Chris Byrne | February 16, 2005 05:55 AM

The real problem is that most people don't really take marriage all that seriously. In fact it seems that very few people seem to take ANY responsibility all that seriously.

It's not like people (or at least not most people) think "Oh what the hell, if it doesn't work out I can always get a divorce", but there seem to be very few consequences to marriage in many peoples minds.

Maybe we should make it very difficult to get married, and very easy to get divorced.

Oh, a side note on why Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate. It is by far the most catholic state in the country(40 some odd percent), and it has one of the most backed up convoluted court systems in the country, and some of the most vicious lawyers. Combine all three, and hey, less divorce. I'm not so sure that's a good thing...

John Scalzi | February 16, 2005 06:29 AM

One should also note the Catholic Church is big on couple's counseling before marriage (due in large part to its doctrinal aversion to divorce).

Chris Byrne | February 16, 2005 07:34 AM

Ayup, there are even priests recommending that couples live with each other for up to six months before getting married. I guess they figure it's better to live in sin than end in divorce.

I happen to agree with that standpoint, but it's rather unusual to see good sense replace dogmatic absolutism when it comes to our holy mother.

I call myself a recovering catholic. Being a recovering catholic is like being a recovering alcohilic; If you're an alcoholic, you're alway an alcoholic, you're just in recovery; the same thing goes for being catholic.

I still have to stifle the impulse to make the sign of the cross when people take the lords name in vain (including myself, something I do rather frequently actually. I occaisonally say hail marys to myself in my head wihout even thinking about it, and I haven't even been to church in 12 years.

Of course my recovery has progressed to the point where I also start singing lords of acid or chumbawumba to myself after saying a hail mary (awwwww yeah, blasphemous anarchist slut techno baby).

Jim Winter | February 16, 2005 07:58 AM

We told our priest when we went through pre-marriage counseling that we were already married and the ceremony was a formality.

You can imagine his response.

Paul | February 16, 2005 08:23 AM

I distinctly remember the word 'covenant' being featured prominently in the sermon at my wedding. Am I missing something? Or did governor whatsisname not originally get married in the church? I also remember the Priest, during pre-marital counselling, telling us he did not expect me to convert because, quite frankly, he had enough non-practicing Catholics in his parish already. I believe it took some minutes to lever my wife's jaw back up off the floor.

Castiron | February 16, 2005 09:39 AM

Here in Texas, all that's required for me & partner to get married is the license fee, our IDs, and a 72-hour waiting period between issuing the license and performing the ceremony. Seems to me that if our legislature is really serious about strengthening marriage, they should stop bickering over same-sex marriage banning amendments and start bickering over a longer waiting period between filing for a license and performing the ceremony, start requiring pre-marital counseling, etc.

Kate Nepveu | February 16, 2005 09:50 AM

Paul, the Catholic idea that marriage is a covenant doesn't have anything to do with the civil end of things--whether you're married by a priest or a J.P., you still get divorced the same way, unless you do this new "covenant marriage" thing in Arkansas. It's a civil variant.

Christopher Davis | February 16, 2005 10:20 AM

Kate: My problem with it is that it's a civil variant that co-opts religious language, probably (at least in part) to emphasize the "sacred nature" of marriage.

Update from MA: Cambridge City Hall is still standing, nine months after the first same-sex marriages, and the Commonwealth has dropped the blood test requirement for all marriages. (The three day waiting period is still in place, but it's apparently not hard to get a waiver of it if you want one.)

Tripp | February 16, 2005 10:53 AM

Chris,

The real problem is that most people don't really take marriage all that seriously.

I disagree, unless you think the people in the blue states are much more responsible than the people in the red.

Nope. The real problem is that normal young adults have a very strong drive to have sex and they'll do what it takes to "get er done!"

If that means marrying Billy Bob then by golly, they love Billy Bob and want to spend the rest of their life with him.

Do you personally know people who do not take marriage seriously, or who have had an easy walk-away divorce? I don't.

RooK | February 16, 2005 11:21 AM

The biggest source of culture shock I had moving from British Columbia to Oregon is that instead of just shacking up and living in sin (as I was accustomed to) many people seemed to have "starter marriages". In the cultural region where I was from, marriage was a relationship weapon of last resort, reserved primarily for legitimizing children and getting dying grandparents finally of your back. None of my friends in Canada got married before one or both of the couple were at least thirty. In Portland, I was astonished to find just about everyone over the age of twenty-four was either married or divorced.

Perhaps I'm just biased, but I find it flabbergasting to think of committing to a lifelong agreement before you even really get to know yourself. It makes me wonder if a significant proportion of the divorce statistics are were between people who got married young. Becase, in my mind, those divorces are "gimmes". Almost like a "young offenders act". They're just victims of a chance - stupidity mixing with hormones and unreasonable societal expectation. So, that would support the idea of counselling before marriage.

John Scalzi | February 16, 2005 11:29 AM

To go back to something I didn't comment on earlier (now that I've had a few hours of sleep):

"The real problem is that most people don't really take marriage all that seriously."

Well, no. I think the vast majority of people who want to get married do take it seriously. But this does not also mean that some portion therein may still not be ready. And lets not forget that people can be perfectly match when they're married and then not be perfectly (or even imperfectly) matched five or ten years later, for whatever reason. A lot of the discussion of marriage seems to assume stasis, which is a pretty dangerous assumption.

I think pre-marriage counseling would bring down divorce rates; I don't think we'll ever get to the point when divorce rates are ever as low as they were when it was very difficult to get a divorce. For me the issue is not so much bringing down divorce rates as raising the quality of marriages that do exist, and that are being formed.

Q | February 16, 2005 11:35 AM

Coincidentally enough, I myself am a revoering Cathaholic. Which means I no longer drink in church.

Patrick | February 16, 2005 11:37 AM

The problem with this solution, is that this solution used to be the problem. Prior to the wide acceptance of "no fault" divorce, there were divorces granted, but only for the reasons listed above (adultery, cruelty, felony) and some others, such as being habitual drunkeness and abandonment for over a year (or other specified time). I mean, its been tried before, and it didn't work well, so we changed it. Of course there are going to be more divorces if its easier to obtain them. That wasn't the original question or problem.

But what if you just couldn't stand the person you were married to any longer? Stated rather simply, the system required honest people to lie in open court to get a divorce.

Normally, about the only time we non criminal elements are in court would be probate, divorce, the odd lawsuit, or maybe jury duty. Judges who were around at the time felt that they were being played for suckers, while at the same time undermining respect for the courts.

Besides, the covenant seems like the worst possible reaction. Its says in essence: Divorce is bad, therefore, no one gets one. Puh-lease.

How about just allowing for only two marriages? I'd love to the unintended consequences of that.

John H | February 16, 2005 11:37 AM

If that means marrying Billy Bob then by golly, they love Billy Bob and want to spend the rest of their life with him.

I don't know if it's quite that simple. She may feel she's in love with Billy Bob because she's sexually attracted to him and/or having sex with him. Having and acting upon lustful thoughts is 'sinful', and the only way to make it ok to have/act upon those feelings is to believe you're in love.

The end result is often an ill-advised marriage.

Maybe the reason California has a lower divorce rate is because their 'looser' morals don't compel them to marry a person just because they're sexually involved with that person. I'm not saying that's the right attitude to have, but it's got to be better than marrying someone just to get in his or her pants...

Fuzzy | February 16, 2005 11:48 AM

A thoughtful post about a subject close to my heart... and all I can think about is putting frosting on the cat. Here kitty, kitty, kitty....

RwB | February 16, 2005 12:54 PM

Well said, John.

Janni | February 16, 2005 12:56 PM

I think Arizona has covenant marriage, too.

Well said on everything above, especially that the problem isn't making divorce easy, but people marrying poorly.

What matters is that a commitment has been made, and made for the right reasons.

I'm reminded of the person who said to me (talking about whether that commitment even needs to be a marriage), "Well, if you're not married, then you're not going to stay together when things get rough."

Well, no. You're not going to stay together if you either don't take the promise--whatever way it's made--seriously, or if it was (or becomes) the wrong promise to make. Whether it takes 10 seconds or 10 years to get out of it.

JamesG | February 16, 2005 01:40 PM

My wife and I were recently invited to a friend’s wedding in Vegas. Our friend is in his 30s and this his both his and his wife’s 1st wedding. Since both my wife and I had been married once before, this led us to wonder if waiting until you are at least out of your 20s give a couple a better chance at making it.

We then took a really disturbing little inventory of all the couples we know (family included) and between the two of us we could only come up with one couple that had only been married once (with the exception of those that have been in their relationship for 3 years or less). Of course, that one couple blew my theory of waiting, right out of the water. Her parents were high school sweethearts and are still married.

When did the increase in the divorce rate really start? Maybe it’s not the result of marriage being taken less seriously. I am sure that many of the same problems that drive couples apart existed way back when marriage was for life.

Maybe the divorce rate has risen because women have a lot more options now. I would hazard that your average woman would put up with a lot less from a man than say a 25 year old woman in the 1920s.

Just my 2 cents for whatever that’s worth.

Chris Byrne | February 16, 2005 02:52 PM

James, jsut thinking abot what you said there, and I came up with a Chris Rock line "A man is only as faithful as his options, a woman is only as faithful as her mans wallet. The bigger the mans wallet, the more options he has, and the more faithful his woman is"

Cynical, oh yeah, accurate, unfortunately often.

