Mexico mulls 2-year marriage

[next2u]

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

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - 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.
"The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends," said Leonel Luna, the Mexico City assemblyman who co-authored the bill.
"You wouldn't have to go through the tortuous process of divorce," said Luna, from the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution, which has the most seats in the 66-member chamber.
Luna says the proposed law is gaining support and he expects a vote by the end of this year.
Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years.
The bustling capital, one of the world's largest cities, is much more liberal than the rest of the country, where the divorce rate is significantly lower although on the rise.
Abortion is legal in Mexico City, while the Supreme Court ruled this week to uphold state laws in Baja California that say life begins at conception.
Leftist Mayor Marcelo Ebrard, who angered the Catholic Church when he made Mexico City the first Latin American city to legalize gay marriage in late 2009, announced this month he would soon step down to run for president.
The church criticized the proposed change.
"This reform is absurd. It contradicts the nature of marriage," said Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Mexican archdiocese. "It's another one of these electoral theatrics the assembly tends to do that are irresponsible and immoral."
The Church holds considerable sway in the country with the world's second largest Catholic population after Brazil.
(Reporting by Alex Leff; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

-- interesting thought.
best,
d

[Ann]

"This reform is absurd. It contradicts the nature of marriage," said Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Mexican archdiocese.

What's absurd is Hugo's comment. Obviously, the "nature of marriage" in Mexico City is that half of them are doomed within the first two years.

Around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years.

I think it's a very sensible idea.

[Miss Philicia]

I think the state should force people to cohabitate without a marriage certificate for two years. Screw this half measure.

[GSOgymrat]

Kind of like leasing a spouse. Trade up after a couple of years so you are always driving something new and shiny.

[leatherman]

maybe if divorce was easier, people wouldn't stay in loveless marriages for years and years, with people they hate, "torturing" the children that are caught in the middle. Perhaps then the marriages that remained would be happier and leave all the members (parents, spouses and children) happier and better adjusted.

[Jeff G]

The first thing I thought of when I read this story the other day was a book I read when I was a kid by Robert Heinlein titled I will fear no evil . Most of the married people in that book had 5 year marriage contracts . His books were also the first time I was exposed to gay people being discussed in a positive way . Not so much just science fiction now , Huh .       

[next2u]

when logic meets romance it's just less romantic. especially with things like this.

im still on the fence. if someone offered me a 2 year marriage i'd be offended. i'd also be likely to offer someone a two year marriage when i want to take things further when i would want to take baby steps.

lol, options

best,
d

[bocker3]

I think it's nuts -- get married or don't get married.  What's more self-defeating than entering something with an expectation of failure.  Too many people have bought into the "Hollywood" version of relationships -- all rosy, all the time.  Hate to break it you, but they take effort and work. Most things of value do........

Mike
(who is shuddering inside to be agreeing with a stance of the Catholic Church, albeit, for very different reasons)

[GSOgymrat]

I wonder if after 2 years you have a performance evaluation:

Let's see... For "Love" I gave you "exceeds expectations". The frequent hugs were a nice touch.

"Honor" was "meets expectations", since after reviewing your email, voicemail and browser logs I didn't find any evidence you broke the fidelity or confidentiality agreements.

"Cherish" was "needs improvement", as I didn't feel sufficiently worshiped.

You completely failed your attendance goal by taking all those trips to visit your parents. Of course I didn't count your sick days due that whole "in sickness and in health" clause.

Frankly I've had numerous applicants for this position and after careful consideration I've decided not to renew your contract. Please clear your space. Security will see you out.

