licenses or civil union licenses.

This isn't redefining the concept of marriage, it is an attempt to keep people who feel that marriage is a religious rite from preventing same-sex marriages on those grounds. In an ideal world, this wouldn't be necessary, but just because this isn't the best solution doesn't mean it isn't a viable one. And many of the "best" solutions are just not going to happen any time soon.

Same sex couples would be able to get married in any sect that allowed it just as they are today. However, with or without that they would be afforded the civil recognition and the rights of any married couple today.

bcdphie · #45 10-01-2007, 10:31 PM

Can't anyone commit to anything nowadays?

Marriage is a life-long commitment. If you don't think you can handle it, then don't get married. Understandbly things can happen over time (no one can predict the future), and the relationship can change making divorce necessary. But so many people nowadays seem to enter into marriage with such a blase attitude.

I made a life-long vow to my husband in front of my closest family and friends. And I intend to uphold those vows. I don't need some government telling me my marriage has expired. I doubt that would ever happen here [Canada] though since everyone is allowed to marry.