"Covenant" Marriage-Good or Bad?

[BuelahWitch]

The front page of my paper featured a kook senator from the KS legislature who stated after they get their amendmend banning gay marriage that they're going to provide "covenant" marriage to the state.
Covenant marriage would only be dissolved in cases of spouse or child abuse, abandonment of more than one year, adultery or if one of the spouses were convicted of a felony.Sen. Huelskamp stated that it wouldn't be mandatory and that those who wanted to get into a covenant marriage would have "premarital counseling" and would not be able to get a divorce even in the above cases until the end of a two year separation period.

Perhaps it's a moot point since it won't be mandatory (at least not yet), but this scares the hell out of me. On the one hand you might say it will prevent "frivolous" marriages if people know they just can't end the marriage on a whim. On the other, would it prevent spouses who are victims of extreme mental cruelty from getting out of the marriage? I remember my mother telling me that the only way she was granted a divorce from her first husband in 1961 was when someone testified to seeing the ex play "russian roulette" with her head and a gun. Are we to go back to those days now?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Let's go back to the bad old days

when women were considered chattel and had no rights whatsoever. This wacko senator's idea is one more step towards the total subjugation of women.

[BuelahWitch]

4. That's what I thought too

Will the next step be denying us jobs because we're not the right gender?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. No, they need low paid workers

they will allow women to work, but not at the same rate as men, to keep wages down. Like so many men have said, "Honey, you don't need to make as much as a man. He has a family to support." and ignore the fact that the woman is the sole breadwinner in her family.

[Liberal Veteran]

2. Stupid idea......

And will only result in rich people going elsewhere to get a quickie divorce.

If you require the force of law to hold you together, what does that really say about the institution of marriage?

[varun]

3. I think Louisiana

has had these "covenenat marriages" since the last 3 years or so. Is there any data available to show any positives or negatives of such a marriage?

[sangh0]

5. The word "mandatory" in this context is misleading

Not wrong, but misleading. If I understand the proposal correctly, no one will be required to get a convenant marriage. The only way some things will be mandatory is if the couple CHOOSES to enter into a convenant marriage. If they choose a traditional marriage, the only "mandates" will be those that the law already mandates.

Basically, from a legal standpoint, marriage is a contract with provisions that have "standardized" by the state which grants the marriage license. Convenant marriages are nothing more but another variety of a marriage license, one with more restrictive clauses. I personally think it's a stupid idea, but in a free society, please should be free to do stupid things.

[Liberal Veteran]

7. Personally, I think anyone stupid enough to get one of these....

....probably deserves what they get if they find it impossible to get out of the marriage.

Talk about acting against your own best interest.

And what does it say about a person that requires more restrictive marriage to hold them together.

Why don't they just call it "shackle marriage" and be done with it?

[DBoon]

10. I can imagine certain churches pressuring their member to get one

Or religious parents pushing their kids to get a covenant marriage. Or a lot of social pressure in small towns to get a covenant marriage. If you don't get a covenant marriage, I could imagine you being looked on as "not really a Christian" in some places.

The prior posters assume that the couple getting married are acting as free, independent adults entering into marriage only with their own self-interests in mind. In fact, the folks "opting" for a covenant marriage probably come from a social environment covered with fear and coercion, where the parents or the family minister can apply all kinds of pressure, and where the couple were never taught to stand up for themselves.

[Liberal Veteran]

14. In other words, it's slavery, not marriage.

And they have no business getting married in the first place if they are unable to stand up for themselves.

I see what you are trying to say, but from my viewpoint, a person who allows themselves to be browbeaten into this form of marriage isn't a person that should be marrying at all because they lack the self-awareness and esteem necessary to enter into a contract of this type.

[DBoon]

19. You are right

But we have a whole subculture in this coutry that specializes in creating these sort of people.

In a lot of places in the US, going against the local preacher or your parents is a quick trip to social ostracism. That and it takes an unusually critical mind to realize you won't go to hell for standing up for yourself - when you have spent your entire life taught that way.

[sangh0]

20. In that case, most if not all marriages are "slavery"

The traditional marriage license also binds the parties to certain commitments, so I guess no one has any business getting married in the first place. After all, if they need the state to enforce those commitments, they must not be ready for marriage.

It's also a form of slavery. That's what my married friends tell me

a person who allows themselves to be browbeaten into this form of marriage isn't a person that should be marrying at all

And we know no one is ever pressured into getting married the traditional way. Nope, never happens

:crazy:

The ideas expressed here are extremely elitist. It assumes that the posters know other people's best interests better than fully grown adults who are making the commitment.

Personally, I think those who choose black licorice over red are fools, but in free society they're free to do as they please, and ridicule won't make them any smarter, and expressing superiority over them only makes onself feel good

And just how odd is it that none of the people who responded to my post said anything about the point of it, which was that the use of the word "mandate" was misleading. Instead, they took it as a sign to repeat things they had already been said.

