10 Year Marriage Contracts

The destruction of marriage proceeds at a pace that even the slipperiest of slopers 10 years ago would marvel at.

The latest suggestion? 10 Year marriage contracts. No, seriously. That is what the Boston Herald's Adriana Cohen is proposing.

With roughly half of all marriages ending in divorce, it’s time we re-evaluate this little thing called love and marriage.

When it comes to tying the knot, only two extreme options exist: Either people stay single or get married signing lifelong marriage contracts. What if a middle-of-the-road option existed where couples were offered the choice of a 10-year marriage license vs. a lifelong one?

Similar to passports, every decade the 10-year marriage license would need to be renewed or it expires. This way, unhappily married couples who’ve been suffering together get the option to “not renew” every decade, without having to go through a long, painful and costly divorce process.

On the flip side, those who are happily married can simply pay the state a $25 renewal fee and continue their marriage without a hiccup for another decade.

This idea has been proposed before, but Valentine’s Day is the ideal time to get serious about it.
Oh how all the devils must laugh at us.

ht Instapundit

*subhead*What the....*subhead*


  1. Because the kids won't mind if they only get a mom and a dad for the first 10 years. Sorry for the sarcasm.

  2. This is actually encouraging: this was what all the free-lovin' idiots back in the 1970s were proposing (they usually said 20 years, which makes more sense RE: children). The reason it is encouraging? They understood that a marriage was about a couple staying together for the sake of its children, and not merely for the self-aggrandizement of the couple and the celebration of their wittle feewings of wuv. That's a huge step forward (or back, if we consider "basic sanity" a place we left rather than one we are approaching) for this society.

  3. The key phrase in his plan is the $25 fidelity tax the state will be able to levy every 10 years.

  4. Doesn't sound at all positive to me just another self centered construct

  5. Its hard to imagine loving someone. But just not enough to want to spend that much time together. I guess if you just dont want to be with someone enough to get married, then dont bother getting married. Im not sure why we need this.
    oh, a marriage tax of $25? So is the goal to penalize this out of existence. The HHS mandate of taxing very good health plans out of existence and penalizing those who dont comply has been so good at destroying dissent that we can just do that to destroy any social institution.

  6. One can hear the snake oil logic, if marriage is important to you, you'll pay the state the 25 dollar fine annually to show a renewal of your commitment to each other --because ten years, that's too long, so annual, like any other membership, and maybe 50 or a progressive scale, based on income, so that the poor aren't penalized and the rich don't get to renew their commitment cheaply.

  7. Nasty. Sad. And complicated. If I could get a "Til Death" passport or drivers license I would...so I certainly wouldn't want to mess around with the hassle of re-applying for my marriage.

  8. Starts with a bogus stat, and goes down hill from there.

    Also, this idea was floated last year, too, and probably before that, and the assumption is moronic. "Hm, a lot of marriages end in divorce; so, let's make it so they ALL end every decade!"

  9. This is more about reinforcing the state's authority over the marriage process and imposing atheism rather than admitting that the human soul gives consent to marriage.

  10. To Adriana Cohen:


Post a Comment