Brian Greenberg | February 16, 2005 03:18 PM

I read this completely differently than John read it. I don't think the intent is for the government to get in the middle of a bad marriage & try to keep it together. I think the point is to encourage couples that are having problems to work those problems out and not just cut & run at the first sign of trouble. How many divorces could be prevented if the couple took the time to try & work it out?

Meanwhile, the more interesting part of the story to me was Bush's comment on it (sorry, to lazy to find the link). Apparently, Bush didn't weigh in on covenant marriages one way or the other, and said he felt it was an issue best handled by the states.

Huh? Gay marriage is a federal issue that requires a constitutional ammendment, but covenant marriages are a state issue and the federal government should stay out of it? How does one even *pretend* that isn't hypocritical?

John Scalzi | February 16, 2005 03:36 PM

"How does one even *pretend* that isn't hypocritical?"

I don't think one can.

I do definitely agree that people need to be actively encouraged to work out marriage issues before heading toward divorce; many of the issues that lead people down that path, for example, relate to money and time . But again, the question is whether that's best accomplished by making it harder to divorce; I think it's best accomplished my making marriage counseling more readily available.

Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little | February 16, 2005 04:23 PM

"I think the point is to encourage couples that are having problems to work those problems out and not just cut & run at the first sign of trouble. How many divorces could be prevented if the couple took the time to try & work it out?"

...Meh. Just a kneejerk, here, but if it takes an act of government to make the couple take the time to try and work it out, then that couple probably weren't ready to be married in the first place. I mean, is the AllFatherState going to have to hold their hand through every spat?

This isn't to diss marriage counseling, understand. A successful marriage is made when those involved are willing to work it out; if the work that's needed is beyond them, that willingness extends to seeking counseling. But an act of goverment mandating counseling is not going to make a marriage successful if those involved are unwilling enough that they have to be coerced into making that effort.

Maybe covenant marriage is attractive to the macho religious types, those who need to show off their virtue by raising the stakes.

Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little | February 16, 2005 04:25 PM

Looks like I goofed with the HTML.

In the previous comment, envision the first para as

ed, and the rest of 'em as my own original blathering.

Nicole J. LeBoeuf-Little | February 16, 2005 04:26 PM

Well, bugger. I give up.

Brian Greenberg | February 16, 2005 05:27 PM

I'm not defending covenant marriages at all, but I can still see the point of agreeing to counseling before divorce up front.

If you take the case example of a well-meaning couple that wants to make it work, but runs into troubles years down the road (e.g., time & money, as John mentions), the fact that they were clear-headed enough at the beginning to "force" themselves into counseling might save the marriage.

It seems like people's objections to this is that the government is forcing people into counseling. I don't think that's the case: this is an optional thing. The couple is doing the "forcing."

I say let 'em at it, just don't force me to do it...

Amanda | February 16, 2005 05:51 PM

Great thread here. In my parents' generation, giving their "word" meant just that. They valued their words as if their reputations depended on it (which they did). Is that what has happened these days? Our "word" means nothing? I don't think covenant marriage is the answer to the problem. MAKING couples stay together is a step backwards. Staying together comes from valuing the union and a sincere desire to live as you believe. (It also helps to pick the right person.)

PiscusFiche | February 16, 2005 07:31 PM

Bravo. I agree with your statement that the crisis isn't about divorce, but marrying poorly. (Although there are some unfortunate souls who have no idea that they've married poorly and who are putting all kinds of effort into making things work because they are so scared of divorce.)

I may be biased, being a 28 year old single woman from a Mormon background, but I have seen friend after friend get married young, and while none of them have divorced yet, many of them deal with issues that put a huge strain on the marriage merely because they were encouraged by all and sundry to marry the first person who made 'em horny. (Mormons not believing in premarital sex and all that.) I have been on the receiving end of that societal pressure. You date for more than three months and your Mormon relatives are asking when the banns are to be announced. (Well, they don't put it like that. They say, "When are you going to the temple," or "If you get married, and then he joins the church, you can go to the temple a year after you get married." The focus is all on getting married and not necessarily on staying married. No wonder so many young folks accomplish the first part and then wonder why it all went wrong.

I have a non-Mormon friend who is currently lamenting the fact that the government makes it so easy for people (well, the straight ones anyway) to get married without considering the consequences but you have a lot more paperwork to go through before you can dissolve that same marriage legally.

V's Herbie | February 16, 2005 08:39 PM

Great discussion...
One thing that has not been mentioned is the stigma that it still attached to seeing a therapist. The mindset goes something like this: "If we go to counceling, we will have to admit there is a problem, and that we have failed to live happily ever after."
I can think of two couples off the top of my head that have both been married 30+ years, but have so little in common they can barely hold a conversation. Who knows what a little therapy 20 years ago would have done?

So, how do we as members of all our comunities, encourage people to seek counceling, if they see doing so as a failure of their marriage?

Zzedar | February 16, 2005 10:06 PM

What's your source for the figures on divorce rates?

Herbie: I think attitude toward shrinks varies a lot from place to place. In the town where I grew up, having a shrink was something of a status symbol: "I can afford to pay three dollars a minute for something completely useless." This was even more true for children. Having a shrink for one's child was simply part of the normal course of raising him, like finding a pediatrician and a children's dentist.

John Scalzi | February 16, 2005 10:45 PM

"What's your source for the figures on divorce rates?"

US Census Bureau.

Phil Fraering | February 16, 2005 11:21 PM

Are these divorce rates per capita or divorce rates per marriage?

John Scalzi | February 16, 2005 11:38 PM

Per capita. I'm not sure what you mean by "divorce rates per marriage."

Roger L. Simon | February 16, 2005 11:47 PM

Nice post.

Phil Fraering | February 16, 2005 11:49 PM

If marriages in both populations have the same chance of ending in divorce, but the marriage rate is higher in one population than the other, that population will have a higher divorce rate per capita.

Les | February 17, 2005 12:02 AM

The stats you quote have to be understood in light of the fact that lots more people actuallly get MARRIED in Arkansas than in California, hence more divorces. This is the reason for the supposedly higher divorce rate in the South, more marriages instead of just living together leads to higher divorce stats; no one records when you just kick your partner out of the apartment.

Whoever above made the comment above about the difference between our grandparent's giving their word and people today giving their word has made the point for supporters of covenant marriage. What used to be assumed in our culture no longer is - debts used to be paid off because it was shameful to owe money, a handshake could make a contract because honor was trusted, etc. Many people get married today, and whether the word covenant is used in the ceremony or not, their word doesn't mean squat when things get tough - they are out the door, because life is really all about me and my happiness and fulfillment, right - isn't that what J-Lo always says?

What's wrong with voluntarily entering into an agreement that says, when things get tough, we both agree to get counseling before we call it quits? This isn't the government, it's a voluntary sign-up. No-fault divorce has been a financial and emotional disaster for women and children in this country, they suffer disproportionately from its effects. Maybe this would help stem the tide for some.

Man in the Middle | February 17, 2005 12:13 AM

My wife and I were among the last virgins of the 60's generation at our wedding 35 years ago. We'd dated two and a half years, were deeply in love, though not as deeply as now, horny as all get out but wanting to do the right thing, and both quite serious about seeing our marriage ceremony as vows before God, and therefore not to be either made or violated lightly. We genuinely believed then, and still do today, that we were made to be together.

We've had lots of troubles along with our joys, but both know even in the bad moments that neither of us is leaving. Knowing we can trust each other's faithfulness even in times of trouble has multiplied our joy in life immeasurably. Sexually-transmitted illnesses, for instance, mean nothing to us, with or without "protection".

Our intentionally choosing to love God first, each other second, our son third, jobs and all else below that has helped keep us on track all those years. So has the idea of serving each other, rather than seeking to be served.

The most surprising aspect of all this is the sex -- far better now than when we were first married. I would never have believed that when I was 21.

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 12:46 AM

"What's wrong with voluntarily entering into an agreement that says, when things get tough, we both agree to get counseling before we call it quits?"

Not a thing. The question: Why does the government need to be involved in such an agreement?

"The stats you quote have to be understood in light of the fact that lots more people actuallly get MARRIED in Arkansas than in California, hence more divorces."

If you're talking raw numbers, you are, of course, quite incorrect. If we're talking percentages, I wouldn't say LOTS more Arkansans are married than Californians; as of the 2000 Census, 52.4 percent of Californians over 15 were married, as opposed to 58.2 percent of Arkansans, a difference of 5.8% -- a noticible difference but not so vastly different as to wildly skew divorce outcomes on a per capita basis.

Even throwing in differing population demographics in terms of the overall population, it would appear married couples are still getting divorced more frequently in AR than in CA. I don't see how -- with the exception of the pre-marriage counseling, of which I approve -- covenant marriages will change that very much.

Mr L | February 17, 2005 01:15 AM

I don't think the intent is for the government to get in the middle of a bad marriage & try to keep it together.

Damn right it ain't. What this law does is simple: it allows a couple the option of a marriage contract that's much harder to dissolve. While that may seem 'silly' or 'unnecessary' to the totally devoted couples here (and they're always totally devoted, right up until the divorce), the fact of the matter is that for some people this makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Look: you may think that 'real' couples are totally devoted to the end, but that's not the way it works on planet Earth. People are just that -- people -- and people tend to lose sight of what's right in the long term when things get tight, or when you hit the inevitable mid-life crisis, or when that poisonous shrew single and childless Aunt Abby dangles the prospect of subsidized bachelorhood and freedom from the stresses of motherhood enabled by the courts.