[Liberal Veteran]

28. If you don't like what I said, feel free to ignore me.

People who allow themselves to browbeaten into marriage have no business getting married in a free society.

How can you POSSIBLY take issue with that?

Are you trying to say you approve of people being pressured into marriage?

Are you trying to say a person who allows themselves to be pressured into marriage is really entering into the marriage with the right frame of mind?

Are you trying to say that a person who is pressured into a marriage really has the self-assertiveness necessary to stand up for themselves in the event that person abuses them?

What is you are really trying to say?

[sangh0]

32. Fat chance

How can you POSSIBLY take issue with that?

Simple, you used a "simple fact" to criticize convenant marriages while ignoring it has the same relevance to traditional marriages.

What is you are really trying to say?

The fact that people are sometimes pressured into marriage has no relevance to this issue of convenant marriages, but you brought it up because your hostility blinded you to the simple fact that traditional marriages have the same weakness. And now that I've caught your mistake, you're trying to claim you were simply pointing out a "simple fact" while trying to ignore your hyperbolic description of convenant marriages being "slavery"

[Liberal Veteran]

37. I am hostile to the notion because I feel it would detrimental...

...to the welfare of people who don't have the wherewithall to stand up for themselves against the pressures of external forces and make decisions based on their own interests.

You are the one showing a complete lack of empathy for the person who is pressured into an arrangement that will be difficult to nigh impossible to remove his or her self from in the event that the marriage is detrimental to person's well being (mental or physical).

People should stay together in a marriage because they CHOOSE to. Not because the law makes it nearly impossible to extricate oneself from it.

That, in my opinion, is how marriage gets devalued.

Let me ask you this: Do you really believe that a marriage that stays together because the people cannot extricate themselves legally from the contract is "valuing" traditional marriage.


And don't you even presume to lecture me on marriage. I have spent almost 15 years living in a union without the benefit of a marriage license because society doesn't allow me to get one with my lifepartner.

We stay together because we love and care for each other, not because there is a binding contract that keeps us from separating.

Now don't you think that what I and my partner share is more in the spirit of what marriage should mean than a legal contract than makes it difficult to remove ourselves from the arrangment we are in?

Or a better question is this: What exactly does marriage mean to you?

Is it a legal contract or is it the joining of two people who love and agree to spend their lives together and care for one another?

I daresay my version of marriage makes this bit of legal chicanery that you seem so fond of called "covenant marriage" look asinine in how it really supports and defends what should be important in marriage.

[sangh0]

43. And so you called it "slavery"???

If it is " detrimental to the welfare of people who don't have the wherewithall to stand up for themselves against the pressures of external forces and make decisions based on their own interests." that still doesn't make it slavery, and if it's detrimental due to pressure, then the same can be said for traditional marriages, a point you continue to ignore

Is it a legal contract or is it the joining of two people who love and agree to spend their lives together and care for one another?

We're not talking about what marriage means to me. We're talking about the law.

I daresay my version of marriage makes this bit of legal chicanery that you seem so fond of called "covenant marriage" look asinine in how it really supports and defends what should be important in marriage

The fact that you have to rely on overheated hyperbole like "slavery" and "legal chicanery" over a contractual issue shows how weak your argument is. That's why you are trying to change the subject to the issue of coercion, even though that problem also arises in traditional marriages, which you won't call "slavery" or "legal chicanery"

[Liberal Veteran]

53. A person is able to extricate themselves from a "normal" marriage...

...with little difficulty, unlike this arrangement which makes it incredibly difficult.

I stand by my characterization of it.

Your knee-jerk defense of this kind of arrangement because it has some ties to xstianity is beside the point.

I will not support a situation that puts people into a potentially irrevocable situation particularly where the issue of coercion is a possible factor.

You don't have to like my characterization of it and you don't have to agree. Your opinion is irrelevant to my support or lack thereof of this.

I wouldn't support this kind of arrangement any more than I would support some of the forms of marriages you find in the middle east that prevents people (particularly women) from extricating themselves from an unhappy sham of a marriage where the only thing holding them together is the force of law.

If you don't like me calling it a form of slavery, so what? How would you characterize an arrangment in which people are pressured into a potentially irrevocable contract?

It makes a mockery of marriage by forcing people who might despise each other to remain legally married. How does that uplift the definition of marriage?

And these two situations are NOT equal in terms of "normal" legal marriage and the so-called "covenant" marriage. Not in the eyes of the law. You know it and I know it, so don't even try to play your silly game there. Normal marriage allows one to easily extricate themselves from the situation. If the two were exactly the same, then there would be no need for a seperate legally binding covenant, now would there?

