Opinions

Who wants to be in a situation where they are only in a marriage because the government is forcing them to do it?

Back to square one where people couldn't divorce no matter what? Usually at the expense of the woman? No way.
We're finally going somewhere now as a species. Freedom of choice, in the process of learning to deal with that responsibility. Beautiful process, as long as you don't expect us to get it right straight away after thousands of years of oppression in this area. We have to give ourselves time and be gentle with ourselves. We barely had this freedom for 3 - 4 decades, some countries don't even have it to date!

or, even worse, the church...

No, BUT, being a 'contract' , it might help to make it more 'difficult' to be excused from,, so to speak

No, BUT, being a 'contract' , it might help to make it more 'difficult' to be excused from,, so to speak


perhaps a REGISTRY, where the documented reasons for the breaking of the contract are available to the public,,,,,reasons that each side have to prove in court to end the 'contract',,,,,

? A government database on everyone's private lives? Naah.

And I also vote a firm "no" to permanent marriage by law. There's nothing to be gained from forcing people to stay together who hate each other. Or worse, abuse each other.

its not necessarily private if it is truly a 'contract'


I believe future partners should be able to see documented evidence of a persons tendency to maintain that contract and the reasons they have for not doing so,,,,

at least I believe it would save alot of people from entering marriages with people they dont have a good chance of commitment from

and it also makes those in commitments possibly work harder to make those commitments work as 'vowed' from the beginning

Or..

get government out of the business altogether, though I understand and agree with the significance of 'encouraging' men and women to commit to each other, due to their proclivity to PHYSICALLY make new citizens and impact those citizens daily,,,and our knowledge of how many more obstacles children in single parent homes have


I also understand the culture of self absorption has made the promotion of any 'ideal', such as the nuclear family unacceptable and discouraged

in a culture of 'whatever makes me personally happy' , the government should perhaps get out of marriage altogether

and allow there to be actual CIVIL contracts between people wanting to join their lives , assets and responsibilities

and allow religion to continue performing 'marriage' for those who have a religious conviction about it, based in that religions guidelines for that 'conviction'

Marriage is a religious institution and I am all for the separation of church and state.

what's the penalty for breaking this law ?

30 days in the county jail with your spouse for a cellmate ?

no, it should be more of a civil procedure than a criminal one,, so ,, no jail time.

perhaps fines paid to the state, or a mandated period of counseling for the divorce to be granted,,,etc,,,

No. If two people are not happy married to each other then they should have the right to get a divorce.

I think marriage licenses should be reissued every 3 to 5 years that way you can keep it up or walk away no string s attached or keep it going all the way

yea.. for me it can help in many ways..

I think in most weddings I've been to, whether it's a religious ceremony or a civil ceremony, the words til death do us part are in the ceremony.
Then the newlyweds sign their legal document.
Doesn't that technically make it permanent?
If there was legislation to force people to stay together, who would end up paying any agency to enforce on that?

right its not feasible to FORCE people to stay with a spouse, any more than it is to FORCE Them to stay with an employer, or in a home

but it is reasonable to expect repurcussions for breaking our contractual obligations, commitments,,etc,,,

marriage , being a type of legal contract of commitment,,,

To an extent there are repercussions in losing assets or payong alimony and child support

that is not true often enough, though it does indeed happen,,

Interesting discussion...if you want to go the contract route, let's really open Pandora box with amendments and additions which have zero to do with feelings...for example, an amendment which states that fidelity is not a requirement and the concept of adultery is not applicable as a violation of the contract...another could be Love is NOT a necessary or sufficient condition for this to continue or be dissolved...(my nickel)