Interesting question. I don't think the pendulum has swung far enough. Given all the high profile "cheaters" in the news this past year, I think it's time we revisit our inbred culture premise about the sanctity of marriage vows. If people are going to consistently break them, maybe we should ask if they make sense to begin with.

Okay Kevin, You may be on to something! Are our current vows too puritanical? Have we evolved (or de-evolved) into a modality of more open value sets? Are those of us who manage to uphold our marital vows old-fashioned? And should a new type of marriage be established? Perhaps one with a shelf-life?

Me - I am an old fashioned guy. My wife is someone who I thought was waaaay out of my league and she is the best I will ever get. More importantly, she makes me work hard to live up to what I think she deserves, and I think that is why my marriage works.

I see it from the side of the man. Men tend to stray. But in our "modern" culture, women are more empowered and with that power comes choice. They are now choosing to stray too. So, again, that raises the question of restructuring the way marriages are set forth.

Should we have limited liability marriages? Should there be options when choosing what type of marital arrangement one thinks they will want to enter in to?

Perhaps if we offer options on types of marital arrangements there are, the "total liability" type will become more valuable and not be strayed from so easily.

What do you think? Is it time to give people what they seem to be screaming for?
RicoDad (Richard)

If what you're saying is true, then why do most divorced folks get remarried within five years, with about 3/4's re-married within ten years? (See the CDC report on Health and Vital Statistics, July 2002.) Think of all the problems divorce causes for children in custody. Would forcing such arrangements on everyone make the world a better place?

Marriage isn't about everyone being happy, happy, happy every minute of everyday. Its about taking responsibility for your actions and being loyal to your family by keeping your commitments to them. If a person doesn't want that over their heads they shouldn't get married or have children. They also shouldn't expect the benefits that come with marriage either, like partnership, the muliplication of assets, and someone to be there when you're sick.

From a legal perspective, marriage is even less stringent than a limited liablility arrangement. If you change your mind about something as mundane as an appliance purchase, you're more roped in than a marriage. (Try to return a dishwasher that doesn't work after year... Good luck!)Divorce is out there and in many states are "no fault" so you can get out of your commitment anytime you feel like it. Family custody laws are written to protect the visiting parent, under the guise that its easier for them to walk away from the children, so lets try and make it easier for them to stay in the children's lives. This means that the people who are most dedicated to the children are the most likely to get screwed. Either get married or don't get married. Forget about making it easier for those who want to get the commitment, but don't want to make one themselves.

Marriage is even less stringent than a limited liablility arrangement. If you change your mind about something as mundane as an appliance purchase, you're more roped in than a marriage. (Try to return a dishwasher that doesn't work after year... Good luck!)Divorce is out there and in many states are "no fault" so you can get out of your commitment anytime you feel like it. Family custody laws are written to protect the visiting parent, under the guise that its easier for them to walk away from the children, so lets make it easier for them to stay in the children's lives. This Means that the people who are most dedicated to the children are the most likely to get screwed. Either get married or don't get married forget making it easier for those who want to get the commitment, but don't want to make one themselves.

Mariah, I think some of your basic premises are tenuous. You say marriage is about "taking responsibility for your actions and being loyal to your family by keeping your commitments to them." Where is that written? There is nothing in wedding vows or the legal marriage certificate that talks about family, children, commitment, or responsibility. That may be what you think marriage should be, but it's not what it is.

For instance, does a non-married/single father have any less responsibility to his children than a married or divorced father? Of course not. Responsibility for children comes with parenthood, not with marriage.

Secondly, you talk about the people "most dedicated to the children." I infere that you mean the mother. But that is a subjective point. I know many divorced dads (including me) who are just as dedicated to their children as their exes.

Family custody laws are written to protect the children, period. You may think they FAVOR the visiting parent. But I guarantee you that no legislature sets out to write a law that puts the rights of a parent over the needs and safety of children.

In talking to many divorced moms I know, it never ceases to amaze me at how they assume they are always in the right and their exes (whom they once loved) are evil, irresponsible dads. And the divorced dads think the same about their exes.

Hey, I have an idea: maybe no one's "evil." Maybe the relationship just ended and a new two house family has to take it's place. One spouse may not want or like that, but that is still the reality. Time to figure out how to make this new reality work for the kids and not turn it into the battle of the century.

And if divorced people remarry, that speaks more to the fact that the first marriage wasn't working than that these are defective people. Yes, I know - second marriages have a bad batting average too. But some people may only be able to mate for a finite number of years. So instead of saying to them, "you are defective...you can't legally mate" (which unfortunately is what our culture says to gag couples), we should say, "You may choose the type of marriage commitment that suits you, not the one that suits us."

I meant "gay" couples. Sorry for the typo.

Hi Eternal Optimist,

I find it interesting that you choose to assume that I mean mothers are the better parents when I made sure not to imply that in my wording. You are the one that makes this assumption and you are the one who feels that you have to write a paragraph explaining that there are good dads as well. That's your bias. Why is that?

Next, if you think that custody laws are written to benefit children you must think that children have the best lobbying machine to ever hit any state capitol! As a family lawyer once told me, everytime a state senator gets a divorce, the Family Code changes. Keeping that in mind, who do you think the law really benefits? Reality-- it's so pretty...

I'm sorry EO, I forgot to address your first issue in which you ask where it's written about being loyal to your family. First, when you marry your spouse becomes your next of kin, aka your family. (Check with your favorite divorce lawyer on this one.) Next, perhaps you should read the most common wedding vows used in the United States. You know, the one where the couple vows to "forsake all others... for better or worse... until death do we part". People generally agree to this, then the legally sanctioned person who is conducting the wedding, signs the marriage certficate. I know that I'm not the optimist here, but I'd like to think that this oath should be taken seriously. However, as I said before, its easier to get out of this promise than return a dishwasher. I guess as long as people share your attitude, these words will mean nothing.

Hold on---Hold on! I think we are mixing our apples and oranges.

Staying together "for the the sake of the kids" is not an option and "putting the children first" is no answer. Marriages are about two people. Families are about parents and children. Sure, it'd be great if the two were symbiotic but they do not alway need to be and in most, yes, most case they are not.

Back to the initial question: What happens to cheaters. Where is the scarlet A emblazoned on the bill of Tiger Woods' golf cap? (I am sorry I keep referencing him, see my other comment today, but there is so much cyberbyte-earworm-TMZ-mania surrounding his "alleged" cheating, you'd think OJ was back on trial.)

Yes, if we shackled these high profile cheaters and made them pay for their sins in either community service, jail time, or money, perhaps we, the masses, may learn a lesson.

We are sheep folks. If older actresses start dating younger guys-- it becomes a trend. If we have a proliferation of movies and TV shows like Leave it to BEaver, and Father Knows Best we try to act civil and neighborly.

We are led by what we see the most. That is why today's young people all expect their 15 minutes of fame. Our teens and tweens are giving bjs like handshakes because twenty years ago Bill Clinton said oral wasn't "really" sex, and suburban kids are fighting to be as 'in da hood' as possible while kids in the hood sling cane and dodge bullets trying to find a way out.

Perhaps if we paid as much attention to our own personal relationships, marriages, families, we could enjoy them rather than following trends that celebutants and megalomaniacal marketing machines are selling us.

Oops, did that sound cynical?

Lotsa Luv
LL