I won't fall prey to your trying to spell out my opinions for me. I am more than capable of speaking for myself and I grow weary of your constant haranguing me about something I didn't say OR imply. I have very much said that I see a distinction between the two forms of contractual marriages.

Yes, I see this as an unecessary and detrimental form of legal chicanery that is akin to slavery (as opposed to normal marriage law) and I make no apology for it.

Feel free to disagree if you will, but do not try to impose opinions on my words that were neither implied nor spoken outright.

Understand?

[sangh0]

60. And people can extricate themselves from convenant marriages too

if they were entered into due to coercion.

Your knee-jerk defense of this kind of arrangement

I didn't know my calling it "stupid" could be interpreted as a defense. I didn't realize anything but "slavery" would be found flattering.

I will not support a situation that puts people into a potentially irrevocable situation particularly where the issue of coercion is a possible factor.

It's not irrevocable, nor is it slavery.

[Liberal Veteran]

66. Leave it alone. I disagree with your position wholeheartedly

And I grow weary of explaining myself over and over ad nauseum to you.

Okay?

We don't agree. I do see this as a form of slavery not much different from marriage in the middle east where women have little recourse to remove themselves from them legally.

I find it a step in the wrong direction for human rights when you use the force of law to make it difficult for a person to extricate themselves from a potentially terrible situation.

I find that there is an extremely high potential for social/emotional coercion into this type of arrangement that is detrimental to the values of a free society.

You disagree with me. I understand that.

I think if people want to stay together forever they should do so because they WANT to. You believe it requires some kind of external force of law to make it happen.

I disagree with you completely on this issue.

I am done discussing this with you.

[sangh0]

69. Do you really think there's any chance I will obey your orders?

I'll "leave it alone" if I want to, not because you order me too. If you get tired of it, you are not being forced to do anything.

PUT DOWN THE KEYBOARD

But as long as you're repeating untruths, I will continue to point out that your argument is based on your fevered imaginations. Convenant marriages are not slavery, and nor is it inextricable. The factors you claim to be concerned about could be a factor in ANY contract, yet you're only concerned when it effects convenant marriages.

Your insistence on calling it "slavery", and the way you thought I was "defending" it merely for disagreeing with you, shows that you have had a very strong emotional reaction to this issue.

[BuelahWitch]

16. That's what the article said

More or less that churches or control freaks, as in, "if you really loved me, you'd do it," would pressure people into getting a CM even if they didn't want one.

[Liberal Veteran]

17. Which underscores the point that if you can be pressured into...

...something like this, you probably don't have any business getting married to begin with.

[sangh0]

22. Yes, and we know no one has EVER been pressured into getting married

:crazy:

[Liberal Veteran]

24. I didn't say that they hadn't....

What I said was that anyone who can be pressured into getting married probably has no business getting married to begin with.

A simple statement of fact.

I think we know full well that many people marry against their own better judgement due to pressure from external forces, but it doesn't excuse the fact that they have no business getting married even so.

We can still have empathy for the weak-willed who allow themselves to be pressured into marriage and point out the ridiculousness of a entering into a marriage under duress at the same time.

They are not mutually exclusive.

Just like people who are pressured into having sex before they feel ready have no business having sex. People like that exist, but it doesn't really give them a free pass from the fact that they shouldn't be engaging in sexual behavior before they are mature enough and strong enough to decide without duress.

[sangh0]

25. True, you just criticized one for something that applies to the other also

but there's no double standard there, I'm sure.

What I said was that anyone who can be pressured into getting married probably has no business getting married to begin with.

A simple statement of fact.

Yes, it is a simple fact, but what does it have to do with convenant marriages? It's obvious what you were implying, so feel free to deny it.

[Liberal Veteran]

26. Um, did you even read where I replied exactly to someone...

...who saying that people would BE PRESSURED INTO THIS TYPE OF MARRIAGE.

Or are you just on one of your usual crusades against everything I say?

I really wish you would stop taking issue with everything I say.

[DBoon]

29. Of course they would be pressured

Bride is 17, groom is 18-19 yr old, grew up in a small town, raised in a strict christian environment, maybe the bride-to-be is pregnant, local preacher insists everyone get a covenant marriage or burn in hell forever, father of bride says "no way you are marrying my daughter unless you agree to a covenant marriage", bride and groom never lived anywhere else and their entire life is tied up in the town and they both really believe if they go against the preacher they will burn in hell forever...

This is the reality of marriage in many parts of the US.

The people who buck this sort of pressure move to a city and never come back.

I wish I could say I would stand up to this, but if I were that age and grew up in that environment, I'm not sure.

[Liberal Veteran]

33. I don't think pressure is ALWAYS going to be a factor.

I think it's highly likely that two people could get together and AGREE for their own reasons to this form of marriage.

