They are finally strengthening marriage

[Couture]

Who would have thunk it?

Covenant marriages aim to cut divorce rate
Three states have laws that make divorces harder to justify

By Don Teague
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:43 p.m. ET Dec. 29, 2004


LITTLE ROCK, Ark. - After eight months of dating, Sarah Watson and Michael Rector are about to take the plunge, but first they participate in the pre-marital counseling required by Arkansas law for couples choosing a unique union called "covenant marriage."

"I think we were both kind of hesitant, but knew that we needed to do it," says Michael.

Covenant marriage is optional. It's designed to combat a divorce rate that has doubled since the 1950s. In general, covenant marriage laws lay ground rules that limit reasons for divorce to spousal or child abuse, imprisonment for a felony and infidelity. And before most divorces can be filed, couples are usually required to seek counseling during a mandatory waiting period that can, in some cases, last up to two years.

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee believes in the idea so strongly that he and his wife of 31 years plan to convert to a covenant marriage in February. He's campaigning to get 1,000 other couples to join them.

"In Arkansas, it's easier to get out of a marriage than it is to get a contract for purchasing a used car," says Gov. Huckabee.

But even the governor says it's too soon to know how effective covenant weddings have been at preventing divorces in Arkansas. Still, a number of states are considering adopting similar laws. In addition to Arkansas, Arizona and Louisiana have passed covenant marriage laws, while 25 more have proposed them.

"There's a generalized anxiety out there about the fact that we may have too much divorce," says Andrew Cherlin, a professor of sociology at John Hopkins University. "What's also out there though is people wanting their own individual freedom."

Newlyweds Steve and Brooke Ruffin signed Arkansas' marriage covenant.

"Having signed that document just made sure that this is forever," says Steve.

The Ruffins call it an insurance policy — a pledge to work through tough times. They hope their marriage covenant gives them the tools to ride it out.

 

[matriarch]

To me, its always seemed illogical not to go to more trouble to stress the seriousness of marriage, and the vows that people take.

I have maintained for a long time, that the way to go forward, is to make marriage harder to achieve - not divorce. It's kind of like doing things backwards. At the moment, it is so very easy to get married, providing you are of age. In the UK, we don't even need the blood tests that you guys go through.

In the UK, unless you have those grounds quoted in the article....adultery, abuse........if a couple simply don't want to be married any more, do not love, want to move on, then a two-year separation is all that's available, after which time you can then apply for a divorce.

Mat - divorcee in waiting......*sigh*.

 

[scheherazade_79]

I'm confused... Just a little while ago, weren't a lot of Americans claiming that gays were to blame for destroying the institution of marriage? Did the right-wing finally see the light??? That's excellent news, Couture!

 

[thebullet]

I looked it up recently and the RED states have much higher divorce rates than the BLUE states. It all goes to the hypocracy of the Republicans related to 'family values'.

That being said, Arkansas (which was 50th in the nation in divorce rate in the statistics I read), may have a point.

I feel about divorce kind of like I feel about abortion. I am vigorously opposed to abortion as a means of birth control. However, there are lots of other legitimate reasons for abortion.

I am vigorously opposed to marriage as an excuse to get laid. I'm pretty sure that a lot of people get married for that purpose. Once the sheen of getting laid wears off, they want to get laid by someone else.

My wife's family is from the South. They have these religious scruples that can be translated into a very odd way of looking at the world. Her sister was married 4 or 5 times. (I lost count). I just shake my head and wonder WTF?

 

[wishfulthinking]

Wasn't it the case historically in England that a man could divorce a woman for adultery, but not vice-versa? Bring back the good old days

Australia has a "no-fault" approach to divorce, which I can't fault (pun intended ).

BUT if they have been married less than 2 years, they must obtain counselling and the counsellor must sign off on it, AND if there are kids under 18, they must satisfy the court that appropriate arrangements have been made for their long-term and day-to-day welfare, care and development etc.

I can't see the need for parties to show certain grounds in order to obtain a divorce, and this is partly because it only seems to play upon the power-imbalance that is existent in some marriages to the benefit of the more dominant partner.

