clovenhooves The Personal Is Political General Discussion Interesting idea from an Ovarite: what if marriage contracts had to be renewed periodically?

Discussion Interesting idea from an Ovarite: what if marriage contracts had to be renewed periodically?

Discussion Interesting idea from an Ovarite: what if marriage contracts had to be renewed periodically?

 Print Thread
 
Shroom
Find
33
Mar 6 2025, 8:47 AM
#1
Source: u/Dressed2K1ll

This is such a cool idea imo, I can't really think of any downsides either! Like, of course it couldn't solve every abusive marriage since controlling husbands unfortunately have many different methods that would prevent their wives from escaping (or wanting to :( ...god it sucks to think about), but that's sadly already happening even without this being an option but some women who are currently trapped and want to get out could escape with this. And surely (hopefully) they'd set up the renewal in a way where wives suffering abuse could privately tell someone about it who could contact a support org to free her from the relationship. 

I guess thinking on it, it's still not completely flawless. Of course it'd amp up the "why didn't she just leave? 🧐" whinging which already happens now. Plus it's definitely possible/likely this being an option could enrage abusive husbands and they'd escalate their abuse on their wives in the time leading up to the decision... And even with a set up where women would be free to ask someone for help privately, this still wouldn't work for women whose male partners (and male supremacist society) have abused and manipulated so badly they don't even want to leave, especially unmarried women and girls who wouldn't even have this option in the first place... Maybe we should add ideas to help those women to the discussion, too. Wish I had some myself :(

But I'd love to discuss renewable marriage licenses more and hear your gyns' thoughts! I think it's very interesting to think about as an option for "the next step after legalizing no-fault divorce" in a sense!
Reply
Reply
Shroom
Mar 6 2025, 8:47 AM #1

Source: u/Dressed2K1ll

This is such a cool idea imo, I can't really think of any downsides either! Like, of course it couldn't solve every abusive marriage since controlling husbands unfortunately have many different methods that would prevent their wives from escaping (or wanting to :( ...god it sucks to think about), but that's sadly already happening even without this being an option but some women who are currently trapped and want to get out could escape with this. And surely (hopefully) they'd set up the renewal in a way where wives suffering abuse could privately tell someone about it who could contact a support org to free her from the relationship. 

I guess thinking on it, it's still not completely flawless. Of course it'd amp up the "why didn't she just leave? 🧐" whinging which already happens now. Plus it's definitely possible/likely this being an option could enrage abusive husbands and they'd escalate their abuse on their wives in the time leading up to the decision... And even with a set up where women would be free to ask someone for help privately, this still wouldn't work for women whose male partners (and male supremacist society) have abused and manipulated so badly they don't even want to leave, especially unmarried women and girls who wouldn't even have this option in the first place... Maybe we should add ideas to help those women to the discussion, too. Wish I had some myself :(

But I'd love to discuss renewable marriage licenses more and hear your gyns' thoughts! I think it's very interesting to think about as an option for "the next step after legalizing no-fault divorce" in a sense!

Reply
Reply
Elsacat
Find
253
Mar 6 2025, 10:24 AM
#2
I think this is the way. Most marriages aren't going to last the couple's lifetime. Make the default that you have to put effort to keep the marriage going, rather than to end it.
Reply
Reply
Elsacat
Mar 6 2025, 10:24 AM #2

I think this is the way. Most marriages aren't going to last the couple's lifetime. Make the default that you have to put effort to keep the marriage going, rather than to end it.

Reply
Reply
Possum
angry lesbian 🌈
Find
86
Mar 6 2025, 11:41 AM
#3
I think this is a good idea. Additionally, every 5 years as part of the renewal process there should be a discussion with a lawyer about how things will be split if she wants to walk away instead of renew. It should get laid out explicitly in plain English what the woman can expect with child support, alimony, division of assets, etc.

I think the bureaucracy of divorce keeps many women trapped in abusive marriages. It's hard to even consider leaving if her mindset is "well I can't afford to.". Abusive men will lie and threaten her with financial destitution if she leaves, so she may not even know that she's legally entitled to certain support or certain division of property (ie abusive husband may tell her the house is in his name and therefore she gets nothing, but in my area at least marital home is divided equally regardless of who is on the deed.). Some women are genuinely trapped in marriages for financial reasons, but I think most them are technically able to leave but just FEEL trapped because they don't understand what they are/are not entitled to. Every 5 years, she should get advice from a qualified professional of how things will likely be divided in a divorce to make sure she has accurate information and not just a bunch of lies from Nigel and inaccurate Reddit legal advice.
Reply
Reply
Possum
angry lesbian 🌈
Mar 6 2025, 11:41 AM #3

I think this is a good idea. Additionally, every 5 years as part of the renewal process there should be a discussion with a lawyer about how things will be split if she wants to walk away instead of renew. It should get laid out explicitly in plain English what the woman can expect with child support, alimony, division of assets, etc.

