Tennessee considers covenant marriages

[Rose Siding]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Two Tennessee lawmakers are looking to bolster the institution of marriage in a state where the divorce rate is considerably higher than the already high national average.

The bill would let couples voluntarily enter "covenant marriages," which require pre-wedding counseling and make it harder to get a divorce. But the three states that already have covenant marriages — Louisiana, Arizona and Arkansas — have seen little impact from the law. Few people choose covenant marriages, and the divorce rate hasn't dropped.
...
"There are times when you want to throw in the towel and quit, but this arrangement hopefully will prevent that," said the Republican from College Grove.

Tennessee's divorce rate is 5.1 per 1,000 population, which is tied with Florida for eighth-highest among 46 states and the District, according to a 2002 analysis by the National Center for Health Statistics. Arkansas was second-worst at 6.2, much higher than the national rate of 4.0

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050213-121442-1603r.htm

[saigon68]

1. OH GOODY --- BACK TO THE DARK AGES

As in Just because he is now an alcoholic, who beats the shit out of you, regularly-- Hang in there with him. "GOD" will show him the road to the truth and the light.


This is disgusting.

[Flammable Materials]

4. Hey, if he's beatin' her ...

... then it's fun to shoot him. Like Lt. Gen. James Mattis says. Oh wait, he was talking about those olive-skinned folks.

[Ravenseye]

42. They Can Divorce Immediately

"In a covenant marriage, couples with children must wait 18 months before getting a divorce, and couples without children would have a one-year wait. The waiting period does not apply in cases of abuse, abandonment and adultery. "

From the article above in the original post.

[Flammable Materials]

2. How about we take the government OUT of the marriage business?

We don't want the government telling us to worship, or what to worship. If marriage is a religious institution, then leave it within the confines of the church/masjid/temple/synagogue already.

As Doug Stanhope says, "What we got is so good, baby, we gotta get the GOVERNMENT in on this!"

[Toots]

10. Marriage is not a religious institution.

It is a contract issued by the state that allows two to operate as one. To be viewed as and considered to be one entity. You certainly do not have to be religious to be married and without government approval (marriage license) you have no real considerations. Marriage is a government institution and needs to be secular.

[Stevious]

13. you've hit on a key point here...

Seems like the gay marriage advocates ought to be using that more in their talking points...

[davhill]

15. Why should 2 be considered 1 under the law anyway

Originally it was to subsidize the child bearing parent and to establish inheritance rights. We have better mechanisms for doing both today. Marriage should be merely a religous ceremony with no legal consequences at all.

[Ellen Forradalom]

19. There are more rights conferred by marriage than those two alone

and to ensure that such rights are preserved without marriage would require a considerable overhaul of family law. I am not against that, mind you, but it's a tall order.

I might add that the State is always a participant in relationships. That participation may only become evident at times of disagreement--the right to visit a sick partner, the right to keep a loved one one life support or to stop it, the right to collect child support from a co-parent--but it's always there. Family law is not going away.

[davhill]

40. More and more couples

Are getting along fine without a legal marriage document. They are raising children, buying property, and finding ways to circumvent a lot of archaic laws.

[Ravenseye]

43. There are serious problems with that

If someone doesn't want to get married and have kids, and have a life, hey...I say have fun.

My problem is that there are other aspects tied to the marriage. From what I understand, in Pennsylvania if the mother dies, but isn't married, the state can take away the child from the father and put it in foster care. The father sues, and of coures almost always gets the kid back, but it's a nightmare. Same thing happens if both parents die, kid gets put in foster care, and the grandparents or whoever has to legally fight to get them.

This is all circumvented by living wills of course. You can probably write up enough contracts and documents between the two of you to cover each other, and protect your family, or you can just get married and have them all there. That's the way I view marriage. It's just a large set of contracts that you're signing.

[VegasWolf]

That's what Elvis told my wife and myself as we were married. Elvis

is about as secular as you can get, and we are married.

[Nimrod]

3. Let 'em

Anyone stupid enough to sign a legal contract stating "I can't leave my spouse even if he/she puts me in the hospital twice a week" deserves what they get.

