Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee married his current wife again yesterday on Valentines Day in a new type of marriage—the covenant marriage. Huckabee and his wife presided over a mass Valentines Day wedding ceremony in Little Rock, Ark., for couples wishing to convert their standard marriages into covenant marriages




http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4461608

Question for Debate:

Do you think "covenant marriages" are a good idea?

Nope. They strike me as a pretty transparent attempt to fortify the marriage institution from outside intrusions; such as those from the same-sex marriage crowd. If people want to leave their marriage, then forcing them to stay will result in about as much happiness as shackling them together at the ankle.

No way! The escape clauses are interesting. I think we can all figure out adultry. Well, maybe not. Was Bill Clinton's oral exercise with Monica adultery in the strict sense of the word? Does sex outside marriage require the possibility of procreation before being considered adultery? Abuse is even harder. Are emotional and mental abuse included. Who decides?

After responding to this, I'm amazed at how many questions it raises. I would suggest that this would create a whole new set of cases for the courts to decide.

Yes, I think it's a great idea. I see no drawbacks at all. Those who wish to go the no-fault, easier to divorce style marriages can do so. Those who choose the extra commitment route should be able to do so as well. I don't see how this would create any extra work for the courts. It is simply a stricter contractually binding obligation. People can divorce, but it is more difficult to do so.

The extra work would come in defining the escape clauses like abuse. I can see the divorce lawyers licking their chops over this one.

After thought

If a couple wanted to get out of a covenant marriage bad enough, couldn't they just go to another state?

I think they are a bad idea. We should just have marriage, and that's it.

So now we have Marriage Lite (civil unions or domestic partnership status granted by states or private employers) Regular Marriage, and now new SuperSized Marriage (covenant marriage).

IMO, either you're married or you're not married. And that's it.

In some ways, I like the idea of ratcheting marriage up a notch. People can choose either style. Covenant marriage responds to the current problem in society where marriage is viewed almost like going steady with a subsequent break up that has no real consequences. I am sure advocates of covenant marriage hope that there will be societal pressure at the outset -- when the relationship is fresh-- for people to take the more difficult vows. Once made, the vows will insure that marriage is not viewed as throw away. If it catches on, it is a way for marriage to be reinforced. As I understand it, "abuse" is a way to break the covenant marriage.

My only hesitation, is I don't know if it betters women's position in marriage with children. I believe that women have suffered over the years in this regard--if they have children. I would like to see stronger laws to insure that women with children are completely protected in the event of a divorce. We seem to be going down the opposite path with regular marriage.

Perhaps - though I don't see what the difference is between covenant marriages and a vanilla marriage with an especially specific and restrictive pre-nup. And I can't help but think that it might not be a better strategy for proponents to campaign for divorce to be made slightly harder for everyone.

Overall, it seems to me that European-based societies are drifting back to the medieval (and older) idea of betrothal being distinct from marriage. Typically the common people didn't get married, because marriage was primarily a property or political transaction of the landed classes.

If you met someone and fell in love with them and wanted to start a family with them, you would generally only ever plight your troth - make a declaration in front of your peers of your devotion to one another. This was usually blessed by a priest. Sharing of worldly goods was an irrelevance since in the serf socieites where this was going on, nobody in the lower levels of society had any property to share - it all belonged to their feudal overlords.

Marriage, with the associated dowries and inheritances and land or title claims, was usually arranged, and was not generally associated with love (unless you were lucky).

Since the industrial revolution, however, more people have their own property. And Puritanism's lasting influence has been to make marriage the only really acceptable way to have sex or children to most "right-thinking" people (i.e. the people who think they are right ).

So betrothal has turned from a perfectly legitimate type of relationship - the modern declaration tends to be less formal, but how many couples move in together without telling their friends & family? - into "living in sin".

What's also changed is the fracturing of extended families (again, following the industrial revolution,in particular the 19th and 20th century extrapolations of it) and the modern taboo against condemnation (which serves usefully most of the time).

Living in a small village community might mean it was perfectly easy to marry the first person you liked, or the one Dad found from the next village who had a cow that could mate with Dad's bull, and you'd most likely stay with them for your whole life because for one thing, it was going to be over by age 35, and for another, you would likely never meet another suitable person to whom you weren't related.

(Aside - And let's not pretend that even in this situation people didn't sleep around - anyone remember the old fairy tales of changelings? Suposedly the real child was stolen in infancy and replaced with an "evil" or "ugly" looking twin by fairies. Is it so hard to imagine someone coming up with this idea on the fly to explain to the rest of the village (or to the father) why their child didn't look like them? Perhaps because the real father was someone else altogether? )

Today, when we live to 75 or more on average, and we live in towns or cities with thousands or millions of people in them, and we watch TV and movies with a selection of the best-looking people on the planet beamed into our lives each day as if that were the norm, is it any wonder that an institution invented for a different age is struggling to stay relevant?

