For comparison purposes, what is the typical length of other similar contracts? For example, say two companies wanted a contract for their business arrangement, would that typically have an expiration date? Is so, how often would it need renewed? I don't know enough about contract law, and of course there are differences between a contract between businesses and a contract for domestic partnership. But it might be interesting to compare the two.
Reading this brought up a funny thought. Many business contracts have two things in them that would have an interesting translation into the world of relationships. One is the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA), where you sign that you will not reveal or use anything you learn that isn't common knowledge outside the relationship. The other is a non-compete clause where it basically says you can't try to win similar work from my customers during the relationship and a short period afterwards.
I can see it now. After the breakup. You can't talk about how I snore and drool in bed. We have a signed legally binding NDA as part of our relationship agreement. And no way can you date Greg. He's part of our social circle and our non-complete clause clearly states friends and acquaintances are off limits for a period of a year unless signed permission is given by the other party, and I'm not signing for you to run off with Greg, who I know you've been flirting with behind my back!
While the idea of a defined term marriage would have helped me with last marriage, I don't like the idea. I'm fine with the idea of a term relationship contract that provides some basic legal rites, such as first line of inheritance, visitation rites at hospitals and other places where it is restricted to family and the power of attorney if the other is incapacitated, but it shouldn't have the weight of a full marriage and I wouldn't give it the same tax benefits as a full marriage. If something like this was in place, I would provide a framework for it to be upgraded to a fully committed marriage, especially if children come into the picture.
My ex-wife and I didn't have kids and I doubt we would have divorced if we did. While I certainly believe in the ability to divorce, I mean I exercised it, there should be a higher threshold when kids are involved. Perhaps not a legally defined higher threshold, but I would hope that couples with children would take the impact to the children into account. while I say this, I know there are times that divorce with kids is the right thing to do. My father was abusive and I wonder if some of the social problems I struggle with would be less if mom had parted ways with him when I was young. I'm sure she thought about it at times.
As for the original topic, I think any two people of legal age to enter into a contract should be allowed to enter into a contract of marriage. This may exclude close family, but I'm not sure I'd even put that exception in. As for whether it is called "marriage" or "civil union" I don't care as long as it's called the same thing for everyone by the government.
I use to be in the camp that said call gay marriages civil unions as marriage is a religious term, but I've come to realize that there are two problems with that. First, it sets up a separate, but equal situation where you say homosexuals have their separate category for a committed relationship. History has shown that separate, but equal is never really equal. The second is that marriage is a totally religious institution that should be controlled by the church/temple/etc... Who can marry, when the can marry and the terms of marriage have been controlled by the government through out the ages. Often the government placed heavier restrictions on who can marry than most religious institutions. A religious organization isn't allowed to officially marry anyone who the government says can't marry. Oh they can hold a ceremony and call it marriage and treat the relationship as a marriage inside the church/temple,etc... But, it isn't considered a marriage by the government nor the society at large. Marriage is as much or a government institution than a religious one.
One last thought on this since it has come up in the thread. I would limit "marriage" to two people. I have no problem with poly-amorous relationships, but there are parts of the legal framework that is setup around marriage that fall apart or just become too complex when you extend it to more than two people. I don't have a problem recognizing these relationships, but I think a legal framework would need to be constructed for them that fits a situation where more than two people are involved.
