The article linked below showed up this morning on Yahoo.

http://news.yahoo.com/til-2013-us-part-mexico-mulls-2-marriage-232608285.html


"Mexico City lawmakers want to help newlyweds avoid the hassle of divorce by giving them an easy exit strategy: temporary marriage licenses.

"Leftists in the city's assembly -- who have already riled conservatives by legalizing gay marriage -- proposed a reform to the civil code this week that would allow couples to decide on the length of their commitment, opting out of a lifetime.

"The minimum marriage contract would be for two years and could be renewed if the couple stays happy. The contracts would include provisions on how children and property would be handled if the couple splits."


I suppose this is the next thing we will hear from opponents of gay marriage; they will point to the proposed change as proof that gay marriage undermines heterosexual marriages in their slippery-slope arguments. "What's next?" they will ask, "FLDS polygamists in Mexico?" (They are already there).

Temporary marriages have already existed for centuries in many societies the world over, where "traditional" marriage is also held up as the standard.

ie: Today, in some Islamic countries, one-night or 3-day marriages exist, so that men can have sex with a woman and then claim they did not commit adultery, or solicit a prostitute.

ie: Through the 1940s, Chinese polygamous marriages sometimes started off with temporary marriages, entitling the woman to some benefits if the man left her pregnant afterwards; he could marry her, not marry her officially and take her as a concubine, perhaps support her and not ever live with her and the child ever again, etc.

Common law marriages existed in Old England and Colonial America, as well as slave 'marriages' in the US. They all tended to be temporary. I don't recall same-sex marriage being allowed before, during, or after any of these historical periods.

If they believe that allowing temporary marriage generally leads to allowing same sex marriage, or vice versa, I'd say the evidence points only to whoever thinking that needing to think again.

In Charlemagne’s day (before the church became involved with marriages) a temporary form of marriages existed which was easily broken. Another existed that was considered much more permanent. What I read was that Charlemagne's children complained because he would only allow his children to enter into the temporary form of marriage. Marriages among the nobility in the 8th and 9th century would always imply alliances and Charlemagne wouldn't have any hard and fast alliances he couldn't change. Having his chidren in temporary marriages allowed him greater political flexability that the other permanent form of marriage wouldn't afford.

Until the church became involved in marriages in about the 11th or 12th centuries, divorce was always an option for marriages that didn't work out. Different form of marriages were considered more binding and took more to get into as well as to get out of, but ending a marriage was always an an available option. I'm also not aware that same sex marriages were ever considered an option along with temporary marriages.

I was not aware that temporary marriages were a reality anywhere in the world today. Thanks, bookratt, for the info. My association between the two was the slippery-slope argument offered by those opposing same sex marriages. They have often said, "What's next? Polygamy? Marrying your pet dog?" and other such nonsense.

I think it's a great idea. Renew every few years.

They would know exactly what to expect when the marriage ended. Now, whether or not they would be any more willing to live up to the terms of the contract is another story altogether. Perhaps if they didn't have to go through an expensive and messy divorce, they might be more willing.

Whaaat?

This thread is truly stunning...the way marriage is viewed is NOT the same the world over???

Seriously, though...that's not that far off from the common pagan practice having a handfasting and then living together for a "year and a day" before making it official. Giving people a way to make sure it works, first, thus cutting back on the messy divorces with CHILDREN involved has my full support.

not bad not bad...

now as an american,

would you be able to go to mexico, get married there, but let the thing expire here?

USA will not recognize marriages in Mexico, Iran etc. which are not permanent. Eventually, Canadians, Brits, French etc. will come here and find they are not married.

States will not recognize marriages issued in other states.

(Again, as mine, Florida, already does not, e.g. gay marriages and common law marriages).