Twice-divorced Bavarian politician Gabrielle Pauli has had an idea.
More from ireland.com."Many marriages last just because people believe they are safe... My suggestion is that marriages should expire after seven years."
After that time, she said, out-of-love couples could walk away from each other, sparing "financial and emotional heartache". Still-in-love couples could say "I do" for another seven-year round.
What do the doyens of politics.ie think?
Nothing will motivate the lazy / apathetic / Americanised / west-British types to embrace their culture and the Irish language.
Surely she is taking ‘the seven year itch’ urge far too literally !
One of the functions of marriage is to provide a long-term stable partnership for the benefit of children of the marriage. Unfortunately human offspring take a long long time to mature - when compared to other animals. It takes at least 16-18 years before they are independent enough to leave the nest. (unfortunately, given the price of houses in Ireland that figure can double).*sigh*
A recurring seven year realignment of marriage would certainly not be in the best interest of any offspring and could lead to secondary societal problems.
Can't see it working here....
This is not the first time that fixed-term marriage arrangements have been suggested, in fact they were in existance in Ireland prior to Common Law.
Under Brehon law, long ago people were married for a year and a day. At the end of the year and a day marriage they could decide whether they wanted to continue for another year and a day contract. As there was no CSO at the time, figures do not exist for the take-up of contract renewals....
The cause of Labour is the cause of Ireland, the cause of Ireland is the cause of Labour. They cannot be dissevered.
Would banks and building societies adjust their loan arrangements accordingly to take account of the conditionality of partnerships ?
Allowing polygamy would be another solution... But my lovely missus says she doesn't want any more husbands.
While it's not exactly what one would expect from a "Christian Socialist", I think Gabriele Pauli's proposals are a step in the right direction. They're an attempt to bring our antiquated marriage laws into the 21st Century and cater to the fact that we do not live in a homogenous culture.
Ideally, of course, we would have no State involvement whatsoever in marital affairs. I.e. no civil marriage law. It becomes another vehicle for encroaching Statism and is open to manipulation by lobby groups, etc.
Then you obviously don't agree with no-fault divorce as it has virtually the same effect of making marriage temporary and allowing people to dissolve it without consequence.A recurring seven year realignment of marriage would certainly not be in the best interest of any offspring and could lead to secondary societal problems.
No-fault divorce has been accepted here in Ireland quite well by most sections of society. It has proven quite popular with 1 in 6 marriages now ending in divorce.Can't see it working here....
In many developed countries, the majority of new marriages do not make it to 7 years anyway, on account of high divorce rates. So in that sense, with rates of over 50% in the West, why do we continue to pretend that Catholic marriage/feminist no-fault divorce makes sense? Is it not obvious that its not serving its initial purpose?
The problem with Pauli's proposals I think, for many people, is that they are too close to the truth. No-one wants to admit that we live in such a "temporary committment" culture already. And there are a large amount of people who benefit, financially and otherwise, from the no-fault divorce status quo.
Marxists, Feminists and Leftists operate on the basis of "liberating tolerance" - i.e. their ideas should be tolerated, and any opposition should be suppressed.
While we're tinkering with the provisions of Marriage shouldn't we also add in a Guarantee ? There should be some sort of central warehouse where you can get spare parts when bits wear out or break and from where you can call out marital engineers for regular "services" if you find fault.
These already exist..Originally Posted by seanad voter
While we're tinkering with the provisions of Marriage shouldn't we also add in a Guarantee ? There should be some sort of central warehouse where you can get spare parts when bits wear out or break and from where you can call out marital engineers for regular "services" if you find fault.
they are called plastic surgeons (still expensive but coming down in price)
and
Marriage counsellors (for cheap free counselling)
1,197 people agree with me.. how many agree with you ?
It gives an idea of the standard of debate in the current US president election when you consider that one of the more clued-in republican candidates (ie, compared to the one who wanted to bomb 'mecah' but didn't know what Mecca is! The one who thinks holding a census should be banned, or the one who thinks Winston Churchill was the first prime minister of Israel!) said some months ago "in France . . . I'm told that marriage is now frequently contracted in seven years terms where either party may move on when their term is up." And this guy, Mitt Romney, is one of the brighter sparks. (The dumbest is someone who wanted to "derecognise Communist China" and recognise the "Republic of China" (Taiwan), cutting off all business ties with one of the world's biggest markets!)
Bodes ill for the future, doesn't it.
How did this happen? Lincon wasn't an idiot, hell, even Bush 41 wasn't that bad.
A poster of some consequence...
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote