In hopes of lowering the rate of divorce, the Mexico City government plans to vote on a law that will make prenuptial promises legally binding so that couples will strongly consider marriage before actually getting engaged, thus lowering the divorce rate (?). Personally, I think it's a bit of a long shot.
A price to pay in Mexico for backing out at the altar
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican brides and grooms who get cold feet before walking down the aisle will have to pay their significant other for the inconvenience, if a proposal by a local congressman is adopted.
In Mexico, weddings are big social events where large amounts of money are spent before the big day on gowns, tuxedos, catering and music bands and churches are even reserved years in advance.
Weddings of over 500, or even 1,000 guests, are frequently splashed across newspapers' social pages. According to Mexican tradition, the bride's family absorbs most of the expenses.
Jose Antonio Zepeda, a city deputy for President Felipe Calderon's conservative National Action Party, wants to introduce the idea of compensation for backing out of a wedding as part of changes to the capital's civil code.
"He or she who refuses to live up to a marriage commitment will pay for the expenses that the other party made in connection with the planned matrimony," Zepeda's proposal says.
Zepeda also wants lawmakers to give legal status to prenuptial agreements for those on their way to the altar in hopes it will make divorce settlements easier if the couple splits later on.
"We are looking to avoid emotional distress, cut divorce expenses and shorten the time that courts spend solving them," Zepeda told Reuters on Friday. The prenuptial agreement will be optional.
Divorce rates are on the rise in Mexico, which has a predominantly Catholic population of over 107 million. Currently, three out of 10 couples in Mexico City divorce, compared with just one in 10 in the 1970s, the congressman said.
Zepeda's proposal is expected to be voted by Mexico City's congress in March or April. If passed, it will only apply to heterosexual couples in the capital, which legalized gay unions in 2006.
(Reporting by Cyntia Barrera Diaz, editing by Jackie Frank)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Well thats interesting. I think it is importanat to recognize an engaged couple as one that will marry but I don't know about making it legally binding, whats the point of an engagement then? However, when the couple takes it further and plans a beautiful EXPENSIVE ceremony and one decides to call it off, the one who calls it off should have to pay for it. How sad for the brides family (who by tradition pays for most) to take that fall if the groom backs out. The policy in question could have good benefits as long as it is not taken to the extreme.
-Angelina
Mexico is trying to curb divorce rates and I think by making the person who backs out of an engagement pay for the costs is a good idea. It would make the boyfriend/girlfriend really think out their relationship and if they really want to get married instead of rushing into an engagement without really thinking about it.
However, I think that there should also be a reason or understand as to why a person calls off a wedding whether or not the person has to pay. For instance, what if one cheats on the other and the other one wants to call it off but can't because he/she doesn't want to pay for the costs of the wedding?
Again, then the couple should've really thought about their relationship and future before making any sort of commitment one can't keep. So, in a way I think it could be a good idea. I don't know if it's good in theory but horrendous in practice. I guess we'll just have to see about that.
I think this is a pretty good proposal to a thing that shouldnt be happening in the first place. Im probably more traditional on this view as I believe that a wedding is based on love and your understanding to stay with your chosen partner. Just getting married then finding out a year later "oh they arn't the right person for me" kind of says that you wernt ready for a wedding. This policy should remind those who plan to engage and get married that marriage is and should be a mutual relationship. Its even stated in the english vows along the things of "to love and cherish forever". But i realize that sometimes arguments and things happen and theres nothing that can be done if they truely end up eating each other. That would probably be the downside to this policy. But in short, I think this policy is a good start to making couples realize that they chose to be together and would make them think twice and maybe even find it in themselves to put aside their differences rather than jumping to a quick divorce because of the monetary compensation.
it just sounds like we're getting closer and closer to that boundary. it's another form of commodifying "love".
I, for one, don't think it'd be bad if prenups became more commonplace. Now you might ask, won't signing a prenup jinx the marriage? who really wants to think about divorce when they're about to get married? Alright, fine. But whether you ever sign a prenup, it's still a good idea to discuss one in order for the couple to get the conversation going about money. Money, like it or not, plays a part in every marriage. If you can't agree on money before you get married, then it might very well end up being the reason you get divorced. (I hope I don't sound too preachy!)
After saying all this, I do realize that people don't like to mix love with money, so prenups will probably never be popular. Except maybe among older people or the wealthy.
In SOME respects, it makes sense for the party backing out to foot the cost....but I think that if this were to be passed, it should be judged more on why the decision was made to back out of the ceremony, because it is not always that case that whoever is backing out is at fault for the ending of the union. A pre-nup in many cases is probably a good idea, if it clearly outlined the possible scenarios and their outcomes.
i think that this is a good idea, it sounds crazy at first but it makes sense. I know if I was marrying a guy and he backed out on the me the day of the wedding after i had paid for my dress, flowers, etc I would want to be compensated for sure. Money makes anyone think harder before they enter a commitment like marriage, which may be a good thing
Post a Comment