By Robb Myroon
Politicians are becoming more and more radical these days, proposing ideas that barely fall under the category of acceptable. More often than not, they spend millions on questionable projects, but sometimes it’s an idea for a bizarre new law. Bavarian Gabriele Pauli’s proposal is the latter.
Commonly known as the “seven-year itch,” the thought is to change marriage from a life-long union to a shorter term of a mere seven years. It’s a given that relationships are hard to maintain, but to put an expiry date on them like a driver’s license or credit card seems a little lame.
Call me old-fashioned, but I sort of enjoy the traditional wedding vows already in place. In sickness and health, rich and poor, they seem like a good set of promises. And for some odd reason, that “Till death do us part” bit seemed to be a fairly vital line last time I checked.
Consider the altered ceremony: “Till seven years doth passeth” just doesn’t have the same ring to it. Personally, I’d feel a bit awkward about getting down on one knee, looking into the eyes of the one I love and asking, “will you spend the next seven years of your life with me, after which we can reconsider our relationship, allowing me to leave you if I so desire?”
Maybe it’s not quite that frank, but the way society is drifting these days, this sort of idea could be embraced, and that’s a scary thought. We have come a long way in a half-century, with many taboos becoming the norm and scandals appropriate.
In western cultures, piercings have progressed from the female ear, to the male ear, to across the entire face and body, regardless of sex. Tattoos have also expanded from being dirty little secrets hidden beneath the clothes to becoming prominent on the arms, neck, and body.
Don’t look at this the wrong way, I’m neither for nor against either of these movements, but we can clearly see that while the seven-year marriage idea is radical today, it doesn’t mean it won’t someday become accepted practice. With the divorce rate as high as it is, some may look in this direction and reason this could be a possible solution.
This is clearly not the answer! This sort of policy would only promote the idea of getting married without much thought or enough time dating to determine if the relationship could actually work in the long run. The remedy needed is to take the relationship ladder a bit slower, allowing for fewer surprises down the road. We need to step back and truly consider if we want to spend our entire lives with one person.
The end of the seven-year stint would probably be worse, however. It’d be like an election was approaching. If the relationship was a bit on the rocks, you’d have to promise more gifts and time with each other and cuts on hitting the bar and watching soap operas. One would be likely tempted at the thought of getting out of the marriage scot-free, while the other could be sacrificing too much to keep the other “interested.”
Affairs would run wild as well. With the knowledge of the marriage terminated at a certain period in time, the risk involved in the stereotypical sleazy husband running off with some random blonde is virtually gone. All he has to do if they are discovered is wait out the rest of his term before being free to run off with the his new and “legitimate” wife.
The thought of a term marriage makes me sick to the stomach. In a world where personal commitment is circling the drain as is, we need not implement a policy in which love is on a time limit, set to expire in just seven years. Let’s hit this dedication issue head on, not with some absurd law.