The paradox of marriage..

[Ember]

I never signed any contract when I was married. I just took an oath, one that I and my wife have kept.

As someone now dealing with visa rights related to ancestry, I must say that the legal contract is very important. I have had to go back and obtain my grandmothers birth and marriage documents and I'm very, very glad it was a legal marriage with associated contracts. While I think there is much more to a marriage, the legal aspects matter, and can continue to matter long afterwards.

As to contradictions, I think most people enter a marriage intending to do their best and most feel it will be a lifetime. It may not work out that way, but that doesn't change the intention.

The only time I've ever scoffed at someones vows was at my father's fourth wedding. It was his fourth and her third, and at one point my cousin leaned over and quietly wondered if God actually believed either them anymore, because no one else did. I wish them both well, but no one expects it to last.

 

[EMom]

Absolutes like that tend to change when there is a shotgun in your face. I went into my first marriage believing in forever. Then I thanked God my daughter and I got out alive.

As I said, there are a few....a very few, reasons I would end a marriage. Abuse is one. Abuse of my child....I might just skip divorce and end him.

 

[Money82]

And OP, do you realize that many, many people DO NOT say those vows to begin with?

I know that people add their own vows but I thought the "till death do us part" phrase was pretty standard.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I know that people add their own vows but I thought the "till death do us part" phrase was pretty standard.

Off hand, I'd guess it has been included in about half the weddings I have been to. Lots of people write their own things and don't really do any of the traditional stuff. It certainly is not required.

 

[TinkerBelled]

Because they mean it at the time they say it, and tradition, which is important to many people. But then life happens. Do you think they should take the line out because divorce is an option, so why promise at all?
If we went with that logic, why would a law emforcement officer take an oath to uphold the law, if the option to break the law is there. Or why should a solider take an oath to protect the country since the option of treason or desertion is always there. Or why should a jury. A politician, or a doctor take an oath?

Money, if you really want to be strictly logical about something that isn't mere logic, the above is something to consider.

Secondly, just on a contractual level, the contract is until death. Divorce is merely a term for the breaking of the marriage contract. The importance is the good intent of the parties making the contract, not that some contracts are later dissolved.

There is no such thing as an unbreakable contract (unless you live in the wizarding world of Harry Potter). That does not mean that All Contracts in the History of the World are thus somehow flawed--or that no contracts should ever me made again.

Let's say you and I sign a contract: you will provide me with 50 sacks of peas a month, I will pay you $100. Later, you run out of peas or I run out of money. Unless you signed that contract knowing that your peas were withering on the vine or I signed it knowing that I was broke, it was a perfectly valid and ethical contract at the time of its signing, regardless of future events.

(Now I am imagining my husband as a pea farmer, and I have the giggles.)

 

[Disney Doll]

I have considered alternate view points but, IMO, reason should outweigh sentiments.

well then you're not going to understand what those of us who are married "till death do us part" are saying, so the conversation is moot. You have your opinion. We have ours. Your not changing our mind. We're not changing yours.

 

[Money82]

Let's say you and I sign a contract: you will provide me with 50 sacks of peas a month, I will pay you $100. Later, you run out of peas or I run out of money. Unless you signed that contract knowing that your peas were withering on the vine or I signed it knowing that I was broke, it was a perfectly valid and ethical contract at the time of its signing, regardless of future events.

That's not an at will contract, marriage is. In your example, both you and the pea farmer are contractually obligated to deliver upon the stated terms. If you fail to deliver payment, the pea farmer can take you to court and will win. If the pea farmer fails to deliver his bounty, you can take him to court and will win.

There is no contractual obligation in marriage. If I'm married to you, and you fart several times during one night, I could simply wake up the next morning and decide I no longer want to be married to a habitual farter. Therefore the contract really isn't "until death" as you put it. It's until either spouse decides they've had enough, which may or may not be death itself.

 

[Money82]

well then you're not going to understand what those of us who are married "till death do us part" are saying, so the conversation is moot. You have your opinion. We have ours. Your not changing our mind. We're not changing yours.

Indeed we may have differing opinions. However, despite what one's opinion may be, marriage is still a paradox.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

What even made you think about this?

I hope everything is okay in your marriage.

 

[Money82]

What even made you think about this?

I hope everything is okay in your marriage.

What marriage?

 

[NHdisneylover]

I admit that I have not been particularly close to very many couples whose marriages have ended in divorces, but from the ones I know about it is never as simple as what you are saying.

