Friday, November 16, 2007

Divorce Insurance: Equitability in Marriage?

In today’s post-modern society driven by capitalist consumerism, could a divorce insurance with really good provisos be the answer in keeping “modern love” equitable?


By: Vanessa Uy


Ever since Pope Gelasius declared February 14 as a Red Letter Day in honor of St. Valentine back in year 496, anyone from bards to scientists and even lawyers had lend a hand in gaining insight on this thing we call love. Although gaining insight means different things to different people, in this day and age, gaining insight on love usually means making the damned thing equitable to the parties involved. Love used to be the business between two loving couples, but in our present age, greeting card companies and those “weird people” who claim to be close to God by virtue of celibacy all lay claim to be the sole authority on love and marriage. I think these two camps are what’s been making Valentine’s Day a very interesting holiday for over a millennia.

When capitalist consumerism declared that it knew the price of everything – including devotion and obligation – did it made equitable ground rules? Or are we now so cynical that nothing free has value anymore? How could Calvinism put a price on one’s own devotion and obligation? Only the Anglo-Saxon God knows and He’s not talking. To me, this makes it a situation where only lawyers have free reign on arbitrarily deciding what’s equitable or not. I just hope that more prenuptial agreements be offered in pro bono flavor.

To me, it’s just sad that the thing we call money – whose value is backed up by our increasing materialism - is also the very thing that could get us out of this specific dilemma. In this day and age, divorce insurance with proviso for legal separation and prenuptial agreements really has existing demand. Divorce insurance really has legitimacy because the element of gambling – the first essential factor in insurance – is not present. This is so because countless people get married on a regular basis with the knowledge that over half of it will end in divorce and currently divorce proceedings are always messy affairs by judicial standards. Then, only a couple of things are left to be studied to make divorce insurance an integral part of most insurance companies’ / providers’ retinue. Like the possibility in making accurate and scientific calculations of the extent of the hazard, so as to charge a fair premium. Remember, irreconcilable differences causes stress and stress leads to ill health mental or otherwise. The other is the cost of divorce insurance must be within the reach of a large number of people.

Forgive me for being too cynical – even by “Michael Moore Documentary” standards – but divorce insurance, in my opinion, could really revolutionize how our present generation look at and approach “Romantic Love”. Divorce insurance could end once and for all the blatantly ithyphallic way young couple decide to get married – by whim – with utter disregard to the hardships that they will certainly encounter in marriage. Just something to think about during Valentine’s Day.

3 comments:

invest said...

Here! Here!

We can't agree more. Visit www.safeguardguaranty.com and find out why.

April Rain said...

Is this article inspired by Queensrÿche's "I Don't Believe in Love" from their album Operation:Mindcrime? It seems like I'm addicted to this Heavy Metal Opera. I only know of two other "Rock Operas"; The Who's "Tommy" and The Pretty Things' "S.F. Sorrow". I also think that your blogs are inspired by that 1995 spoken word satire "Rude Hieroglyphics" by Lydia Lunch and Exene Cervenka. Also, what are your views on that Internet Judas Yahoo CEO Jerry Yang for ratting out on Shi Tao? Did Jerry Yang ever read Harriet Beecher Stoe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin" or Anne Frank's Diary?

Ringo said...

Dear Blog 49,
Sorry that we can't interact beyond the Platonic / Intellectual level because some of the contributors to this (my) blogsite are yet to reach of consent. Twelve year-olds with 219 IQs still have to obey the law the last time we read. Also the older contributors are unsure about the statute of limitations impose by The Hague on "Mercenaries". Some of us had been following closely on how the Turkmen-born Viktor Bout will be dealt by The Hague. We do take "Everyones right to self determination" very seriously. But thanks anyway.