A Marriage proposal that even Rudy Giuliani could keep

JollyRoger

Slippin' Jimmy
Supporter
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
43,743
Location
Chicago Sunroofing
Bavaria's most glamorous politician -- a flame-haired motorcyclist who helped bring down state premier Edmund Stoiber -- has shocked the Catholic state in Germany by suggesting marriage should last just 7 years.

. . .

She told reporters at the launch of her campaign manifesto on Wednesday she wanted marriage to expire after seven years and accused the CSU, which promotes traditional family values, of nurturing ideals of marriage which are wide of the mark.

"The basic approach is wrong ... many marriages last just because people believe they are safe," she told reporters. "My suggestion is that marriages expire after seven years."

After that time, couples should either agree to extend their marriage or it should be automatically dissolved, she said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070921/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_germany_politics_marriage

A set expiration date for marriage sounds great. As an addition, I would suggest that if the parties haven't produced offspring or all their offspring are legal adults, then the marriage should be automatically revoked with no renewal allowed as marriage is for producing and raising the next generation. No need to lower the sacred institution to those not using it properly.
 
I like it. But we just dont have the ability to let emotion alone in our decision over these things.
 
do you take this woman to be your lawfully wedded bride to have and to hold, honor and cherish, for an amount of time not to exceed 7 years whereupon the contract shall become null and void and the marital assets shall be divided equally to both partners. Many participants will enter few will win, no purchase necessary not valid in the state of Rhode Island.
 
I see no need for such measure. Why would they need to expire and be extended when they can just be dissolved when needed?
 
7 year marriage. What an oxymoron.
 
For many of you this will mean much less breeding, for me, much much more.
 
Yep - the property fights would be a nice source of revenue

Not in this day and age

actually 7 years has been pretty normal throughout our nations history. The only difference now is that most marriages end in divorce whereas back then they ended when someone died from some lame disease.

For many of you this will mean much less breeding, for me, much much more.

thank you comic book guy:goodjob:
 
Not in this day and age

Is that actually, statistically speaking, the case? If I recall, you are a divorce lawyer, no? Wouldn't that skew your perception somewhat though, like a doctor who assumes everyone has terrible health?
 
Sounds like a bad idea.

But then, JR already knows that, and he's just trolling.
 
Is that actually, statistically speaking, the case? If I recall, you are a divorce lawyer, no? Wouldn't that skew your perception somewhat though, like a doctor who assumes everyone has terrible health?
It's likely not statistically correct, but it's not an oxymoron at this point either. I do handle divorces and estate planning. This type of legislation would be a goldmine for those two areas of my practice.
 
It might help marriages, if couples forced themselves back into 'competitiveness' every half-decade or so.
 
If the institution of marriage is so sacred, surely most marriages could survive the 7 year test with flying colors.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070921/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_germany_politics_marriage

A set expiration date for marriage sounds great. As an addition, I would suggest that if the parties haven't produced offspring or all their offspring are legal adults, then the marriage should be automatically revoked with no renewal allowed as marriage is for producing and raising the next generation. No need to lower the sacred institution to those not using it properly.

I don't know what laws are like in Germany, but in the US, it's easy enough to get divorced. It's just very expensive. Putting an expiration date on a marriage will not have any effect. If anything, it will encourage more women to get pregnant in order to keep their husbands on beyond the deadline.

A far more practical reform would be in divorce law. Right now, in the US, we have what are called "no fault" divorces. This means that regardless of who was responsible for the dissolution of the marriage, the divorce is granted with the assets of the marriage divided in half between husband and wife. Regardless of who contributed what to the marital wealth, it's still distributed 50/50. Also, there is a persistent lean in favor of the wife in the courts, as she is usually entitled to alimony, as well as preferential child custody. Despite "equality", women are treated as if they are delicate and must be protected, sometimes from themselves. No fault divorce was originally a reform measure to remove the legal fiction of cause, which had to be fabricated in some instances where the couple simply didn't want to be married with no specific reason. However, it's gradually become a tool of abuse. This is why prenuptial agreements have become so popular in the US.

A useful measure of reform would be to remove the 50/50 split entirely, and divide the assets based on actual income. If the husband earns 100,000 and the wife 50,000, then it would be a 2:1 split. Also, parties would earn points for marital infractions, such as infidelity, physical abuse, sexual avoidance, etc. The more infractions, the more the favor to the other spouse. Short of committing an outright felony, there is no legal protection for spouses mistreated in such cases.
 
If the institution of marriage is so sacred, surely most marriages could survive the 7 year test with flying colors.

I won't disagree with that - if you only stay together because divorce is too much work, you shouldn't be together.
 
I don't know what laws are like in Germany, but in the US, it's easy enough to get divorced. It's just very expensive. Putting an expiration date on a marriage will not have any effect. If anything, it will encourage more women to get pregnant in order to keep their husbands on beyond the deadline.

A far more practical reform would be in divorce law. Right now, in the US, we have what are called "no fault" divorces. This means that regardless of who was responsible for the dissolution of the marriage, the divorce is granted with the assets of the marriage divided in half between husband and wife. Regardless of who contributed what to the marital wealth, it's still distributed 50/50. Also, there is a persistent lean in favor of the wife in the courts, as she is usually entitled to alimony, as well as preferential child custody. Despite "equality", women are treated as if they are delicate and must be protected, sometimes from themselves. No fault divorce was originally a reform measure to remove the legal fiction of cause, which had to be fabricated in some instances where the couple simply didn't want to be married with no specific reason. However, it's gradually become a tool of abuse. This is why prenuptial agreements have become so popular in the US.

A useful measure of reform would be to remove the 50/50 split entirely, and divide the assets based on actual income. If the husband earns 100,000 and the wife 50,000, then it would be a 2:1 split. Also, parties would earn points for marital infractions, such as infidelity, physical abuse, sexual avoidance, etc. The more infractions, the more the favor to the other spouse. Short of committing an outright felony, there is no legal protection for spouses mistreated in such cases.
If marriage is a partnership, I don't see why 50/50 is a bad starting point, which is the case now - it is a mere starting point with other factors moving it around. What if a couple marries, having equal earning potential, but they decide one will not work and instead, be the homemaker? Should the working spouse get 100%?

And for those of you saying the article in the OP presents a bad idea, do any of you have a reason why it is a bad idea?
 
actually 7 years has been pretty normal throughout our nations history. The only difference now is that most marriages end in divorce whereas back then they ended when someone died from some lame disease.

Most marriages dont end in divorce. According to the US Census bureau, the percentage of people that marry and then divorce is 29%.....so that means that 71% of the folks that get married never get a divorce.

It's likely not statistically correct, but it's not an oxymoron at this point either. I do handle divorces and estate planning. This type of legislation would be a goldmine for those two areas of my practice.

Ah...now we see the real motivation.
 
Top Bottom