A price to pay for saying "I don't"

[TJ Phaserman 2]

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican brides and grooms who get cold feet before walking down the aisle will have to pay their significant other for the inconvenience, if a proposal by a local congressman is adopted.

 

In Mexico, weddings are big social events where large amounts of money are spent before the big day on gowns, tuxedos, catering and music bands and churches are even reserved years in advance.

 

Weddings of over 500, or even 1,000 guests, are frequently splashed across newspapers' social pages. According to Mexican tradition, the bride's family absorbs most of the expenses.

 

Jose Antonio Zepeda, a city deputy for President Felipe Calderon's conservative National Action Party, wants to introduce the idea of compensation for backing out of a wedding as part of changes to the capital's civil code.

 

"He or she who refuses to live up to a marriage commitment will pay for the expenses that the other party made in connection with the planned matrimony," Zepeda's proposal says.

 

Zepeda also wants lawmakers to give legal status to prenuptial agreements for those on their way to the altar in hopes it will make divorce settlements easier if the couple splits later on.

 

"We are looking to avoid emotional distress, cut divorce expenses and shorten the time that courts spend solving them," Zepeda told Reuters on Friday. The prenuptial agreement will be optional.

 

Divorce rates are on the rise in Mexico, which has a predominantly Catholic population of over 107 million. Currently, three out of 10 couples in Mexico City divorce, compared with just one in 10 in the 1970s, the congressman said.

 

Zepeda's proposal is expected to be voted by Mexico City's congress in March or April. If passed, it will only apply to heterosexual couples in the capital, which legalized gay unions in 2006.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Good idea - maybe people will give more thought before accepting a proposal

[ddillard 2]

I think that this is a great idea. I have always felt that if one party backs out then they should have to repay the other party for the expenses that person has paid.

[A l t e r E g o 9]

I've heard of people being sued for backing out of marriages for years under 'breach of contract'.

 

I suppose it could be a new thing in those parts though.

[ddillard 2]

I've heard of people being sued for backing out of marriages for years under 'breach of contract'.

 

I suppose it could be a new thing in those parts though.

 

I had heard of people doing that but was not sure if it was true.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Actually, in earlier times it was "breach of promise" and you could sue but that cause of action was elimated several decades ago in the US. Conveniently, about the time the right to sue went away the custom of engagement rings began to flourish. I believe the custom is - if the guy dumps you - you get to keep the ring - so you get a consolation prize for your troubles so to speak.

[SeeingEyeBorg 0]

I am totally digging this idea! America should adopt it as well.

[MrPsychic 1]

Actually, in earlier times it was "breach of promise" and you could sue but that cause of action was elimated several decades ago in the US. Conveniently, about the time the right to sue went away the custom of engagement rings began to flourish. I believe the custom is - if the guy dumps you - you get to keep the ring - so you get a consolation prize for your troubles so to speak.

What if the woman dumps you? That happened to me several years ago when I was young and stupid, I basically had to threaten legal action to get the ring back so I could get my money back.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

Actually, in earlier times it was "breach of promise" and you could sue but that cause of action was elimated several decades ago in the US. Conveniently, about the time the right to sue went away the custom of engagement rings began to flourish. I believe the custom is - if the guy dumps you - you get to keep the ring - so you get a consolation prize for your troubles so to speak.

Ah, but remember in earlier times a girl's # 1 goal in life once she got through high school was to get a husband. The quicker the better, and it didn't matter very much who that husband was. Girls were expected to stay at home until they got married and then move into their new place - which had better be a house the husband owns, not an apartment - after the honeymoon. Maybe she had a job while she lived at home, maybe not. None of this single girl living alone or single girl living with single guy or even single girl going to college stuff. It just wasn't done. You were either married or you lived with your parents. That was it, so a lot of girls ended up marring the first guy to propose just to move out of their parent's place. A woman depended on her man for her survival so engagement rings were the way a man could prove to a woman (plus a house, car, and job) that he could support her.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

What if the woman dumps you? That happened to me several years ago when I was young and stupid, I basically had to threaten legal action to get the ring back so I could get my money back.

 

My understanding of the "rules" is that if a girl breaks it off - she gives the ring back. Which seems fair to me.

 

Money issues aside, I think it's "wrong" to lead a person on - why agree to marriage if you know you don't want to be married to that person or for that matter why keep dating a person when you know you don't really have feelings for them. To me that isn't honest and that person should know how you feel and should the option to move on and find a relationship that will work for them. People that would lead someone on to the point of them investing in planning a wedding - that's just inconsiderate and selfish. If you do that the other person shouldn't bear the cost of you're indecision.

[Charface 0]

It's hard to get cold feet with a shotgun pointed at your back.

[GhostofMajorHayes 10]

Politicians seem to get involved everyplace they are not invited. Who really has time to think up stuff like this?