Should Marriage Licenses Have A Two Year With An Expiration Date

[stevil]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1318497304' post='2320542']


Being married is the greatest ultimate ACT of love for your wife. The ring is the (a, whatever) symbol.
[/quote]
Getting married is an act, BEING married is a state, a symbolic state representing an enduring, endearing, personal commitment of unconditional support and love.
Either that or I don't actually understand symbolism.

[add]

A ring has a practical side too, it keeps all the stray dogs from hitting on you

[CatherineM]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1318554132' post='2320880']
A ring has a practical side too, it keeps all the stray dogs from hitting on you
[/quote]
Doesn't work that way for me. I still get passes, sometimes right in front of my husband. He's the size of a pro football lineman, so that takes real guts.

[tinytherese]

The ring is a circle which symbolizes unending love.

[she_who_is_not]

What I find so surprising is that we live in a culture that is fascinated by weddings, but somehow repulsed by the idea of marriage. I'm at an age where my friends who married in their early 20s are now starting to get divorced. They've made the decision to grow apart rather than grow together. I am so shocked when the same couples who hosted lavish, expensive weddings won't seek counseling because they "can't afford it." There is no sense of stability. People want to get married because it is a rite of passage, a symbol, but they neglect to consider the sacramental aspect of it. We live in such an instant, easy culture. Why not have let it expire? Then you can have a wedding every two years.

Also, I find this troubling from a legal standpoint as well as having obvious moral objections. Marriage law is wierd and divorce laws are weirder and civil codes make things crazy. What if you file for divorce the day before the contract expires? Is the contract governed by marriage law or contract law? it seems like you could run into a choice of law mess with all of this. I don't know anything about Mexican law but this seems like a really bad idea to me.

[add]

A lifetime is not enough, for me

The Death due us part, part is hard ( unpleasant ). If only you could change that part.

[add]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1318409145' post='2320013']
The new proposal, from lawmaker Lizbeth Rosas, would involve a reform to the civil code to say: "the length of marriage will be decided by the term agreed by those signing the contract ... and it can't be less than two years."
[/quote]
a good pair of shoes will last longer that two years

[Little Flower]

I love you so much I will put up with you for two years. No more. then I leave you for somebody better.

[MithLuin]

To be fair, 2 years is the minimum here...I suppose the assumption is that no one wanting to get 'married' would settle for something shorter than that...

Oh boy.

The Scottish custom is considered a 'trial' marriage, and that is not unique to that culture, of course. Most cultures have some form of engagement period, and how that is handled varries. Sometimes, the couple lives together during the engagement, with the possibility of breaking it off prior to the (binding) marriage.

The idea of a 'temporary' marriage seems more akin to concubinage, where there was an agreement (of sorts), but the woman was not recognized as a wife and had fewer legal rights with regard to her...well, not husband, per se....patron?

Roman law recognized several different tiers of relationships, with Manus marriage being more binding, Free marriage being less binding, and Concubinage being legal but not marriage (any children were considered illegitimate and could not inherit). [url=http://www.classicsunveiled.com/romel/html/marrcustwom.html]HERE[/url] and [url=http://ablemedia.com/ctcweb/consortium/ancientweddings5.html]here[/url] you will find a description of some of the different forms of marriage recognized in Roman law.

Obviously, I do not think this proposed law in Mexico is a good idea at all.

[Selah]

[quote name='add' timestamp='1318666860' post='2321507']
A lifetime is not enough, for me

The Death due us part, part is hard ( unpleasant ). If only you could change that part.
[/quote]

A Catholic nun, Sister Mary Martha (she has her own blog that I love) once posted that she believed we would still be married in heaven, we just wouldn't have any sexual intimacy. That's how we would be like the angels, not have sex I have no idea if that is dogmatic, but at best, it could be speculation. That said, since sex is a very small piece of marriage, it wouldn't be such a loss anyhow.

[add]

[quote name='Selah' timestamp='1318780274' post='2322090']

A Catholic nun, Sister Mary Martha (she has her own blog that I love) once posted that she believed we would still be married in heaven, we just wouldn't have any sexual intimacy. That's how we would be like the angels, not have sex I have no idea if that is dogmatic, but at best, it could be speculation. That said, since sex is a very small piece of marriage, it wouldn't be such a loss anyhow.
[/quote]
Granted, love in marriage encompasses much more than the act of conjugal love. Nevertheless, this action radiates a unique and special symbolism of the sacrament of marriage — the covenant shared between a man and a woman, who have become one flesh.
This act of marital love also participates in God’s creative love. The couple who has become a new creation by becoming husband and wife, one flesh, may also bring about the creation of new life in accord with God’s will.
There Life’s will never end, as Children, there protégé are the supreme gift of marriage

[MithLuin]

Hmmm, that's one way of trying to make sense of it. Another possibility is that the exclusivity of marriage will cease. Meaning...in heaven, we will know one another as we are fully known. The levels of intimacy involved in being in full communion with God and one another is not something I understand (let alone could explain), but I could see how this would potentially render the idea of being married to one unique person practically meaningless. That's not to say that you don't continue to have a deep, meaningful and loving relationship with your spouse...but that you have that kind of relationship with the entire communion of saints, too, potentially.

And I'm pretty sure what I just wrote could be taken the wrong way, so please take with a *huge* grain of salt and an understanding that earthly analogies are at best imperfect representations of what is going on in heaven.

Union with God is the point of heavenly existence. Human relationships have to make sense in that context.