Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Research Proposal: Our Backwards Approach to Marriage and Divorce

In several of Robert Heinlein’s future-fiction books, the author puts forth the concept of “Contract Marriage” – where people marry for a set period of time (i.e., 5 years, 20 years, etc.).  While the idea of predetermining the length of a marriage may be unrealistic in our society, the idea of requiring a marriage contract that covers issues such as assets, children, support, the termination of marriage, and premarital counseling is one that should be considered seriously today.
Our current system of marriage and divorce is backwards.  When two people decide to get married, they go to the courthouse, pay $10 for a marriage license, and can be married within the hour.  There is no mandatory waiting period, no premarital counseling, no requirement to record current assets, discuss monetary support, children, or where to live.  Yet to end the marriage – to divorce – one must go through mandatory waiting periods, parenting classes (if there are children involved), determine who owned what and the value of such assets before they were married (often difficult even after just a couple of years), determine value of assets gained during the marriage, living arrangements, and other issues.  It is downright ridiculous that people must go through parenting classes after children are born and after the marriage is beyond saving!  Why do we not require such parenting classes before marriage, before children are born, to better prepare people?  We bend over backwards to “save” marriages on the brink of divorce yet as a society do virtually nothing to prevent “bad” marriages from taking place to begin with.
With divorce rates at an all-time high, we need to question the very nature of marriage and how we approach it to begin with.  When 24-year-olds are on their third marriage there is something fundamentally wrong with both our legal system and our entire society’s approach to marriage.  While it is true that some religious organizations require people to go through their own premarital counseling before two people can be married in their church, such counseling generally covers the church’s approach to marriage more than the practical aspects of marriage.  Because some people view such counseling requirements as a hassle – especially young people – they may actually opt for the quicker, none-church marriage.  By requiring a contract for all marriages that covers issues of premarital counseling, children, assets, finances, the realities of living and working together, and what divorce entails BEFORE two people get married, maybe we can help create stronger marriages right from the beginning, and prevent ill-prepared people from getting married at all.
In my research paper, I intend to cover (briefly) some of the historical aspects of marriage especially the fact that marriage until recently was more commonly a business and political “contract” than one of “love.”  I intend to cover statistical information regarding success rates of marriages with premarital counseling vs. no counseling, divorce rates as a whole, and some legal aspects of both marriage and divorce; in particular, legal aspects that people are generally unaware of before they marry.  I may also cover some of the various current approaches taken towards pre-marriage by some churches.  Some of the resources I intend to use are sociological research reports, Census figures, encyclopedias, and possibly some personal interviews.  I will not be covering same-sex marriage, domestic partners, polygamy, or common-law marriage.


Works Cited
I do not have any Works Cited in my proposal above, but some of the resources I referred to while beginning my research and intend to refer to during further research on this idea are listed below:
U.S. Census <http://www.census.gov>.
“Colorado Statutes.” Nexis.com. Lexis-Nexis. 12 June 2005.  <http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0>.
Various articles by various authors on Wikipedia.org. 12 June 2005. <http://www.wikipedia.org>.
Macionis, John J. Sociology. 10th ed. New York: Prentice Hall, 2004.

Written for Professor Ryan's English Composition II class at Pikes Peak Community College, 15th June 2005.  I never actually wrote this research paper, as I ended up dropping the class due to health issues I was experiencing at the time.

No comments:

Post a Comment