[leatherman]

What's more self-defeating than entering something with an expectation of failure. 

but to think that making a life-time commitment in your early 20's (when most people marry) is a wise choice is expecting quite a lot of a lot of immature people. Since half of marriages already end in divorce, wouldn't it be better to make a way out easier and less destructive? While GSO's post is quite funny, if I was married to someone as shallow as that, who obviously wasn't even interested or invested in the commitment (much less caring about making it a life-time commitment), I'd want them to have an easy way to leave rather than stay around to ruin my life.

marriage is basically a government-approved contract anyway, why not provide guidelines for ending the contract, as most other business contracts provide, to make it equitable for all parties? what someone does as a commitment to their partner is between the two of them - they are allowed to automatically renew their marriage contract for as long as they both want. This doesn't stop anyone from staying married "till death do they part". Also whatever someone's marriage commitment is under their religious views is their own personal business and really has nothing to do with the contractual business side of becoming married and merging their properties and finances. It shouldn't be up to governments to approve lifelong commitments; but only to approve the basic financial commitments to provide for children and the care and/of division of properties.

just like allowing gay marriages doesn't do a thing to straight marriages, allowing bad marriages to end more amicably and equitably doesn't do anything against continuing or entering into life-long committed marriages.

[bocker3]

but to think that making a life-time commitment in your early 20's (when most people marry) is a wise choice is expecting quite a lot of a lot of immature people. Since half of marriages already end in divorce, wouldn't it be better to make a way out easier and less destructive? While GSO's post is quite funny, if I was married to someone as shallow as that, who obviously wasn't even interested or invested in the commitment (much less caring about making it a life-time commitment), I'd want them to have an easy way to leave rather than stay around to ruin my life.

marriage is basically a government-approved contract anyway, why not provide guidelines for ending the contract, as most other business contracts provide, to make it equitable for all parties? what someone does as a commitment to their partner is between the two of them - they are allowed to automatically renew their marriage contract for as long as they both want. This doesn't stop anyone from staying married "till death do they part". Also whatever someone's marriage commitment is under their religious views is their own personal business and really has nothing to do with the contractual business side of becoming married and merging their properties and finances. It shouldn't be up to governments to approve lifelong commitments; but only to approve the basic financial commitments to provide for children and the care and/of division of properties.

just like allowing gay marriages doesn't do a thing to straight marriages, allowing bad marriages to end more amicably and equitably doesn't do anything against continuing or entering into life-long committed marriages.

If you are too immature to get married, then don't (not you, Mikie -- the 20-somethings of which you spoke).  Plus, I know a number of folks who amicably and equitably divorced.  The people, not the contract, is what makes divorce ugly -- I'm not altogether convinced that wouldn't still happen with a 2-yr contract.  It would just be ugly in a civil court, vs. a family court.

I have nothing against living together for a good long time. -- In fact, when Sid and I finally do marry (on 9/1/2012), we will have done so for over 22 yrs.  Of course, our marriage won't be recognized by the Feds or the State of VA where we live, but ----- I am entering it with high expectations of it lasting more than 2 yrs.

Mike

[J.R.E.]

I think the state should force people to cohabitate without a marriage certificate for two years.

I think they should make the guys watch a few episodes of Bridezilla's ,  and decide if the two years may even be necessary.   


Ray

[J.R.E.]

And for the women, they should make them watch a few episodes of "Jackass"   


Ray

[WillyWump]

Since we are on the subject of Marriage, how 'bout this...

[denb45]

 Aren't you currently living in one of them States that allows this sorta thing  
oh WAIT, so am I, according to that map on the bottom 

[Miss Philicia]

Historically it's estimated that 80% of all marriages in the history of the human race were between relatives as close as first and second cousins. So you may look down on it culturally speaking in a modern context and sit smug with a cheap laugh, but don't think for a minute that you're not an inbred piece of trash yourself.

[skeebo1969]

   I'll be honest, most of the people in Massachusetts look inbred.  I was telling my wife I feel extremely beautiful here.  After hearing all this North vs South talk all my life I gotta say, I'm not impressed.  Also, what's up with all the bad ass little white children up here?  Now I know what the comedians on BET was talking about, sheesh!

[Miss Philicia]

If it's East Boston it's not so much inbreeding as it is the large amounts of oxycontin they're all on. Or maybe you just hate Irish people.

[skeebo1969]

If it's East Boston it's not so much inbreeding as it is the large amounts of oxycontin they're all on. Or maybe you just hate Irish people.

