We Need New Rules for Serial Marriages, Octo-Parents

By Mike Hess Posted Apr 15th 2010 10:23PM

Pop-Ed: This has been a doozy of a month when it comes to Hollywood romance. Recently though, the people and couples involved have had storied pasts that involve impossibly high numbers of either marriages or children. So, with all the talk in recent years about the sanctity of marriage and such (Massive Disclaimer: This is not a political article. At all), it feels apropos to dig into the ridiculousness that's been going on lately and call it like we see it. Essentially, we've come to the conclusion that in order to protect the sanctity of marriage given the current legal situation, the following needs to be enforced: If you have been married five times, you should not be allowed to marry again. Similarly, if you have five or more children, you should not be allowed to divorce. Agree? Totally disagree and hate me? Hear me out after the jump.

So what prompted this brash, unsympathetic tirade of romantic fervor? It's simple: Larry King is divorcing for the eigth time, Mel Gibson is leaving his new girlfriend/baby's mother -- who broke up his initial marriage where he had seven other kids -- and Elizabeth Taylor was reportedly set to marry for the ninth time (which she denied). And that's all on top of never-ending Gosselin custody battle drama. With my guidelines in place, we wouldn't have to be bothered by any of this!

Let's start with the five kids = no divorce policy. Most arguments focus on the crux that the purpose of the nuclear family is to have and raise children. Well, if you have five, methinks you've committed yourself eternally to that very logic. Think of it as a sort of pseudo-positive version of California's "three strikes" law, only now it's "five kids" instead. Nobody is going to question whether having that many kids is a good or bad idea -- that's entirely up to each individual couple. However, the massive impact a split has on families of that volume is something that can and should be prevented. If you decide to have a litter of children, well, you should plan on being there to raise all of them forever.

Had this been law, Jon and Kate Gosselin would be forced to work it out like adults instead of philandering about town and learning how to salsa. Plus, Mel and Robyn Gibson would still be together, and nobody would know who the hell Oksana Grigorieva is. Doesn't that sound precious? Sure, we wouldn't have been blessed with the musical miracle that is 'Beautiful Heartache' (directed by Mel!), but that's a sacrifice we're willing to make for the well-being of the Gibson clan.

Now, let's move on to the marriage section of this argument. Yes, America is a democracy and people generally have far more freedoms than in other countries. Marriage, however, is a legally binding agreement that bestows benefits, tax implications and other government-binding agreements to those involved. It's a contract. If you were a business owner and you messily broke five contracts with your partners, the Better Business Bureau would be all over you and you'd be out of business (or in jail). So why can people enter into marriage contracts freely and openly, knowing that no matter how many times they divorce/cheat/etc, they'll be free as a bird to do it yet again?

Divorces are never nice. The emotional drain is brutal, but the drain it has on legal resources with all of the financial and custodial woes that come along with it is even harder. In this time of recession, budget cutbacks and downsized resources are commonplace for everyone. So, in this time of needed restraint, employing a marriage limit seems right. It's for the economy, people!

So why five marriages? Well, because that's what we picked. We'd even be willing to pare it down further to three, but in the spirit of America, it seemed right to give people five chances to totally blow it.

Tags: jon gosselin, kate gosselin, larry king, mel gibson

Comments

(35)

Thursday 15 April

By Mike

High Rank Vote down Vote up Report this

Mike,

1) What if the couple, like John and Kate, go over the limit of five children by having sextuplets? Would they not be able to divorce even once?

2) What if the couple has over five children and the mother genuinely feels that the husband is violent? Should she be forced to stay with him, even if she fears for the lives of the children?

By Ky

1) What if the couple, like John and Kate, go over the limit of five children by having sextuplets? Would they not be able to divorce even once?

2) What if the couple has over five children and the mother genuinely feels that the husband is violent? Should she be forced to stay with him, even if she fears for the lives of the children?

To answer question number one, the instance of sextuplets in nature si vanishingly small; if you have that many kids at once, you've done it on purpose, generally with in-vitro fertilization and refusing selective abortion to reduce the number of babies born, so yes, you made the decision to deliberately have that many kids all at once. Natural multiples not involving scientific intervention could be considered separately. You want to whelp a litter all at once, then no, you're not allowed to divorce after you do it.