I can live with that.

I think this does however set a bad precedence simply for the reasons you describe. Rather than entering into this of their own free will, a person being pressured into this would find themselves trapped into a form of slavery because they lacked the foresight and self-assertiveness to stand up for themselves.

[sangh0]

34. Pressure is a factor in traditional marriages also

but I don't see you calling them "slavery"

[DBoon]

38. It is easier to get a divorce than it is for a slave to buy their freedom

Marriage is ultimately a contract. Contracts can be broken. The ability to walk away from an unfavorable contract is one sign of a free society. My contracts with my employer, with my landlord, etc. may be one-sided and unfair, but as long as I can get out of them, they are not slavery.

The problem I have with covenant marriage is that it is making it almost impossible to get out of the marriage contract. If a covenant marriage only addressed terms and conditions within a marriage, that would be OK. To make it almost impossible to get out of a marriage (felony conviction? Physical abuse?) smacks at least of indentured servitude.

Freedom is not just the freedom to get into some arrangement, it is the freedom to get out of it when conditions warrent.

What we are talking about is a feudal conception of marriage versus a capitalist one. This is about the 13th century arguing with the 19th century.

[sangh0]

44. I agree with most of that

except to part about freedom being the right to get out of commitments "when conditions warrant". The point about convenant marriages is "When do the conditions warrant a divorce?" In the case of convenant marriages, the two parties to the contract are agreeing on what conditions warrant a divorce.

[Liberal Veteran]

55. Of course you totally leave out the factor of pressure...

I would have no problem with this form of contract if you could possible make it impossible for coercion or pressure to be a factor into entering into the contract to begin with.

If you cannot do that (and you know damn well you cannot assure that a person is not being coerced into this form of contract either though social blackmail or emotional blackmail), then I cannot support such a contract.

[sangh0]

59. That's because the law takes coercion into account

Contracts that result from coercion are considered void. One can get out of the commitments a contract calls for if it was entered into due to coercion.

[Liberal Veteran]

64. Yeah, imagine trying to prove social coercion?

Why are you defending this? You still have yet to explain why you would defend the NEED for it. If two people WANT to stay together, why do they require the force of law to make them?

It's obvious to me that you believe this is a good thing somehow, and I disagree.

Leave it at that.

[sangh0]

65. You'd have to define it first

Adults are responsible for the decisions they make. If they can't withstand disapproval from their peers, it's their problem. They didn't ask for your protection.

Why are you defending this?

When I called it "stupid", I did not realize that anyone would so foolish as to mistake that for a "defense"

You seem to think that if someone disagrees with you in the slightest, they are "defending" it, even they also oppose it but for a different reason.

It's obvious to me that you believe this is a good thing somehow, and I disagree

It's obvious you don't realize my calling it "stupid" was not a defense.

[Liberal Veteran]

41. Perhaps it's because "non-covenant" marriages...

...actually allow a person to grow and realize they have made a horrendous mistake and extricate themselves from the situation.

My problem is not with marriage in general (despite your misassertions to the contrary). My problem is people being pressured into a legal contract that may find themselves unable to extricate themselves from.

I think being pressured into signing your legal rights away if you find the person you married is going to make your life miserable just another form of slavery and I will not apologize for that characterization of it.

By defending this form of marriage and making half-hearted excuses you are defending the subjugation of the spirit of what marriage should really be about.

And attacking my opinion because I can see where this form of marriage will lead to unnecessary suffering because a person was pressured into signing away their legal rights to a "normal" divorce and forced to stay in a potentially soul crushing sham of a marriage is not going to fly with me.

I resent your mischaracterization of why I oppose this legal chicanery and your insult toward my empathy for those who might find themselves trapped by such an arrangement.

[sangh0]

45. Well, that's the first time you've said that

I daresay my version of marriage makes this bit of legal chicanery that you seem so fond of called "covenant marriage" look asinine in how it really supports and defends what should be important in marriage

I don't see how this concern justifies calling it "slavery" or "legal chicanery".

I think being pressured into signing your legal rights away if you find the person you married is going to make your life miserable just another form of slavery and I will not apologize for that characterization of it.

"I think" is not a very strong argument to support your claim that this is "slavery" and "legal chicanery". People are coerced into signing non-disclosure agreements in order to get a job, effectively signing a legal right away, and there's nothing illegal or immoral about that. In a free society, people are free to NOT exercise their rights as well as being free to exercise their rights. The right to free speech includes the right to remain silent.

By defending this form of marriage and making half-hearted excuses you are defending the subjugation of the spirit of what marriage should really be about.

That assumes that a convenant marriage is a form of slavery. I like the way you try to impose your opinion on others and pressure them (with name calling) into agreeing with your opinion.