We really need to take a hard look at our expectations - they are what's broken, and unrealistic, not marriage. So while I welcome this overdue attempt to re-examine what marriage is and what it's for, I think it's skimming the surface of the wrong issue.

Interesting post, Julian

Marriage is indeed more of a legal contract than a promise to God (vow). A lot of the debates around marriage get mixed up on this.

Hey, I don't see why we don't have 36 or more flavors of marriage. One size never fits all.

As for vows before God -- what the heck, go ahead if you're up to it. Don't if not.

I remember getting trained as a Catholic to believe that marriage was one of the necessary sacrements. Eh, says who. I don't buy it, nor do I buy that God requires marriage. It's a human invention.

Works pretty well sometimes. Sometimes not. Some people believe in it (odd way of putting it), some do not. I don't, nor does Lydia -- and so we do what we can legally to protect property rights. Beyond that, it's nobody's dirty dang bidness.

From AuthorMusician:
Marriage is indeed more of a legal contract than a promise to God (vow). A lot of the debates around marriage get mixed up on this.

No, actually, you are mixed up. There is nothing legal about marriage. We have placed legal parameters on it, but these are addendums. Marriage is a spiritual bond between a couple that is TRULY in love.

Atheists/Agnostics please refrain from rolling your eyes but I am pulling a quotation from scripture to make a point. Jesus said about marriage: Man cannot separate what God has joined (Matthew 19:6) Also adding, and I paraphrase, that with the exception of adultery, there is no divorce.

Now, how can I justify this statement using a modern example? Do a honest evaluation of a past relationship where you were in love and assuming that the breakup was anything other than adultery. Ask yourself: Does that person whom you were in love with still generate an emotional feeling when thought or seen? And especially when seen with someone else. Your answer will assuredly be yes. Marriage is not the a legal union of two people, it is the spiritual union of two souls. You can't quantify it, you can't touch it, you can't rationalize it. You FEEL it. The legality, the rituals, the customs, are all superfluous to the spiritual bond. Are you any more married if you stand before a preacher or a justice of the peace? Are you any more married if you have a grand ceremony or a Vegas drive thru wedding?

If the covenant marriages were to exclude the caveat about abuse I would completely support it, as it stands this new flavor is the closest human law has come to God's intentions as laid out in the Bible, and that is pretty good as well.

To Julian who was spouting off European feudal union conjectures, please stop trying to intimate that you have some inside scoop on the origin of marriage. You don't! Marriage wasn't created in feudal times. It was categorized during that time because of the standardized language and the advancements in historical documentation, but I would safely assume that love has more tenure on this planet than dowries.

Really? You don't consider that spousal abuse is legitimate grounds for divorce? Why would you say that?

Also please forgive my "spouting", o wise one - I was just making some observations on how the institution of marriage has changed over time in recorded history, so perhaps further change should not come as such as surprise.

Though I do think you're wearing rose-tinted lenses if you think that love has always been the primary driver of formalised and publicly recognised relationships. (I have no argument with it being the main driver of every other sense of close interpersonal relationships, as you argue, though that isn't actually the subject at hand.)

Apparently if it's not in the Good Book, it's not worth mentioning.

On a more topical note: If two or three gradations of marriage is good, why not, say, ten? We can have a ten-tiered Joint Personal Commitment License, ranging from Level One (Starting to Get Serious) to Level 10 (Ultimate Xtreme Eternal Commitment).

Seriously though, I think this weakens and cheapens the institution of marriage. If people can be more married than other people, it implies that normal marriage isn't enough.

While I don't agree with the way that many approach marriage -- that it is like going steady, and if it isn't going exactly to plan it's easy to get out of it -- I don't agree that added legislation actually helps. I think it's more important to educate people and instill good marriage values in our children than to get the government involved. We are not sheep that the government needs to keep in line when it comes to every aspect of our lives. We need to learn to take more responsibility for ourselves.

If people want to "step marriage up a notch" in their own lives, then they should choose people who share their values when they choose a life partner.

In my opinion, covenant marriages already exist for those who choose to view marriage that way. More power to them, I say. No need to establish them as something different legally.

I will answer your question Julian but could explain how I add quotes like you did mine. I just did a copy paste of an early post. How do I get the post inside a quotation box?

Julian for the sake of argument I am going to assume you are hetero and have a girlfriend whom you love. I say girlfriend to remove the mental boundary that our societies legal understanding of marriage may place upon your thought processes.

Scenario 1:
You and your girlfriend are engaged in an argument about laundry. She gets angry because you always leave your clothes on the floor. She is tired of picking up after you. She tells you that you leave your clothes on the floor because you are lazy and that is why you are never going to amount to anything. Then she throws a flurry of slaps at your face.

