I think this is a fabulous idea:
A controversial politician has shocked Germany by suggesting the so-called “seven-year itch” could be dealt with by limiting marriage contracts to that period.
Twice-divorced Gabriele Pauli, who is attempting to become leader of the ultra-conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) [haha!], believes anyone wanting to stay married beyond seven years should have to apply for an extension. The partnership would otherwise be automatically dissolved.
Speaking at the launch of her manifesto, she said: “I firmly believe marriages of the future should be locked in to a time period.
“The basic approach is wrong …many marriages last just because people believe they are safe. My suggestion is that marriages expire after seven years. I know that after this period many marriages reach a crisis point.
“It is false to go around with a notion that marriages are always super and intact.”
“A contract for seven years means you will have to commit for a fixed period and you will have to renew your vows should you want to carry on.”
A politician in the highly Catholic southern state of Bavaria, Gabriele Pauli, has indubitably ruffled some feathers.
But perhaps it is not such a shocking solution: according to recent figures, less than fifty percent of married people in the U.S. will stay together for more than 25 years.
The same census shows that, on average, couples who separate do so after seven years together. Apparently, this is because the human heart starts to ‘crave the forbidden fruit’.
The response of the Catholic Church that:
…a time-limited a marriage agreement is a contradiction in terms because no one enters a marriage with the idea that they will one day split up.
can be viewed as both naive and unrealistic: certainly, many of my single friends talk restlessly about getting married in X country, with Z dress and W as a honeymoon, with very little concern for the marriage itself.
As one flippantly mused, “If it doesn’t work, so what? We can always get divorced!”
Which is why I believe marriage is a dying beast. Sure, there are lovely couples who lope into old age still gazing dewy eyed into each others cataracts, but they are becoming a minority.
Perhaps the nostalgic theory of marriage everlasting should at last be relinquished, with the future of disposable vows being embraced.
Personally, my marriage to my work seems pretty water tight, though a seven-year outlet to pursue other activities – sampling awameh and musakhan from around the globe; test-riding the latest Harleys; learning a musical instrument other than the recorder – would be impossible to refuse…
That’s hilarious. That debate over whether or not people go into marriage with the expectation that it will last forever comes up all the time in conversations over pre-nuptial agreements. One argument is pre-nups are un-romantic. If you make a pre-nup, you are expecting to divorce. I don’t think so at all, it’s just a worst-case scenario. I think you are right about marriage being a dying institution, though, and I don’t necessarily think that’s a bad thing. I don’t think many couples gaze dewily into each other’s eyes well into their eighties and nineties, I think it’s more likely that – as is the case with my grandparents, and the grandparents of many of my friends – they get used to each other and even though they may not like each other anymore, entropy rules.
Caledoniyya, on the topic of Normalization with the zionists don’t bother with Hani. First, he is not jordanian or palestinains. he is one of those mysterious blogs that came out of the blue and started pushing pro-zioists ideas. fact is, he could be an Israeli or indian or american for all we know.
second, he deleted my posts when he could not deal with them. I told him if he zionists are really interested in normalization between arabs and jews, why don’t jews to normalize with neo-nazis and skinheads and all their enemies, before asking us to normalize with zionists.
fact is, he knows jews don’t care to normalize with neo-nazis and skinheads because there is no gain in it from them. but normalizing with arabs means zionists get everything for nothing.
so called Hani deleted this post.
Hello Fadi,
Thank you for your post, though I am publishing it less because I agree with you wholeheartedly, and more because I cannot promote free speech and condemn censorship while exercising tyranny over my own website.
However, while I welcome heated debate concerning matters of politics, religion and culture, I cannot endorse personal attacks on individuals.
Whether Hani is Palestinian, Jordanian, Indian, American, Israeli or from the planet jupiter is irrelevent. I am, myself, not Palestinian nor Jordanian, but love both cultures deeply and would like to believe that my lack of these nationalities does not impinge on my right to support the Palestinians and vocalise my views.
Thus, Hani is entitled to his opinion and while I failed to agree with all his points, I believe he articulated them in a manner to inspire debate. In this he succeeded.
Finally, all blogs come from nowhere. Caledoniyya came from nowhere. It is this very nature of emergence that makes the blogging concept so fruitful and wonderful.
Oncemore, I thank you for your comments, Fadi, and shall look forward to hearing your opinions on future matters.
I think it’s a fabulous idea as well. Here’s my thoughts:
http://worstwriter.wordpress.com/2007/09/23/seven-years-almost-perfect/
-tgs-