[Liberal Veteran]

54. I wouldn't have had to had you not jumped to rash conclusions...

...based on your own mischaracterization of what I said.

Seems to me the misunderstanding of what I was trying to say was in your head, where you assumed I said all marriage is slavery when I said nothing of the sort.

[sangh0]

61. So now I imagined you calling it "slavery"??

Nice try

[Liberal Veteran]

63. No you imagined me calling ALL marriage slavery...

...whereas I specifically referred to these so-called "Covenant" marriages.

Nice try.

[Salviati]

23. Exactly, what's wrong with all those red staters*...

...who need the law to tell them to take their marrage seriously? I mean can't they treat the institution with at least a little respect like those in Massachusetts?


*by red staters of course I mean all those theo-con crypto-facists that unfortuanately we have here in the "blue states" as well, just not in the unsufferable numbers that all you poor decent folk in the red states have to put up with... ;-)

[BuelahWitch]

36. The Repugs want to keep gov't out of business

but not out of the personal lives of people.

[coloradodem2005]

8. That has to be the stupidest thing I ever heard of.

:puke:

[BattyDem]

9. Why would anyone enter into this contract?

If you think you need a law to hold your marriage together, then maybe you should reconsider getting married in the first place. And if you're marrying someone who thinks this is a good idea, pick someone else because my guess is that it will be men who "convince" women to get married under this law. It's just another means of control.

[Liberal Veteran]

12. On the flip side, it would be a good sign....

...for smart women to break off any engagement the moment their betrothed suggested it becase it would a great sign that person you are marrying is probably a control freak.

[BattyDem]

15. Exactly! If a guy suggests this contract ...

RUN!!! Don't look back, don't ask questions, just run!

[SharonAnn]

11. To protect marriage, just outlaw divorce and be done with it.

[neebob]

13. Well, I suppose if they're going to create a special class of people

they should be as miserable as possible. Sarcasm aside, though, bad for women and children. As in "define abuse and then prove it."

[BR_Parkway]

18. I can't beleive they are going to monkey around with Marriage

After all that we have heard over the "sanctity" and how everyone's marraige on Gawd's green earth will be utterly and forever destroyed if we do anything that even hints of changing marriage (like civil unions). What hypocracy. If they want to make it more meaningful, simply outlaw divorce, bring back stoning to death as the only acceptable punishment for adultery and make them all arranged marriages at age 12 like the good old days. Sheeze..

[cornermouse]

21. Tell your daughter that getting married is NOT a good thing.

I know I would.

[Solly Mack]

27. What's the point of "convenant" marriages?

Did this Huelskamp person explain that?

[BuelahWitch]

31. To make it more difficult to get a divorce

Only divorces allowed are for abuse (spouse or child), adultery, abandonment of more than one year and if one spouse is convicted of a felony.

In essence, this preserves the "sanctity" of marriage.

[Solly Mack]

35. But it's not mandatory..per the info given

So what would be the point?

Does this senator plan to compare marriage/divorce rates
(eventually) between "traditional" and convenant marriages?

I understand the goal would be to make divorces harder to obtain...but I don't understand his motive since he's not asking it to be mandatory. (yet)

Is it a case of asking for an inch but taking a mile?

Just seems odd....and rather pointless.

[BuelahWitch]

49. No more pointless than banning something that doesn't exist

As in the "gay marriage ban." Just idiot right wingers trying to show their Fundie constituants that they want to preserve the sanctity of marriage and using our tax dollars to do it.

Huelskamp says it would be there for people who want to send a message that they want their marriage to last "forever." He went on to say it would set "a higher standard for those who want to meet it."

[Liberal Veteran]

58. Exactly...is there any NEED for this kind of variation?

If two people want to show the world they intend to stay together forever, how about they just STAY TOGETHER FOREVER without the requirement for a legally binding contract?

What does it say about someone if they require a piece of paper to force them to stay married?

How does that uplift the sanctity of marriage?

From where I stand, it doesn't. What it does do is open a potential Pandora's box of legal suffering for no compelling state interest.

[Solly Mack]

91. so it's a standard of measure as well as being pointless

"my marriage is better/more meaningful/whatever than yours"

and a waste of money serving only to pander to other right-wingers.

and yes, it's just one more pointless effort of the right-wing...sad people need this to validate their marriages. You'd think their marriages would be based on more....

as for gay marriage...it's a civil rights issue and those are never pointless..... banning those is denying citizens of a right (and I'd call marriage a right) enjoyed by other members of society.

but I take your meaning....

[elehhhhna]

40. It's super-duper marriage. For Mormons, it extends beyond death, etc.

Why involve the state? Marriage shoudl be a civil contract and whatever other crap they'd like to add on can be kept in the church. If Cov. Marriage is an extra-special level of marriage, let the church enforce people's promises.

