Ten year marriage licences proposed by commentator

It is an “absurd illusion” to see marriage as a lifelong union and a system of fixed term marriage contracts should be introduced, according to a commentator at The Independent.

Terence Blacker’s controversial proposal comes amidst increasing concern over the Government’s plans to rewrite the current definition of marriage.

Critics warn that altering the current definition for same-sex couples would open the floodgates for further changes.


Mr Blacker thinks that marriage should be reduced from a lifelong union to a fixed term contract.

The commentator said: “Perhaps changed priorities and attitudes within marriage require a new approach altogether.

“Instead of the increasingly absurd illusion that a new union will, or should, last for life, a system providing a marital licence for a fixed period – to be renewed, or not, every 10 years, say – would bring a healthy element of jeopardy to this jaded institution.

“The idea of living together, an arrangement in which the sense of obligation is based on love rather than a contract, might also be encouraged.”


In October it emerged that Mexico City, which introduced homosexual marriage in 2009, was considering offering citizens short term marriages lasting as little as two years.

Last week a blogger on the Guardian’s website denied there is anything wrong with polygamy as he attacked a new group which supports marriage between one man and one woman.


Martin Robbins claimed there are some “economic advantages” for children having three parents in his post that hit out at Coalition for Marriage (C4M).

He was referring to a warning on C4M.org.uk that: “If marriage is redefined once, what is to stop it being redefined to allow polygamy?”

And columnist Matthew Parris reacted to the recent debate about redefining marriage by suggesting that the word “marriage” should be completely removed from legal language.


Mr Parris says he has a “sliver of sympathy” for those who object to the Government commandeering a word.

Writing in his Times column, his radical solution is to remove the word “marriage” altogether from legal language.

Related Resources