Your wife will think these things at some point in her life, and whether or not there will be any permanent consequences may have nothing to do with you -- if any of her regrets or personal demons gets the better of her love for you, even for a moment, and she crosses the Rubicon...it's over.

And it can all be due to chance: you go on a business trip, the kids are hell because Daddy's gone, she's trying to manage them and backs into the garage door, single Charlene just won't shut up about her fabulous new guy friend (she'll be cursing his name next week, but that's then), and along comes an old flame from her college days...

Are you sure she'll put you first? Remember, marriage for women isn't like it is for men. If you're male, divorce means hell for your kids and hell for your bank account in all liklihood (and don't count on that prenup -- courts love the 'inadequate representation' gambit), so it'd better damn well be worth it, even to consider it for a moment.

But for women, divorce can be a sweet deal. You get the kids (invariably), you get half the cash (plus monthly support), and you get the sympathy of allllllll your girlfriends. And hey, Sheryl said that guys really dig divorcees nowadays. There's bad stuff too, but no one ever mentions that.

You sure you can compete against every problem she's ever faced and every monkey on her back at any time on any field and win without fail, your head's full of rocks. And if you don't, you'll get suspicious...and that's its own cup of hemlock.

Well, to get to the short of it: a lot of these concerns are less pressing if you know she can't stab you in the back and if she knows you can't just dump her for some pretty young thing. So there are advantages.

Mark Ensley | February 17, 2005 01:59 AM

I'll bring up some arguments which I brought up back during the same-sex marriage debates, but still seem to apply. I strongly feel that marriage as it is now practiced in our society should be reformed so as to more strongly separate the spiritual and legal aspects. Names like "covenant" marriage are simply trying to blur that line further! Oddly enough, the "covenant" isn't anyting recognized by a church, but only by the state!



I propose, again, that we separate the spiritual union from the financial and legal unions. You two, whomever you are, can get "married" in whatever church will do so to sanctify your spiritual union in whatever manner is meaningful to you all. You may also file for domestic partnership with the governmant, which is a legal contract, stating in detail financial obligations, breach conditions, subsections which apply only should children result, etc. Neither is required for the other. Dissolving a "marriage" is a spiritual matter reserved to the church in question, and dissolving a domestic partnership is a contractual dispute handled by the courts.

b.d.g. | February 17, 2005 04:11 AM

Establishing an option for so-called "covenant" marriage is an understandable and entirely rational response to the dumbing down and devaluation over the last several decades of what we used to regard as an important social institution. It's simply restoring the concept of that institution as commonly understood before the epidemic of permissive attitudes toward fornication, cohabitation, adultery, divorce, serial remarriage and sexual immorality of every kind. And it's simply a recognition that you and I mean radically different things when we use the word marriage. If we can't even agree that a marriage involves a husband and a wife, then whatever it is you're talking about, it ain't marriage.

Jim | February 17, 2005 05:36 AM

Do all problems require a new law?

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 07:10 AM

bdg writes:

"If we can't even agree that a marriage involves a husband and a wife, then whatever it is you're talking about, it ain't marriage."

At least one Commonwealth in the union disagrees with you there. Since it's the one with the lowest divorce rate, as I said, maybe they're on to something. And even if they're not, I'm happy to disagree with you anyway.

Also, thanks so very much for implying that my marriage, and every other marriage for basically the last 30 years, is a base and shallow imitation of the real thing. I invite you to suggest such a thing to my wife; I also then invite you to move quickly out of arms' length to avoid a broken nose.

Mr. L: I don't know what kind of people you've been hanging out with, but clearly you need to get with some people who aren't ready to gut each other like fish at the first provocation. It's given you a rather appalling estimation of the human race.

Kevin Q | February 17, 2005 07:23 AM

Mr L, that's one of the most hateful, misogynistic posts I've ever seen on this, or any other, websites. You make my heart sad.

K

jag | February 17, 2005 09:39 AM

"Why does the government need to be involved in such an agreement?"

When people marry they form a partnership which is, in essence, a contract. When they divorce the state usually has to get involved because property rights and issues concerning children (who the state has an interest in protecting) are often contended. Would that every divorce was amicable but that will never be the case.
What's wrong with the state offering degrees of partnership "contracts"? One might be at a very low level: "We only agree to live together and share expenses, when we divorce we only take what is in our individual names and we agree not to have children". With this low a hurdle everyone who adopts this level of knows how little to expect. Another level might describe sharing all assets equally and describing how any alimony commitments and custody disagreements would be negotiated. Last might be a "covenant" marriage where all the major issues that impact stability would be defined (whether or not to have children, a goal as to how many to have or adopt), where infidelity might be grounds for unilateral divorce with severe financial and custody implications and where counseling and a waiting period might be included.
What would be the outcome? Everyone entering into these contracts would at least have some idea ahead of time the degree of commitment the other party had to making the relationship work. It might force people to think through these major issues ahead of time (oh the horror!).
The expectation level, the "performance" level would be set. By forcing couples to really think about these issues wouldn't both the couples, any offspring and society be better served?
Society has an interest in creating as many stable households FOR CHILDREN as possible because they are the vulnerable parties in a contentious split. By giving a variety of levels of "commitment" to couples to consider I'd bet a lot of mismatches would be stopped short and the adjudication of future separations would be much more swift, more amicable and less complicated. If the state doesn't do this, sure, religions or individuals could do the same thing. However, what's wrong with the state offering some options and guidelines to a situation where there is a distinct possibility the state will be involved in dissolving the contract/relationship in the future?

Ryan Booth | February 17, 2005 09:58 AM

As someone who was married under Louisiana's covenant marriage law (the first in the nation), I think you (and Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds) fundamentally misunderstand the nature and intent of covenant marriage.

Covenant marriage isn't about keeping bad marriages together or (as Althouse says) "showing off" in a my-marriage-is-better-than-yours way. And it certainly isn't about my needing the government to "restrict my freedom" as you put it.

What covenant marriage is about is making a statement that marriage isn't something that you try out and discard if you decide you'd rather be sleeping with someone else. It involves pre-marital counseling so that you know what you're getting into, as well as counseling before any divorce is granted.

Covenant marriage is a response to the cavalier attitude toward marriage that our society has adopted. It's a response to the messages from Hollywood and the left that says that tells people to follow their desires instead of their consciences.

At the time, the fact that my then-fiancee was willing (eager, actually) to enter a covenant marriage told me that she was marrying me with a real commitment for the long haul and an understanding of the seriousness of what she was getting into.

What's "stupid" about that?

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 10:09 AM

jag:

"What's wrong with the state offering degrees of partnership 'contracts'?"

Whoever said there was? You'll note I said it's not surprising that covenant marriage is unpopular because it is insulting, *not* that it shouldn't be allowed. I'm not opposed to the state offering it, I just don't ever expect it to be popular, for the reasons I've already outlined.

Now, I don't believe the state should push covenant marriages over the more common sort of marriages, nor imply that they are "better" (by whatever metric one would like to measure), which I think Huckabee did. Beyond this, implicitly criticizing the marriage status of 99+% of your voting public seems like a not very smart idea.

Ryan Booth:

"Covenant marriage is a response to the cavalier attitude toward marriage that our society has adopted. It's a response to the messages from Hollywood and the left that says that tells people to follow their desires instead of their consciences."

You mean to say: Covenant marriage is a reponse to the cavalier attitude toward marriage that some conservatives wish to imply our society has adopted, a point of view which is not particularly bourne out in the stats. The Barna Research Group notes: "Among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%." And again, let's look at where divorce rates are higher: in the conservative south or in the liberal northeast.

Indeed, I dare suggest that statstically speaking, I -- a somewhat liberal agnostic married in California -- am no more likely to get a divorce than a conservative born-again man in Arkansas, all other data being equal. I mean, clearly, given the cavalier attitude of the Hollywood culture and my own God-neutral, liberal ways, I should have been divorced already. And yet here I am, stubbornly refusing to do so.

The idea that liberals have destroyed marriage, I'm sure, has its appeal, but it's not exactly true. So let's not go pinning the presumed decline of marriage on one group when it appears amply clear everyone's got a beam in their eye on this particular topic. What covenant marriages offer is the not entirely subtle implication that the people who enter them are somehow more married than those who are not, which, naturally, I find more than a little bit insulting.

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 10:48 AM

You couldn't be more wrong, John, not in what you say, which is almost sensible in a NOW-it's-time-to-keep-government-out-of-marriage kind of way, but in what you omit. Likewise Glenn Reynolds and Ann Althouse are also mistaken.

The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with marrying poorly; it has everything to do with marrying in the US of A, at least in the last half of the prior century and now into this one. What the Governor recognizes, in all his stumbling, fumbling backwards Arkansas naievete, is that when the State (to pick on them for a minute) creates vast incentive to dump your marriage -- you know, that one where you already said that until-death-do-us-part part -- then folks naturally, in this day and age of teevee and consumption and gender rights and instant guaranteed happiness by that same State to adults who are acting like kids, get divorced. Divorce now ends half of all new marriages; this didn't used to happen.

So what happened? Well, the State statistically pays moms to unilaterally leave dads to the tune of 80% of all divorces. The State, in fact, statistically also makes it another small step to wreck ole dad with all sorts of Constitutional violations -- the most important ones including jail without due process -- just for being dad.

