Is The Marriage Vow Flawed ?

[khairyexpat]

I know that we go into marriage willfully with own volition, but the hype and excitement at the time might play down and omit a reminder to the liability and consequences. Not a word in the vow.

Should the vow include just one short sentence to remind the parties?

Just like reading Miranda Rights.

 

[camberiu]

I think for the husband of these two chicks, the vows worked out great.

Polygamist women dressed 'like ninjas' attack home of witness in Utah sex assault case

 

[Girino]

What hype and excitement?! All that stress to handle the event correctly with family and friends, plus organizing the ceremony, the dresses, the flower, the church, the invites, the presents, the catering, the transport...
Is not like you marry in Vegas on a alcohol craze...

Someone please get him a mujer!

 

[khairyexpat]

Someone please get him a mujer!

Huh !!! ... Que? .. Donde? .. Cuando? .. Como? .. Cual? .. Quien? !!!!! .... paka .. paka ... aqui estoy.

If I get one, ... I´ll cancel my demands for the change in the vow..
I´ll callame ... y no quejo mas.
And will live happily ever after.

 

[Girino]

Pobrecito...

Go to a milonga, meet some nice woman, have fun!

 

[Chet]

I married in Switzerland, the vow was all about the actual contract.
Marriage is in truth about 2 things that have been badly co-mingled.
There is the contract, a specific thing where the state in which you marry is like a third party to the contract that specifies all sorts of terms (which are subject to change at the whim of the sate)
And then a religious vow of some sort.
In some places this is very clear since there must actually be 2 separate ceremonies, in others they are co-mingled such that the state contract part gets lost.

Last few years I have been wondering why the state needs to get itself in these contracts, I don't have any good answers but I do like the idea of separating the functions to make it clear is a good one.

 

[sergio]

I married in Switzerland, the vow was all about the actual contract.
Marriage is in truth about 2 things that have been badly co-mingled.
There is the contract, a specific thing where the state in which you marry is like a third party to the contract that specifies all sorts of terms (which are subject to change at the whim of the sate)
And then a religious vow of some sort.
In some places this is very clear since there must actually be 2 separate ceremonies, in others they are co-mingled such that the state contract part gets lost.

Last few years I have been wondering why the state needs to get itself in these contracts, I don't have any good answers but I do like the idea of separating the functions to make it clear is a good one.

It would be better if the state were out of the marriage business. Leave that for the churches, synagogues etc. The state should recognize a civil union, not a marriage. Full legal rights should be extended to civil unions, the same as with current marriage laws. Had this been done in Argentina there would not have been nearly as much controversy. The same can be said for the US. It is the redefinition of marriage that bothers a lot of people. They consider marriage a religious institution.

 

[khairyexpat]

How about having a ¨Marriage Insurance Business¨, similar to car 3rd party liability Insurance. Real ¨no fault¨ law.

Both parties agree on what and how they contribute into it. All clear from day one.

No one has to wait till retired and old, to get an unplanned unexpected unprepared, ..... unrecoverable savage blow to a life time blood sweat and tears. That is not a ¨no fault¨. 50% of a life time is the most cruel maximum punishment for all the fault.

God does not guarantee any one to live the next minute, yet the state feels free to guarantee the life style of one party for the rest of his/her life on the expense of the other party.

 

[Crema Americana]

Well the "'till death due us part" really is a load of BS.

A more realistic vow would be "until I get tired of your shit."

 

[ajoknoblauch]

It would be better if the state were out of the marriage business. Leave that for the churches, synagogues etc. The state should recognize a civil union, not a marriage. Full legal rights should be extended to civil unions, the same as with current marriage laws. Had this been done in Argentina there would not have been nearly as much controversy. The same can be said for the US. It is the redefinition of marriage that bothers a lot of people. They consider marriage a religious institution.

Getting rid of marriage (and the religious institutions that promote it) would be a better idea. Actually, it doesn't matter what you call it, so long as it's an enforceable civil contract.