It IS interesting that among the few escape routes to the Covenant Marriage are if your spouse begins to follow a non-approved religion or turns out to be homosexual. Not going to church BAD! Faggots BAD! Domestic violence GOOD!

[Tux]

7. Well

At least if it fails badly enough or a woman shoots her abusive husband, it may have the states reconsider it. What needs to be done for the divorce rate is for couples not to get deep into debt. ebt is the #1 reason for divorce right now.

[Ravenseye]

44. They Can Leave in cases of Abuse, Adultery and Abandonment

"In a covenant marriage, couples with children must wait 18 months before getting a divorce, and couples without children would have a one-year wait. The waiting period does not apply in cases of abuse, abandonment and adultery. "

From the article above in the original post.

[Love Bug]

5. Everyone who thinks gay marriage is bad should be forced

to do this. All those cranks complaining about how gay marriage would "ruin the sanctity of marriage" should be forced into covenant marriage. Fuckers.

[elehhhhna]

8. "Super-dee-duper I really mean it this time Marriage". Please.

[LinuxInsurgent]

22. hahaha...

yeah...that's good.

[Orsino]

37. Heh.

Welcome to the new pre-nup. What becomes of the partner who wants the super-deluxe marriage, but whose partner doesn't?

[KyndCulture]

6. Is there a shotgun and kidnapping clause too? sigh nt

[LynneSin]

9. Personally I think they should have it

then those idiots who are stuck in loveless marriages where they're beating the crap outta each other are stuck with each other and not being a plague on the rest of society!

[Ravenseye]

45. Abuse means they can divorce

"In a covenant marriage, couples with children must wait 18 months before getting a divorce, and couples without children would have a one-year wait. The waiting period does not apply in cases of abuse, abandonment and adultery. "

From the article above in the original post.

[kiraboo]

11. Oh come on people!

Don't you think it's counterproductive to oppose something like this? The program is voluntary! And while it's true that a marriage that involves only two people may not always be worth fighting for, when children are involved it most certainly is worth the effort. I know from personal experience that counselling can save what appears to be a doomed marriage, yet I know many couples who thought it was pointless or hopeless - divorce seemed like a quick way to end their pain. I am never in favor of staying in an abusive marriage - but I know for a fact that what seem like insurmountable problems can sometimes be rendered neutral if both partners make an effort. So, what's the problem with encouraging this? Especially with the prior consent of the couple in question.

[fishwax]

14. I don't think it's counterproductive to oppose a trojan horse

I think the law is pointless to pursue, though. I don't see the benefit of having two different marriage laws, which in the mind of those few married with the "covenant" marriage will make one type of marriage inferior. Louisiana's law is the most popular one, and only about two percent of new marriages use the option, so I don't see it as any kind of boon to society.

I see it as a Trojan Horse. If a church wants to change the way they sanction marriage, let them do it under their own auspices without the state getting involved. In the LDS church, for example, couples who get married in the temple are sealed "for time and all eternity," and marriages not sealed in the temple are less valued, so you have two classes of marriage. Fine, let them distinguish. But when the law distinguishes between types of marriage, then it opens the door for discrimination, and how long before the religious right then says that "covenant marriages" should be entitled to certain benefits, since it is a "higher form" of marriage.

Frankly, I don't see any reason why the state should get involved in valuing one marriage over another. Let the state worry about the secular aspects of marriage, and the church worry about the spiritual aspects.

[kiraboo]

20. I guess I don't see it that way. Unless you fear this is a tactic

which is designed to eventually take advantage of the "slippery slope" then I still believe it's a valid idea. And for the record, the impact of divorce on children might be the reason why the State gets involved. There's a fairly solid block of evidence out there implicating divorce for things like poor performance in school, aggression, increased underage sexual activity etc. None of these are good, and all represent a cost to society that is best avoided if at all possible. Unless the proposal makes divorce impossible, or has a built-in bias toward either the husband or the wife, it makes some sense to me. Again, it's voluntary!

[LinuxInsurgent]

24. deal with the social problems...

with rational answers and solutions....simply instilling people with religious "stay together" propaganda doesn't solve the South's problems.

