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