Saturday, April 25, 2009


i spotted this remarkable article at Mark Sayers blog.

here's a snippet but the whole thing is worth reading.

ACCORDING to the Australian Bureau of Statistics it appears that lifelong marriages are becoming a thing of the past. Few marry for life any more.

Thirty-two per cent of divorces involved separation within the first five years of marriage, and 22 per cent within five to nine years of marriage.

We have fixed term-contracts for the buying of property, cars and insurance, but there is only one contract available for marriage and it is for life. Is it time to consider introducing fixed-term marriage contracts?

The fixed-term contract is not meant to be a "quick fix" or an "easy out".

It would allow for the celebration of the renewal of vows after a five-year or 10-year term and encourage partners to work towards maintaining a good relationship – in effect, it opens communication akin to a marriage performance review.

Or it would allow for the marriage to be dissolved by completing an acceptable contract term, without the shame and stigma associated with the failure of a marriage.

So why bother getting married at all? Because inherently we want to believe that we are making a commitment for life. Surely no one enters a marriage with a view to "give it a shot".

We stand in front of friends, family, even God and promise "until death do us part" and, at the time, we believe it. This only adds to the sense of failure when we can't deliver this promise.

It's a simple process: the standard certificate of marriage becomes a five-year contract. The marriage celebrant would continue to retain a copy for their records; forward the certificate to the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages for the registration of the marriage; and provide the marrying couple with a copy.

The marriage licence would clearly state the start and dissolution date for the five-year term.


iknowyouknow said...

The article never said if divorce was increasing or decreasing as a whole. And all it really said was that a certain fraction of divorces that do take place take place early on, which is logical, the longer you're together the more you've learned to cope decreasing the need to split. That's not even thought-provoking information.

Essentially the entire article was an opinion, which is fine, but don't guise it with quasi-scientific proof.

Anonymous said...

Seems like something a man would write. women look their best early on so they need a man who will enjoy them later for who they are in spite of their aging. marriage is all about committment. god is all about committment as he wants to have a committment with us.
children, they are the ones who pay the most dearly for misbehaved adults. "here junior, meet your new step mother."
junior, "gee thanks dad, now i have an extra adult to complain about you, mom, and me."
even adult children, at the age of 40, get pretty upset when a parent leaves the other parent for some shack up honey.