In defense of sunset clause in marriages as sensible solution for unhappy couples

With discussions on the divorce bill taking the spotlight, one post gained a lot of social media traction. Jokingly, it suggested that marriages should have expiration dates and be renewable. At first glance, this may seem like a silly idea. The post gained 164,000 laughing reactions. But what seems like tomfoolery might actually be the best solution to the “unhappy marriage” problem.

Some facts should be established. First, marriages are contracts. When two people legally wed, they enter into a legal agreement that defines their rights and obligations toward each other. If marriages are contracts, then the way we treat marriages should reference how we treat typical contracts.

Second, divorce has negative consequences for the immediate parties of interest, namely the divorcees and their children. Children with single parents are more likely to fare worse across a spectrum of welfare indicators, and cooperative co-parenting does not fully mitigate this negative effect. With discussions on education outcomes becoming prominent in recent days, it is also concerning that divorce durably lowers children’s test scores as some studies show.

Divorce also negatively affects the divorcees. Taking an extreme example of mental health, studies show that divorce likely causally increases suicidality. This effect is strongest in the years immediately following a divorce and for the shortest-lived marriages.

With these two considerations in mind, we can assess how we should treat marriages.

A typical contract may include a sunset clause, defining an expiration date for the agreement unless further action is taken to extend it. If marriages are contracts, they can also have sunset clauses. This allows unhappy couples, especially in low-conflict marriages where reconciliation is most likely, to mend the relationship and avoid the negative consequences listed above, while still providing an “out” for truly irreconcilable marriages.

One might argue that it is cruel to force couples into unhappy relationships even for a limited time. Here, we reference a typical contract again. One does not get out of their obligations just because they are not happy fulfilling them. If I owe someone a financial debt, then I am obliged to repay that debt no matter how unhappy I am about forking out my money. In marriages, it is literally in the vows to be with each other “for better or for worse, in sickness and in health.” Being with each other during unhappy times is a contractual obligation that must be fulfilled by both parties.

That said, it is truly cruel to force people into unhappy marriages for their entire lifetimes. Here, the contract’s expiry date provides a sensible solution. It allows people in unhappy marriages to fulfill their contractual obligations, gives them time to fix a fixable marriage, and does not exclude a way out of the unhappiness. If the couple is happy with the marriage, they can simply renew it. Albeit symbolic, wedding vow renewals are already a thing. The sunset clause just legalizes this process.

The Philippine divorce bill should then remove “irreconcilable differences” (legalese for unhappiness) as grounds for divorce and instead mandate sunset clauses for marriages. For serious divorce grounds such as domestic abuse, infidelity, and psychological incapacity, violations of certain clauses in a typical contract lead to the termination of the contract. It can treat these divorce grounds as universal clauses in marriage contracts that, if violated, immediately end the marriage.

Sunset clauses on marriages make sense for the divorcees, their children, and the state. It may not be the perfect or the best solution, but the idea at least warrants a second look.

JULAN OMIR P. ALDOVER,

julanaldover87@gmail.com