As for question two, very few abusive men don't start slapping their women around until after the fourth child is born. It starts long before that and perhaps knowing that, after five kids are born, she wouldn't be allowed to divorce him, would provide some women more incentive to get out of violent relationships BEFORE they have five kids with the abuser.

Friday 16 April

By LisaLovesJohnny

Vote down Vote up Report this

Mike,you got the idea!Another important one would be if a woman has an abortion,she should be made to have her tubes tied at the same time.Enough already of killing these innocent little babies then going right back to playing without paying.Married couples should have to a)stay married until all their children reach 18 or b)If they do divorce,they should not be allowed to remarry until the children are 18.Then welfare,child molestation,childhood emotional trauma,deadbeat parents,and other crap that hurt the children.If a man beats up a woman,get your broom and skillet and he'll soon stop.If a man cheats,chemically castrate him and if a woman cheats,tattoo a big red T (for tramp)across her forhead.This world is so evil and out of control that it would take such shocking consequences to get everybodys attention.Our children should always be put first,regardless.

By jay

Highest Rank Vote down Vote up Report this

That so many people voted for this proposal makes me so sad to be a human being. This is the opposite of liberty. Perhaps we should also brand big letter A in the foreheads of people who cheat on their spouses. Please people stop regressing.

By Annie

Right, there are so many REAL reasons this fantasy proposal wouldn't work. In addition to the other poster's questions, take Liz Taylor was an example. She's been married 8 times. But twice to the same guy, Richard Burton. And once to Mike Todd, who was killed in a plane crash and left her a widow. So do those count? Also, she's 80, shouldn't she be allowed to do whatever the hell she wants? She's not hurting anyone.

By okiamkiwi

Are you for real?? None of these "new rules" are lucid. Why on Earth would you care how many times someone else marries? And would you want to stay in a love-less marriage because you have 6 kids? Would you want your kids to be forced to live in that "home"? We all need to spend a little more time finding out what our family needs and stay out of the affairs of others.

By Mary Wood

Why do people always use exceptional cases as their point of argument? However, since you have used Elizabeth Taylor as your reason to oppose the proposal; the vow in marriage is, "Till death do we part". That eliminates the Mike Todd example. There are many cases where a couple divorces, realizes their mistake and re-marries (as in Richard Burton). But since you are using Elizabeth Taylor's many marriages; how many of her marriages were strongly influenced by alcohol and/or drugs? We know that Richard Burton was an alcoholic and Larry Fortensky (sp?) met her in re-hab. As regards Eddie Fisher; yes, the lovely Miss Taylor should have been required to have a nice red "A" on her forehead because she certainly was an adultress in the disruption of his marriage to Debbie Reynolds. If the fear of the wrath of God is not enough to make people take marriage vows seriously, maybe a scarlet letter, marking yourself to the public will.

Sunday 18 April

By Bob

perhaps these "new rules" wouldnt be needed if people tried to live within their means. i work sometimes 60 hours a week, have a son that i have joint custody of he lives with me every other week.. i pay child support to his mother every week. and honestly i dont understand how any couple that has two children already could possibly try to have more. if it happens as part of nature because of "religious views" or other natural reasons it could be understood. in this case, to make the descision of having more, using scientific means just screams insanity. someone from the outside should be able to intervene. We have agencies that step in when children are being abused now.. what kind of life will these kids all have after their mothers spotlite goes out...possibly a future drain on an already overtaxed economy. if the potential parents aren't smart enough to say enough is enough then someone else should. also now that they are divorced. no matter what math you use, the father is going to get screwed at least if he IS a man and doesnt run and hide. social service will take so much child support from him that he will never be able to care for another family, while she can go out and find another man, have more kids possibly and take his child support.

