Thank both of you, Kay and Nick, for taking the time to write about your concepts of marriage. Your points are well taken, and I agree with you.

I need feedback on the time limited aspect of the proposal. Otherwise, TLM is marriage in all other respects.

I do not think anyone has answers, but I would like to hear opinions: What are ways that putting a time limit on marriage would affect ones marriage? Try to imagine situations where you might entertain the choice of TLM with a partner. What would be the appeal? If your present marrriage or situation were on a time limited basis, would you be happier? Would you more likely stay (forever) with that partner?

Thanks for any ideas,

Phil

  Phil and Kay, thank you very much for the postings. I love a good controversy!

   The way I see things is somewhat different. Marriage is THE oldest human institution, established before states and religions. It had many forms throughout the ages, but the purpose remained the same. To guarantee the wellfare of women and children. Today this may seem "Politically Incorrect", but the fact remains that a great number of people, perhaps the majority, agree with that definition. Some women may not Ned someone to guarantee their wellfare today, but most men still believe that it's their duty to provide it.

   In other words, "marriage" is a contract between two (or more) people guarantying the wellfare of their partners and offspring. Let us remember that Americans are not the only people on the planet, and that there are others who accept same sex marriage, polygamy, and many other forms of marriage. Their acceptance does not make them immoral or evil, simply different. Surprisingly enough, all these forms or marriage are dictated by some state or religious dogma.

   I believe that partners to a marriage should be 100% sure of their commitment before they make it. If that involves cohabitation before the commitment, so be it. Let's keep in mind that it is not only the partners who are involved, but their nearest and dearest. That will be fine, provided that there are no children involved. Once a pregnancy or a decision to adopt is realised, the contract must be made official.

   What makes a marriage contract official? Any legal method to achieve the purpose of it, be it legal, political, religious, or any combination thereof.

   I disagree with the concept of defining the partners to a marriage by religious or governmental rules. Our concern is the wellfare of partners and children. If religious morality insists on word definitions, then let us call the "other" unions something else, but provide the same protections reserved for those "moral" unions. Another thought would be to try to convert people to our way of thinking, instead of trying to "legalize" our position.

   I agree that a prenuptial agreement would be essential in any such union, and a specific clause should be included to specify how children will be handled in the case of dissolution of the partnership. Adults may make many mistakes and face the consequences, but should not force children to bear the burden. Let them make their own mistakes when they grow up.

   Thanks Phil for posting your thought provoking article and being open to responses. Brain activities are so important.

   The implications are many. First, it would limit the income for divorce lawyers and keep the monies in the already traumatized mourner of the marriage wallets. The idea may help the partners work through some issues as they are bound by their agreed term of partnership. Mentioning partnership it would help those in the marriage remember they are partners not just bed partners, as many of the youth marry for sexual attraction and the magic of the “wedding” without much thought to the everyday issues of dealing with each others idiosyncrasies.

   Marriage was and is a social institution and should be as respected as all other societal mores. The contractual part seems cold but it may bring home the issues of reality, not the fantasy of living happily ever after. It takes passion to agree to disagree. Personally, I think marriage should require a long engagement time and the parties must demonstrates they understand the commitment of the union, including knowing those annoying habits are part of the package deal.

   They should have some understanding of compromise and to be separate but equal. To me marriage and the respect for your partners mean being safe to speak your mind and know that we are accepted, warts and all, because we are loved and a part of the partnership. My husband is my best friend, confident and lover.

   If my recall of history is correct, the concept of marriage was to ensure ongoing prosperity in the community by maintaining some form of money disbursement and to take care of women and children to increase the population. Romantic love was not part of the equation, Phil’s idea would cause some issues for insurance companies but it may be the answer for same sex partnerships. Children should be a priority to be protected in the union.

Kay Santorineos