Their problems are BECAUSE of too much reliance on religion...too much religion equals impoverished South, Middle East...get it?

It happens to be that the places with less social problems are those that are more secularized...coincidence? I don't think so.

Besides...what's this...some sort of "my marriage is better than your marriage' system? Because that's exactly what we're gonna start with this.

[kiraboo]

28. Friend, I totally "get it". And since I am not religious in the

traditional sense, I didn't consider this to be a religious proposition. If I did, I would be vehemently opposed because, as a nontraditional deist I find it hugely objectionable to have religion foisted on me and mine. Please don't assume I'm a fool because I don't agree with you on what constitutes an intrustion and what constitutes an opportunity. I do indeed get it.

[Liberal Veteran]

16. Because it's just as likely there will be coercion.

If not emotional coercion then social coercion from the church.

1) Prospective spouse: "I won't marry you if you don't agree to this kind of marriage."

2) Church group: "If you really loved each other you would have a covenant marriage like Billy Bob and Jamie Sue."

As I said the last time this issue came up in DU: The one benefit of this kind of thing is that if a man (or woman) pressures you to get into this kind of thing, you should run, not walk away from the relationship as quickly as possible.

[Lars39]

23. The state considering this is Tennessee.

Southern Baptists and other denominations believe that a woman
should submit to the authority of their husband/master.
These denominations seem to be in the majority here.
I've just seen too many cases where the woman is totally cowed
by her 'loving' husband.

Women in the rural areas are particularly vulnerable due to isolation.
A cousin of mine was beaten on a regular basis by her husband
because she wouldn't 'obey' him,
and all the while the gd preacher is preaching this from the pulpit.

As she continued to resist her husbands instructions,
and continued to be beaten, the husband sought the preacher's advice.
The beatings continued, but the final straw for my cousin was the day
the husband was beating her and the preacher and his wife came over
and started beating her also.

This scenario is not uncommon either; women's shelters stay pretty full here.

[kiraboo]

29. This is a digression, but don't you believe the woman

has some responsibility when it comes to picking her husband? True, sometimes men change after marriage; but if you marry into a family of religious fundamentalists and your daddy-in-law beats your mommy-in-law, wouldn't you expect the same treatment? It seems like common sense to me.

Gee, on this thread I'm feeling like I'm very conservative when I speak of personal responsibility for those who are capable. Is this somehow not Democratic? :think:

[annabanana]

32. Are you "blaming the victim" here?

She made her bed and now let her get beaten in it?

[kiraboo]

38. I understand how it might sound that way.

That's not what I mean. I mean there are situations a woman can and must avoid. That's all I'm saying.

[Ravenseye]

46. Yeah but they can leave if abused?

"In a covenant marriage, couples with children must wait 18 months before getting a divorce, and couples without children would have a one-year wait. The waiting period does not apply in cases of abuse, abandonment and adultery. "

From the article above in the original post.

An abused woman won't be forced to stay in a covenant marraige.

I feel what you're saying of course, all I'm saying is that this marraige won't force them to stay in those situations.

[Walt Starr]

27. Nope, because this is the camel's nose under the tent

Within a decade, these "covenant" marriages will come with greater tax benefits and those engaged in them will be "marrieder than thou".

Within two decades, they will be mandated and divorce will be impossible to obtain.

[Lars39]

33. I think you're right.

This is exactly why I changed my stance of having a two-tier system of civil unions
for everyone and marriages for the religious; such a system is bound to be abused.
The theocracists are very determined.

[BR_Parkway]

34. I think it's a shame that they can say "you gays" can't redefine marriage

but some wingnuts can if they want to. How hypocritical. Save the sanctity of marriage? Simple solution, wipe the divorce laws off the books. There, marriage is forever saved. It might suck and you better take a lot longer to find your perfect mate (which wouldn't be a bad thing) but it's all saved now.

[Bridget Burke]

35. As it is, those married in church swear before God ....

Until death do them part. Sickness, health....all that bit.

If they break those vows--how will "stronger" vows be more effective?