Not that anybody's counting, apparently.

Did any of the suddenly libertarian blogs jump on THAT topic oh, say, a decade ago?

But I digress: With no-fault divorce, family court corruption and acrimony, police oppression, and making big money off the other side suddenly in place, most as the result of FEDERAL mandates that repay states for lost welfare-reform revenues in Orwellian child support pressure that jails single parents and steals their property without due process or equal llegal protection, who wants to stay married, especially in a feminist lobby-driven society?!

Dump dad, get paid, fulfill all those maternal instincts, and prove how modern and liberated you are.

Sorry, don't intend to write a screed but c'mon, get a clue how the system works, John (and Glenn and Ann).

So along comes the Arkansas governor and rather than uproot the entire legislative process, which obviously he can't, makes a symbolic show to uphold marriage and strike back at the cheap divorce culture we all created for ourselves...complete with more bogus, anti-constitutional practices and legislation against marriage than any of us can count, none of which he and his re-bride created, or are empowered to change for the better.

Would that the sudden, one-issue libertarian bloggers would get their heads properly around the cause and effect of American social implosion instead of mouthing off at one man and one woman's laudable show of moral courage.

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 11:12 AM

"Sorry, don't intend to write a screed"

Ah, but you did intend to write a screed, I think, whether it was germane to the topic or not.

Clearly, having my head up my ass as I do, I'm not entirely sure there's a direct line between no-fault divorce and men getting screwed by the system simply for being men, particularly when it's amply shown that divorce is far more economically ruinous to women than man (see here and here for but two abstracts). And while being a father and fully supportive of the rights of fathers post-divorce, I also happen to think a lot of the "father's rights" stuff I've seen is largely offputting misogynistic wingnuttery, like, say, your post. Naturally, you're free to disagree. However, try to be briefer and less spittle-ly when you do so.

I think one of the things I'm seeing here is the suggestion that people get married with the idea that it's not going to last, and they'll all just get a divorce and go their merry way. Well, you know, I've been to a lot of weddings -- I've officiated several -- and I have yet to go to one in which either partner was going in contemplating the idea of doing anything less than giving the marriage their full measure of effort. Nor have I ever personally known anyone to get a divorce as a first, second, or even sixth resort. People don't like to fail in the things they do, and they particuarly don't like to fail in marriage. So this presumed culture of easy marriage and easy divorce is one this California-bred agnostic somewhat liberal has yet to actually come across. And you think that if anyone would know of it, someone like me would.

Justin Anderson | February 17, 2005 11:44 AM

"Would that the sudden, one-issue libertarian bloggers would get their heads properly around the cause and effect of American social implosion instead of mouthing off at one man and one woman's laudable show of moral courage."

Okay, I'll bite. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that there is in fact an "American social implosion" in progress.

What exactly are the causes and effects that elude me, yet seem so clear to you?

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 11:45 AM

Sorry to get your hackles up, John, and even sorrier to see you escalate your rhetoric in a show of who's blog this really is. I mean not to be offputting; I mean to be factual in the face of this non-issue.

Anyway, if you'd like a tit for tat, data-va-data battle, where do I sign up? You can falsely label me a misogynistic wingnut but you can not refute the hard data.

Simply: The State ruins marriage. Not without private sector aid, to be sure, but in the end, states destroy single parents because other cheap and dishonest single parents figure out how to game it. And do they ever.

And that ain't exactly a separation of church and state now is it John? And wasn't the holy separation of same vis a vis Arkansas governors and their wives the original point?

Like I keep saying, easy anti-authoritarian issues -- like this one -- get the airtime because they're, well, easy. And view well because they include arch stereotypical southern white male (and now female) villans with high school educations...or something more or less like that.

Meanwhile the real machinery of State churns visibly, factually, and with evidence and available statistics, against marriage, against children, against fidelity, and against personal, civil, constitutional and spiritual rights and sensibilities.

That's not opinion...but it's not particularly politically entertaining either.

Anonymous | February 17, 2005 11:52 AM

"I just don't ever expect it to be popular"

John,

Why does it have to be "popular"? My state requires cars to be inspected (when 99% always pass). That law isn't particularly popular but enough legislators agreed it was in the state's interest. I hate this law and, if I were getting married and didn't want to step up to the BIG commitment level, I wouldn't like having to explain my lesser degree of commitment to my prospective wife either. However, would you agree everyone would be better served in these instances if a deep discussion of the commitment one has to the relationship took place before the ceremony? It may be a sad fact that it might take a law to influence a discussion of this magnitude taking place between adults but isn't that as good as a law can get? Influencing better behavior to reduce the chance of an accident (however unpopular)? That would seem to be the idea behind car inspection laws and they don't seem to be in danger of being overturned on a measure of their "popularity".

Maybe Huckeby and his wife are grandstanding. I've been married 20 years and agree that its silly to renew vows if you meant what you said in the first place. But its possible he was just trying to emphasize a point he felt strongly about. Was he just being political? Maybe it was political or both, maybe he's just jerking people around. Who knows?

I'm glad you agree there is nothing wrong with the state offering options. See, we agree on two things! When Huckabee is caught with someone else or divorces I'll gladly conceed you were right but until then, in my opinion, he can be given the benefit of the doubt.

RooK | February 17, 2005 11:52 AM

NV Dad said:
Divorce now ends half of all new marriages; this didn't used to happen.

So what happened?

Well, for one thing, women are no longer chattel. Secondly, people are starting to think that perhaps life isn't all about working, breeding, then dying in short order.

I submit that a century ago, a nearly identical percentage of marriages sucked just as much as modern marriages, and many of those people would have been better off getting divorced if they had the means to do it. Thus, the increased divorce rate is actually a good thing, if one were to undo their cranial-rectal insertion and stop limiting the definition of society's success by being neatly paired off into breeding partners.

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 11:57 AM

"Why does it have to be 'popular'?"

It doesn't have to be. Which is good, because rather clearly, it isn't.

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 12:00 PM

Chattel? And when the women's right's pendulum overcorrects and allows widespread and intentional "family law" violations of half the personal rights guaranteed in the US Constitution primarily on basis of gender, and when it then statistically further harms children for want of fathers, what's the chattel canard got to do with anything?

This is 2005, not 1940.

Alan R. DiCicco | February 17, 2005 12:12 PM

Prosecuting child support delinquency often supports court administered kidnapping by custodial parents.

Children need both parents after divorce. Most fathers and some mothers have been denied this fundamental Constitutional Right. Instead they are pursued more fervently than criminals.

How often is a custodial parent pursued with tax dollars to enforce visitation or shared parenting? It is as rare as snow in death valley.

Family court and it's various administrative arms destroy families for profit.

Alan R. DiCicco, Founder and President
Coalition for Family Court Reform
PO Box 90371
Henderson, NV 89009
702-355-1830
www.familycourtreform.org

Kate Nepveu | February 17, 2005 12:20 PM

Simply: The State ruins marriage. Not without private sector aid, to be sure, but in the end, states destroy single parents because other cheap and dishonest single parents figure out how to game it. And do they ever.

NV Dad, I truly cannot figure out what you are talking about. I'm serious. Can you provide specific and concrete details?

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 12:33 PM

NV Dad:

"Meanwhile the real machinery of State churns visibly, factually, and with evidence and available statistics, against marriage, against children, against fidelity, and against personal, civil, constitutional and spiritual rights and sensibilities."

Oh, I agree. Which is to say, I would agree that the state is working against marriage to the extent that with the exception of one Commonwealth, it's been spending an inordinate amount of time keeping some people who passionately wish to be married from achieving that matrionial and monogamous state, simply because they want to marry someone of their own gender. If you wish to clasp hands on this matter, then by all means let us do so.

Otherwise, eh. Dramatic statement but I'm curiously unmoved. Being married, I have yet to encounter a single incident in which the state actively moved against my rights or my children, encouraged me toward fornication or abridged by personal, civil, constitutional and spiritual rights based on my status as a Married American. Indeed, since I get all sorts of tax cuts for being married and having progeny, I would daresay the opposite. Certainly the state hasn't ruined my marriage, nor the marriage of anyone I know.

Possibly the government bureaucracy doesn't work the way you want it to when the marriage dissolves, which is the gist of what I'm getting from you, but that's another issue entirely, which at this moment I'm not very much interested in addressing, except to say that making it more difficult to divorce vis-avis convenant marriages won't do much to resolve any of those issues, in my opinion, it'll just make the process take longer.

Unrelated to any of the above: as a purely practical matter, I do wonder what will happen when, as is almost inevitable, one of the partners who entered into a "covenant marriage" chooses either to contest the conditions imposed on divorce or, alternately, leaves the state and files for divorce in a state that does not have "covenant" restrictions for divorce. There will be interesting legal ramifications for marriage either way.

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 12:38 PM

Kate, assuming our host kindly allows me the space, that subject is vast. Here goes:

1. No fault divorce is a national given.
2. Federal mandates to states for child support collections to make up recent lost welfare "reform" revenues create financial incentive for divorce;
3. Domestic violence assumptions create an impenetrable sexist shield that, despite over half of all DV being committed by women, can be used easily to violate at least four primary constitutional guarantees and essentially steal marital property and legally kidnap children from a statistical male majority;
4. Family court, at the behest of divorce legislation recommended, amazingly, by the American Legal Assoc and influenced by what our legislators themselves tell us is a mammoth feminist lobby, create a statistical, demonstrable bias against single parents and especially fathers.
5. These courts then support a circular cash flow between the legal lobby, feminist lobbies, local psychological professionals and lawyers, and themselves, thus reinforcing the trap of post-divorce child custody.

