Covenant marriage

[Eilan]

I saw an article in today's paper about covenant marriages. Only three states--Louisiana, Arkansas, and Arizona--offer covenant marriage licenses. A state legislator is apparently trying to introduce it as an option for Ohioans.

A covenant marriage, for those of you who might not be familiar with the term, is a marriage option that is supposed to be more difficult to get into and out of. Premarital counseling is required, and if a couple starts having problems, they must go to more counseling and wait for two years (2 1/2 if children are involved) before they can file for divorce. However, there is no waiting period in cases of abuse, adultery, or imprisonment.

I'm curious about your thoughts and/or observations. Do any of you know couple who's entered into this arrangement? What are your thoughts about having the option available for you?

Discuss.

 

[Guest]

 

[TBKahuna123]

Never heard of it before, though I think I like it. I mean, too often marriage is tossed aside because divorce is the easy way out. It sure sounds though like this is an attempt to make marriage mean something more. I like that because I think marriage is taken too lightly in our society these days. I'm part of the 'til death do us part' club, myself.

As long as it's option, I dont' see anyway people could vote against it.

 

[eudaemonia]

Who enters into these types of marriages: primarly religous types or .. ?

Frankly, I don't think the state should be in the sancting of marriages ...

 

[Eilan]

Who enters into these types of marriages: primarly religous types or .. ?

That's what I've wondered. I first heard the term "covenant marriage" when it was introduced in Louisiana.

 

[SweetErika]

I think it's a great idea in principle. However, the religious nature gives me the willies. I wanted to find out how involved religion was, and quickly pulled up the Louisiana Covenant Marriage Act . The counseling section starts with:

"An affidavit by the parties that they have received premarital counseling from a priest, minister, rabbi, clerk of the Religious Society of Friends, any clergyman of any religious sect, or a marriage counselor..."

To me, it reads like the non-religious counseling option was tacked on as an afterthought. It's just too heavily laced with religion for my liking, though I know it's optional and there probably aren't a bunch of atheists or agnostics chomping at the bit to be "covenantified." I think it's too exclusive, and should be made to appeal to the bible thumpers and heathens equally.

My preference would be to rename it, cut out all of the unnecessary religion (save for examples of the types of counselors that qualify, and the like), and make it mandatory, not optional. Marriage shouldn't be so easy to get into and out of, and I have to wonder how much the court system alone would save if divorce was more difficult. Perhaps those resources could be put to better use in paying for or subsidizing counseling.

 

[Eilan]

I tried to refrain from expressing my opinion in the initial post, but I think that I'm also inclined to agree with the concept--in theory.

When I read the article, I noticed that exceptions to the waiting period could be made in the event of abuse, adultery, and imprisonment. In the case of abuse, however, I was curious about how the injured party would go about proving that there was abuse, particularly if it wasn't physical abuse.

Furthermore, I'm also curious about the 2 1/2 year waiting period for couples with children. What if counseling doesn't resolve a couple's conflicts? Is it fair to expose the children to a dysfunctional relationship during this time? I'm certainly all for doing whatever it takes to fix the relationship, but I don't necessarily think that couples should stay together for the sake of the children.

Just a few thoughts for now.

 

[TBKahuna123]

Ihad a great post al ready to go and had to close it when my boss walked in. Yeah, you know, bored at work and all that...

Any how, Erika touched on the savings in the courts, but let's also not forget that this might take care of SOME of the problems with kids these days. Divorce traumatizes kids and makes parents jobs harder, and I think that the dissolution of the family unit and these issues go hand in hand with the ease of divorce. It's the easy way out, counselling and trying to make ti work is the tough part.

I'm really a pretty strong Catholic, and I believe in the til death do us part. I realize though that not everyone does and that's their right. I agree that a state law shouldn't have religious doctrine in it, but I don't see that as what's happening here. Basically what they are saying is that a minister from a religious organization or a marriage counselor is acceptable, and wiht good reason. Most ministers in most established sects are trained for marriage counselling and every church I've been to has a mandatory period of pre-marital counselling. It's one of the things that I think has helped my marriage stay strong for so long. Even though ours was done by a minister, there was very little religious doctrine involved, it was more about "are you sure you're ready to deal with this person 24 hours a day" sort of stuff.

The other thing is that if you are going to require premarital counselling, you have to allow the churches' counselling to count. Let's face it, this is obviously a measure put forth by the conservative right wing christians, and while I normally cringe everytime they start to speak, this one has some merit. I guess knowing how politics are, I would have put Marriage Counselor first just to avoid the appearance of religious dominance in the measure.

All in all, I guess I htink this is a good thing. I don't think it's the state "sanctifying" marriage so much as it is trying to stop the decline of the family unit. I personally htink that is a good thing.

