By: Daniel Nardini
Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) legislators in Mexico City are proposing a new law that will limit marriage to two years. Their reasoning is that the institution of marriage has become “unrealistic” in the 21st Century and that the legal ramifications for divorce and custody of children has become an expensive, drawn-out process. So in order to rectify this they are proposing that marriages should be for a stipulation of two years and that such two year contract marriages can be renewed for another two years. Also, custody for any future children would be part of the contract and all other financial matters would be settled in such marriage contracts. PRD legislators say this will save Mexico City millions of pesos. As one might guess, the Roman Catholic Church is against the idea. The Church states that marriage is a sacred act and that this type of proposed law would make a “mockery” of it.
Like in Mexico, a lot of people in the United States are debating what marriage is in this day of age and what relevance it has. There are those in America, like in Mexico, who propose that marriage be more of a legal partnership with all parameters of who gets what clearly defined. Yes, others propose that marriages or partnerships be a time limited union between two people (although many do not define whether that legal union is between a man and woman or not), and all children from previous marriages or unions have all legal rights. The concept of what is an acceptable marriage or union is not a new idea. Going back to the Soviet Union in the 1920’s before the rise of dictator Joseph Stalin, gays had full rights as equal Soviet citizens and common law marriages were accepted alongside legal civil marriages. In the Soviet Union of the time legal separation was common with no stigmas attached. Radical concepts of what should be allowed is not new, and just as equally conservative views of what is an acceptable marriage influences who and what we are.
Whether the PRD in Mexico City will be able to pass such a law—as they have a law fully recognizing gay marriages—remains to be seen. Like the debate about gay marriage, partnerships, whether marriage means only a man and a woman or not, and what is a “family,” it is all a sign of our times.
“I Do…..For Now”
By: Daniel Nardini
Like in Mexico, a lot of people in the United States are debating what marriage is in this day of age and what relevance it has. There are those in America, like in Mexico, who propose that marriage be more of a legal partnership with all parameters of who gets what clearly defined. Yes, others propose that marriages or partnerships be a time limited union between two people (although many do not define whether that legal union is between a man and woman or not), and all children from previous marriages or unions have all legal rights. The concept of what is an acceptable marriage or union is not a new idea. Going back to the Soviet Union in the 1920’s before the rise of dictator Joseph Stalin, gays had full rights as equal Soviet citizens and common law marriages were accepted alongside legal civil marriages. In the Soviet Union of the time legal separation was common with no stigmas attached. Radical concepts of what should be allowed is not new, and just as equally conservative views of what is an acceptable marriage influences who and what we are.
Whether the PRD in Mexico City will be able to pass such a law—as they have a law fully recognizing gay marriages—remains to be seen. Like the debate about gay marriage, partnerships, whether marriage means only a man and a woman or not, and what is a “family,” it is all a sign of our times.