[doni_georgia]

30. James Dobson, Don Wildmon, et al have been endorsing these

covenant marriages for years. That tells me all I need to know. If a woman was abused, she would have to PROVE it to get the divorce. I know of way too many preachers who have taken the side of abusive husbands in churches which already don't allow their congregants to divorce. A friend of mine's ex-husband beat the hell out of her and her kids for years. She had enough and went to the preacher who told her that she must have been being disobedient. She divorced her husband anyway, and she was kicked out of the church. Of course her abusive ex was allowed to stay in the church. I told her that was a good thing, but most of her friends were from church (he didn't allow her to socialize outside of church) and so she lost her friends too, since if they would have taken her side, they would have been disciplined in the church as well. This is how these people work.

[DBoon]

39. And this is exactly the sort of coercion I meant

You could not have said it better.

And covenant marriage would legalize this and encourage it.

[sangh0]

47. That's misleading

And covenant marriage would legalize this and encourage it.

Nothing in this proposal makes abuse legal. It will probably "enable" this type of abuse, but it doesn't legalize it.

[BrewerJohn]

42. It's another instance of religion

worming its way into the business of the state.

If these people want to put restrictions on marriage and the dissolusion thereof into the rules of their church, fine. Have at it. The Catholic church has been heaping misery upon its members on this issue since time immemorial, but the misery only lasts as long as one takes what the church says seriously. (I write as a former Catholic.)

But they need to keep it out of the state, which effects everyone with the force of law. Having a two-tier system built into the law is not only ridiculous on its face, but is wide open for abuse. "Equal justice under law" is not just a nice-sounding phrase.

[fnottr]

46. The main problem I have with these

is that it interjects a religious view of marriage into the civil domain. It's all part of the same overarching philosophy the fundie types are using to keep gay marriage illegal. Though most religions see marriage as a solemn and holy institution, civilly speaking, marriage is simply a contract. If two people choose to believe in their marriage as a eternal declaration before their god, then more power to them, but why should this very religious view of marriage be given legal standing?

[sangh0]

50. If marriage is simply a contract

why can't religious people voluntarily enter a contract they both agree to? What's wrong with that?

it interjects a religious view of marriage into the civil domain

In a free society, which prizes freedom of thought and speech, what is wrong with injecting a religious view into the civil domain? Since when is an idea so dangerous, the free market in ideas can't deal with it?

[fnottr]

56. the problem with interjecting a religious view

into the civil domain is that it is a direct violation of the 1st ammendment. It is, quite explicitly 'making a law that respects an establishment religion'

[sangh0]

62. I think we mean different things by the "public domain"

I think you're referring to the law, which *is* a place where religious ideas do not belong. Originally, I thought you were referring to any public area.

However, I disagree that convenant marriages infringe on the seperation of church and state. There is nothing inherently religious about allowing this form of contract. Atheists can enter into one and it's voluntary. Prohibiting adults from freely entering into a contract would be a limit on our freedom.

[Kingshakabobo]

68. Does the "why" of this law have any bearing on its merit?

Since there was no link, I'll have to make a guess. Hmmm, kooky, republican, christian fundamentalist politicians wants to impose their religious views on society. Why? Because they can.

I suppose the lack of these marriages was somehow causing the moral decay of society. Just like gay marriage. I suppose, once they fix gay marriage and covenant marriage they'll find something else to fix with their religion.

Brought to you by the "Small Government People"(disclaimer:except where their kooky religious beliefs are concerned).

[sangh0]

70. Very good question

I'd say yes and no. As far as the law goes, the "why" is often important in determining the legislature's intent in passing the law. However, the politics of an issue sometimes creates the need for the legislation to be dishonest about it's motivations.

[fnottr]

73. Though I don't wish to limit the freedoms of consenting adults

Yes, you are correct in that there is nothing directly religious about these covenant marriages, technically there are simply an alternative form of the marriage contract. However, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that there is no underlying fundamentalist Christian motive behind these. Look at the name alone, 'Covenant Marriage' that name is just dripping with biblical connotations.

This is the crux of the issue to me. The way I see civil marriage is that since it is the single most common type of legal contract, the state has conveniently drawn up a standard version of that contract so that getting married is not an complicated legal task. A couple is still free to modify that contract to fit their needs through a prenuptial agreement. A couple could conceivable get a something like a covenant marriage through a prenuptial, and if they want to do this, more power to them.

[Liberal Veteran]

77. I still am wary of coercion and social/religious/emotional pressure...

....that could negatively impact the human rights of people in this country.

I don't like the idea of ANYONE being pressured or coerced into one of these marriages and finding it damn near impossible to get out of them.