I'm Irish German, thank you.  They're all butt ugly here-- South, North, East, or West-- it don't matta as they like to say....

[Miss Philicia]

I'm Irish German, thank you.  

Did I say that I agree that you're attractive or not? No, I didn't.

Other than that I know little about Boston actually. Or anything north of Greenwich Country Club.

[denb45]

Historically it's estimated that 80% of all marriages in the history of the human race were between relatives as close as first and second cousins. So you may look down on it culturally speaking in a modern context and sit smug with a cheap laugh, but don't think for a minute that you're not an inbred piece of trash yourself.

 I'm Italian & Black, and I don't have a problem w/ any of it, as I'm sure no-one in this Forum does either, now the inbred part I have to disagree w/ you on THIS, as far as I know going all the way back to the 1800s none of my family members are inbred, we all have White in us more so than Black, so I'm told......

[skeebo1969]

Did I say that I agree that you're attractive or not? No, I didn't.

Why do you always misunderstand me?  I was talking about not disliking the red-headed potato lovers cuz I is one.....  Well, it's more brown but you can see some red in there when the sun hits it right.

[denb45]

Why do you always misunderstand me?  I was talking about not disliking the red-headed potato lovers cuz I is one.....  Well, it's more brown but you can see some red in there when the sun hits it right.

  miss p  misunderstands himself most of the time 

[Miss Philicia]

now the inbred part I have to disagree w/ you on THIS, as far as I know going all the way back to the 1800s none of my family members are inbred, we all have White in us more so than Black, so I'm told......

Guess what -- it's not all about you.

I said clearly all of human history. As in going back millenia many, many times over. It's a simple matter of math when humans didn't inhabit the world in extreme numbers like they do today. Before humans could farm the world never went over 15 million.

miss p  misunderstands himself most of the time 

Yeah, now what was that again?

[denb45]

I thought this was suppose to be about Mexico mulls 2-year marriage    funny how fast these thing go so far off topic I wonder why that is 

[leatherman]

If you are too immature to get married, then don't (not you, Mikie -- the 20-somethings of which you spoke).

this link has some interesting facts about how the average age of people that get married in America

If one looks at US statistics over the past 100 years for example, one sees that men had an average age at marriage of 25.9 years in 1900. Women in 1900 had an average age at marriage of 22 years.
...
Currently the average age at marriage in the US is 26.8 years for men, and 25.1 years for women. It is interesting that though this represents an increased age for men, it is not significantly higher than the rate 100 years ago. Actually age rates at marriage for men declined from 1910 through 1960. Lowest average age for marriage in men was in 1960, when the mean age for marriage was 22.8 years.

I only bring this up to show that people almost always get married in their "immature" 20's, and I would venture to say that well over half of those marriage are because of an "accidental/unplanned" pregnancy. though I don't know in 2011 with the information that's out there, if people should be allowed to call a pregnancy "unplanned" or "accidental" simply because they were too stupid or naive to use condoms or birth control. I guess that just goes to the point of showing that if people are so immature in their 20s as to not use protection, then they may not be mature enough for a life-long commitment to another person in marriage.

however, to simply say that immature people shouldn't have unprotected sex, or enter into marriages, just isn't feasible - they are going to do it anyway. In fact, they are doing it anyway. And if they are going to do it anyway, and over half of them are just going to divorce, I think it's wise to face that reality, and determine a better way to process the legal side of marriage to make it easier to end when the "match up" between two people is not a good one.

[Ann]

 if people should be allowed to call a pregnancy "unplanned" or "accidental" simply because they were too stupid or naive to use condoms or birth control.

I had two accidental, unplanned pregnancies and I was on the Pill BOTH times (and taking it correctly). The first time I was seventeen and the second time I was 34. I lost them both and I've always wondered if being conceived while on the pill is what caused the miscarriages.

My daughter was unplanned in the sense that my husband and I simply stopped using birth control and decided that what happened, happened. It didn't happen for over a year and when it did, it was a big surprise. A happy one.