I've never heard of one spouse saying "OK, well, I've changed my mind now and don't want to do this anymore" and the other just shrugging and saying "OK, see ya"

There are always lawyers, in or out of court, and a negotiation process that handles all the legal things and basically eventually comes to an agreement (or court ordered one when needed) of terms for breaking the "contract"

I do not see that as all that different, really (on the legal side of things) as legal agreements drawn up when one or the other party of any other contract no longer can or will fufill their obligations going forward. Happens all the time.

 

[ronandannette]

I admit that I have not been particularly close to very many couples whose marriages have ended in divorces, but from the ones I know about it is never as simple as what you are saying.

I've never heard of one spouse saying "OK, well, I've changed my mind now and don't want to do this anymore" and the other just shrugging and saying "OK, see ya"

There are always lawyers, in or out of court, and a negotiation process that handles all the legal things and basically eventually comes to an agreement (or court ordered one when needed) of terms for breaking the "contract"

I do not see that as all that different, really (on the legal side of things) as legal agreements drawn up when one or the other party of any other contract no longer can or will fufill their obligations going forward. Happens all the time.

It's never simple but when you boil it down, the bolded is exactly how it happens. And by that time, the actual terms of the contract or "covenant" have been broken, usually many times over. Most people still use some version of "love, honour and cherish" in their vows. Those are promises too - and what marriage breaks up while the terms are still intact? But unlike many (if not most) legal agreements, a marriage contract doesn't have specify grounds for termination or the remedies available to one party if the other fails to perform contained within it. I guess that's why (prior to the advent of no-fault divorces) one spouse had to "sue" the other for what amounts to breech of contract as well as "prove" their case to a judge who would then either "grant or deny" the dissolution of the contract and award any "damages" (settlement).

Although this is an interesting topic to discuss, I'm among those that are wondering what got the OP grinding this particular axe.

 

[Money82]

Although this is an interesting topic to discuss, I'm among those that are wondering what got the OP grinding this particular axe.

As stated in the OP, I was having a discussion with a friend. Basically friend doesn't believe in marriage at all and they were poking fun at the fact that people say "till death do us part" in for an at will, terminable contract.

 

[lovemygoofy]

It's never simple but when you boil it down, the bolded is exactly how it happens. And by that time, the actual terms of the contract or "covenant" have been broken, usually many times over. Most people still use some version of "love, honour and cherish" in their vows. Those are promises too - and what marriage breaks up while the terms are still intact? But unlike many (if not most) legal agreements, a marriage contract doesn't have specify grounds for termination or the remedies available to one party if the other fails to perform contained within it. I guess that's why (prior to the advent of no-fault divorces) one spouse had to "sue" the other for what amounts to breech of contract as well as "prove" their case to a judge who would then either "grant or deny" the dissolution of the contract and award any "damages" (settlement).

Although this is an interesting topic to discuss, I'm among those that are wondering what got the OP grinding this particular axe.

It was a verbatim conversation had on TMZ night before last. The host, Harvey, was going on and on about marriage being nothing more than contract and why have the whole thing about "until death" because marriage is nothing more than a contract that can be broken at any time as need be.

 

[diznygirl]

It was a verbatim conversation had on TMZ night before last. The host, Harvey, was going on and on about marriage being nothing more than contract and why have the whole thing about "until death" because marriage is nothing more than a contract that can be broken at any time as need be.

So the OP is Charles and his friend is Harvey?

 

[ZephyrHawk]

The answer to this is simple.

Marriage is a contractual arrangement, acknowledged by the applicable government, and certified with a piece of paper that is witnessed and recorded. Like all contractual arrangements, it can be terminated by one or more of the parties.

When people say, "To death do us part" they are participating in a religious ceremony which has no legal significance. The punishment for going against such vows is between the vow maker and his or her "maker" - provided of course, that the latter exists.

 

[SirDuff]

I'm not seeing the paradox. Even if one agrees that saying "until death do us part" is disingenuous or hypocritical, given the ability to get a divorce, I'm not seeing the paradox.

 

[Disney Doll]

Indeed we may have differing opinions. However, despite what one's opinion may be, marriage is still a paradox.

Not to me. I understand it perfectly.
I am thrilled to be married to the love of my life.
I am thrilled to have said "till death do us part" because I meant it then and I mean it now.

Perhaps if you meet the right person to marry, you'll understand it better.

 

[marlynnp]

marriage paradox

 

[Money82]

Not to me. I understand it perfectly.
I am thrilled to be married to the love of my life.
I am thrilled to have said "till death do us part" because I meant it then and I mean it now.

Perhaps if you meet the right person to marry, you'll understand it better.

It has nothing to do with finding the right person. Like I said earlier, if I truly meant "Till death do us part," I would find a team of lawyers to create a marriage contract that made it as close to impossible as possible to divorce. That would truly be "Till death do us part," not some utterance that carries no weight in a court of law.