I think the bureaucracy of divorce keeps many women trapped in abusive marriages. It's hard to even consider leaving if her mindset is "well I can't afford to.". Abusive men will lie and threaten her with financial destitution if she leaves, so she may not even know that she's legally entitled to certain support or certain division of property (ie abusive husband may tell her the house is in his name and therefore she gets nothing, but in my area at least marital home is divided equally regardless of who is on the deed.). Some women are genuinely trapped in marriages for financial reasons, but I think most them are technically able to leave but just FEEL trapped because they don't understand what they are/are not entitled to. Every 5 years, she should get advice from a qualified professional of how things will likely be divided in a divorce to make sure she has accurate information and not just a bunch of lies from Nigel and inaccurate Reddit legal advice.

Reply
Reply
ILoveKaleJustSoDangMuch
Find
5
Mar 6 2025, 12:52 PM
#4
I remember hearing this same idea pitched by a blowhard rightwing radio host like 15 years ago. He's a bitter divorced guy (and still on the air) and suggested it as an easy way to leave a marriage and avoid the stress of filing for divorce.

That's not to say it's an inherently bad idea just because people with (presumably) diametrically opposed views independently came up with it. I just thought it was kind of interesting. And for what it's worth, I think it could be a good idea. I wonder if this kind of setup would potentially cause issues for immigrant spouses though, like creating a bargaining chip for the citizen spouse to hang over the immigrant spouse's head and potentially keep them trapped or otherwise control them.
Reply
Reply
ILoveKaleJustSoDangMuch
Mar 6 2025, 12:52 PM #4

I remember hearing this same idea pitched by a blowhard rightwing radio host like 15 years ago. He's a bitter divorced guy (and still on the air) and suggested it as an easy way to leave a marriage and avoid the stress of filing for divorce.

That's not to say it's an inherently bad idea just because people with (presumably) diametrically opposed views independently came up with it. I just thought it was kind of interesting. And for what it's worth, I think it could be a good idea. I wonder if this kind of setup would potentially cause issues for immigrant spouses though, like creating a bargaining chip for the citizen spouse to hang over the immigrant spouse's head and potentially keep them trapped or otherwise control them.

Reply
Reply
ShameMustChangeSides
Find
55
Mar 6 2025, 1:40 PM
#5
After my divorce I thought it was a brilliant idea. As conservatives love to say, "you have to choose your partner every day, work for your marriage over and over." So if marriage isn't a default state and has to be a positively asserted choice, why isn't it renewable and will expire if one party is not proving to be a satisfactory legal partner? It would free so many women who are afraid of the divorce process (I get anxious just thinking about if I ever had to go through it again, it sucked ass).

But I'm pretty sure men would find a way to weaponize this, like if a woman doesn't "renew the contract" she gets nothing or some shit.
Edited Mar 6 2025, 1:41 PM by ShameMustChangeSides.
Reply
Reply
ShameMustChangeSides
Mar 6 2025, 1:40 PM #5

After my divorce I thought it was a brilliant idea. As conservatives love to say, "you have to choose your partner every day, work for your marriage over and over." So if marriage isn't a default state and has to be a positively asserted choice, why isn't it renewable and will expire if one party is not proving to be a satisfactory legal partner? It would free so many women who are afraid of the divorce process (I get anxious just thinking about if I ever had to go through it again, it sucked ass).

But I'm pretty sure men would find a way to weaponize this, like if a woman doesn't "renew the contract" she gets nothing or some shit.

Reply
Reply
Chernobog
Find
19
Mar 7 2025, 9:15 AM
#6
Like, as a stopover step to abolishing marriage entirely? Yeah, sure. If managed correctly, it could make a lot of people who think marriage is just what "responsible people who love each other" do realise that this is an inherently icky transactional thing, and, like Possum said, make more women aware of their rights within that contract. We treat marriage a lot like pregnancy and mothering: it's just what women want, it's what's good for us, no one will lay it out for you what specifically goes on and what could go wrong, here are some sparkly fun keys to wave at the baby-woman to distract her from any questions or criticisms. Your husband (or, in "progressive" places, wife) looooooves you! You don't need to worry about what this contract legally entitles him to, because at least you're getting something, and also love!