Sperm isn't like hiv - you can easily become pregnant following a condom break or a frottage session. It's not unheard of for a woman to become pregnant after being fingered when her fella has some spunk on his finger. It happens. Sperm are really mobile little feckers. Also, women have conceived while having an IUD in place, or a diaphragm in place with the requisite spermicide.

So despite your disbelief, Mikey, accidental, unplanned pregnancies are a reality and happen quite often, despite people's best efforts.

[leatherman]

So despite your disbelief, Mikey, accidental, unplanned pregnancies are a reality and happen quite often, despite people's best efforts.

Actually I was making the point that immaturity DOES lead to this happening often, just like it leads to unwise marriages. And I totally disagree with you. Condoms (and other forms of BC) are very effective and accidents rarely happen when people plan to NOT get pregnant (or get HIV).

However the fact that your pregnancies in years past were unplanned and accidental - long before years and years of teen-pregnancy education and HIV-education throughout the 90s and 00s - has no bearing on what I said. What I said was that anyone in the here and NOW, in 2011, foolish/immature/ignorant enough to get pregnant or to get HIV was simply being immature and foolish. There's just no excuse with free information, condoms, birth control, and classroom education. Of course however, people are still immature and foolish, and the consequences, just like in 1975 or 1980 or whenever you had your children in the past, have to be lived with.

I believe however that the "mistake" of a wrong marriage should/could have an easier was to get out of it - unlike there really being no way to get out of the pregnancy or HIV. I guess I can understand Bocker though. Just like he believes that immaturity should not be an excuse/reason to get into a marriage, I just can't give people much of an excuse/pass in 2011 for not knowing about HIV or pregnancy.

[Ann]

However the fact that your pregnancies in years past were unplanned and accidental - long before years and years of teen-pregnancy education and HIV-education throughout the 90s and 00s - has no bearing on what I said.

I was trying to make the point that even when someone does have a good background in sex education, accidents happen. The first time I fell pregnant was in the late 70s and because of prior life experiences, I had good access to information and I acted on that information by going on the Pill and taking it correctly. Yet I still became pregnant.

The second (accidental) time I was 34 and I can assure you, I wasn't stupid or naive. I was just unlucky.

I've known quite a few women who became pregnant despite taking precautions. I'm not the only one.

Several of those women were mature, educated, in long-term stable relationships and used condoms for contraception, yet they still became pregnant. It happens all the time. Hell, it even happened to Rachel and Ross in Friends. It was a storyline based in reality.

I took exception to your stance that "in 2011 with the knowledge that's out there" etc, that accidental or unplanned pregnancies shouldn't happen and if they do, it's because the people involved are stupid or naive. You want to think that all unplanned pregnancies are the result of feckless behaviour and it just isn't true. Many of them are, for sure, but by no means all.

It doesn't matter what year you're talking about, accidents will still happen where conception is concerned, even when both parties are educated about conception and take precautions.

Until you've walked a mile in the shoes of a woman who has faced an accidental, unwanted pregnancy despite taking precautions, then don't presume to paint us all with the brush of stupidity.

Maybe you just don't know how common it is to become pregnant accidentally, despite precautions, because it's just not something most women will talk about outside a small circle of friends and family - if that. For many it's only their partner who knows. And they won't necessarily admit it on survey forms or whatever, so don't bother trotting out any statistics on the subject. They won't be very accurate.

I'm talking about my own first-hand experience and the experiences of women I've known through the years. These aren't the type of experiences you are likely to have been privy to, so don't tell me I'm wrong - I'm not.

[skeebo1969]

   I think I just figured out where the saying "red-headed step child" comes from....
   It's when babies are born Irish in Mexico outside of the two year license....

[denb45]

   I think I just figured out where the saying "red-headed step child" comes from....
   It's when babies are born Irish in Mexico outside of the two year license....

Yeah I hear ya........for me growing up mixed-race was no easy feat, I still have nightmares about it, I never knew other kids could be so cruel, but I grew up, got older & I prevailed  

Edited to add: I remember when I was a kid 8 or 9 yrs old back in Calif. it was illegal for a white person & black person to get married......case-in-point... my mother & father couldn't even marry until after 1969 or 1970, I was 13 going on 14 when my parents were allowed to legally marry in the State of Calif.