By dnclilsistrdnc

I'd say stop at two, if you can't do it by then no more. It is a joke and with the laws nowadays, and the gays wanting to get in on the unholy action it is a joke and maybe we should throw it in the crapper. The people who marry and marry and marry are not really marrying, they are just keeping the lawyer in a nice house. Yes time to start a marriage law of 3 times only, I say 2 but 3. Must Stop!

Actually, you missed the ONE rule/law that WOULD make sense to me. Having 8 children (or more) ought to be illegal (unless they are adopted). Especially if you "have to have" a reality show to support your family.

By KT

Hey, if these rules were real, you wouldn't have anything to report on.

By hrhsheeba

While you want limits on # of marriages, # of kids, how about # of times a couple is allowed to have sex. Ask China they have all the answers. Education is the rag phrase so instead of messing with # of marriages, change to mandatory couples counciling b4 the marriage and have f/u sessions every year to keep marriage in tact. Have it Gov sponsered for those who need gov to order every move, hell make it 1 week of gov pd counciling on the anniversary date every year.

Why would we care how many times someone else marries? Because the author is right - getting legally married creates a social and legal contract that imposes both costs and benefits on the couple involved as well as on the rest of society. If you just want to have the fun without the costs and obligations, shack up and leave geting married, legally, to the people who are serious about it. The question is not one of telling people who they can live with or have sex with, simply one of asking people to limit the number of binding contracts they enter and dissolve while imposing the problems on the rest of us.

By J Lea

Concern yourself with your own marriage and children instead of looking to make trouble for someone else. Too many people have too much idle time. Years ago talking about such nonsense would get you a swift kick in the pants indicating your need to get busy doing something worthwhile.

By Susan in Warrenville

Cute idea, but....no. If the couples are not allowed to divorce, you'll have the same situation you do in much of Europe, where they are married in name only and the husband keeps a mistress (or a few) on the side.

Or, you'll have very high rates of murder by spouses.

Ditto with the kids. As many people know, often a feuding couple that "stays together for the kids" is the worst possible solution. It can result in domestic violence and child abuse,or serious emotional problems for the kids.

The only way to ensure that people never get divorced is to make marriage illegal. (You left "0" off the "number of legal marriages" on your survey.)

By heather

It's people like that which made people like me never want to get married. Too easy to get into, so hard to get out of and its worse if you have kids who will be affected by all this.

By Popeatercommenter

I think it's always a huge mistake to consider giving the government MORE power in our lives and decisions. (period)

By MBCRC

Kate is making more in one week on DWTS than most nurses make in a year, unless they are working at one of the nations top hospitals. Does anyone remember reading how much they paid Shawn Johnson? Of course Shawn being a gold medal winner she may have made more than Kate. Plus on DWTS they are paid for each week they are on the show, not a flat rate. Check it out, and do the math.

By dlb0917

I wish people would leave Kate Gosselin alone... All she is, Is a Single Mother trying to raise her family.....If any of the people who critize her ever watched Jon & Kate plus 8 then they would know that Jon was simply another child for Kate to have to care for.... For example at the beach Jon would not bother to watch the kids...Yes Kate would yell at him... If I were the Mother and had 8 children out in public I would expect my spouse to help watch the children.... But Not Jon...he would be off doing something else...At the Toy store it was the same way...he would go off and forget about the kids...
I give Kate alot of credit for raising that many children alone and for putting her children first before anything else...
I think everyone needs to give her a break and stop making her the topic of everyones conversation....
I agree she isn't a dancer.....But then again I give her credit for going there and making the money for her family...
KUDO to You Kate....

By Cindy

Kate Goesslin ! Are you kidding me? Leave her alone ! Please ! Get her off TV ! She is not a celebrity ! I do not want to hear about her sad divorce and how sad it is she is trying to raise eight children. There are many, many other single women in America doing the exact same thing and workiing just as hard in jobs that make much less money (than talk show hosts and dancing) and crying on national television trying to get people to feel sorry for you ! Her situation is tough - but so is half of the working women in America. This woman just wants to stay in the limelight and will do obviously anything to do it - including being on a dancing show away from her children - then cry about it and say "I just miss my kids so much" - this is so hard! Oh give me a break already! Get off the show and go home !

Page 1 of 2