I agree with EL, it should be more difficult to get married, rather than to get out of the marriage. But I'm also the sort of person who believes that people should undergo parenting skills courses before having kids

 

[matriarch]

Wasn't it the case historically in England that a man could divorce a woman for adultery, but not vice-versa? Bring back the good old days

Australia has a "no-fault" approach to divorce, which I can't fault (pun intended ).

BUT if they have been married less than 2 years, they must obtain counselling and the counsellor must sign off on it, AND if there are kids under 18, they must satisfy the court that appropriate arrangements have been made for their long-term and day-to-day welfare, care and development etc.

I can't see the need for parties to show certain grounds in order to obtain a divorce, and this is partly because it only seems to play upon the power-imbalance that is existent in some marriages to the benefit of the more dominant partner.

I agree with EL, it should be more difficult to get married, rather than to get out of the marriage. But I'm also the sort of person who believes that people should undergo parenting skills courses before having kids

Wishful, I agree with that as well. Most definitely.

Pssssttttttt..............I is Matriarch.....not EL. Guess I need to change my AV if that's causing the confusion.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Newlyweds Steve and Brooke Ruffin signed Arkansas' marriage covenant.

"Having signed that document just made sure that this is forever," says Steve.

Boy, are YOU in for a shock...

 

[Goldie Munro]

What is marriage nowadays? Not what it used to be - thank goodness! People who love each other (at the time!) sign a few papers have a big party and go off into the sunset - sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't !

I am an idealist I know!

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Why do we assume that all divorces are bad? Clearly someone sees them as necessary or we wouldn't have so many.

---dr.M.

 

[SlickTony]

Why do we assume that all divorces are bad? Clearly someone sees them as necessary or we wouldn't have so many.

I certainly thought mine, back in '76, was a good thing.

 

[wishfulthinking]

Pssssttttttt..............I is Matriarch.....not EL. Guess I need to change my AV if that's causing the confusion.

Big opps! I don't even have the excuse that English Lady was the poster before or after you (or even on the thread)!

My sincerest apologies

PS don't ever change

Also, I think obtaining a divorce shouldn't be a trial by fire, as the victims are usually the kids, and the less stress involved for the parents, you would think the better it must be on the kids.

 

[Kassiana]

In the UK, we don't even need the blood tests that you guys go through.

All I did was go to my county clerk's office and pay them $18, actually, and swear an oath. I got my marriage license that day. I don't know what states require blood tests, but apparently Illinois isn't one of them.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The data on the Red vs. Blue states is more complicated than I think is being admitted. The rates from the Lex article are based, not on Marriages to Divorce, but Divorce per 1000 people. The former statistic (going on actual federal numbers one can look up easily on line) don't show a correlation like "you're more likely to get divorced if you're from a Red state".

But... the stats bring about all sorts of wonky questions. Red states achieve a higher average standardized test score than Blue states, for instance--is that because Christians or Republicans are better test takers? I don't think we'd argue that, so why we're arguing that those demographics are responsible for divorce rates are beyond me. Then again, if we're to put everyone in those categories of responsibility--I'd rather live in places that take education more seriously.

 

[Elsie Grey]

Why would you need a blood test to get married? That seems a bit peculiar!

Making marriage harder to obtain is an interesting concept but how would you go about putting it into place? Love isn''t tangible so it's kinda hard to measure. Also who can say what will happen in the years to come? Sometimes couples who seem perfect don't last and other couples who got married really young (like my rents!) last when nobody thought they would. I think marriage is quite a challenge! I'm glad I haven't got there yet!

Elsie
xxx

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Why would you need a blood test to get married? That seems a bit peculiar!

Blood Tests Why?

The purpose of such tests is not to keep a person with an illness from marrying, but to ensure that the spouse knows of the condition. In addition to blood tests, some states require complete physical exams. Even in states where no blood test or exam is required, failing to tell your prospective spouse that you have a venereal disease or a physical impairment (such as impotency or infertility) before you marry may make the marriage invalid. Since marriage is a contract, this makes sense--you are getting more or less than what you bargained for.

