Boredom Cure

That's an interesting proposal by Gabriele Paull, championing disposal marriage (civil) licenses in her bid to become elected as the head of Bavaria's Christian Social Union. Kind of surprising, coming from a source such as that, which is to say such a liberal attitude toward the sanctity of the tradition of marriage expressed and espoused by someone aspiring to head a German political party.

It's the "Christian" in the name of the party, but given the rest of the name, "social union", it becomes more understandable.

Marriage is, after all, a compact, a social union between two people. Between two people and the state, actually. And sometimes the third party, their religious affiliation. It is in the state's interest that traditional marriages remain the status quo. Ensuring that a man and a woman succumb to the idea of a life-long partnership and in the process of solidifying that partnership, produce as many children as conceivable to enrich the state with future workers/taxpayers.

But as a social contract, a union of two diverse personalities, not to mention differently anchored genders, things often go awry. Which is to say, past the glow of the initial infatuation, once the contract has been signed, sealed and delivered and sex is no longer the vital attraction it once was, this man and this woman may discover they've erred in their choice. Not only that the initial mystique has evaporated but in essence the personality of the other isn't a neat twin for their own.

Values and backgrounds, imperatives and priorities which should, with reasoning adults, have been carefully explored for like expression suddenly rear themselves as compelling reasons why the match fails. And then, given how fickle human beings are, and self-centered as well, boredom sets in, the fire ebbs and attention wanders. At which time to the husband other women appear more attractive than his own, and to the wife other men seem more manly and capable than her own.

So why wouldn't it make good sense to legally ensure through sound legislation that the original marriage certificate have a best-before date; seven years for example, as recommended by Ms. Paull. At which time the duo have the choice, if they still bear love toward one another, to extend their contract for another 7 years - or, alternately, sever their relationship and allow the contract to lapse gracefully.

It might save a whole lot of angst over how to proceed when love has flown the matrimonial coop. Of course there's the issue of issue. Should children be involved the choice becomes infinitely more problematical. And in fact, if the brace of lovers remains uncertain whether their feelings can mature they might feel constrained not to bear children. Potential legislation then, with emotional-practical value to individuals, but bad news for the state.

For those who really do believe in the 7-year itch. Scratch.