MARRIAGES should last for only seven years before the couple decide to go their separate ways or sign up for an extension, a German MP has proposed.
The time limit would lead to fewer divorces, according to Gabriele Pauli, a candidate for the leadership of Bavaria's dominant conservative party CSU.
The "seven-year hitch" plan drew sharp criticism from party colleagues in Pope Benedict XVI's home region.
German MP Gabriele Pauli said seven-year marriage contracts would slash divorce rates.
"My proposal is for marriages to run out after seven years," Ms Pauli, a twice-divorced 50-year-old who leads the local administration in the town of Fuerth, said as she presented her leadership program in Munich.
"That means that, in future, people would in future enter marriages only on a time-limited basis, and would then actively say 'yes' to an extension."
She argued that, since a high proportion of marriages end in divorce and many people stay married only for fear of separation or for financial reasons, "perhaps one can live better outside marriage".
In the film The Seven Year Itch Marilyn Monroe plays a 22-year-old television bombshell who distracts a married man from his seven-year relationship, sending him into a spin about his own wife's behaviour.
The man becomes paranoid about being unfaithful while reading a book about how men have extramarital affairs after seven years.
The 1955 movie produced the most famous image of Monroe, as she "struggled" to hold down her dress while standing over a subway grate.
Ms Pauli conceded that "the fine points must still be cleared up" and said that "obviously, a lot stands against this".
Her novel suggestion on marriage appeared unlikely to win her new friends in the CSU.
The party for decades has dominated socially conservative, solidly Catholic Bavaria, where Pope Benedict was born and grew up.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 26, 2007 09:35:13 PM new
Hmmm. Interesting idea. Perhaps that would work IF the couple agreed in their 7-year contract not to have children for that time. Once there are children, things get stickier. Couples like us, who waited 4 years to start a family, get to know each other before they have a third party in the family. Research has shown that delaying childbirth can strengthen marriages.
_____________________
There is more to life than increasing its speed. --Mahatma Gandhi
posted on September 27, 2007 09:23:54 AM new
Roadsmith,
I agree it is an interesting concept since there are many couples that renew their wedding vows already after 20, 25, 30 years of marriage. With that being said, I do not think it would go over well. Marriage is suppose to be a life time commitment that should not be entered into lightly. It should not be treated like a contract. If you start entering into these "contracts/agreements" where does it end? We agree to be together for x number of years with stipulations a, b and c.
A marriage is not supposed to be a 20 page contract spelling out each and every detail of what both people are supposed to do.
I say outlaw divorce. Allow couples to separate, but stay legally married on paper so they are not allowed to re-marry.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 27, 2007 10:49:51 AM new
Logansdad: I agree with some things you've said. I certainly went into marriage for life; there were moments in our early years when we had huge adjustments to make, but we made them. (Had he been a wife-beater with no hope of change, I would have left him in a heartbeat. But we were both just young people in our 20s with good intentions and the burden of having both been eldest children who want to be right - always.)
One of the concerns I have about marriage in the last few decades is that many couples no longer pool their money but have separate accounts and keep track of how much each has paid for mortgage, food, utilities, etc. I'm sure it's a fear of having nothing when and if they divorce, but in some ways it seems to set them up for failure. It would never have occurred to either of us to do it any way except by throwing it all into one pot, drawing from it as needed. Probably that was because of our parents' examples.
_____________________
There is more to life than increasing its speed. --Mahatma Gandhi
posted on September 27, 2007 11:08:23 AM new
roadsmith, it's a nice thought to "pool" money and also sometimes, a necessity. But married people, especially women, should always have some seperate money tucked away....you never really know what's coming down the road.
That "loving" spouse has been known to take off with a friend and clean out all the money in joint accounts.
I personally feel that divorce should always be an option.....would anyone like to be held to any other promise that they made as a teen or a twenty something to last for the rest of their life???
People change. Unhappiness is NOT a badge of honor.
posted on September 27, 2007 12:14:04 PM new
I agree that divorce should always be an option. I also agree that women (especially women!) should have access to some money that isn't in the pool. I took a chance on that, all my married life.
When a dear friend's marriage began falling apart and her husband had access to a high-priced lawyer, I told her to start squirreling away household money whenever she could. She did so for two years, and that little "nest egg" came in very handy when the horribly acrimonious divorce became final.
_____________________
There is more to life than increasing its speed. --Mahatma Gandhi
posted on September 27, 2007 01:59:02 PM new
"One of the concerns I have about marriage in the last few decades is that many couples no longer pool their money but have separate accounts and keep track of how much each has paid for mortgage, food, utilities, etc. I'm sure it's a fear of having nothing when and if they divorce, but in some ways it seems to set them up for failure."
I am not sure if it because of them thinking of divorce. It might be because one person is more financially responsible than the other. If you were responsible with your money and your spouse wasn't, would you be willing to loose everything that you have earned if your spouse was able to access a joint account and spend "the mortgage money" on gambling or other frivolous items.
Personally, if I know both people were financially responsible, I would be more inclined to have a joint account. What it comes down to is trust.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 27, 2007 03:57:29 PM new
When I think about it, I didn't exactly sit down and figure out if my fiance would be financially responsible. I did, however, choose to date and then marry someone whose parents were very responsible with their money. And I'd watched my husband work his way through college, never going into debt. I assumed (and perhaps that would be wrong in some cases) that because I knew where he'd come from, and I knew I too was responsible, that it would be fine with us. As it has been.
One of the important things for couples to work out before marriage, along with having or not having children and how many, would be to know how the other treats money. Too bad that doesn't happen as often as it should!
_____________________
There is more to life than increasing its speed. --Mahatma Gandhi