Scenario 2:
You come home from work and quietly walk into the bedroom and find your girlfriend in the mount position on top of another man. She is digging her fingers into his chest, arching her back, grinding her pelvis rhythmically against his, all the while moaning with ecstasy.

Would you leave your girlfriend if Scenario 1 occurred only one time?
Would you leave your girlfriend if Scenario 2 occurred only one time?
Answer honestly.

Spousal abuse is a behavior that if not harnessed can let an instance of violence evolve into abuse. Those in an abusive relationship are not actively solving their problems. It is wrong to act on your anger, it is also wrong to ignore the source of the anger. Two wrongs have never made a right and that is why I do not support divorce based on spousal abuse. That couple is not working their relationship.

Sexual betrayal on the other hand, is not evolutionary, it is animalistic. It takes one instance of sexual deviance to sever the emotional bond of love. Yet, a spouse can get beat for years and still love.

I can already see your wheels turning, "Yeah, but there are couples who cheat that still stay together and love each other." Very correct, but if one member of that couple was to divorce their partner, based on scripture, they would be justified.

"Based on Scripture" can be and has been used to justify practically anything. Why should anyone who doesn't subscribe to your particular interpretation of the Bible be compelled by the above argument?

For myself, if either myself or my wife was unfaithful, the wronged party probably still love the guilty party and might try to work it out. But if I laid a finger on my wife in anger, she'd drop me like a **** sandwich, and rightfully so.

You're suggesting that the abused one should stay married and take the (potentially lethal) abuse because otherwise it means "she's not working on her relationship"?

PS to get a passage in quotes you precede it with the word "quote" in square brackets (instead of quotation marks as I have done), and to end the quote, put "/quote" in square brackets

The Good Book is a set of moral guidelines by which to live. Those moral guidelines are also overwhelmingly accepted by our society, save CA and MA. So if we are going to accept those moral guidelines we may as well live by them and one those guidelines described is the unacceptable divorce of marriages except in cases of adultery. I don't recommend covenant marriages in addition to how marriage is today, I recommend it in replacement of. So, we slightly agree, I don't support a tiered marriage hierarchy. I'm sorry if you got that impression from my writing, but maybe you should have looked harder at my words instead of worrying about posting a witty little snippet.

I'm not using the words based on Scripture to justify practically anything. I am using them to justify my beliefs on marriage. The covenant marriage is very close to Scripture. Scripture which is not open-ended in terms of marriage. Marriage is between man and woman and divorce only in cases of adultery. Everything else, work it out.



Words like 'probably' and 'might' are not very convincing. But, you read the scenarios, they deal with a woman striking a man and a woman cheating on a man. So, try as you may to tell me what your wife wife would do, I can not lend much weight to that since you are not your wife. Now tell me how you would respond. And the important thing is, that you answer honestly. I do not want you to lie to make a point, honest reactions. please



Relationships don't start off abusive, they become that way. You added 'potentially lethal' I did not, but since you want to play slippery slope I will humor you. Yes, in a potentially lethal relationship you should stick it out. Try to defuse the problems of your relationship and return to a non-violent relationship.

But since I don't want to get off topic, laws like covenant marriage which attempt to mimic the Bible will get my support.

Thanks for the tip on quotes by the way.

EDIT: fixed quotes...the opening quote tag (on each quote) has no "/" -Amlord

The cases I've read about and seen on TV have become abusive rather soon after the beginning of the marriage. During the courtship, the abusive partner--usually the male--will put his best foot forward. Then once the bride, in-laws and others have been thoroughly duped, the violence begins. It’s not slippery slope, but more that the abusiveness seems to escalate. The process seems to be that the abuser is nearly always sorry, tries to make up by bringing flowers or candy or some other token. Yet his sorrow does not lead to any desire or attempt to change--seek therapy, etc. Despite the "sorrow" the process gets repeated over and over again, often escalating.



I don’t think you were getting off topic. The original link mentioned two escape clauses—adultery and abuse. You are welcome to base your beliefs on the Bible or anything else you so choose, though I don’t think there’s any universal interpretation that says someone must stay in an abusive relationship. I might add that I don't think departing an abusive relationship depends on how one defines abuse.

Personally, I prefer to take the Bible with a grain of salt and do my own independent thinking.

Edited to Add:

It seems to me that having trial marriages would make about as much sense as covenant marriages. Under this idea either party could walk away after a trial period of six months or a year.

For the record, my wife slapping me in anger would not leave me in any fear for my personal safety whatsoever. She, however, is in the exact opposite situation if I decided to take my anger out on her. Because the size & strength differential, she'd be faced with a big strong angry man who wanted to beat her up, and she couldn't do much of anything to stop him. So, answering honestly, I don't consider her slapping me to be on par with me walking in on her in the act of being unfaithful. But her slapping me doesn't constitute abuse.

