Saturday, October 8, 2011

Should Marriages Have a 2-Yr Renewal Option?

The words "Till death do us part" are frightening for some, and have even led to people checking themselves (or their mate) out of the marriage rather than enduring a costly divorce.  Some say that forever is a bit too long in a world where many marriages end in divorce, and a legislator in Mexico says he has a solution.

Leonel Luna from the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution in Mexico City says that couples should have an easier option than the high cost of divorce.  Luna says that couples should have a 2-year option to leave the marriage if they feel that it's not working out.  If the couple decides to renew, they would have another two years to make another decision.

"Almost 50% of couples in Mexico City end up in divorce," Luna says.  "What we're trying to do is acknowledging reality and creating a mechanism that will allow couples to end their marriage without going through the additional pain and suffering of a legal battle."

The stats in both Mexico and America give some validity to Luna's point. Out of 33,000 couples who got married in Mexico City over the last two years, 16,000 have filed for divorce.  The cost of the splits has averaged $3,500 per couple.  The couples only spend $1,000 to $1,500 in legal fees, while the Mexican government take in the rest of the cost.

What do you think?  Should couples be allowed to walk away without expense after two years?  Click here to respond to our survey. 


LadyNgo said...

or perhaps we should try encouraging people to get married for the right reasons *rolls eyes*

Rodney Carroll said...

The unfortunate rate we are taking here in America, I strongly support this policy.

Chaz said...

I seriously support this policy due to the fact that you can't really get to know another individual until you've lived with them. I honestly believe that after two years of living together, a couple would have adequate enough insight into the other's behavior to make a profound decision whether to maintain the marriage.

Politically Unapologetic said...


Interesting you say that a couple must live together before they really know one another, as couples who cohabitate are less likely to get married and more likely to get divorced if they do take the plunge. The fact that more couples are living together before marriage has played a factor in raising the divorce rate.

Failed marriage in this country has nothing to do with not knowing each other. You will never know everything about someone. We evolve as human beings as we mature.

Until marriage is regarded not as a formal agreement but as a covenant, it will continue to fail. People are too entrenched in the idea of romance and forget that love is an action, not an emotion. Therefore marriage requires full trust and selflessness--daunting tasks for the emotionally bruised and damaged.

Droid said...

@Politically Unapologetic

The definition for covenant is agreement. Calling it something else will change what?

The fact is that our culture does not encourage marriage, it does not encourage monogamy, it does not support family. Married couples are fighting against a system that is working against them in addition to the complexities of compromising personalities.

Given what married couples are up against, I think a two year review is practical.

Anonymous said...

So what are we doing? Leasing people now? It ruins the whole sanctity of marriage. It's just another way to be irresponsible. How about this instead; Make sure you love that person and want to spend your life with them BEFORE you get married and then be mature enought to a loyal, caring,respectful mate and work through problems together if they should arise? Grow up.