Marriage Contracts − 17 April, 2008
When my husband first asked me to marry him, I was thrilled and said “Yes!” And then we were engaged… I had plenty of time to think about “what if it doesn’t work?” and I suggested we be the first couple to have a marriage “contract.” Like a business merger – conditional, and with a time limit – maybe a 5 year joint venture, with an option to renew and penalties for unfair business practices, like infidelity. Contractual provisions would be made for division of property/assets and for any offspring of the union. Much neater than divorce, don’t you think? And it’s all spelled out from the beginning. And if one party does not want to renew when the term is up – no harm, no foul.
It would keep spouses on their toes to woo their partner if they wanted to stay together and “renew” for another term of the contract – there would perhaps be contractual bonuses for renewal, as well as clauses covering spousal responsibilities.
My traditional, straight-as-an-arrow fiancé was horrified at my suggestion. Insulted, really, I guess – he was hurt that I assumed that we would be like every other statistic and become exes at some point (that’s always a possibility), but I thought we could start a trend. A trend that would lower the rate of divorce, perhaps boost length of marriages and make divorces or dissolutions much less messy and everything would be agreed upon before the wedding. Of course, pre-nuptial agreements are similar, but they go on the premise that marriage is forever and if you divorce you will get penalized to some degree. I think a pre-nup is detrimental – it puts the “weaker” partner in a trapped situation and I think it causes problems psychologically, as it is unequal from the beginning.
With a “marriage contract” it is like naming your price – your time is a commodity and you are a CEO entering into a mutually beneficial business agreement. It’s two equals outlining a fair partnership, and I think it levels the playing field a bit, if you will.
The idea had been planted by a Sci-Fi book called “The Coelura” by Anne McCaffrey – it was sort of a romance-y sci-fi novella, but one of the themes was the heroine being forced into a marriage contract, similar to the one her parents had entered into, of which she was a product. It was then that the idea of marriage “contracts” caught my fancy. I had discussed it with a few other people, just theoretically, and I was surprised how many people thought, theoretically, it was a good idea, but felt it wouldn’t “fly” as marriages are “traditional” and traditionally, they are supposed to be forever. You are not supposed to get married with an end date in mind. Some even felt it couldn’t be called “marriage” if it was given a dissolution date – perhaps it could be called a contractual civil union? But people who get divorced call what they had prior a “marriage” don’t they? Even if it only lasted a short time. To a lot of people the definition of marriage is entering into it with the intent that it is forever – even though statistics say that about half end in divorce.
So I would like other people’s thoughts on it – do you think there should be such thing as “marriage contracts” – or just continue with the current, what, 50% divorce rate instead?
Comments:
peahayes (April 17, 2008. 10:44pm)
Uh... you're not serious, are you? That's a pretty clinical approach to what is meant to be a human relationship, not a legal venture. I think that the contract as you describe it is diametrically opposed to the possibility of any two people having a meaningful emotional partnership. The flip side of it "keeping people on their toes to woo their partner" is that the partners that will just say "F*** it, why try. There's no guarantee I'll succeed, and I could get my feelings badly hurt in the process".
intrepideddie (April 18, 2008. 05:37am)
Meh, I think this stuff is just over-analyzed too much. People just need to spend a little more quality time with each other before jumping into marriage. Toss in a few shakes of common sense and self-respect, and the divorce rate would plummet. But, in the gimme, gimme, gimme, now, now, now society we live in... not bloody likely to happen anytime soon.
PandoraBox (April 18, 2008. 08:59pm)
I think it's not too bad having thought about it myself. I also know of someone who lived her entire relationship like this...15 years. The couple started by making a "contract" a week at a time, then a month at a time, etc. They decided to live in the same duplex or triplex but in separated apartments and it worked for 15 years. Then the man died. But they were happy. :)
kga245 (April 21, 2008. 05:06pm)
I'd like to see a sample of such a contract. I try to set goals for myself and leave a trail of notes that I can look back on for self-evaluation. I think relationships could benefit from the same, though admittedly my wife and I do not currently do that. I'm not sure we need a contract, but it is nice to have concrete honey-do's both large and small. I'd be down for a honey-do contract!