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

[floatright][/floatright]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

This idea is not new - we discussed it in world sociology in high school [s]in the never mind what decade [/s] a few years ago. I obviously can't remember the sources used, but the arguement was that if the partners are aware that the other could walk at the end of the contract they are more likely to keep working to make it work.

Unlike many people who think once they have the ring on the finger they can "relax" and all the work on the relationship is over.

I always thought it was an excellent idea.

Absolutely brilliant solution to so many problems!!

The legal status of both parents and any children will need to be reassessed every seven years. Child support will have to be assessed and collected from the parent that decides to sod off. Thousands upon thousands of new rules and procedures will have to be established.

The need for Beamters and public servants will create not full but permanent employment in Germany.

Each partner will be free to find someone new, start a new family, and start collecting the baby bonuses again - Germany can reverse it's population decline and folks will have money in their pockets, a boost to the economy.

And best of all, with full, permanent employment and a new generation on the way, Germany will not need Auslanders anymore - the old dream can at last come true

John Maynard Keynes eat your heart out.

This reminds me of a time in my life when I thought that life should consist of a series of 5-year relationships. Of course, I only thought that because I was with the wrong guy (note I didn't marry him).


I agree. No point in marriage if it's going to end in a few years. You're no better off than just living together.


Ugh, just what we need. Making people feel forced to "stay together for the children." No thanks. My parents are a sad example of why people shouldn't do that.

I am not saying that..as it is the marriage contract is for life unless divorce ends it. I was simply responding to the lack of logic behind a "7 Year Rule". In other words, why 7 years? Why not 18? In the end, I don't agree with it at all..which was my point. The marriage contract doesn't force anyone to stay together, that's what divorce is for.

edit: I completely understand what you must have been feeling when you thought life should be a series of five year relationships. Unfortunately, I still haven't met the right man.

Indeed. The person is an attention whore that would do anything to get her face in the papers. Quite sad actually that she succeeds with it, imho.

I agree, marriage is a religious concept. For the rest of us, do you really want to be in a relationship whose success is based on a piece of paper?

I get that it's traditional, I get that it's beneficial for tax purposes but I honestly don't get why this piece of paper is so damn important to couples. If your relationship is over, a piece of paper isn't going to keep it together.

All politicians are attention whores...it's almost a required character trait for anyone entering politics. How many sages and wise men (or women) have become president? Those people end up being the Ghandis and Martin Luther King's of the world. If we did have a leader like that, he/she would most likely be assasinated.


I disagree..marriage is not a religious concept alone. The study of evolution proves that. Marriage is an economic concept (even if the economy is comprised of berries, meat and a warm cave)...the religious part came later. Now the two are intrinsically tied together. Not only in theistic cultures but also in Taoism and Buddhism.

edit: and what about legal partnership for same-sex couples? Would that be dissolved too?
The entire idea is ridiculous. This woman is obviously no economist and neither am I. But if we laymen can see all of the implications, you would think someone aspiring for office would know better.

Who made the rule that you only marry to reproduce? That's certainly not why I got married. Children at my age? bah humbug. Too old for that now, medically and emotionally. I chose to get married because I found my mate. Period. Time limit?...that's just laughable. She's a quack.

Keep in mind, no one would be forcing you to give up your marriage after 7 years, you just have to renew your license as you would do with your passport or your drivers license. Does the fact that you have to renew your drivers license stop people from driving?

The idea would have a similar to making divorce cheaper and easier. Knowing a few people that are getting royally and unfairly f*cked by the divorce laws in this country, this isn't a direction that should be discouraged.

I suppose the [s]blood sucking leeches[/s] divorce lawyers would suffer but other than that, how would this change anything?

But that's the point really isn't it? Instead of solving the real problem, they enact a policy that doesn’t really solve the problem (most people will divorce when they want to) and only causes both to people who don’t want to deal with it.

What exactly is this real problem that you say isn't getting solved?

Making divorce cheaper and easier.

I think you mean soul-mate othewise you'd have a child? And the point is you can renew it.

Naw the subject of children always gets involved with the subject of marriage and frankly, it's not always the case. Having children is impossible for my marriage, medically speaking.

I like the idea, though I'd go with 10 years...seems a reasonable number. I know of a few marriages that'd probably just end when the 10 yr. mark is up. Also, anything that'd piss off the catholic church, I'm all for.

I think the next crazy idea would be to introduce a "life renewal timeout". Say after 10 years you must decide if we want to continue to live or not. Not a bad idea for this crazy folks.
Man heads towards "self" focus so much that we cease to be a functioning society soon.
All we care about is US.

I think they call that one euthanasia. Certainly worth discussing.

This doesn't make sense. Can you explain?

I think his point was that people may want to get divorced after 3 years, or 9 year, or 22 years... Divorce itself won't be easier, it is just easier to let the marriage expire at 7 year intervals, which people may not be willing to wait for.

But I could be misunderstanding completely...

This is true, if they made divorcing cheaper and easier there would be no need for such laws. Because of the way things are at present the only people who benefit from divorce are the divorce lawyers which is why so many people live for years and years in a state of separation where they haven't lived together for a long time or had any contact whatsoever with eachother but they are still married on paper because of the exorbitant cost and trauma of the divorce process.

I currently know at least 6 (ex) couples living like this, some of them haven't spoken to their spouses in years.

Which is a question I actually should post on the divorce thread. How often is this in Germany as there seem to be distinct advantages.

It's quite common, at least here in Germany, there are a number of TTers who can probably shed more light on it than I can.

The divorce contract would have to be written into the marriage contract.

I am a deeply religiarse person and I am in no doubt that all you blasphemers against the holy sacrament of marriage will spend eternity in hell where you can copulate freely amongst yourselves. Until you get to heaven just have sex on the side and then repent in the confessional box very quickly afterwards. This one of the advantages of Catholicism over other religions and one of the reasons I live in catholic state like Bavaria.

So this hell place. Is it somewhere near Rosenheim?

I think its about 10 minutes north of Landsberg actually.

What are the house prices like there. It may be an improvement on where I am now.

It's anywhere outside of Bavaria, don't you know anything?

My completely subjective impression is that a LOT of German couples just don't bother to get married -- even those with children. This is certainly true in my circle of acquaintances; I know quite a few couples who have been together 8 or 10 years but have never gotten married. Does anyone know if there are any statistics on it?

I did a quick google on "How many of zard's friends are married?" but regretfully did not get any decent results.

It would be a hassle having to get the "permit" renewed every 7 years. Why don't they just make it really easy to divorce?

Actually it would be a lot less hassle if when asked "do you take so-and-so ... til death do you part? " , the parties ,well , at least one of them , replied "No"... asking a bit much I'm afraid but there you have it.

Why not just simplify the divorce process and costs instead of some renewable marriage bs? Sounds like an easier fix to me.

We could just ban marriage and accept it was just a control mechanism that humanity has grown out of.