 

[Eilan]

I'm not trying to sound contrary here, because I think your points are certainly valid. But I'll probably sound contrary, anyway, because it's apparently in my nature.

Divorce traumatizes kids and makes parents jobs harder, and I think that the dissolution of the family unit and these issues go hand in hand with the ease of divorce.

I don't think divorce is always negative for children. It's definitely one of those YMMV situations. Abusive/dysfunctional two-parent families are far worse for children than loving single-parent homes.

My brother and I would have had a much happier childhood if our parents had split up when I was, say, five years old. I'm a reconciliation baby. Frankly, my brother and I shouldn't even exist. My mom left my dad after only two months of marriage, and she should have just stayed away. I was conceived upon her return. My dad beat the living fuck out of my mom on a weekly basis for years; mental/emotional abuse was an everyday occurrence. According to my dad, he was raised to treat women that way, and he didn't see and reason to change. My brother and I witnessed--and were occasionally on the receiving end--of his behavior. We were teenagers when they did finally split up, and, trust me, it was a huge relief. Unfortunately, my parents got back together (they never remarried) a couple of years later.

Even though ours was done by a minister, there was very little religious doctrine involved, it was more about "are you sure you're ready to deal with this person 24 hours a day" sort of stuff.

You're lucky in that respect. I do think quality premarital counseling is a good idea. I was married to a Catholic and our premarital "counseling" (I'm using that term loosely) was a complete waste of several Thursday evenings. My ex and I went into the experience trying to get as much out of it as we could; we weren't looking at it as merely a hoop to jump through. It was definitely a case, however, of not getting out of an experience as much as we'd put into it.

 

[revolution724]

Abuse, physical or not, is SO common (at least 25% of women report being physically abused by a partner during their lifetimes) and SO difficult to prove and SO rarely believed, proof or not... plus it seems to be the case that abuse escalates once a major commitment (marriage, kid, etc.) has been made to the relationship... plus the research indicates that marriage counseling actually puts abused partners in MORE danger... and then consider the states that are trying to enact this... gosh, it just sounds really dangerous for women. I don't think it's any degree of coincidence that divorce rates and women's civil, legal, and employment rights have increased over the same period of time. While I respect the idea of having premarital counseling and making a serious commitment to a marriage, I look at a law like this and think it could be really harmful to women... and it could be intended to be so.

 

[TBKahuna123]

OK I'll address this to both Revolution and Eilan, as you both brought up a very important point. I am NOT talking about abuse here. I agree that an abusive relationship is ground for the most expediant divorce possible. I TOTALLY agree that kids are much worse off in abusive two parent households. Personally I think they should put in an express lane. If you're convicted of abuse do not pass go, just shell out half your shit and stay at least 200 feet away.

You're lucky in that respect. I do think quality premarital counseling is a good idea. I was married to a Catholic and our premarital "counseling" (I'm using that term loosely) was a complete waste of several Thursday evenings. My ex and I went into the experience trying to get as much out of it as we could; we weren't looking at it as merely a hoop to jump through. It was definitely a case, however, of not getting out of an experience as much as we'd put into it.

We were lucky, no doubt about it. I have heard a number of people give the same story as yours about Catholic marriage prep too. My wife and I had to go through the marriage prep again when we had our marriage bless when I joined the Chatolic church (we were married in my Baptist church orignally). Our experience was very good, but then again we had a good parish priest. Quality of priests varies emmensely. The same can be said for marriage counselors though, or any profession.

I have to say that I see a ton of problems with this law, but I also appreciate the sentiment.

 

[Eilan]

Our experience was very good, but then again we had a good parish priest. Quality of priests varies emmensely. The same can be said for marriage counselors though, or any profession.

Absolutely. I knew that being married in the Church meant a lot to my ex, and I'd considered becoming a Catholic at that time, anyway. I think this priest was going through the motions, though, and that's sad, because I think if he'd done his job properly he could have had a lot to offer us.

I have to say that I see a ton of problems with this law, but I also appreciate the sentiment.

It's obviously in the planning stages for our state. Maybe the legislators will look at the any problems or "kinks" that the other states have had and make the necessary adjustments.

Really, though, and I know that I've said this before, I think that a lot of couples would do well to remember that the marriage begins once the wedding's over. So many people spend a lot of time planning the perfect wedding that they don't seem to realize that they're going to be--gasp--married.

 

[TBKahuna123]

Priests going through the motions? Yeah that's a serious problem. I truly believe that just as married couples have that inevitable lapse because they get too comfortable, the same can happen with a priest. Priests give up a lot when they take their vows and I think that a few of them go through midlife crisises, if you will. That't not the point of this thread though.

I think you are dead on Eilan, about the marriage starting AFTER the wedding. I watched my brother in law spend $25,000 on his wedding, and while it was a hell of a party, it just seemed like such a waste!

