It might provide a little incentive to remember or anniversary (or not, depending on the marriage).

Hi Mendalla,

When I saw the headline, I thought it was about the licence to marry people.

Are you sure this isn't a hoax?

Maybe they are looking into making more money with application fees.

What would be the benefit, you would still have to deal with all the legal stuff, sort the property apart, agree on who has the kids , the dog  etc. Time doesn't make it more or less messy.

I would assume, today , people live together before marriage anyway (or maybe not in Mexico?) I don't know much about Mexico- if this is a male dominant society, would this be an easy way to get ride of an unwanted bride? Are people marrying out of tradition and divorce as soon as they can?

 Would it give the woman any rights?

Mrs. Anteater, I would imagine in some ways it might give women rights.  People often separate with getting a divorce.  It can be difficult and time-consuming sometimes to get a divorce to actually proceed.  It could be possible this would speed up the ability for someone to get a second marriage.  I can also see the opposite side though.

How things actually function in Mexico, I'm not really sure.

Sounds like a fabulous opportunity for wedding planners and the commercialisers of human relationships: two bites at the cherry...

My faith still practices the "greenwood marriage" or "year and a day". Turns out it's an excellent way to make for lasting marriages.

I found an article online. http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/09/30/mexico-city-legislators-propose-temporary-marriage-licenses/  Not sure if National Post would be a good source, though. Here is is said to be an idea of the political left.

Interestingly, when I googled it, it also came up with links to Islam. Found this article. http://home.swipnet.se/islam/articles/Temp.Marriage.htm

I suppose Freud would agree that "our instincts" are just so strong, we can't do without. And then we might as well legislate it.

I am not with Freud on that one.

Care to elaborate? I'm not familiar with the term (as with so many things in your faith).

Mendalla

To answer the first poster's question: the first wedding would be the big one :)

I guess they'd have to change "til death do us part" to "til two years are up" !

A greenwoods marriage is also sometimes called a year-and-a-day hand fast.  It's a temporary trial marriage lasting one year and one day.  Sometimes used to see if a couple will prove fertile before getting permanently wed or to see if a couple are compatible before making a life long commitment.  If at the end of the year and a day they decide to go their separate ways for whatever reason no one is seen as being in the wrong.

Witch can probably elaborate more on this.

If that legislation were to come up here, I would just see it as another reason for my partner and I not to formally get married. I mean, what's the point? you're either committed or you're not. Marriages fall apart, common law relationships fall apart...and marriages last, and common law relationships last. It just goes to show that a piece of paper doesn't prove anything, imo. We file taxes as a couple...there's our piece of paper....and at my last job, I had the option of putting my partner on my extended medical and life insurance the same as if we were married and he already had his own extended medical benefits. I don't see the big difference if we're committed. It's between us and God, and we don't have the money for a big wedding considering our families live across the globe from each other--and if we were to elope, certain people would be upset because they couldn't be here--it would be more trouble than it's worth. The two year thing is silly. It's the opposite of the the two year common law rule in most provinces in Canada...but with an extra piece of paper you have to pay for. Just a way for the government make money-- it seems to me, instead of couples living "in sin" together with guilt, the government makes them pay for the "indulgence" of living together--essentially exploiting religious (mainly Catholic) and cultural traditions, because Mexican culture is pretty old fashioned about marriage ( I have a second generation Mexican friend whose mom who lives in Canada is still married to his dad who lives in Mexico and they rarely speak to one another...they parted ways about 20 yrs. ago, but he won't divorce and she won't push him to do so)--and likely to appease those couples' (and their families)  who accidentally find themselves pregnant.  What is a true "marriage" anyway? I figure it's the commitment that makes the marriage, nothing else. The commitment to one another, and to raising your children together if you have them. If that's not there, there is no marriage, regardless of formalities.

Rowan provided a good explanation; thanks Rowan.

I would add a couple of points to expand.

The year and a day is a set time, from Beltane to Beltane +1day. This prevents a person from stringing greenwood marriages together, since one could only enter into one on the day of Beltane.
 

The concept comes from the idea that if a marriage is not going to work, chances are you'll really know in the first year. Most marriages that fail, really begin failing from day 1, they just hang on as long as people can bear to suffer them. IN a Greenwood marriage, property laws are simple. Anything you bring into the marriage you take out. Anything you gain in the marriage you split down the middle, arbited by an elder. Pregnancies are discouraged for a Greenwood marriage, but since our faith has a less "property" oriented view of child rearing, what children happen usually go with the mother to live, and are supported by both parents as per normal.
 

Those entering into a Greenwood marriage do so with the full knowledge that they do not have "ti; death do us part" looming over their heads. Thus they are free to honestly evaluate their compatibility. If it turns out they are not compatible, the marriage is over and each is free to go their own way. If they are compatible, then they are free to enter into a more permanent marriage after the Greenwood contract is finished.
 

It is my experience that Greenwood marriages often end up in more stable relationships, and a lot less strife and animosity in the community. People who decide not to continue after the contract often end up as very good friends, rather than mortal enemies, which is more common with divorce these days. Since there is no stigma of failure attached to a Greenwood marriage that doesn't carry on past the tiem allotted, there isn't the same degree of animosity and anger experienced by the couple. This trickles down to a better outcome for the families, for the community, and for the faith as a whole.

Interesting concept. Thanks for the explanations both Rowan and Witch.I like the basic idea of the greenwoods marriage, especially the connection to a specific religious festival. The Mexican proposal seems more out of the blue; the greenwoods marriage has some history and rationale behind it.

How does it gel with the legalities of marriage in our society, though? Is it treated as a marriage or as common-law by the powers that be?

Mendalla

If I understand correctly, witch, one would have to wait until the next Beltane before entering into another Greenwood marriage (about 364 days) - would prevent rebound relationships/marriages.

In essence it comes under the heading of "common law" after three months, since there's no marriage license. Nothing in our tradition would contravene the laws surrounding common law marriages, since those secular rules also allow for division of property by consent.

The really nice part of the system is when it clicks, and you are asked to legally affirm a marriage you performed a year before.

That is correct. Hence the year "and a day". The Greenwood marraige is still in effect until the following day after Beltane, from the Beltane that began it.

I don't like the fertile idea as many couples don't want kids right away as well it's saying if you can't make a biological baby you are not worth being married to which is so untrue.

wondering what that would have looked like in the days of Henry Vlll and his six wives. Would have saved at least ONE head I'm sure.

I am rather surprised that this would come from Mexico. I always thought they were pretty Catholic down there.

Interesting.   Food for thought.  We have the six month common law thing here so

i am not really sure it is necessary in Canada.  If there is property involved in a common law relationship u still have to go to court for property settlement.  You can also sign a certificate of common law before you cohabit like a prenup.