Be a renewable contract?

TEXT 1

Changing Values and Norms of the British Family

The family in Britain is changing. The once typical British family headed by two parents has undergone substantial changes during the twentieth century. In particular there has been a rise in the number of single-person households, which increased from 18 to 29 per cent of all households between 1971 and 2002. By the year 2020, it is estimated that there will be more single people than married people. Fifty years ago this would have been socially unacceptable in Britain.

In the past, people got married and stayed married. Divorce was very difficult, expensive and took a long time. Today, people's views on marriage are changing. Many couples, mostly in their twenties or thirties, live together (cohabit) without getting married. Only about 60% of these couples will eventually get married.

In the past, people married before they had children, but now about 40% of children in Britain are born to unmarried (cohabiting) parents. In 2000, around a quarter of unmarried people between the ages of 16 and 59 were cohabiting in Great Britain. Cohabiting couples are also starting families without first being married. Before 1960 this was very unusual, but in 2001 around 23 per cent of births in the UK were to cohabiting couples.

People are generally getting married at a later age now and many women do not want to have children immediately. They prefer to concentrate on their jobs and put off having a baby until late thirties. The number of single-parent families is increasing. This is mainly due to more marriages ending in divorce, but some women are also choosing to have children as lone parents without being married.

Ø What are the norms of the British family nowadays?

TEXT 2

Should marriage

be a renewable contract?

Alyssa McDonald in The Sydney Morning Herald today proposes 'making marriage a renewable contract rather than a lifetime promise that's too easily broken'. It's not a new idea - as long ago as 1971 two state legislators in Maryland, USA, proposed the 'renewable marriage'. They called for making marriage a three-year contract, with an option to renew every three years by the mutual consent of both partners, whereas McDonald suggests that marriage certificates expire after 10 years or, for parents, once the youngest child reaches 21, 'at which point the parties will be able to renew, or just call it a day'. The idea that marriage should not necessarily be for life is intended to fit in with the realities of modern relationships. However, whilst I do like this kind of 'thinking out of the box', I'm not entirely convinced of the benefits of this particular idea. Does it matter that the 'marriage for life' promise (whether express or implicit) is too easily broken? After all, the promise is genuine when it is made.

Even if marriage were to be for a fixed, renewable term, would that make any difference? Obviously, the length of the contract is an issue. However, if a marriage breaks down, then the parties (or at least one of them) are hardly going to want to wait until the next 'expiry date' before getting out, even if that will avoid having to go through the legal process of divorce, unless I suppose that expiry date happens to be imminent. In any event, dissolving a marriage is not too difficult in most cases, and is going to be even easier if we have a completely no-fault system, as appears likely. Of course, resolving the ancillary issues of arrangements for any dependent children and financial/property matters may not be so straightforward, but these will still have to be resolved if the marriage simply 'expires' (OK, not in McDonald's model), rather than is dissolved. Or am I just applying 'divorce lawyer thinking' to the matter?

Ø What does Alyssa McDonald propose?

Ø What is your opinion of renewable marriage contracts?

TEXT 3

Дата добавления: 2015-11-16