Gabriele Pauli (CSU) is for time-limited marriage - Germany

Gabriele Pauli, a CSU politician most decidedly not in Eduard Stoiber’s good books, introduced her campaign platform today at the Löwenbräukeller in Munich. Besides insisting that politics should not only govern the people but serve to make them happy she also suggested a new approach to marriage.

“A marriage should terminate automatically after seven years�, she told attending journalists. “Both partners must actively renew the license if the marriage is to be continued.� Love, she added, is independent from legal shackles, and an instant dissolution saves the costs for a divorce. The seven-year-limit is not necessarily fixed yet, the “best-by� date still needs to be researched, according to Pauli.

Pauli's rebellion against Stoiber's methods of governing Bavaria and Stoiber's attempts at blackguarding her character eventually led to Stoiber's decision to step down as Bavarian Prime Minister end of September 2007.

How very progressive! I'm impressed.

Every day, I wake up with giddy anticipation, and I wonder: "what will be the dumbest idea I’ll hear today?�. I feel that has now been answered.

This is so funny. I have a theory on 5 year marriage contracts and this looks pretty well the same. Not sure I've met her though and 7 is too long.

Interesting idea but I think setting the mark at the 7 Year Itch is a bit risky. Ten years makes more sense and even then I am not convinced. It also puts children at risk as after a few years of marriage both partners (but especially men who can blame it on evolution if they want ) start to think of life in greener pastures. Marriage as a contract protects the financial interest of stay-at-home moms and the children dependant on the economic security provided by the working father. This is not in every case but it is an average.

Before some limit is set on the marriage contract, econmic considerations for the stay at home spouse or spouse earning less who is also going to be taking care of the children (most often the woman)... should be made and a support structure implemented.

In a country with an already declining birthrate and terrible childcare options for working parents...and idea like this is romantically idealistic but economically down-right stupid. It's putting the carte before the horse.

This statement is probably going to draw some dissent. I base my statement on the numerous articles, books, interviews, personal examples, etc..etc..etc..that I have been exposed to. Whether it be Freud, Jung, Sociologist of the 90s, Women's magazines, Playboy or my colleagues... I understand that this statement is not true for every human being.

What a ridiculous idea!!

What happened to the whole "till death do us part" thing?? Having to renew your marriage for legal reasons PERIOD is absurd. Getting a divorce may be challenging, expensive and stressful, but having the option of just "not renewing" your vows at the end of the fixed period is a cop-out. And it completely tarnishes the value of what a marriage is supposed to be about.

(so says the never-been-married 24 year old)

So, are they going to change the vows too?? And what about a church wedding?? How can that type of marriage expire?? I highly doubt the church, at least in these parts will find it amusing.

Or better yet, fuck marriage and let's all have an orgy.

Personally I do not believe in the "sacredness" of marriage as promoted by religion but marriage is the best economic "program" we humans have come up with to date in order to ensure (to the best of our ability) that human children are protected and nourished. Whether you are a good parent or not is another issue all together.

Spiritually speaking, even for an Atheist, marriage can be a wonderful exercise in spiritual growth (paint it with whatever terminology suits you). Marriage can be an exercise in interdependancy and intimacy of the utmost degree. It requires flexibility, forgiveness, buoyancy and acceptance. All of these are qualities that when developed, result in a mature, aware human being*. So in this regard, marriage can be and is "sacred".

But how much should a goverment be allowed to dictate the parameters of marriage?

*you don't have to be married to reach this state though, however after meeting my share of 40-50 year old men who had never been married, I can say that I noticed a huge difference in the emotional intelligence of men who had been married and those who hadn't. I prefer a 40 year old divorcee to a 40 year old perennial bachelor..but that's just my personal preference.

I think it is a very sensible idea. Locking yourself into an almost unbreakable contract for life is unreasonable. Basically if you were drawing up the whole idea from scratch they would never permit a "death till us part" contract. Imagine a mobile phone contract that was until death?

The scary thing is how many people would bail out and choose not to renew. I suspect upwards of 50%.

Why would you bother in the first place if this was the case?

Now that IS progressive!

And why did religion chose the original length.

Marriage was developed to support the societies in the past. I'd say it's entierly valid to question it's role in modern society and look at alternatives. Many many many people are doing just that and chosing not to get married. That trend is only growing.

As for the economic impact. I would think a small tweaking of the Düsseldorf table would fix that.

Considering that the divorce rate now is already 50 percent ..that means that almost no marriage would survive.

The marriage contract (from a legal perspective only) should at least last long enough to raise the children. Or, as I said earlier, social support structures and economic considerations for the children must be more defined in the case that the partners do not renew. Most often I imagine it would be one partner less inclined..which leaves a bitter, hurt partner behind.

Let's speak honestly...how many stay at home mothers with a 4 year old, would opt not to renew? Close to 0!

True and the fact is, it still supports our societies today. Most people still wait for marriage before having children. Not all, but most. Our tax laws are partially based on marital status, loans in Germanyare easier for women to get when they are married (sickening but true), inflation has made it so that two incomes are better than one, childcare is insufficiant for single parents...and the list goes on. Change all of those things first and then change the marriage laws...but doing it the other way around is not feasible.

...but think of the tax you'll save in the mean time!

My boyfriends boss was worryingly surprised yesterday that my boyfriend hadn't asked me to marry him as "you will both pay much less tax"

aah, good old fashioned german romance...

Ms Pauli just wants to make headlines