These are the high points -- the family is simply not immune from statist influence. From these items flows divorce and countless violations of every imaginable freedom and right possible. The Governor's political remarriage is a mere tempest in a teapot.

My point: Authoritarian statism has already infiltrated the marriage, and anyone with an hour and a lawyer can easily expose the ready, paid escape routes from marriage, provided they strike first and strike hard. In the end, the marriage contract is the only one not recognized by authority. There's too much money to be made.

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 12:41 PM

You know what -- let's not make this thread a forum for custodial issues and grievances. Marriage is not exclusively about parenting, and more to the point, a substantive discussion of that topic is not in my opinion germane to the issue ostensibly under discussion. If you want to talk about how awful the family court system is for guys made to pay child support, go kvetch about it elsewhere. When I want to discuss it, I'll post an entry about it.

In the meantime, for this discussion, it's done.

Kate Nepveu | February 17, 2005 12:48 PM

Sorry, John.

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 12:50 PM

No worries, Kate (or NV Dad, for that matter). It's just a topic that takes us far afield from the one this entry is about.

Daniel H. Alvarez | February 17, 2005 12:50 PM

NV Dad said: "Anyway, if you'd like a tit for tat, data-va-data battle, where do I sign up? You can falsely label me a misogynistic wingnut but you can not refute the hard data."

And yet, while John posted links to actual studies backing his point, you don't. You haven't posted anything other than your opinion yet. Where's the hard data?

As for the whole "maybe counseling pre-marriage and pre-divorce will reduce/eliminate divorces", I know of at least one state that mandates pre-divorce counseling if there are children in the marriage (Oregon). In fact, the process to get a divorce in Oregon becomes extremely difficult in general if there are children involved. And they didn't need a "covenant marriage" statute to do it.

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 12:54 PM

To be clear, I do advocate pre-marriage and pre-divorce counseling, although probably not so far as to mandate it via the government (although if the state wanted to subsidize such counseling, I probably would lump that in as "tax dollars well spent" particularly in light of the cost of divorce).

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 12:56 PM

Being married, I have yet to encounter a single incident in which the state actively moved against my rights or my children, encouraged me toward fornication or abridged by personal, civil, constitutional and spiritual rights based on my status as a Married American.

Well said, and I'll clarify my position.

Obviously, at least so far, traditional marriage is not under direct, legislated assault; it's protected, contractual status however, is, which is my point.

In other words, there's been a sea change in marriage in the last 50 years, and while it's attractive and politically correct to call that a victory for equal gender rights, reality shows that nothing of the sort is today's reality.

Yes, you won't be induced to wreck your marriage, at least not directly. But when an enormous statistical majority of divorces are unilateral, and when an enormous statistical majority of divorces are accompanied by sexist ruin, the issue of government incentive and its ready protections for such offenses becomes paramount.

Government -- by way of special interest -- has absolutely paved the way for opportunistic, ruinous divorce, provided it is pulled off in the most hostile, most acrimonious way possible. Aside from marriage, government has literally created entire inner cities of professional mothers. Breeding has replaced marriage and government helped.

In this respect government, as with all it's failed domestic programs, has once again aided compromising the private citizen's honor and integrity. You are correct in that it's still our fault, John, but the conflicts of interest are so broad and so inescapable that one wonders just how we came to be so not only as a society but as a nation of free states.

I applaud the Governor, not for his public personna or office, but for his show of personal integrity while his legislature apparently can do nothing to stem the breakup of the family.

Should marriage regain its firm contractual status? Do states ever need to recognize marriage in the first place? Are vast numbers of partners trapped in agonizing lives while married? The answers go to whether we're better or worse off then we were when divorce was rare.

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 01:32 PM

NV Dad:

That was a not bad post, aside from this choice bit:

"Aside from marriage, government has literally created entire inner cities of professional mothers"

Which, again, aside from being far afield from the issue under discussion, suggests the government promotes illegitimacy rather than, say, the idea that children of single mothers should not be allowed to starve, and rather conveniently sidesteps economic and social issues in urban areas not related to marriage (such as education and employment). It also implies that the issues of single motherhood in urban areas are somehow unique, which, being someone who lives in a substantially rural area, I assure you they are not.

But again, an aside, and please do try to refrain from trying to shoehorn that aspect of your agenda into every discussion.

Marriage is indeed a contractual issue, but I can certainly think of any number of contracts in which the partners can enter or leave it at will -- indeed, as an independent contractor I have several of them in my file cabinent, which state that either I or the party to whom I've contracted can end our (business) relationship at any time, for any reason. This sort of contractual relationship is not unusual.

Now, the difference here is that marriage is not the average contract, to which I think you would agree. However, I don't see that it would necessarily follow that divorces should not be made unilaterally; rather it should be made clear to the people entering the contract what their right and obligations are regarding marriage (this would be the pre-counseling). I also wonder how much of any major issues could be resolved via pre-nups. In any event, I certainly agree that more information about marriage before marriage is vastly preferable to the alternative. And if after looking over information, prospective marriage partners want to enter into a pre-nup and/or "covenant"-like marriage status, that's fine with me.

Just as a curiosity: If we assume that marriage is substantially a contractual issue, do you have a problem with that contact being granted between people of the same sex? After all, very few other contracts are limited to parties of separate gender.

Ab_Normal | February 17, 2005 01:42 PM

Thank you, Mr. Scalzi. I'll honor your request and resist the urge to respond to NV Dad et. al.

But I will say: It's not the strictures of the law or fear of an angry deity (which neither my husband nor I believe in) that keeps our marriage together. It's the love *and* the work that we put into our relationship that has kept it going these past seventeen years, through economic hard times and problems with drugs and alchol.

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 01:42 PM

Well said, Ab.

jag | February 17, 2005 02:27 PM

John,

Re: if its a contract should gays have the same right?
I think they should. I just wouldn't call it, from a state perspective, "marriage". Call it a "union", "partnership" whatever. It just isn't a "marriage".
It isn't the "same". It may have a lot of similarities but it does involve some profound differences.
Would I call every heterosexual union "marriage"?
Not if there were the options I described above. I'd save "marriage" only for those heterosexual couples who intend FROM THE OUTSET to create (or adopt) children. That "ideal" arrangement is what the state should support. As to any other partnerships, without kids, who cares what they are called? They only involve adults.

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 02:31 PM

John, while a point of semantics not easily resolved, to claim that government has little or no effect on a variety of private sector issues, of which marriage and its individual and collective end and demise are somewhat at topic here, is not a complete thought.

The governor's public remarriage was the original point, for which he was roundly criticized for what? Publicity, office, personal or political intent, or personal or political effect?

The only practical fallout of his little soire was and could have been nothing more than to make certain, may I say, inconsistent political types uncomfortable. He has no authority to alter marriage, or his legislature's treatment or lack of treatment of it, or the federal government's heavy-handed mandates to his state to act in certain ways when dealing with the family, husbands and wives, and the children, all part and parcel of, naturally, marriage.

Therefore harm done is nil yet criticisms are thick in the public forums?

Why?

Because it serves our antiquated and somewhat holier than thou separation whims, that's why. As if god-neutral (to use your term) could exist, which obviously it cannot; philosophically it's impossible to claim no philosophy.

Again, I digress, but the point is that there is little or no reason to get up at arms about the governor's event because it has no ramifications, no substance, and even no really offensive sentiment or intent.

But getting back then to marriage as a state-recognized legal entity, when the state recognizes marriage and then allows, aids, and abets it's harmful and statistically unilateral destruction with tools of said trade (literally, a trade) then it HAS effected marriage in ways Arkansas public covenant marriages can never and will never duplicate. Not in their wildest dreams.

About business contracts this cannot be said, unless they are specifically and by prior agreement worded and termed to allow unilateral disengagement.

That said, perhaps the State, then, has no right authorizing, and by the same token granting harmful tools against, the marriage "contract" with its own endorsement/recognition/what have you. By that not unwise reasoning marriage is and was never a state's contract -- I can accept that if only for reason of it's being somewhat more honest.

Ergo, marriage, as with all familial matters, has no place in the State, hence neither would child support, "starving children", alimony, unilateral property division, or any other private concern that impairs personal freedom. I mean, where does it end? As a wise man recently said on a similar matter, if authoritarian state programs were the only way to solve problems, tyranny would have long proved itself successful by now.

It's all degrees, John. Degrees of government management of the private sector, the family, our children. There ARE entire populations of welfare dependant households where, naturally, government folly has created the will and the means to destroy traditional marriage, or at least render it practically obsolete. There ARE millions of single parents utterly disenfranchised by the state without recourse.

Likewise, now, the rest of society suffers the constant overhang of statist incentive to leave marriage.

There is a chicken-and-egg principle here, to be sure. But the debate can no longer realistically be expected to apply only to a nation of otherwise sensible partners suddenly throwing down their marriages in these statistical numbers and ratios simply because they collectively became enlightened about their horrible domestic situations.

Were that the case, we'd need none of the harmful, enabling, anti-marriage tools government has, in its infinite wisdom, provided! In fact, were we all acting en masse on a brand new enlightenment that suddenly made marriage obsolete, social government applying to it wouldn't be needed at all. If it weren't all about the money and the power, the money and power wouldn't be being abused in these numbers!

