Recently, Mexico city lawmakers who legalized gay marriage in late 2009, proposed "temporary marriage licenses", in hope to help newlyweds avoid the hassle of divorce. The reform to the civil code would allow couples to decide on the lengths of their commitment. The minimum contract of marriage is two years and could be renewed if the couple decides to stay together. Also, the contracts would include arrangements on children custody and how property would be handled, if the couple decides to split. Leonel Luna, the Mexico City assemblyman, says the proposed law is gaining support and should get a vote by the end of the year.
This article raises the issue of what is the definition of marriage? Is it right to override the universally belief of marriage that has been passed on for centuries? Or is it right to propose this reform for the population nowadays and perhaps for the advantage of the future?
Leona Luna, the Mexico City assemblyman who co-authored the bill, says that "The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends...You wouldn't have to go through the tortuous process of divorce." This proposal might benefit those who are afraid of making life long commitments that come along with the idea of marriage. Also, this idea of reform on marriage did not come from thin air - according to the article, around half of Mexico City marriages end in divorce, usually in the first two years. Therefore, it is suggested that these licenses should be granted to couples who are in favor of it. Perhaps doing so would increase the marriage population and simultaneously decrease divorce - for divorce does not exist in this contract. However, this reform may also cause birth rate to go up, which could result in two ways - a needed increase of childbirth in an aging society, or unwanted childbirth resulting in abortion or orphaned children, for couples might get married and make babies for not taking the matter seriously enough. This reform would perhaps discourage celibacy, which is a state highly practiced amongst several religions. This proposal is a solution to the increasing divorce rate nowadays, but might also bring unwanted consequences that the lawmakers and article fails to bring up.
Under rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States include:
- Giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouse's sexual services, labor, and property.
- Giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse's debts.
- Giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
- Giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse's affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
- Establishing the second legal guardian of a parent's child.
- Establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
- Establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.
If the proposal is legalized, then the rights and obligations are immediately diminished in its values, because the temporary marriage licenses provide an easy way out of these seemingly heavy tasks and promises. These newlyweds would then hold no responsibility over one another after the duration of the years signed in the contract.
This argument also causes an issue in traditions and religion and its concepts of marriage. For example, in Christianity, it is believed that "man and woman are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." and divorce and remarriage are also generally discouraged. Thus, the church criticized the proposed change. "This reform is absurd. It contradicts the nature of marriage," said Hugo Valdemar, spokesman for the Mexican archdiocese. "It's another one of these electoral theatrics the assembly tends to do that are irresponsible and immoral."
This temporary marriage license proposal draws attention to the question, what is marriage? Similar issues over definitions of concepts can be seen in debates over the concepts of "obesity" and "legality". These definitions of abstractions will never come to an agreement because these concepts are subject to personal opinions and beliefs.
I feel that although it may be completely out of the ordinary, the temporary marriage licenses would actually be beneficial for the situation that Mexico is in. Marriages are events that take up a lot of time, effort, and money, so if around half of the marriages do not work out, this would be even more of a reason to advocate temporary marriage licenses. That is why I feel that the lawmakers have actually come up with a good plan. Also, since marriage has a two year leeway period now, it encourages citizens to be a bit more bold, but at the same time, in control of their own lives. If the relationship lasts past the two years, chances are that it is going to end up being a successful relationship.
ReplyDeleteIt is mentioned that the concept of marriage in Christianity is eternal, therefore by establishing this new idea of a short-term marriage breaks the traditional values. I think the issues related to religion and traditions in this article can be tied to the articles on bullfighting and eating dog meat, since all of these topics involve the conflict between old and new values. Some questions that could also be addressed would be “Is it right to abolish old traditions for new ones?” and “Can old values can coexist with new values?”
ReplyDeleteIn addition, an area of knowledge that could possibly be involved in this issue is ethics. Ethics can play in both sides of the argument, since one can argue that the government is unethical in changing and distorting traditional and religious values. However, one can also argue that since marriage is a human right, it is unethical for religion or others to limit people’s choices or to reject different opinions on marriage. People should have the right to decide how long they want to commit to a relationship, since it is their lives and committing to marriage is their own human right.
This new marriage license also brings out the issue of how language can influence thought. Issuing these marriage licenses will no doubt lower divorce rate, but only because the name is changed from divorce to "contract termination." Nothing has really changed about the idea of married couple ceasing to be married with the introduction of the marriage licenses, but it simply is given a name that has less negative connotation. This is like changing "global warming" into "climate change." It makes people happier thinking that the world going through these bizarre weathers is natural with this new name, just like how the marriage license will make people think that ending a marriage is only systematic. It takes away the importance of the original context (global warming and divorce), and gives it a new name to allow it to be more widely accepted in the public. The licenses may seem like a way to lower divorce rates only because language could influence thought and change way people look at the nature of divorce.
ReplyDeleteI think that this law poses a lot of questions regarding language. I agree with Katie, this law just changes "divorce" to "contract termination". So would this new law really decrease "divorce" rates? Perhaps a better proposal would be to change the name of these licenses to "temporary partnership licenses" or something to that effect. This way, couples can legally be committed to one another, however, are not breaking the traditional ideals of a marriage. Additionally, it may cause couples to be more careful when deciding to have children.
ReplyDeleteAnother issue here is the ethical conflict between modern and traditional values. Compared to before, divorce rates are much higher. Although marriage is considered a lifetime commitment in most religions, people often get divorced for various reasons. I personally think that a married couple does have the right to divorce despite traditional ideals. However, this new law goes a bit too far, highlighting that a once considered lifetime commitment is just temporary.