I do not think this has the power to do much for women in abusive situations or coercive circumstances like immigration (it may, in fact, make green card marriages much more difficult, which gives me pause as someone who is disabled and having to seriously consider such things in case I can avoid inevitable homelessness, not that I believe this would ever be something adopted globally). However, the majority of women are not in life-threatening circumstances from which they desperately need an escape. This could very well erode the broad acceptance of a system that can easily create such circumstances (as evidenced by those poll results, yeesh) and create more awareness among all women that this institution was never designed to benefit us, and when it does, it's because we fought for our right to have crumbs, and then in some places, scraps. And, kind of to OP's point, marriage reforms are nice, but they only benefit women who are married, and are generally made under the premise that most women will get married (and, to an extent, that all women SHOULD get married). I think breaking the rose coloured glasses here is important, possibly mandatory, but personally it's hard to get hyped about this kind of stuff because us Emily Dickinson types CAN'T benefit from it. My material conditions stay the same, and the compromise I have to make to escape them becomes shooting my foot off with a shotgun rather than hacking away at it with a butter knife.
Reply
Reply
Chernobog
Mar 7 2025, 9:15 AM #6

Like, as a stopover step to abolishing marriage entirely? Yeah, sure. If managed correctly, it could make a lot of people who think marriage is just what "responsible people who love each other" do realise that this is an inherently icky transactional thing, and, like Possum said, make more women aware of their rights within that contract. We treat marriage a lot like pregnancy and mothering: it's just what women want, it's what's good for us, no one will lay it out for you what specifically goes on and what could go wrong, here are some sparkly fun keys to wave at the baby-woman to distract her from any questions or criticisms. Your husband (or, in "progressive" places, wife) looooooves you! You don't need to worry about what this contract legally entitles him to, because at least you're getting something, and also love!

I do not think this has the power to do much for women in abusive situations or coercive circumstances like immigration (it may, in fact, make green card marriages much more difficult, which gives me pause as someone who is disabled and having to seriously consider such things in case I can avoid inevitable homelessness, not that I believe this would ever be something adopted globally). However, the majority of women are not in life-threatening circumstances from which they desperately need an escape. This could very well erode the broad acceptance of a system that can easily create such circumstances (as evidenced by those poll results, yeesh) and create more awareness among all women that this institution was never designed to benefit us, and when it does, it's because we fought for our right to have crumbs, and then in some places, scraps. And, kind of to OP's point, marriage reforms are nice, but they only benefit women who are married, and are generally made under the premise that most women will get married (and, to an extent, that all women SHOULD get married). I think breaking the rose coloured glasses here is important, possibly mandatory, but personally it's hard to get hyped about this kind of stuff because us Emily Dickinson types CAN'T benefit from it. My material conditions stay the same, and the compromise I have to make to escape them becomes shooting my foot off with a shotgun rather than hacking away at it with a butter knife.

Reply
Reply
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Find
789
Mar 7 2025, 2:51 PM
#7
I agree with Chernobog, especially with the first bit about how the only way I'd see this being useful is if it's a step towards the abolition of marriage (with the caveat that there are proper social safety nets in place to make marriage obsolete before this abolition happens).

I also agree that I don't think this would do much to improve a lot of situations where women are being abused by their marriage partner. I think men, instead of holding the threat of divorce over the womens' heads, would just start being threatening and manipulative around the time the 5-year renewal period comes up. And then it seems like there would be more shaming of the woman of "if he's so bad why did you keep renewing the marriage?" So in this sense, the 5-year renewal requirement doesn't really resolve the problem of men being abusive towards women, it just kind of tries to half-heartedly fix it. It doesn't get to the root of the problem.

"The powers that be" would in no way be interested in such a marriage renewal concept, in the same way they are trying to repeal no fault divorce, in the same way that they don't want social safety nets for women to not need to be dependent on men ("your husband will take care of you").
Reply
Reply
Clover
Kozlik's regular account 🍀🐐
Mar 7 2025, 2:51 PM #7

I agree with Chernobog, especially with the first bit about how the only way I'd see this being useful is if it's a step towards the abolition of marriage (with the caveat that there are proper social safety nets in place to make marriage obsolete before this abolition happens).

I also agree that I don't think this would do much to improve a lot of situations where women are being abused by their marriage partner. I think men, instead of holding the threat of divorce over the womens' heads, would just start being threatening and manipulative around the time the 5-year renewal period comes up. And then it seems like there would be more shaming of the woman of "if he's so bad why did you keep renewing the marriage?" So in this sense, the 5-year renewal requirement doesn't really resolve the problem of men being abusive towards women, it just kind of tries to half-heartedly fix it. It doesn't get to the root of the problem.

"The powers that be" would in no way be interested in such a marriage renewal concept, in the same way they are trying to repeal no fault divorce, in the same way that they don't want social safety nets for women to not need to be dependent on men ("your husband will take care of you").

Reply
Reply
 Print Thread
Recently Browsing
 1 Guest(s)
Recently Browsing
 1 Guest(s)