[Rose Siding]

39. Who pays? TennCare just cut over 300K off health care

While the govt is diddling in personal relationships, where does the money come from?

And isn't it just plain STUPID to risk such stretched state finances on a program with NO success -NONE- to recommend it?

[kitkatrose]

12. Sweet baby Jesus!

We have so damn many other problems in this state, and you want to talk about covenant marriage???? How bout working on our schools so you the state doesn't have to take over them? How about working on our outrageous teen pregnancy rate??? Hmm?? I think those are a bit more important than what people who probably shouldn't have been married in the first place do with their time.

[onehandle]

17. Will the family have to witness the consummation?

Or will a family member come out and wave the bloody sheet to prove that the marriage is legit?

Exactly how far back is the Right going to regress us to?

[mtnester]

18. Answer to question #2 - as FAR AS THEY CAN

course you knew that, it was rhetorical right?



:-(

[LinuxInsurgent]

21. hah...

"There are times when you want to throw in the towel and quit, but this arrangement hopefully will prevent that," said the Republican from College Grove.

PLEASE....PLEASE...PLEASSSSSEEEE...throw in the towel...

You can't reform human nature with "covenant" marriages...people will cheat, people WILL have sex...and people, afflicted with poverty and ignorance, will continue on their deviant ways.

You want to give people a chance to move on to more civilized forms of themselves...give them education and the freedom to critically think for themselves...and even then...that's not guarantee.

[Ravenseye]

48. It won't prevent that though.

There are reasons to turn our noses up at Covenant marriage but it's not about reforming human nature.

"In a covenant marriage, couples with children must wait 18 months before getting a divorce, and couples without children would have a one-year wait. The waiting period does not apply in cases of abuse, abandonment and adultery. "

From the article above in the original post.

People can leave if abused, cheated on, etc. All this does is takes two people, voluntarily, and they say that they know times get hard and as long as it's no fault they want to have help to try and stay together and have it forced on them.

I don't think it'd work, and it's a waste of time and money...but it's not going to hurt anyone.

[donco6]

25. Happening in Colorado, too.

"Couples sign contracts agreeing to premarital counseling and promise to seek more counseling if things go sour. Divorce is allowed only in cases of abuse, abandonment, adultery or a felony conviction. Even then, a 2 1/2-year waiting period is necessary. Arizona and Arkansas approved similar provisions in 1998 and 2001, respectively."


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E23827%257E2695225,00.html?search=filter

[LosinIt]

26. That high Arkansas divorce rate has GOT to be Clinton's fault

don'tcha think???

[chaumont58]

30. Abso god damn lutely!!!!!

Divorce was unknown within the boundaries of Arkansas until Clinton became Governor! Just ask Floyd Brown, or Ken Starr. And oral sex was unknown inside the beltway before 1993. Just ask Len Downie.

[annabanana]

31. Look out below Ladies!!

If this doesn't raise the hackles on every young woman in America, some girls had better shake some sense into them, pronto (figuratively, of course WHICH IS THE POINT HERE)

[Ravenseye]

49. Why?

Maybe I'm not seeing something, but why should this raise anyone's hackles? It's a voluntary arrangement that basically just says that you want to have extra counselling to make your marraige work when times get tough. Most people who choose it would never get divorced anyway. It doesn't prevent women who are getting abused, or cheated on from leaving and divorcing immediately.

I just don't see the harm here.

[ruggerson]

36. Why not pass a constitutional ban on divorce?

After all, that IS something Jesus actually did talk about.

[HockeyMom]

41. Anti Gay Marriage Bills

Duh? Suggest you search around and READ some of those state Anti Gay Marriage Laws. "Marriage between one man and one woman FOR LIFE." The media is conventinetly leaving out those last two words. Backdoor (no pun inteneded) method to ban divorce too.

[applegrove]

47. Now they will know how it feels to be bullied into following customary

law. And soon they will realize why monotheism was invented: to go up against customary law and give some individuals some basic rights to be free (well not the slaves so much). But it was an amazing idea.

[madhat]

50. I don't get it.

What's the upside? Are there any incentives for this? Tax break, etc?