Posts
Excerpt from Chapter 9 -- Pages 206-209
---------------------------------------
The policy of termed marriage licenses was an extremely
novel one. I viewed it at the time as a
bit reprehensible in my heart, but the government could not overlook the will
of the people. The idea of termed
marriages worked out to be perfect on just about every level. As divorce rates, by that time, had grown to
almost sixty percent, there seemed to be no point in marriages being considered
for life anymore. It just wasn’t the way
that families in America were structured.
Another benefit was the strain on the relationship
that this kind of the marriage alleviated.
There really was not the need for a messy divorce as people knew that
they could just wait out the current term of their marriage and that would be
the end of it. Of course, messy break-ups
of marriages did not become a thing of the past, as the dilemma is still a big
problem when both parties do not want to separate to the same degree. However, that was no different than what was
going on prior to the termed licenses so it didn’t matter all that much.
A third benefit was the reduction of costs of legal
fees. Divorce law was a massive business
and usually the biggest cost incurred during separations. Since the settlement was now predetermined as
part of the marriage license, legal expenses were lessened. By 2025, hardly anyone went to court
anymore. Initially, there were many
marriage licenses that were called into question when the marriage broke up,
and it was primarily by the person who had not increased financially as much as
the other.
Prior to 2018, however, there was a great injustice
happening in America as the wealthier person was unceremoniously being robbed
of half their wealth as a result of a divorce.
The prime example that began the backlash was Tiger Woods divorce. Though he was clearly guilty of many
infidelities, he had to part with over $500,000,000. No one ever contested that Tiger earned all
the revenue for the couple, and that she certainly provided well in her role as
mother and wife, but at the end of the day I don’t think anyone felt she
deserved that much money after just three years of marriage. There was very much a sentiment in America at
the time that Tiger was, in fact, being punished.
The situation as I mentioned earlier, is that many
women viewed their appearance and sexuality as their means of gaining stability
in society. These women were regularly
initiating divorces at ridiculous high numbers as a means of cashing in on
their husbands wealth. This happened at
all levels and needed to be curtailed.
To be fair though, many men who found themselves in these situations
were quite culpable in sustaining this circumstance as they married the women
for their appearance.
The termed marriage license had a list of independent
assets as well as the expected financial positions for each partner throughout the
balance of the marriage. There usually was
a willingness on both parties to share matrimonial assets that grew (or shrunk)
over the period of the license, and that was agreed upon at the time as
well. Whatever amount in either hard cash
or percentages of assets was agreed upon was what was rewarded at the end of
the license period. Most of the time, it
was a 50/50 split, so in practice remarkably little changed. Where there was a substantive improvement in
the dissolution phase, was where one party had a disproportionate amount of
assets at the outset. These divorces
were now settled in no time and the parties involved could get on with their lives.
The terms of the license was as follows: If one of the persons involved was in their
first marriage the period was 7-1/2 years in duration. All other licenses were for
five years. Renewal of your marriage
license was automatically a five-year period if no termination request was
received. After the second renewal of a
license at 12-1/2 years of marriage, an update to the asset list had to be submitted.
The notion of common law marriages was entirely
abandoned. Couples that lived together
without a marriage license were not entitled to any assets other than their own
personal ones. This meant that if a couple
were together and did not register a marriage license, and then they broke up,
there was no such thing as palimony or financial compensation to either. The thinking was that as traditional
relationships were being abandoned then so should the common-law approach. The couple was either building a life
together, which in this case meant you were married, or you weren’t. Marriage licenses were no longer seen as an
emotional type of agreement but rather a legal one. It made sense that everyone entering a
relationship that would likely end. It
was better to address this scenario up front with clarity, rather than after
the fact when emotional and vindictive thinking and legal posturing would be prevalent.
Not surprisingly, the termed marriage licenses caught
on like wild fire and in the first year, over 15,000,000 licenses were
registered on-line. It only took about thirty
minutes as long as you had your asset inventory (which was updatable as
required). There was no need to go to a
church, hire a lawyer, and register at town hall or even say “I do” if you
didn’t want to. We were quite kitschy in
having both parties click on an “I DO” button as a form of agreement to the
terms of the license they were submitting.