Obviously, we're a far more divided nation concerning marriage and divorce than that. The great irony is that while we're complaining about public officials making a stand in support of their own marriage, we're ignoring the harsh reality that the same state that suddenly has no business being involved in such things already provides willing tools for people to destroy their ex-partners, and with them, their children.

For what?

With regard to this event, we have a problem of perspective, not of public policy.

Ryan Booth | February 17, 2005 02:40 PM

John,

How does the fact that born-again Christians are just likely to get divorced make the left and Hollywood any less culpable for the decline in the institution of marriage? Do you think that born-again Christians don't go to movies and watch soap operas? Christians are unfortunately just as influenced by popular culture as everyone else. Are you really going to try to pretend that the "sexual revolution" and "free love" pushed by liberals in the 60's and 70's had no effect? If that didn't have any causal effect on our society's divorce problem, then what did?

I mean, clearly, given the cavalier attitude of the Hollywood culture and my own God-neutral, liberal ways, I should have been divorced already. And yet here I am, stubbornly refusing to do so.

I never said that one needed to be a Christian to have a successful marriage -- you put those words in my mouth. Marriage is obviously an institution that is universal across cultures, races, and religions.

I also still don't understand how my decision to enter into a covenant marriage can make you can feel "insulted," and I particularly don't understand how you can maintain that view while at the same time holding that you don't have a problem with covenant marriages being offered. Either you do have a problem with them or you don't.

If anyone here has the right to feel "insulted," I would say that your calling my marriage decision "stupid" would qualify me for that honor.

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 03:11 PM

Just as a curiosity: If we assume that marriage is substantially a contractual issue, do you have a problem with that contact being granted between people of the same sex? After all, very few other contracts are limited to parties of separate gender.

No, on the face of it I do not. Deeper issues eventually come to mind, however, such as the fact that statistically, gay-marriage-tolerant cultures suffer much poorer socio-economic performance -- check with the gay marriage researchers at NRO.

But should there be a legal impediment to gay marriage? No constitutionally. But there WILL be serious issues (not unlike the one you raise about covenent marriage) the inevitable divorces, the custody wars, the ruin-by-state, and the other legal ramifications of authoritarian involvement.

Again, state's involvement in the prior contract and then again in the contract voiding will occur regardless of gender.

Tripp | February 17, 2005 03:22 PM

Wow, what a load of hooey.

First, there is absolutely no evidence that in the 'good old days' people were better at keeping their word. Prove to me that is true.

Second, the myth that in the 'good old days' people were more faithful, I don't buy that either.

And I think John demolished "Most people (meaning what, liberals?) think of marriage as a throw-away option to be discarded at the first sign of trouble." The truth is EVERYONE wants their marriage to last forever, and divorce is a painful option.

And anybody who thinks the state should not be involved in contract law is nuts. Geez. Everyday people (and corporations) make contracts and break contracts.

Here is my view. If you feel you need the power of the state to keep your wife married to you then be my guest. I'll even let you call it a 'covenant' marriage, although I was taught covenants were made with God, not the government.

But you are fooling yourself. The government may force your wife to attend 'counseling' but they can't force her to listen. The government might even force your wife to remain 'married' to you, but they can't force her to love you. The thing is, there are no guarantees. Anyone who marries, whether in front of God or a Judge or both risks divorce, either de jure or de facto, and no law will change that.

Ryan Booth | February 17, 2005 03:25 PM

It's interesting to consider the "libertarian" position here (and Reynolds and Althouse):

Gay marriage = good
Covenant marriage = "insulting"

Hypocrisy, no?

Tripp | February 17, 2005 03:30 PM

Ryan,

Where can I find the libertarian view of marriage?

Ryan Booth | February 17, 2005 03:33 PM

So, Tripp, I assume that you think we should all be able to divorce Islamic style, right? You don't think that a lot of people would get mad, get divorced, and regret it in a short time? What about the broken families and heartbreak that such a system would put everyone through? Not to mention the fact that no one could ever really feel secure in their marriage because a divorce could only be a moment away.

Why do you think that Islamic women seem to put up with repeated physical abuse? It's because they know that if they complain, their husbands can divorce them in an instant.

Phillip J. Birmingham | February 17, 2005 03:36 PM

Not to mention the fact that no one could ever really feel secure in their marriage because a divorce could only be a moment away.

Dude, the kitchen knives are even closer. Run! Run!

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 03:36 PM

So Tripp, if the state reverted to divorce needing to be justified on grounds, if it didn't pay one gender to take the children, the property, and the freedom of another, if family court didn't sleep with the lobbys that elected them, if bad feminism didn't dominate the issue in state's legislatures, if the law association hadn't advised the lopsided divorce/custody laws to the same legislatures who owe them their elections, and if there weren't literally billions of dollars at stake in the legal/psychological industry lapping up all the divorce/custody cream, tell me, would divorce statistics improve?

Assuming a drop in divorce rates and the attendant documented harm it creates in children was an improvement, that is.

Or are we really just protecting our sexist, old-fashioned, politically correct sacred cows when we, as the previous poster pointedly observed, find great offense in inconsequential long-term heterosexual marriage vows by public officials while defending with our lives gay marriage, the latter of which has so far acquited itself rather poorly on the national landscape?

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 03:44 PM

Ryan Booth:

"How does the fact that born-again Christians are just likely to get divorced make the left and Hollywood any less culpable for the decline in the institution of marriage?"

By suggesting, among other things, that the left and Hollywood are no more culpable for the putative decline of the institution of marriage than anyone else. I could as easily imply that the high divorce rate in the southern states is related to the rise of NASCAR as a popular sport, or, for that matter, the rise of the Republican party to power in particular states (Hint: look at which states have the highest divorce rates). However, correlation is not the same thing as causality, which is a datum with which many people have a hard time.

I understand it's convenient for conservatives to blame someone else for their own moral failings; if you can pin the blame on lax modern standards and your political opponents than you don't actually have to assume responsibility for your actions yourself. However -- call me old-fashioned, nay, conservative this way -- I pretty much believe that people are responsible for their own actions and moral decisions. When born-again Christians end their marriages, it's not the pernicious influence of licentious modern society that compels them to that course of action, it's because they don't want to be married any more. To suggest, as you seem to do, that television has more influence on these people lives than their own pastors, family and church seems awfully belittling to the religious life of these people.

"I also still don't understand how my decision to enter into a covenant marriage can make you can feel 'insulted,' and I particularly don't understand how you can maintain that view while at the same time holding that you don't have a problem with covenant marriages being offered."

Well, there are lots of things that I feel are perfectly idiotic that I have no problem with being completely legal, Ryan. It is possible to dislike or even disapprove of something and yet allow others to do it. I think "covenant" marriages exist primarily as a way to let certain people make a largely unnecessary political statement and to feel as if their marriage is somehow better than everyone else's: I tend to think that's pretty smug. However, inasmuch as your "covenant" marriage doesn't actually change the status of my own marriage, why should I care? Be my guest and get yourself a shiny "covenant" marriage. Mazel tov.

"If anyone here has the right to feel 'insulted,' I would say that your calling my marriage decision 'stupid' would qualify me for that honor."

Well, I don't recall suggesting your decision to be married is stupid, Ryan -- indeed, I wish you great joy in your marriage; getting married was the best thing to happen to me, and I sincerely hope you'll feel the same way. Just don't go about working on the assumption your marriage is better than my own because it's got the word "covenant" in front of it and mine doesn't. If you can manage that, I suspect we'll get along fine.

"Why do you think that Islamic women seem to put up with repeated physical abuse? It's because they know that if they complain, their husbands can divorce them in an instant."

And it might also be that in many Islamic states, women have only slightly more rights than a lamp. Comparing such a situation with a similar situation here in the US is not likely to give you similar results.

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 03:52 PM

[deleted because NV Dad does not listen to directions]

You've already been asked not to make this thread a forum for custodial issues and grievances, NV Dad. Don't do it again.

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 04:00 PM

Apologies, John; I'll watch it.

(Please do note that in the last post, only one point is exclusively parental. I herewith edit the last line to read just "Have a hostile ex...")

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 04:08 PM

Thank you, NV Dad.

Now, earlier you wrote:

"But should there be a legal impediment to gay marriage? No constitutionally. But there WILL be serious issues (not unlike the one you raise about covenent marriage) the inevitable divorces, the custody wars, the ruin-by-state, and the other legal ramifications of authoritarian involvement."

Undoubtedly the bad will come with the good in such a situation. Thanks for responding to the question.

House of Payne | February 17, 2005 04:13 PM

States with the highest divorce rates also generally have the highest marriage rates, and states with the lowest divorce rates also generally have the lowest marriage rates. Once you control for marriage rates, there is no family-value-state hypocrisy. And once you control for income, education, age at marriage, race, etc., the states where family values and tradional marriage are political buzzwords (Texas, Arkansas, etc.) have lower divorce rates than California, Massachusetts, and the rest. Do the math.

Tripp | February 17, 2005 04:15 PM

Ryan,

Sorry to break it to you, dude, but divorce really could be just a moment away, and there is nothing you can do about it.

And you better stop reading right now, because I'm saying something even scarier.

Death could be just a moment away, too.

Anonymous | February 17, 2005 04:19 PM

House of Payne,

Oh no you don't! You've made the assertion. You back it up.

And, since you mention this also, I'd like to see the correlation between divorce and income, education, age at marriage, and race.

