Now that this matter of a proposed temporary marriage contract has somehow subsided in excited contemplation and spirited discussion, it might be but proper and just to look into the matter with more calm and prudence – in the light of on the ground concrete and practical realities. Truth to say, such a demeaning look at marriage and consequent frivolous proposition on its temporary time frame, ultimately have one and the same victims, viz., the men and women who go for such a temporary conjugal union, specially so the children therefrom. This is not to mention their negative impact on society as a whole when the adult and youth concerned respectively disseminate their unsound personal value systems and propagate empirical grave misfortunes in their respective communities – as Countries with Divorce Law amply prove.
Men and women who enter temporary marriages basically say that they are not serious about one another, that they take the human family lightly, and that consider marriage but some kind of for-the-moment diversion or a by-the-way option. On the other hand, the children born of their exploratory union are not certain what future holds for them, which of their parents would get and have them, whom between their father and mother would they come to love or to hate.
A temporary marriage contract for ten – more or less – years, implies the following composite nauseating if not traumatic experience when the husband and wife decide to call it quits upon expiration of the spousal contract: One, division of the domestic abode – which is disturbing. Two, division of conjugal properties – which is troublesome. Three, division of the children – which is traumatic. At the same time, all these dividing ventures strongly implies division of affection and mental posture, division of affiliation and loyalty among the family members concerned.
It is both right and practical to forward the following concrete and rational principles: First of all, those who do not believe and/ or who cannot accept a lifetime conjugal partnership, should not get married at all. Second, those who subscribe to a more or less ten-year marriage contract, should be prepared to say how many temporal marriages are they prepared to contract, how many homes are they ready to break. Third, most important of all, those who accept marriage with a given time frame, should be prepared to say and decide how many children are they willing to divide.
By the way, to say that marriage is but a “contract”, is in fact, neither true nor right. Reason: As such, marriage would be no more, no better than a business contract, a lease contract, a car contract, and million and one other contracts. The truth is that marriage is a covenant, a compact, a vow – all of which immediately imply constancy, permanence, stability. This is why as a rule, men, women and children with a broken marriage behind them, usually do not become better persons for it. This is sad but true.
To say it lightly, marriage is not like a taxi that a man and a woman flag down, ride in, and thereafter leave it as a matter of course, when they no longer need it.
January 25, 2010