The first article chronicles the difficulty with a society that increasingly sees formal, legal marriage as an unnecessary or outdated institution, yet expects all of the rights and privileges of that formal, legal union when informal unions dissolve.  At first we might be tempted to sympathy for folks stuck in this conundrum.  Spending 20 years in a relationship with someone, only to be left with nothing when that person decides to move on to a new relationship?  Ouch!  

But isn't this partly what the institution of marriage attempts to deal with?  The protection of all parties (not just the man and woman, but their children and even relatives) in the marriage relationship in the event that one partner does not live up to their promises, or in the event of serious illness or death?  How can the law protect people if they refuse to utilize the tools?  Moreover, how could the law protect people if we are all creating and dissolving these relationships at will, without any formal process?  You hear a lot of excuses for why people don't want to get married, yet set up their lives as if they were.  Unfortunately, those excuses aren't very helpful when those relationships fall apart.  Avoiding the legal institution of marriage doesn't seem to protect people any better from the issues that plague people who are married - it just leaves them additionally vulnerable when those issues strike.

The second article reports an interesting take on marriage.  Mexico City is apparently experimenting with marriages with an expiration date.  This would seem to address the issues outlined in the first article - offering people legal protection and recourse in their relationships - while also acknowledging that many people aren't able or willing to remain married over the long haul.  This seems like a rather crass alteration of the institution of marriage - viewing it primarily as a way of protecting themselves without actually committing themselves.  

What will we think of next?