Filler: Say 'I do' till the contract is due

Lane Filler is a member of the Newsday editorial board.

How long of a marriage would you commit to if you were offered options? Lifetime? Ten years? One sun-drenched week in Acapulco? Until last call?

For most of our history it's not been a question. Marriage was till death do us part (imagine how many deaths that rule hastened) or until one party got fed up enough to head for the hills, or, if the couple lived in the hills, the valleys.

That could all be changing, in Mexico at least.

Last week, Mexico City legislators proposed a bill that would require all couples to sign a prenuptial agreement stating how long they planned to be married, with a minimum sentence . . . er, term, of two years. The agreement would also spell out how child custody and other thorny divorce issues ("Hands off the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band albums and the salad spinner, you cad!") would be handled if the bliss gives way to the blahs.

It's a fascinating idea, particularly when you consider how long people live now. I once interviewed a couple celebrating their 80th wedding anniversary and the term "celebrating" had to be applied pretty loosely.

Some scientists predict we could soon live to 150 years of age. No matter how much you adore your high school sweetheart, 130 years together might snap the bonds of love.

And a two-year contract makes sense. The first year is all honeymoon, and the second year, like a utility infielder with an iffy bat, you'll be playing your heart out to earn a place on the squad come next season. A marriage with a measly two-year guarantee might cut down on the flannel footie pajamas and the "I don't shower on weekends" mentality.

Historians argue that when women were granted the right to seek divorce, men began to work harder at being good husbands, so the threat of dissolving marriages has advantages.

If you start considering innovative marriage terms, the options are endless. What about two years on, two years off? Most spouses run out of fresh anecdotes to recount after sharing their lives for a while:

Husband: "Did I ever tell you about the time I drove down the Long Island Expressway in reverse, trying to find a Bell Biv DeVoe CD that had fallen out the window, and I smashed my Escalade into a police cruiser and got arrested?"

Wife: "It was my Escalade. I'm the one who threw the CD out the window. I posted your bail. Idiot."

By alternating periods of marriage and singletude, partners would come back to the relationship with great new stories.

Some couples might try being married five days a week, and footloose two. What about alternating seasons? Summer is great for the single, but who wants to be alone in winter?

And, while we're experimenting, what about polygamy? To me, the idea that the cure for the hardships of marriage is more spouses tastes like a big bowl of insanity with a creamy stupidity topping -- but others might disagree.

The scheme proposed in Mexico does pose problems, though. There is no plan for child-raising you can insert in a prenup that replaces two committed parents living together, and working together, to provide a top-notch upbringing.

And marriage is hard. If you go into it believing divorce is OK, you are almost certain to divorce. There will come a day of angry silences and furious rants, and rather than offering the apologies, rather than changing the behavior that led to the fracas, you will simply walk away.

That's why my wife and I have a more explicit version of "Till death do us part" as an oath. Our marriage motto is "No one here gets out alive."

When the other option is a gangland-style slaying, you find a way to kiss and make up.