[Dachshund]

I believe however that the "mistake" of a wrong marriage should/could have an easier was to get out of it - unlike there really being no way to get out of the pregnancy or HIV. I guess I can understand Bocker though. Just like he believes that immaturity should not be an excuse/reason to get into a marriage, I just can't give people much of an excuse/pass in 2011 for not knowing about HIV or pregnancy.

You really are the wrong person to be making this argument or judging anyone. Considering that you were privy on how to prevent HIV infection and yet your last lover became infected. Excuse/pass is pretty harsh.

[Cliff]

Yeah I hear ya........for me growing up mixed-race was no easy feat, I still have nightmares about it, I never knew other kids could be so cruel, but I grew up, got older & I prevailed  

Edited to add: I remember when I was a kid 8 or 9 yrs old back in Calif. it was illegal for a white person & black person to get married......case-in-point... my mother & father couldn't even marry until after 1969 or 1970, I was 13 going on 14 when my parents were allowed to legally marry in the State of Calif.

Miscegenation law existed in California until 1970?!? 

[Miss Philicia]

Miscegenation law existed in California until 1970?!? 

No, they were the first state to end them and it was in 1948. I have no idea what Dennis is talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp

[Cliff]

Hmmm, that didn't feel right.  As usual he's full of shit.

[skeebo1969]

  I was just being silly, as usual... lolz

  Skeebo

  PS Dennis has red hair?

[Miss Philicia]

As usual he's full of shit.

I keep trying to tell him this but he never believes me.

[denb45]

      ya'll need to lighten up in these forums a little, and have some fun, life ain't always that serious, now is it, my bad, I love to mess w/ you all, it's so much FUN 

[bocker3]

however, to simply say that immature people shouldn't have unprotected sex, or enter into marriages, just isn't feasible - they are going to do it anyway. In fact, they are doing it anyway. And if they are going to do it anyway, and over half of them are just going to divorce, I think it's wise to face that reality, and determine a better way to process the legal side of marriage to make it easier to end when the "match up" between two people is not a good one.

But it IS easy to end an marriage -- it is only difficult when one or both parties makes it difficult.  Having a "temp" marriage, isn't going to stop someone from being an asshole if they feel wronged -- as I pointed out earlier -- all it will do is move the drama from family court to civil court.

I don't know anyone who has entered a marriage strictly for "legal reasons" -- there is usually an emotional aspect to it.  It is the emotional part that causes the problems in a break up.

Quite honestly, I don't care if people want to get into this type of arrangement, but I think it's being defeatist -- not realistic.  But....  if someone asked me to enter into a 2 yr marriage with an option to extend, I'd show their sorry ass the door.

M

[Miss Philicia]

      ya'll need to lighten up in these forums a little, and have some fun, life ain't always that serious, now is it, my bad, I love to mess w/ you all, it's so much FUN 

So I'm confused -- were you or were you not born an illegitimate bastard child unnecessarily?

[next2u]

So I'm confused -- were you or were you not born an illegitimate bastard child unnecessarily?

i was 
my mom got knocked up by a married man.

best,
d

p.s. man, this thread has taken some painful turns.

[GSOgymrat]

i was  
my mom got knocked up by a married man.

best,
d

p.s. man, this thread has taken some painful turns.

It doesn't matter to me how you got to the party.

[denb45]

So I'm confused -- were you or were you not born an illegitimate bastard child unnecessarily?

I'm the DEVIL child as if you haven't noticed,  no honey, don't be silly, I had a father until he died back in 88...oh and one more thing miss p , sweetie   I don't need you to tell me I'm full of shit, I already have a hubby-man for that, and darling, you know I love you miss p, I love to mess w/ you cuz your so gullible, you remind me of my ex, I used to mess w/ him all the time, but he loved me for it in the end   that's why I heart u dear