Making marriage harder to obtain is an interesting concept but how would you go about putting it into place? Love isn''t tangible so it's kinda hard to measure. Also who can say what will happen in the years to come? Sometimes couples who seem perfect don't last and other couples who got married really young (like my rents!) last when nobody thought they would. I think marriage is quite a challenge! I'm glad I haven't got there yet!

It can be a bitch, let me tell you. Also, you don't always get what you bargain for, or what is promised in the beginning. Sometimes divorce is necessary, whether the statistics like it or not.

~lucky

 

[thebullet]

Joe W. Claimed:
But... the stats bring about all sorts of wonky questions. Red states achieve a higher average standardized test score than Blue states, for instance--is that because Christians or Republicans are better test takers?

Hold on there, Joe. Did you think you would slip that one past us? Come on.

Let's do some research (as we say here in the BLUE states), using the S.A.T.'s as a jumping off point.

State Verbal Math
Alabama 562 558
Arkansas 566 555
Connect. 510 509
Delaware 501 493
Louisiana 562 558
Massach. 508 508
Mississippi 562 549
Pennsy. 497 495
Tennessee 564 557
Utah 572 550
Vermont 508 504

Wow!!! It looks like Joe must be right, huh? Hold on, Hold on! Let us take a closer look. How about the percentage of students taking the test? Could that possible effect the totals? Naah! That couldn't be it, could it Joe?

Let's see: Alabama 8%; Arkansas 6%; Connecticutt 80%; Delaware 70%; Louisiana 8%; Massachucetts 77%; Missississi 4%; Pennsylvania 71%; Tennessee 13%; Utah 4%; Vermont 71%

What is obviously happening is that in the BLUE states, almost everyone takes the SAT's and in the RED states only the literate students take the SAT's.

Look, it's obvious that regardless of the state, the higher percentage of students taking the tests, the lower the overall average will be. Wisconsin (a BLUE state) had only 7% of its students taking the test and the averages were M:581/V:594.

But I couldn't allow Joe to slip a statistical manipulation past us.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by thebullet
Hold on there, Joe. Did you think you would slip that one past us? Come on.

Let's do some research (as we say here in the BLUE states), using the S.A.T.'s as a jumping off point.

State Verbal Math
Alabama 562 558
Arkansas 566 555
Connect. 510 509
Delaware 501 493
Louisiana 562 558
Massach. 508 508
Mississippi 562 549
Pennsy. 497 495
Tennessee 564 557
Utah 572 550
Vermont 508 504

Wow!!! It looks like Joe must be right, huh? Hold on, Hold on! Let us take a closer look. How about the percentage of students taking the test? Could that possible effect the totals? Naah! That couldn't be it, could it Joe?

Let's see: Alabama 8%; Arkansas 6%; Connecticutt 80%; Delaware 70%; Louisiana 8%; Massachucetts 77%; Missississi 4%; Pennsylvania 71%; Tennessee 13%; Utah 4%; Vermont 71%

What is obviously happening is that in the BLUE states, almost everyone takes the SAT's and in the RED states only the literate students take the SAT's.

Look, it's obvious that regardless of the state, the higher percentage of students taking the tests, the lower the overall average will be. Wisconsin (a BLUE state) had only 7% of its students taking the test and the averages were M:581/V:594.

But I couldn't allow Joe to slip a statistical manipulation past us.

It isn't statistical manipulation. Its a direct correlation between how the statistics used for the "divorce rate" are the same as those used for "standardized testing". Look up /how/ the Times got their stats and you'll see that it uses the same sort of bias.

I really do resent the "manipulation" thing. I haven't lied or falsified anything on this board since I've gotten here and to imply that I'm being a liar is neither necessary nor helpful nor polite.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

And before people go off the deep end with asusmption, I'll give an example (this presumes that you've even looked at the actual numbers of marriages and divorces and populations per state; if you haven't, you're going on a lot of faith with your propositions).