The reasons that divorce was made easier is because we realized that trapping people in a contract that made their life a living hell was counterintuitive to freedom and human rights and I for one am not willing to roll the back the clock particularly when we have too many whack job fundamentals and too many coercive situations where a person can easily be roped into this mess at a young age only to find two or three years down the road as they mature that the person they married is is not someone worth wasting their life on and then find themselves spending YEARS trying to extricate themeselves from it.

There is a potential for abuse here that I am extremely uncomfortable with.

[fnottr]

80. Oh I completely agree

The idea of these things completely rubs me the wrong way. In a perfect world convanent marriage could simply exisit as an option for willing people to choose, but we know damn well that some people are going to be strong armed into it.

The problem is finding specific legal and constitutianal arguments as to why we oppose this idea. That is going to be the difficult task since the wingnuts behind these are will try to frame us as being against personal choice for being against it.

[sangh0]

79. And I share those concerns, particularly your 2nd point

It is one of several reasons for why I do not support these convenant marriages.

However, though I do have some concerns, to be honest, I'm not all that worried. The idea that these convenant marriages will somehow promote their version of religion or bridge the seperation between state and church is about as likely as people converting to Roman Catholicism because of the "really cool hat" the Pope wears.

[fnottr]

81. No, these will not cause a sudden merging of state and church

and that is not my main concern. The thing that scares me most about them is people being coerced into one of these marriages (by a church, an emotionally domineering partner, etc) and then not having a way out if the relationship goes bad. Yes I realize there are provisions for abuse, but as I understand it, the burden of proof is on the person being abused, and not all abuse easily provable.

I'm just trying to think of a reason this ideal might not be constitutionally permissible

[sangh0]

82. My thoughts on possible constitutional objections

lie not with the seperation of church and state, but with the idea that marriage is not just about commitments two adults make to each other, but also a commitment by the State to provide certain protections to couple. I'm wondering if there's an angle about requiring the state to protect something that one of the two might want to dissolve that might give us something to work with.

[fnottr]

83. Well, I'm certainly no legal or constitutional expert

so I can't definitively answer that. I know that in the past most marriage was like covenant marriage and the courts slowly but surely struck those down to allow for divorce, but I don't know the specific arguments used. I worry since this is presented as an alternative it will be allowed to fly

[sangh0]

87. Then we're at basically the same point

Your reference to how those divorce restrictions were struck down was exactly what I was thinking of, but like you, I don't know enough about the law to say.

I worry since this is presented as an alternative it will be allowed to fly

IMO, once people, normal people, see how this works, it will fly no further than the Dodo bird did.

[fnottr]

88. Let's hope so! n/t

[serryjw]

48. This was true in NY .......

in the early 60's. The ONLY grounds for divorse was show it is court correspondent and all(Infidelity).

I want government OUT of the marriage business. Abuse is a felony! We need to uphold state laws on this. The way I see it, it may be difficult in the future to have ONE lifetime partner.We are now living until 80's and 60 years with ONE person may not be realistic.

[Lexingtonian]

51. painfully stupid

And the people promoting it are, of course, Orwellian. The proper name for it is "patriarchal-antifeminist marriage". That they would sully up a word like 'covenant', which means just about the opposite of the political meaning they put into it as they use, is basically a religious language felony.

[barbaraann]

52. Both Lynne Cheney and Laura Bush had to threaten their husbands

to get them to stop drinking and straigten up. Of course, we can't know precisely whether or not divorce was threatened, but some sort of ultimatums were issued.

So, where would Dick and George be today if we had covenant marriage?

[NicoleM]

57. Here's an idea

for the pro-covenant marriage people. If you don't want to get a divorce, DON'T GET A DIVORCE.

I personally don't care if they make this an option. As long as it remains an *option*. If the wingnuts stay in power for too long, eventually this will be the only way anybody can get married.

[enki23]

67. what the fuck is wrong with the fundies?

fear of gawd is, apparently, not enough to keep 'em together anymore, so now they need to get the state even more into the act. the laws of man, it seems, are a lot more binding than the laws of gawd. even for the red staters.

[sangh0]

71. To put it crudely, they can't stop their daughters from fucking

If you look at the red states, one of the main reasons (IMO) why they have such high divorce rates is because those incredibly "moral" fundies can't seem to stop their young daughters from fucking. Since many of them don't believe in (or know about) birth control, they get pregnant, which in a fundie community means you're getting married.

Such young marriages, particularly when the couple was pressured into marrying, have trouble lasting. The fools think pressuring their kids into convenant marriages is somehow going to stop their 16yo daughters from fucking the neighbor's 16yo son.

[regnaD kciN]

72. I think it's a GREAT idea...

...except that it should be the ONLY form of marriage available to those who wish to outlaw gay marraige.

