Follow-Up to Tuesday's Question of the Day

Cmill's last point in his first comment of yesterday's post reminded me of a certain celebrity currently under fire due to his marital, and extra-marital, behavior. I'm not going to focus on his infidelity, but rather the prenup he has with his wife. I saw on the news that his wife signed an agreement when they married that would guarantee her certain dollar amounts when she stayed married to her husband for certain numbers of years.

I actually found this to be more disturbing than the affairs themselves. I hate it when a marriage is set up with the expectancy of eventual divorce. This makes it a business agreement, not a marriage. As Cmill hinted at, there are certain benefits that come with a legal marriage...

So here is the follow-up question: Should a legal marriage be granted to people who make it clear that there is at least a reasonable likelihood that it will eventually end when it is no longer convenient? And if such a marriage exists and is found to be basically a business agreement, should the government have the right to revoke or annul such a marriage?