 

[SweetErika]

I'm really a pretty strong Catholic, and I believe in the til death do us part. I realize though that not everyone does and that's their right. I agree that a state law shouldn't have religious doctrine in it, but I don't see that as what's happening here. Basically what they are saying is that a minister from a religious organization or a marriage counselor is acceptable, and wiht good reason. Most ministers in most established sects are trained for marriage counselling and every church I've been to has a mandatory period of pre-marital counselling. It's one of the things that I think has helped my marriage stay strong for so long. Even though ours was done by a minister, there was very little religious doctrine involved, it was more about "are you sure you're ready to deal with this person 24 hours a day" sort of stuff.

The other thing is that if you are going to require premarital counselling, you have to allow the churches' counselling to count. Let's face it, this is obviously a measure put forth by the conservative right wing christians, and while I normally cringe everytime they start to speak, this one has some merit. I guess knowing how politics are, I would have put Marriage Counselor first just to avoid the appearance of religious dominance in the measure.

All in all, I guess I htink this is a good thing. I don't think it's the state "sanctifying" marriage so much as it is trying to stop the decline of the family unit. I personally htink that is a good thing.

I agree, TBK. I didn't mean to imply counseling through a religious organization isn't valid and/or shouldn't be counted. I just see too much emphasis on that type of counseling in Louisiana's law, and believe the concept would be more appealing to more people if it wasn't so heavy on the religion. There certainly are good and bad religious and secular counselors, and perhaps it'd be best to add (more?) training and certification for those counselors who are planning on dealing with covenant marriage to ensure everyone gets useful information.

We did premarital counseling to work out a few kinks and learn how to communicate better, and ended up quitting after a few sessions when the counselor started focusing on why we shouldn't get married instead of helping us be more successful. However, I've heard stories about religious counseling where the opposite was true; the priest/minister endorsed marriage even when it was clear there were major issues that would likely never be resolved and lead to an unhappy marriage or divorce just because marriage was preferable to premarital sex or living together from the church's standpoint. So, I think if the government's going to endorse this, some type of professional standards would be a good idea.

 

[TBKahuna123]

So, I think if the government's going to endorse this, some type of professional standards would be a good idea.

Absolutely! I think that's a great idea. I also agree that the emphasis shouldn't be on the religious side of things, for reasons I stated above. That said, it is the south afterall, and this is a law stated by conservatives. Should we expect any less?

 

[FurryFury]

Oh it's a lovely idea based on lofty ideals.

Personally I'm leery. When you are in a bad marriage and finally wake up to that fact, the last thing you need it for it to be more difficult to get out!

It's HARD enough in every way already.

Fury

 

[TBKahuna123]

Oh it's a lovely idea based on lofty ideals.

Personally I'm leery. When you are in a bad marriage and finally wake up to that fact, the last thing you need it for it to be more difficult to get out!

It HARD enough in every way already.

Fury

Ahhhh but that's the point! The idea is for the counselling to help you decide that it's a bad marriage before you get into one! It's not only that it's so easy to get out of a marriage, it's too easy to get into one that you never should get into in the first place.

 

[FurryFury]

Ahhhh but that's the point! The idea is for the counselling to help you decide that it's a bad marriage before you get into one! It's not only that it's so easy to get out of a marriage, it's too easy to get into one that you never should get into in the first place.

I had premarital counseling before both marriages. I am not the type to divorce and never thought I would. One of those marriages turned out to be hell, this one is closer to heaven, thank goodness.

In the first one it took him leaving me after convincing me to get pregnant for me to give up on him. No, it took him treating me like shit over and over, after that. This is the man who raped me and took my virginity, who treated my like shit all through the marriage and we were together ten years, married eight. I was never going to divorce or cheat on him. I figured like my very mercurial father, he might mellow someday. I was willing to wait and love him in the meantime.

As I said, we got premarital counseling. You seem to have a lot more faith in it than I do. Some counseling is great. Not all counseling is equal or even particularly useful. We later got marriage counseling which was disastrous.

Also when people are "in love" they rarely note the signs they should and give that love up. I wish I had, believe me. There are all sorts of things that go into the equation too.

Not all of them are easily uncovered in counseling. For instance, I thought I was "bad" for having sex with him and the only way to be "good" was to marry him. Never mind that I said no over and over or that the sex was not consensual. Society taught me, my parents taught me that I was wrong and this was the only way to be right. I didn't realize that consciously then. I know from talking with my friends that I am not the only one who married badly for these or similar reasons.

If covenant marriage were an option back then I would have gone for it.

Another thing that did skewed the counseling was that he was acting as if he were something he was not. Therefore the counseling we had only confirmed what we both "knew" and did not red flag anything.