Massachusetts has a significantly lower "divorce rate" than, say, South Carolina. We are led to assume that there are less divorces and that like from that statistic. However, its just more complicated than that:

Massachusetts has about twice the population of South Carolina and about the same number of marriages. The "divorce rate" in the New York Times article was the one that was "Divorcers per 1000 people". Assuming Massachussets and South Carolina had the same population, we could say that marriage is a stronger union in one place than another. However, with South Carolina having a similar marriage-to-divorce rate as Massachusetts, its lower population makes its "divorce rate" higher.

You say that my mentioning standardized test scores only shows that people likely to do better take the test in the Red states; apparently people more likely to stay together get married in the Blue states--using identical reasoning.

Is this correlation between the two things "divorce rate statistic in New York Times" and "standardized test score averages for the states" coming into sharper focus? I said that I didn't advocate for the categorizations that would say "Red states respect education more" based on those statistics for the same reasons I can't advocate "Blue States divorce less". The stats, unfortunately, are more complicated than that.

I really would appreciate an apology for the rudeness.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Hell... minority divorce rates are extremey high. When do we start hatin' on the blackies and the spics or blaming them because they are in higher concentration in Red States than in Blue and are draggin' our stats down? *rolls eyes*

This is what I hate about peopl throwing statistics around. I have to deal with them day in and out (Psych is almost an unending chain of ANOVA and alpha levels and tables and subjects and variables and ratios) and so often people flaunt them about without regard to the simple, perhaps kind, perhaps just cautious notion that they are way more complicated than any simple finger-pointing thesis is likely to substantiate.

Ugh. I'll shut up, now.

 

[wishfulthinking]

But I couldn't allow Joe to slip a statistical manipulation past us.

I thought the whole purpose of using stats was so they could be manipulated to prove whatever point was being made?

 

[matriarch]

I thought the whole purpose of using stats was so they could be manipulated to prove whatever point was being made?

We have a saying over here, not sure if you people use it.....

"There are lies, damned lies.........and statistics."

And I'm not making a point, just passing through.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Yeah, that's what I thought. *rolls eyes*

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Hold on there, Joe. Did you think you would slip that one past us? Come on.

Let's do some research (as we say here in the BLUE states), using the S.A.T.'s as a jumping off point.

State Verbal Math
Alabama 562 558
Arkansas 566 555
Connect. 510 509
Delaware 501 493
Louisiana 562 558
Massach. 508 508
Mississippi 562 549
Pennsy. 497 495
Tennessee 564 557
Utah 572 550
Vermont 508 504

Wow!!! It looks like Joe must be r

ight, huh? Hold on, Hold on! Let us take a closer look. How about the percentage of students taking the test? Could that possible effect the totals? Naah! That couldn't be it, could it Joe?

Let's see: Alabama 8%; Arkansas 6%; Connecticutt 80%; Delaware 70%; Louisiana 8%; Massachucetts 77%; Missississi 4%; Pennsylvania 71%; Tennessee 13%; Utah 4%; Vermont 71%

What is obviously happening is that in the BLUE states, almost everyone takes the SAT's and in the RED states only the literate students take the SAT's.

Look, it's obvious that regardless of the state, the higher percentage of students taking the tests, the lower the overall average will be. Wisconsin (a BLUE state) had only 7% of its students taking the test and the averages were M:581/V:594.

But I couldn't allow Joe to slip a statistical manipulation past us.

In the south, the majority of students take the ACT.

 

[amicus]

Couture, whose views I do not appreciate, in an offhand way, made a very valid point.

What is the purpose of a marriage contract, granted and approved by the ruling authority?

On a wider scope, what is the purpose of a sanctioned marriage?

the curious amicus

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Scene from a Swedish home:

T and M are married. They have guests over for dinner, P and C (who are married to each other). T and P talk about the advantages of being a married man:

P: It's great to be married. Now that I've got me a woman, I don't have to put in a lot of effort anymore, coz I already got her! I can throw dirty socks around, I can belch and fart around her, I can read the newspaper at the breakfast table...

T: Hmmm-mmm.

M: Hey, C - a divorce only costs 500:- SKR...

C (happily): REALLY???

P: M, don't tell her that!!!