Tripp | February 17, 2005 04:20 PM

Ooops, sorry, the above was from me.

Tripp | February 17, 2005 04:29 PM

NV Dad,

Whew, what a load of hooey. You asked a question which was really a paragraph full of wild assertions. You also made the assumption that the fewer divorces the better.

Is this how you behaved with your wife? Do you suppose that had anything to do with your divorce?

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 04:32 PM

House of Payne writes:

"Once you control for marriage rates, there is no family-value-state hypocrisy. And once you control for income, education, age at marriage, race, etc., the states where family values and tradional marriage are political buzzwords (Texas, Arkansas, etc.) have lower divorce rates than California, Massachusetts, and the rest."

You clearly missed the conversation upstream in the thread where I showed that even accounting for variation in marriage rates between Ca and Ar doesn't account for the disparity in divorce rates. Also, of course "controlling" for all the factors you suggest would spit out meaningless statistics, as they would have no reflection on the real world. Try again.

John Scalzi | February 17, 2005 04:33 PM

Tripp:

"Is this how you behaved with your wife? Do you suppose that had anything to do with your divorce?"

Now, now, Tripp. Play nice.

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 04:39 PM

I disagree with government involvement in even so much as directly influencing the marital climate, which is why I struggle in understanding the great harm of the rather meaningless one-off Huckabee re-marriage versus the real foundational role of government in collective American marriage as an existing policy. Is it our appearances-centric culture that sneers at such, um, backwards symbolisms as this?

Or is there bona fide harm in even so much as the appearance of a linkage between public office and some sort of vague, quasi-religious statement on private sector values?

Let's contrast the Huckabee fallout to other forms of direct influence by government on marriage. John, you wrote,

The only good thing about Arkansas' covenant marriage law is it requires couples counseling before the wedding; should covenant marriages actually have a lower incidence of divorce, I'd imagine you'd find the pre-wedding counseling was the key.

"Only good thing." If it is now admirable to involve government in marital engineering, how is this 1) constitutional, even in tone, and 2) legally (and practically) less offensive than the original separation issue re: Huckabee's personal marriage and his public office? As governor, he is allowed to possess personal values, yes?

I mean, even Maggie Gallagher, who's ostensibly pro-marriage Bush-Administration goings on I despise, has completely valid, sound, and essential points about marriage and the family, backed up with reams of data supporting traditional, long-term marriage.

That doesn't necessarily mean anyone would be wise advocating a government stance on marriage if it means state involvement. Keeping church and state apart is what the Huckabee bruhaha is all about, right? Or is it that he just looks goofy espousing values that time has already proven to be in the best interest of the family?

So...what's the functional balance point between condemning awkward public Arkansas arena marriages for appearances, and defending the rest of the already entrenched marriage meddling courtesy of Washington DC?

Tripp | February 17, 2005 05:22 PM

NV Dad,

How can you expect government to stay out of marriage? There are property issues that may come up during divorce or for sure at the death of one of the spouses, and then there is the issue of what happens to any minor children.

Geez, I wouldn't be surprised if 'family issues' were one of the first things put before a 'judge.'

ValHowells | February 17, 2005 05:36 PM

What an interesting thread. I'm glad I got the chance to read all the opinions about covenant marriage. At first I thought it is some right wing moralizing, but I can see its benefits. I don't think it creates two classes of marriage or allows people to be more smug about their marriage. I don't know why some people are getting insulted about it. Maybe it's the religious right overtones that casts a shadow of smugness or self-righteousness. Covenant Marriage sends the message of either being truly committed to a relationship ("we probably will never need to use this") or more insecure about the marriage working out ("we're going to need all the help we can get to stay together").


I truly believe (on some level) people want to see their marriages succeed. I have seen people not right for each other enter into marriage. I don't believe their marriages would have lasted longer they had married under a covenant marriage. They would have done the counseling and then gotten divorced. It might have prevented a few people from divorcing and remarrying each other - they might have just worked it out in counseling. But then, maybe they needed the time apart?


Had there been a covenant marriage when I married, I wonder how that conversation would have gone. We are still happily married 13 years later. We can not imagine divorcing one another and we would probably go to counseling before opting for divorce. Would we have chosen the convenant marriage as proof of our commitment, or as a way to keep the other person from just leaving the relationship? (what happens in covenant marriages when one person takes off? Do they have to stay married because there was no opportunity for counseling?)


I don't see how anyone can say making divorces easier is ruining marriage. Those easy divorce laws are on the books because they are supported by citizens. I'm sure there are people who could have worked harder to save their marriages. By far, the people getting divorced are people in very unhappy situations who have come to the conclusion to Dear Abby's question: "are you better off with him/her or without him/her?". Maybe we should be making it harder to get married. That might prevent divorce. I know that when I was getting married I would have been extremely insulted by laws that assumed I didn't know what I was doing.


My parents divorced after 35 unhappy years. I think counseling and a 2 year waiting period would have just prolonged the torment. It would have prevented my dad's goofy rebound marriage, but that had unexpected blessings as well. Let's just say he won't be doing THAT again (she has passed away).


I agree with the comments about divorce being influenced since the equal rights movement. That probably has played a large role as women came to define their lives differently and expect different things from marriage.


I support gay marriage - and it should be called marriage. Anything less is discrimination. Since we don't have that yet, I think that "domestic partnerships" should be limited to homosexuals. If straight people want the benefits of being married (i.e. health insurance, property rights, next of kin rights...) then they should get married. I really don't see the difference in the commitment. Maybe someone can enlighten me there.


I also don't understand the comment that someone made about children being better off in "traditional" families. Certainly children are better off in families that aren't faced with financial trouble, which are mostly single parent households. Divorces are hard on the children but in some cases, they are better off when the fighting stops. Ultimately, they are best in homes where the parent(s) are happy and the children are loved. Loving homes doesn't exclude homosexual parents.


Just my opinion.

PiscusFiche | February 17, 2005 06:23 PM

Oi....buncha people hit this thread since the last time I posted in it.

I didn't get much further than Mr. L's lovely rant--he said something that just makes me want to spit:

Are you sure she'll put you first? Remember, marriage for women isn't like it is for men. If you're male, divorce means hell for your kids and hell for your bank account in all liklihood (and don't count on that prenup -- courts love the 'inadequate representation' gambit), so it'd better damn well be worth it, even to consider it for a moment.

Nice one, bucko. That statement is so steeped in misogyny, I don't know where to begin: the presumption that women don't care how divorce affects the kids or the man they married, that men are the only ones who suffer during divorce, that women are totally incapable of abiding by a prenup, or even indeed, that either parties need one at all. How does a person get so cynical? (I can make a few guesses, but try not lay the blame for the actions of one or two people at the feet of an entire gender.)

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 07:55 PM

If you're done ridiculing me, I'll answer this:

How can you expect government to stay out of marriage? There are property issues...

Same way they don't offer all the sexist ruins of citizens in, say, mortgage contracts. Or car loans. Business contracts.

Only family law wrecks folks like that.

Oh, about misogyny; that's a cute, engendering, antique notion for the remnant feminist culture but in today's world, it doesn't apply. I can give you three to six news stories a day about divorce-inducing family law gender bias, and then I can cite weekly personal experiences in my local legal system.

Multiply that by 200 cities, and by 50 countries. Face it: Divorce pays.

Kevin Q | February 17, 2005 08:17 PM

NV Dad said:
"Oh, about misogyny; that's a cute, engendering, antique notion for the remnant feminist culture but in today's world, it doesn't apply. I can give you three to six news stories a day about divorce-inducing family law gender bias..."

Yes, but you haven't. Every single one of your posts has been a thinly veiled screed unsupported by either hard facts or evidence. You offer nothing but unsupported hysteria. You add nothing to the conversation.

Misogyny: n. Hatred of women

Anybody who says: Remember, marriage for women isn't like it is for men. . . But for women, divorce can be a sweet deal. . .
is expressing nothing less then the abject hatred for one-half of the human race.

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 08:28 PM

Ah Kevin. The thinly veiled screed, is it?

Out of respect for our host's advice, which is precisely why I've intentionally not blown these ignorant notions about the state and the fam- I mean, marriage out of the water, how about you get permission for me to do what I tacitly promised not to.

I.e., post about 500 pages of references; federal, state-by-state, independent, media, and then personal. Be careful what you ask for.

Anybody who says: "Remember, marriage for women isn't like it is for men. . . But for women, divorce can be a sweet deal. . ." is expressing nothing less then the abject hatred for one-half of the human race.

The abject hatred. Seriously, and with as much respect as possible, who are you playing to?

Kevin Q | February 17, 2005 09:04 PM

NV Dad, please be clear: The misogyny issue is not about anything you said. I was responding to "Mr. L," whose post suggested that women enjoyed destroying families and tearing their marriages apart. Suggesting that a whole group likes to do unconsciounable things indicates a hatred for that group. If he described all black people that way, that would be racism. If he described all lesbians that way, it would be homophobia. He described all women that way. Hence, misogyny.

Also, I apologize for the bombastic tone of my post. Sometimes I'm not able to self-edit fast enough.

As far as facts and hard figures go, however, I can't speak for the host of this fine website. However, anybody who says: . . .

