With our wedding three weeks away, Jason and I have a pretty important errand to run this week.
We have to go get our marriage license at the courthouse.
I will admit I wasn't quite sure how this whole process worked. It turns out it's fairly easy for a couple of straight people to get hitched. You fill out a form, you hand over $75 dollars and after you stand in front of the judge or religious person of your choosing, he or she signs your license and sends it off to the state for a seal of approval. The marriage becomes legally binding.
When I read the headlines Mexico City made the other day by announcing it was considering making "temporary" marriage licenses available, I felt sick. Mexico City lawmakers are proposing legislation that would allow couples to apply for a marriage license that is only valid for two years.
So much for commitment, huh?
If the couple decides at the end of two years that they want to extend their "contract," they can do so and the marriage will continue. If two years was enough, the license simply expires, and no divorce is needed. The two people just go their separate ways.
Let's not forget that Mexico is a country whose population largely identifies itself as Catholic. "Catholic" and "divorce" aren't exactly words the Pope likes to see together in the same sentence. The lawmakers proposing the legislation are presenting the two-year marriage license as a way to cut down on the financial costs and emotional trauma of getting divorced in a world where it is statistically known that a painfully high number of marriages end in divorce.
This legislation is going to cause a lot of controversy.
Don't get me wrong, I think divorce is a good thing for people who married each other and come to realize it was a mistake. Both of my parents found true love the second time around after going through painful divorces. Sometimes things don't work out. I get it.
However...
Entering marriage with the attitude that it is temporary unless RENEWED by you and your spouse after two years seems just a bit too cynical even for this cynic. Imagine the conversations between couples at the courthouse in Mexico City.
"Honey, should we get the lifelong marriage license or should we just try it out for two years and see how it goes?"
I won't even get into how this proposed legislation makes heterosexual marriage look to the gay and lesbian community who have been in committed relationships for years but can't legally declare their commitment through marriage. It makes me wonder how hetero-only marriage proponents can even look themselves in the mirror.
So I have to ask myself - am I overreacting to this news story because I'm about to take the leap myself? Or is this legislation really repugnant? Why bother getting married at all if you think the person you're marrying might only have a shelf life of two years? Why bother even being with that person, marriage or no marriage, for that matter?
I'd like to think I'm not overreacting but sometimes when you're too close to something, you tend to lose perspective.
*********************************
twoday wants to know: Is this the beginning of the end for traditional marriage as we know it? Facebook us your thoughts!
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Sally,
Mexico City’s proposed move to a two-year marriage contract system seems brilliant, and I’m surprised that no United States jurisdiction has tried this before. Your surprisingly vehement objection to it strikes me as short-sided and selfish.
To begin with, as a lesbian, I’m confounded by your question about how this proposed legislation “looks to the gay and lesbian community who have [sic] been in committed relationships for years but can’t legally declare their commitment [sic] through marriage.” As any writer for a progressive magazine should know, same-sex marriage is legal in six states, so your statement is far too sweeping. More importantly, why would gay people care if marriages begin with a two-year contract? Are they usually more committed to each other than straight people? Is this really a concern about marriage you think they’d have in light of all the other problems the anachronistic institution presents?
You seem to be coming from an unrealistic and conservative family-values perspective. If you and Jason are truly committed to each other, why would you care about having to renew your contract? When I passed my driving test, I didn’t expect to only be driving until I had to renew my license. The “family values” folks like to believe that same-sex marriage has a detrimental effect on hetero marriages. This asinine argument is similar to yours—if you don’t like the idea of people who might view a two-year contract as threatening to their commitment, ignore them and don’t let it bother you.
I’m especially surprised to read your thoughts in light of your parents’ situation. Wouldn’t this legislation have made their lives easier? Especially in a country like in Mexico, where poverty is rampant, wouldn’t it help people who enter a marriage too hastily to avoid the expense of a divorce?
The bottom line is that this proposal could help a lot of people, and there seems to be no rational reason for why individuals should worry about it affecting their own commitments. If there is a rational reason, it’s not in this article.
On a positive note, it looks like you took my outlining advice. Great job!
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Actually, PowerWalker, the outlining advice was mine, but I agree. It does look like Sally took MY advice.
PowerWalker, your driver’s license analogy is spot on. Renewing a license periodically isn’t that big of a deal. In fact - this legislation has the potential to coincide with the tradition of “renewing vows” (a tradition I find obnoxious) but perhaps being required to do so every two years could compel a couple to really examine their relationship and decide to work harder to keep a marriage together or to call it quits instead of being complacent and miserable.
Anyway, good job on writing an article with one point… even though PowerWalker is right.
Knitty
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Let me say, first of all, that I am OVER THE MOON that you both commented on the actual subject matter about which I wrote. That is a first.
Secondly, I feel terrible that my stance on this came off as a “conservative family-values perspective.” Powerwalker, I understand how you came to this conclusion. I used flawed logic just like DOMA supporters do.
And I can appreciate the points both of you made. See? I was right. I am too close to the subject matter right now to form an objective opinion! I should have recused myself!
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
I personally loved this piece because it does make us question what we mean when we say “family values”. I don’t know if this is good or bad for marriage…but marriage has to evolve just like people do, or it becomes irrelevant. Kudos to Sally for tackling a controversial subject!