I do think it would be great to prevent unwise marriages through effective counseling. I really do! I just again think this is "pie in the sky" and not likely to be effectively utilized. Though it sure would be nice if it were. If everything worked, boy wouldn't that be great? Life isn't that simple there are too many permutations.

Fury

 

[revolution724]

Ah, that's a really hard experience you've been through, Furry. Huge props for your courage.

I'm divorced also. Would premarital counseling with a Catholic priest or a Southern Baptist minister have revealed the fact that I shouldn't have gotten married because I was a big old lesbian? I'm guessing not.

 

[FurryFury]

Ah, that's a really hard experience you've been through, Furry. Huge props for your courage.

I'm divorced also. Would premarital counseling with a Catholic priest or a Southern Baptist minister have revealed the fact that I shouldn't have gotten married because I was a big old lesbian? I'm guessing not.

See? I understand that. I want to be an idealist but the world just isn't that perfect.

In a perfect world we could get perfect counseling and know these things. We aren't perfect, the world isn't perfect and it's up to us to do the best we can.

I think about couples who do all this and then still find they can't stay together. Poor things! I'm sure I'd feel even worse if that happened!

Believe me folks when you need the legalities cleared up for whatever reason, in my case so I could have my baby and go on with my life, this sort of thing, slowing down the process won't help and can really hurt.

In my case he walked out during the first trimester but I couldn't get a divorce until six months after the baby was born so the state could make sure he was on the hook financially. In the meantime he renegotiated his own terms THREE times!

I know one friend, her paperwork was lost, her ex also used that to renegotiate again!

Delays are not usually a good thing y'all.

I shutter to think what abused spouses go through with the regular delays.

There are so many ways this lofty idea doesn't work.

Fury

 

[TBKahuna123]

See but you ladies are talking about realistic reasons for getting out of a marriage. He's abusing me, mentally physically and/or sexually. I'm a lesbian, therefore I have nothing to offer my husband. These are real reasons to end a marriage, but often people get divorced because they don't want to try to work it out.

Fury, you said yourself that you tried counselling and it didn't work. if you'd been in a covenant marriage, from what I understand, this is basically what would have happened. I agree with you that counselling doesn't work when someone pretends to be something they're not. I would point out though that is sounds like you were already being abused and I can totally see why you would miss those signs that told you marriage wasn't right. You were already dealing with a massive issue, and that it blinded you to those other signs is perfectly understandable.

Remember though, these kind of situations, while common, only account for a small percentage of divorces in this country. I have no problem wiht someone who's being abused getting out of a bad relationship, or two people who genuinely can not coexist calling it quits. What I do ahve a problem with is young couples who get married ona whim and then get divorced because it's too much work to make a marriage last. Someone needs to clue them in to the fact that no matter who they marry it's gonna be a lot of work. Marriage isn't easy, but it is worth it in the end if you ahve the right person.

 

[FurryFury]

I know what you are saying TBKahuna123. I agree that people should really not just get married on a whim. I tried to have the best counseling and such but my case was all FUBAR-ed from the get go.

The ideal of covenant marriage is great, as I said. Ideals are just rarely executed well at all, much less when legislated.

Fury

 

[TBKahuna123]

The ideal of covenant marriage is great, as I said. Ideals are just rarely executed well at all, much less when legislated.

Fury

Can't argue with that.

 

[cusprider]

I am of the opinion that the State ought not be in the marriage business at all.

Who are they (the state) to suppose they have the authroity to license our relationships? A license implies you seek and are granted permission to do what otherwise would be aginst the law. Are we state properity to need the states permission to Wed? Must be considering the other permissions we must have.

License to work. A SSN
License to Marry
License to live off the land
License to run a business
License to visit the wilderness
License to row a boat
License to have an effective self defense


We have progressed from close to absolute liberity to one where every meaningful aspect of our lives is controlled. This is progress?

 

[TBKahuna123]

I am of the opinion that the State ought not be in the marriage business at all.

Who are they (the state) to suppose they have the authroity to license our relationships? A license implies you seek and are granted permission to do what otherwise would be aginst the law. Are we state properity to need the states permission to Wed? Must be considering the other permissions we must have.

License to work. A SSN
License to Marry
License to live off the land
License to run a business
License to visit the wilderness
License to row a boat
License to have an effective self defense


We have progressed from close to absolute liberity to one where every meaningful aspect of our lives is controlled. This is progress?

I woudl be perfectly fine with marriage being a strictly religious/spiritual concept, but that simply will not work. In our society you need proof of your marriage with civil documentation so that you have legal claim to things like insurance, property, etc. If we lived in the old west where people fended for themselves without any kind of social programs, then sure we could do this, but in the modern age this simply isn't possible. Or at least it would be very difficult.