Well, OK, now that you mention it, this would have actually come in handy for me, like... right about NOW, in fact. I would LOVE to not be spending a jillion dollars on a lawyer in family court. But I still hate the idea of expiring marriages. I have no self-preservation instinct, apparently.
Yeah - I think it's probably important for people to know about this stuff, or else I come across as scary pollyanna with no concept of how it is to live without the rose coloured glasses.
Marriage (as licensed by the government) is embarked upon for many different reasons, emotions, and ends. It seems reasonable that the legal contracts drawn up should reflect these things, keeping in mind the overall protection and welfare of the marrying couple and any dependents.
Another thing to consider is our expanding lifespan. It's reasonable to think that humans in the not-too-distant future may expect to live past 100, perhaps up to 150 years. As a secular humanist and long-time reader of science fiction (which often deals with the dilemma of commitments versus lifespan) I again think it very reasonable to have a wider variety of contracts between committed adults. It could save a lot of heartache and financial strain to draw up agreements for most eventualities between people/within families ahead of time -- or so it seems to me.
Since I don't view marriage from a religious perspective, and since I am fairly ignorant of the origins and evolution of marriage within religious practice (much less the secular world), I can't really speak from that point of view -- but I can see that the idea of term contracts would be a no-no since marriage is one of the things religions seem to view in strict absolutist terms. I know Adventists in particular have a lot of flexibility in their practice, but I'm sure this isn't one of those areas! :)
I don't know how much my view of marriage is influenced by my religion, honestly. I certainly didn't structure my marriage as a religious entity or abiding by any religion-based moral code as you know. And I can totally get behind the idea of various types and durations of contracts between adults. But I am very much a one-primary-partner-for-life person, always have been, and that is the lens through which I am responding to this LJ question. I see from my response that I am still conflating the legal construct of marriage with the concept of lifelong commitment, and I'm not sure if I view that as appropriate or not.
I know that I am now of the opinion that the legal institution should be regarded as separate from religion. Religious people can choose to have a religious ceremony, of course, but I don't think that clergy should act as agents of the state.
The idea of a marriage as a term-limited arrangement just doesn't sit well with me. I guess I need to examine this more. But there are plenty of ways people can be voluntarily interdependent without getting actually MARRIED. Yes, there are people who regard relationships as limited and want to reserve their options over their lifetimes, and that's OK, but it's not marriage, to me. Marriage should be a big hairy deal IMO.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-03-01 10:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-01 11:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 12:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 12:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 12:29 am (UTC)People with big hearts rarely do.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 12:57 am (UTC)I went back and read a section of your LJ based on your recent comment to GKB, by the way. So I have a little sense of your relatively recent history.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 12:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 12:14 am (UTC)Another thing to consider is our expanding lifespan. It's reasonable to think that humans in the not-too-distant future may expect to live past 100, perhaps up to 150 years. As a secular humanist and long-time reader of science fiction (which often deals with the dilemma of commitments versus lifespan) I again think it very reasonable to have a wider variety of contracts between committed adults. It could save a lot of heartache and financial strain to draw up agreements for most eventualities between people/within families ahead of time -- or so it seems to me.
Since I don't view marriage from a religious perspective, and since I am fairly ignorant of the origins and evolution of marriage within religious practice (much less the secular world), I can't really speak from that point of view -- but I can see that the idea of term contracts would be a no-no since marriage is one of the things religions seem to view in strict absolutist terms. I know Adventists in particular have a lot of flexibility in their practice, but I'm sure this isn't one of those areas! :)
no subject
Date: 2010-03-02 01:05 am (UTC)I know that I am now of the opinion that the legal institution should be regarded as separate from religion. Religious people can choose to have a religious ceremony, of course, but I don't think that clergy should act as agents of the state.
The idea of a marriage as a term-limited arrangement just doesn't sit well with me. I guess I need to examine this more. But there are plenty of ways people can be voluntarily interdependent without getting actually MARRIED. Yes, there are people who regard relationships as limited and want to reserve their options over their lifetimes, and that's OK, but it's not marriage, to me. Marriage should be a big hairy deal IMO.