Mexico City's Short-Term Marriage Proposal
Why Mexico City Thinks Short-Term Marriage is the Answer
When Christine and I started Confronting Love our idea was to challenge the status quo; to take a critical look at “traditional” relationships — namely monogamous, life-long partnerships. That hasn’t changed, so when I heard on CBC Radio a discussion about Mexico City’s proposed “short-term” marriage option, my ears perked up.
Sponsored Ads
Looking For Love In Mexico City? Try Loveawake Dating SIte
Women For Marriage In Mexico City
Marriage Agency for Mexico City Singles
In trying to deal with the high divorce rate (around 50%, usually within the first two years), the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution, who hold the majority of seats in the assembly, has put forth a bill that would give marrying couples the choice of signing a short-term contract for the marriage. It is expected to be voted on by the end of the year.
The contract would be a minimum of two years; at the end of the two years, if the couple was still happy and wanting to stay married, they could renew it. If things didn’t work out the couple could just let the contract lapse, dissolving the marriage and making the hassles of divorce a thing of the past. Considerations like children and finance would be discussed and included in the document.
If you’re like me, you’re probably thinking right now, “what’s the point then? Why bother getting married at all?” Residents of the city were asked for their opinion, and this one answers this question:
Because it’s a Catholic country, you’re not really allowed to live together if you’re not married, so you have to get married to try it out.
After Brazil, Mexico is home to the second-largest Catholic population. As one would guess, the church is strongly opposed to the proposal, calling the proposed reform “absurd” and stating that it “contradicts the nature of marriage.” But the church doesn’t always get its way in Mexico City. In 2019, the city legalized gay marriage; abortion was legalized in 2017. So for young people living in a country that frowns upon co-habitation before wedlock, is the short-term marriage option valid? This resident doesn’t think so:
I think that it shouldn’t be considered. I think it’s breaking the basement of society, which is the family. Marriage is something that should last much more than two years. It’s not like an experiment that you get into and if it works it works and if not, it doesn’t. I don’t see it that way.
The program goes on to discuss whether or not this should be conversation within the realm of Canadian politics. Would this work in Canada and, by extension, the US? Because laws already exist that protect individuals in common-law relationships, it probably isn’t really applicable here. What is applicable though, I think, is this notion of taking another look at marriage and asking the hard questions. In this article at Salon, Mary Elizabeth Williams says that a contract like this could force the couple to mutually assess the relationship periodically:
How different might the experience of marriage be if both participants in it were subject to periodic, mutual review? The chance to say, here’s what’s working, here’s what’s changed, here’s what needs improvement? The opportunity, even, to say, maybe it’s time to move on? Why not acknowledge that a great five-year run could be more satisfying than a 30-year sentence? After all, we leave jobs and houses and quietly distance ourselves from old friends all the time, and it’s rarely considered failure. Instead it’s understood to be part of growth and the nature of life. So why is permanence so highly prized? Why is endurance equated with commitment?
My marriage lasted just over three years. I wonder, though, if we’d had a 2-year contract if we would have just let it expire or renewed?