2-year marriage licenses

[Simon Bar Sinister]

Mexico City is considering whether to issue them; you can re-up or walk away clean at the end of the 2 years.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/29/us-mexico-marriage-idUSTRE78S6TX20110929

I think it's a good idea myself.

[prick]

Its kinda like our one year or less annulement.

[Shaun]

Sounds like a good idea to me, maybe give the option to make it permanent after you renew it once or twice.

[Tyger]

I think it to be a great idea! Especially since Marriage is on the down. Why not give it a perk if people wanna do it?

Boy: "Baby, I love you, will you marry me"

Girl: "Sure, why not? If I don't like it I can just play take backs after 2 years, right?"

Boy: "That's what I was thinking..."

[torn asunder]

I think it to be a great idea! Especially since Marriage is on the down. Why not give it a perk if people wanna do it?

Boy/Girl: "Baby, I love you, will you marry me"

Boy/Girl: "Sure, why not? If I don't like it I can just play take backs after 2 years, right?"

Boy/Girl: "That's what I was thinking..."

fyp...

[Glory13666]

Having been through a divorce myself, I am a big fan of this idea. It would have been so much easier to just walk away, the court system only prolonged the bitterness.

[FarrIL]

I'm all for it. People get married quick and then get divorced after just a few years' worth of marriage, so yeah, making a 2-year temporary marriage sounds like a good idea. See if it works out and after two years, either renew or walk away. Sounds like a Handfasting, only with paper involved.

[n0Mad]

I say if you think you might need a 2-year license, then you probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place. Why not just live together instead and leave it at that?

[Musashi]

I say if you think you might need a 2-year license, then you probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place. Why not just live together instead and leave it at that?

Wisdom here. However, what if you live together for a few years, get married, then before another two years, for some reason you hate each other. Things can change suddenly. I agree that a thing like this should not be a good idea, but in practical thought, it'd save a lot of heartache and woe for a lot of people involved.

[*Siren*]

I say if you think you might need a 2-year license, then you probably shouldn't be getting married in the first place. Why not just live together instead and leave it at that?

My thoughts exactly.

[torn asunder]

My thoughts exactly.

disagree...

[Joey Deadcat]

As I've said before - common-law marriage/lifetime partnership is sadly underrated/under-appreciated.

[Fierce Critter]

This bothers me a little.

I can state from my own personal experience that the first two years of marriage might not in any way be indicative of how the rest of your life together might be.

I know we've gone from bliss to hell and back again with stops everywhere in between in 13 years. There have been times when we were MASSIVELY on edge and not sure things would work out. And then here we are, 13 years this month, and we've never been happier. We've had more money, but we've never been happier.

Seems too much like an easy out to me.

[TygerLili]

I kind of like the idea, especially for couples who get married very young. It sounds like a step beyond a prenup. Couples should be able to get married on their own terms.

[taysteewonderbunny]

I say just bring back common law. If you're cohabiting for five years, you're as good as married. If you're not sure you should have the big, fat wedding, or if all you are planning for is the big, fat wedding and not your life together afterward, you probably shouldn't marry--cohabit.

My best friend and her now husband lived together for 12 years before they decided to make it official.

[n0Mad]

For all you saying this could save the hassle and expense of a divorce, think about all the collective stuff a couple can accumulate in two years. A house, a car, a TV ... even something so simple as silverware. You start the relationship with his stuff and her stuff, but after two years most possessions are their stuff. After that two years is up and you decide to split, who gets what? You may very well still need lawyers and so much for saving hassles and expenses of divorces.

[Chickshunt2]

For all you saying this could save the hassle and expense of a divorce, think about all the collective stuff a couple can accumulate in two years. A house, a car, a TV ... even something so simple as silverware. You start the relationship with his stuff and her stuff, but after two years most possessions are their stuff. After that two years is up and you decide to split, who gets what? You may very well still need lawyers and so much for saving hassles and expenses of divorces.

I've never split with someone and had issues over who gets what...But then no one I have ever been with has wanted the things that matter most to me..my critters. Personally if I get to the point its done there isnt left worth fighting over, give me MY clothes, My critters and My guns and I'll be on my way.

As to this 2 year deal...no thank you...if someone ever said to me hey babes lets get married and get one of the two year lic. so that if it dont work out we can walk away...He'd get his answer as he watched me pack my stuff to leave.