After all, why should "moral demands" only be placed on the "other" people? If you think the problem with this country is that people aren't living up to "traditional moral values," then try living up to them yourself. And if that means going back to the Good Old Days when marriage was for life, well, you folks want to make the Bible the law of the land, don't you? So, why impose it on anyone else until you're willing to walk the walk yourself?

:spank: :evilgrin:

[SmokingJacket]

74. Another good argument for getting the state OUT of marriage.

Let the state handle civil unions instead -- for most people, they'd want to get married in a church and then scoot over to the court house to make it legally binding for tax/etc. purposes.

But you wouldn't have to deal with a church at all if you didn't want to... and the state wouldn't be allowed to discriminate either. You could have a civil union with your own grandma if you both wanted to. If you don't like gay marriage, then you wouldn't join a church that performs them. And if you want a covenant marriage, again, do it in your church.

Separate church and state, for the love of God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kingshakabobo]

75. Petition to outlaw divorce.

I wanted to start petition drives to outlaw divorce to point out the stupidity of the anti-gay marriage amendments.


I guess the fundies beat me to the punch with their own stupidity.

[fnottr]

84. yeah, I heard those ideas too

I though they were amusing, but I worried that if they were seriously presented, the fundies would actually go along with it. The covenant marriage idea furthers this belief for me. I think we underestimate just how far some of the fundies are willing to go, and a seeming absurdity to us seems rational to them

[jmowreader]

76. I think all Republicans should be required to get these marriages

And especially Republicans who also happen to be Fundamentalists. More to the point, the 10th Amendment's "full faith and credit" clause should bind all states to respect the terms of the covenant marriage.

What are the two groups with the highest divorce rates? Fundies and Republicans. The lowest divorce rate is among the kind of liberal Democrat they keep in Massachusetts.

If these fuckers want to scream about "preserving traditional marriage," they can start by preserving THEIR OWN traditional marriages. My traditional marriage is doing just fine, thank you.

The funniest thing I see is these fundies I work with bragging about how their marriage has lasted so much longer than their friends'. "Oh, you can only stay married if you're a good Christian. Jesus strengthens marriages." (Yes, they know I'm an evil liberal atheist and they know my wife is too.) Then you ask 'em how long they've been married. "Three wonderful years. And you?" When I tell 'em "eleven and a half," one-third get this strange look of wonder and surprise on their faces, one-third ask if I'm sure I'm really an atheist and the rest just stand there slack-jawed. I'm certain I'm gonna cause at least one of 'em to have their jawbone pop out of the socket.

[Liberal Veteran]

78. Speaking of full faith and credit clauses....

It opens up a can of worms that used to exist when people would go to other countries for a quickie divorce in the past.

Are we really wanting to go back to that?

[jmowreader]

86. Not at all.

I just want to make the lives of fundamentalist Republicans as miserable as humanly possible.

No one forces you to be a fundamentalist. You can worship the Lord perfectly well without ever becoming a fundamentalist--millions do.

And you can be political, even conservative, without ever joining the party of Gingrich. (They call it the party of Lincoln, who would change his registration to anything else were he alive today.)

But when one chooses to become a fundamentalist and a Republican, he or she should be required to bear the full impact of that decision.

[Liberal Veteran]

90. Exactly, so would we be able to make their divorces unbinding...

...if they did go to other states or countries to get out of the hassle of their covenant contract?

[supernova]

85. While I think plain marriage is enough

of a contract, I'm perfectly happy for those who want to tie the noos---er, the knot a little tighter.

However, it should not mean the end of plain marriage or the end divorce being fairly easy to obtain. (At least from a legal standpoint. Emotionally, it's just hell.)

[Delphinus]

89. Jeez - no freaking way!

I'll never submit! Screw marriage!

[progressoid]

92. Ok, this is a good thing in a backward way.

While these fundi boneheads are making asses of themselves, we need to politely ask the 'majority' "is this what you want from your party?" "Are these the values you voted for?"

My wife works with a bunch of these douchebags that would rant about gay marriage. It's hard to get through their thick skulls with reason but she posed a simple question, "if you think its OK for the government to regulate gay marriage, whats to keep them from regualating your marriage?" Ironically, they are getting just that.


I hope he gets lots of press. People need to see and feel first hand the oppression they voted for. Lets get this idiot on TV. Then we can do just what the RW does. Generalize the entire GOP as regressive, oppressive morons - and we make him the leader of these Dipshits of America.

[oneighty]

93. Huckabee and his ilk

hoping to get a thousand married couples to re-marry into the COVENANT marriage Valentines day 2005 in a great public display of "Hey look at us aren't we cute?"

Oh Barf. If they even need a piece of paper to keep them together then they should not get married in the first place.

Staying married is hard work it takes a lot of give and take. Seems many fundies have a difficult time with give and take.

180