If marriage was like a timed contract - a hypothetical?

[NBTBRV8]

I don't know why I thought of this, but following on from the Does marriage mean sharing existing assets? thread, the thought struck me what would society be like for good and bad, if marriage had a time limit that needed to be reviewed every X years. At the end of the contract the couple had to "re-sign" (in whatever terms that means) otherwise they could annul it with any assets brought in to the agreement taken without charge by the other partner, but anything assets/wealth generated whilst in the contract split 50/50.

What should happen if the contract wanted to be ended before the "renewal" date, would that be called a divorce and what "penalty" if that is the right word, apply so as to keep some commitment and make people "think" before they entered in to marriage. I can see both sides to how this would pan out, but it is an interesting concept. Would people go in to marriage more regularly or stay out of it more often? Would it make people re-evaluate their commitment more regularly? If so would that be a good or bad thing?

This is not to devalue "love" and "commitment", nor is it to commercialise it, but would this make society happier, better or worse off? If society had the opportunity to recast how marriage is, what would it look like and could it be "more equitable?"

[Ambleton]

Where do children come into your contract?

I could almost see it if children weren't involved.

Its an interesting thought though. Its almost going back to the old days when marriages were a business proposal, and bonded companies/families together in order to make more wealth. However, these marriages were for life, and I bet must of then were miserable....

"ill give you the x contract, but in return your daughter shall marry my son"

Sort of thing...

[NBTBRV8]

With kids, I think the cost would have to be split 50/50 for all costs incurred.