Actually, I was going to find a claim that you made, and ask that you support it with evidence (a website address would be fine). However, I had a hard time finding any actual claims that you made. Most of your comments are similar to this:
With no-fault divorce, family court corruption and acrimony, police oppression, and making big money off the other side suddenly in place, most as the result of FEDERAL mandates that repay states for lost welfare-reform revenues in Orwellian child support pressure that jails single parents and steals their property without due process or equal llegal protection, who wants to stay married, especially in a feminist lobby-driven society?!

I think you're trying to say that the government encourages people to get divorces. But there's no actual claim there. Nothing along the lines of "Studies show that 29% of women considered their financial position post-divorce prior to marriage." If you would like to make a solid claim, and then support it with evidence (again, I'm sure a URL wouldn't be objectionable), then there might be grounds for a discussion.

K

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 09:36 PM

Kevin,

There's a saying, probably common to all industries, and certainly to government that says you don't discuss problems you can't fix. Or with government, that you yourself made. Add decades of habit to this denial and you end up so far removed from your original goals, principles, and justifications that you give up on them.

That's family law in the US.

I don't think anyone here thinks government is the perfect nanny state many dependent wanabees would like it to be. Consider public education, public health, welfare, and just about any federal program filtered down through the states. Do any of 'em really work?

So, right out of the gate, we've no realistic, defensable claim to support government suddenly making a success out of our nation's enormous divorce and fatherless rates when it's botched everything else. Those divorce statistics exist and nobody disputes them. We also all know government has financial compensation, alimony, domestic violence, custody, mental health, education, and other "services" specific to ex-spouses and single parents.

Now. Take the statistic that shows approximately 80% of all single parent households are operated by mothers. Add that over 80% of divorces are initiated by women. Unilaterally. Stir in a liberal misconception that domestic violence is a male-only problem -- it's anything but -- and what do you suppose you end up with?

Now, for good measure add feminist and drug lobbies. Lawyer lobbies. Now where are we?

Add "best interest" ambiguity and autonomy to family court decisions -- how we got to those 80%+ mother-run households -- and do so realizing that family law has no obligation to the usual courtroom procedures, rights, or protections. Add federal programs mandated to collect support almost by any means.

See where this is going? And we haven't even gotten to the hard facts yet, which would overwhelm this page. The evidence; the documentation and statistics. My point is that a simple mental experiment shows us the holes in the common, everyday System. It's not exactly a mystery.

The US has no meaningful restraint when it comes to anything else domestic, why would it magically when it comes to divorce?

If you want to view hard data, search for divorce and parent's rights topics and be prepared to spend days researching.

For a reasonable summary in a daily news log, click my link.

Good luck in your work.

Kevin Q | February 17, 2005 10:05 PM

Take the statistic that shows approximately 80% of all single parent households are operated by mothers. Add that over 80% of divorces are initiated by women.

See, now that's a good start. But if you're going to throw out statistics, you have to tell us where you get those statistics from. If you want to convince somebody to your point of view, you need to make it easy for them. Just a web address would be fine.

Assuming, arguendo, that the statistics are true, what do they mean? The person who initiates the divorce proceeding isn't necessarily the one at fault. In fact, it seems to me just the opposite. If a spouse catches the other one cheating, which one is going to file for divorce? If a spouse gets tired of the other not having a job, and not doing work around the house, which one is going to file for divorce?

As far as the number of single-parent households operated by women, here's a statistic I'd like to see: How likely is the husband to get sole custody if he chooses to fight for it? Just curious.

K

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 10:25 PM

Kevin, for someone requiring proofs, you venture far out on a particularly unreasonable limb to defend your biases: Men cheat on women more -- 80 vs 20 -- and THAT results in divorce?

Your stats defending this, Kevin? (And in your attempt to justify superficial divorce, notice your feminist views about income and lifestyle?)

Anyway, have you checked the sources I suggested?

How likely is the husband to get sole custody if he chooses to fight for it?

The proof is in the pudding: We know that the sum total of fatherless children households is well over 80%. The real question is how many fathers fight for equal shared parenting and are denied.

If you want more than this on parenting you'll go it alone. I wish to limit my comments to marriage and divorce as much as I can.

Kevin Q | February 17, 2005 10:49 PM

Men cheat on women more -- 80 vs 20 -- and THAT results in divorce?

Those are your statistics, not mine. Don't you go putting words into my mouth!

We know that the sum total of fatherless children households is well over 80%.

No, we don't! You keep saying it, and expecting us to take it as an article of faith. I'm not making any assertions about divorce in this country. I'm asking you to back yours up with facts and statistics.

Anyway, have you checked the sources I suggested?

What sources???? You said: For a reasonable summary in a daily news log, click my link. That's the only source you've listed. And I went there. An interesting aggregation of news sources. But I was unable to find links to the statistics you quoted. Perhaps you could list a URL for them?

(And in your attempt to justify superficial divorce, notice your feminist views about income and lifestyle?)

I'm not even sure what that means. I never made any claims about income and lifestyle. Moreover, I never said anything pro or con divorce. Don't go putting words into my mouth again.

K

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 10:56 PM

Kevin said:

Assuming, arguendo, that the statistics are true, what do they mean? The person who initiates the divorce proceeding isn't necessarily the one at fault. In fact, it seems to me just the opposite.

Then:

Those are your statistics, not mine. Don't you go putting words into my mouth!

And? It's not the statistics (which are available from the DHHS; go get em) it's your assertion, based on thin air, that IF they are what they are, that they, gasp, must be evil ole men cheating on their dear wives.

You straighten it out, Kevin.

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 11:01 PM

Kevin said:

If a spouse gets tired of the other not having a job, and not doing work around the house, which one is going to file for divorce?

Then:

I never made any claims about income and lifestyle. Moreover, I never said anything pro or con divorce.

My mistake, then. What did you say?

NV Dad | February 17, 2005 11:07 PM

C'mon, Kevin, load up Google; click the link.

And this is just for starters. Seek and ye shall find.

Kevin Q | February 18, 2005 07:49 AM

Sorry. "Arguendo:" For the sake of argument. I was willing to discuss your statistics as though they were true, but without admitting anything, in an effort to make a point. And the point is this: Your "statistics" don't make the point you think they do. However, I've just realized what apparently more people realized earlier, which is that you are a bag of hot air and anger. This will be my last post on this thread.

K

Tripp | February 18, 2005 09:47 AM

NV Dad,

Same way they don't offer all the sexist ruins of citizens in, say, mortgage contracts. Or car loans. Business contracts.

Thank you for answering my question. It helps me understand your position. I can see that you are not a capital "L" Libertarian, which is really an anarchist wiht a new name.

So you agree that government should enforce contract law, and that one aspect of marriage is a legal contract, as it should be.

I can see from your numerous claims that it is not possible to dispute you point by point. I doubt either of us will change our minds.

I'll simply say many of the claims you make are wacky to me. One quick example: I think that public education is a success. Maybe you should move from NV to MN where we have excellent public education, and are trying to keep it that way.

I don't think there is any chance of me knocking you off your (in my opinion) highly skewed world view. You must have been hurt very badly to see so many villians around you.

Getting back to the 'covenant' marriage thing, I want to say this. I'm a Christian - married a Catholic girl so went through the pre-marriage counseling. It was pretty lame, but I give them credit for trying. We are both now Methodist, married for 23 years.

I truly suspect, as someone hinted above, that there is a big correlation between increased divorce and poverty and relatively young age at marriage. Instead of attacking these causes, which might have really made a difference, Arkansas, influenced by Leviticans, took the so-called 'Christian' route of making divorce harder. I'm glad they made it optional. I'll give them that.

This is 'faith-based' policy at its worst! Instead of doing what works they do what they think their faith requires. It is not much different from the 'abstinence-only' sex ed classes. Presumably the goal is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, but instead of using policies that work, they use a policy that increases the number of unwanted pregnancies! That is either disengenuous or downright stupid.

I don't have a problem with 'faith-based' policy if it works, but I have a big problem with it when it doesn't work, causes harm, and yet is still supported as a matter of 'principle.'

NV Dad | February 18, 2005 10:44 AM

I see when faced with the authoritarian family law mess, of which millions have had their fill, sadly Kevin issues a last insult and leaves. "Cognitive dissonance" comes to mind but seems too easy a label. Still...

Tripp gives it a go but ends up with,

I don't think there is any chance of me knocking you off your (in my opinion) highly skewed world view. You must have been hurt very badly to see so many villians around you.

Highly skewed. In like kind I could say that a MN big-government Methodist liberal with obvious fish to fry in the church/state issue must have a seriously challenged God-view to so tacitly beg higher-power statism like this ("attacking divorce," says Tripp in reference to the State, later) his Catholic wife and Christian upbringing and all. Maybe I could throw in a barb about Garrison Keillor's shrill, biased, Minnesota big-government ignorance, but that too would be too easy.

See, some posts ago, Tripp got all personally offensive and winded and now comes back with a telling comment implying he has no intention of defending another Christian's public show of solidarity and integrity. And expects it to stand simply on its own merits, having never once argued the point.

It must be that holy, assumed separation of church and state:

Instead of attacking [divorce and poverty] which might have really made a difference, Arkansas, influenced by Leviticans, took the so-called 'Christian' route of making divorce harder. I'm glad they made it optional. I'll give them that.

This is 'faith-based' policy at its worst!

Attacking divorce. Last time we attacked evil the left got all, um, up in arms...

Anyway; yeah, Tripp, we can't have public officials going to the very core of the personal responsibility and ethics that have a direct influence on marriage, poverty, children's health (loo