So I think that regardless of how much merit covenant marriage has as a concept, abuse should definitely be grounds for expedited divorce.



This is as repellent as it is facile. The woman should take her licks and come back for more, in hopes of salvaging the marriage. Is there some point where she gets to throw in the towel, or is she just SOL if the guy never comes around?

I'm trying to figure out if you really think this way or if you are trying to stir up more controversy. As a woman who has been happily married for 17 years to my current husband, I would brook no violence from him regardless of my love for him. I would

• Defend myself
• Swear out a complaint against him
• Get an injunction against him and he would not come near enough to try to hurt me again

Now maybe they do things differently in Texas, like slappin' the "little woman" around to get her in line, but it's called abuse where I live.

Anyway, I believe spousal abuse is indeed a valid reason for terminating the marriage relationship if necessary. It is up to the spouse who was abused--is it worth it to stick around someone who likes to rearrange your face?

Back to the subject:

If people believe that entering into a "covenant marriage" will make it stronger and more effective for them, why not? It's interesting, because my husband and I, when we wrote our own vows, did not mention "forsaking all others." It was just understood between us that we weren't going to be unfaithful to each other. And it has worked.

But then, if a person is determined to disregard vows of any form, it doesn't matter what he or she says or doesn't say at the marriage ceremony.

To clarify: You and I are in agreement on this. When I wrote "The woman should take her licks and come back for more, in hopes of salvaging the marriage" I was rephrasing NeoCon30's argument to show how ludicrous it is. No woman should ever feel compelled to tolerate violence from her husband or boyfriend. Not even in dumb old Texas.

Having read the Psychology Today article from the original post, there is an interesting statistic coming out of the five year study being conducted on convenant marriages using 600 newly married couples.


On the surface this sounds great... only 25% of the 50 divorces were from covenant marriages. But you have to consider this. A covenant marriage has a two year waiting period before a divorce is allowed. Now being that the study is only two years old, this is a bit startling. This means that this 25% of the divorces started on their path to divorce only months after getting married. How many of the conventional marriages started divorce proceedings in the first few months? The article doesn't state this.

It may be too early to tell, but might it be that covenant marriages do little to change the reasons why people choose to get married; and, therefore, this type of marriage will not do much to decrease the divorce rate over the long term, but only delay the inevitable? People who are truly willing to work at their marriage will be just as likely to do so in a conventional marriage as in a covenant marriage. It seems to me that this is just another legal band-aid and does nothing to solve the issues at the heart of the increased divorce rate.

After reading an article by the Marriage Matters group, the ones conducting the study...
America's Divorce Problem... I was struck by something in it.

The argument that those who engage in a covenant marriage can easily cross the state border and use "no fault" divorce to get divorced. To which the article responds:


I agree... a personal legal contract was established between the couple. But you could establish this legal contract without needing to redefine civil marriage to do it. If two people engage in a written contract describing how they will handle it, then regardless of where they are, that contract is binding. Why not eliminate the added laws and just engage in a private contract with your partner that establishes this Covenant Marriage between you? It is just as binding and has legal consequences if it is broken by one party. The Covenant Marriage is an idea of marriage that I think is fine for those who choose it, but there is not a real need to change marriage laws in order to have a covenant marriage.

Covenant marriages are a total cop-out. We want our marriage to be strong, so... let's sign contracts which force us to legally stay married! I'm not opposed to them if people want them, though. Just seems a bit silly to me. I don't think the high divorce rate has to do with the ease of divorce. I think it has a lot more to do with the rise of women as an economic and political force. Note, I am not trying to imply at all that this is the fault of women. I view that rise to independence as very positive. I think it also has to do with our consumerist culture. We seek immediate gratification in all things.

On a side note, the notion that abusive marriages should be "worked on" is horrendous. In some ways the Bible can be a work of great wisdom. It is (in part) from reading the Bible I learned to be a pacifist; there I got my first lessons in unconditional compassion. However, the Bible describes social mores which are hopelessly out of date. The Bible has a lot of good ideas. But all ideas must be approached critically.

And the hypocrisy is, often the people who advocate women putting up with abusive husbands, are the same people who support a harsher criminal justice system. If we don't try and "work it out" with violent criminals (instead of jailing them), why then would we possibly tell women to "work it out" with someone physically assaulting them?

I agree with the idea of creating a contract that isn't so easy to undo. It has
been said that many couples who find themselves unhappy in their marriages
will be happier in the long run, if they stick it out (so to speak) and get through
the unhappy times. In other words, throwing in the towel, and becoming
single again will not necessarily make a person any happier, in the long run.




Excellent point, Julian. Societies have changed a lot over the past century,
yet the marital contract and it's expectations have not evolved along with the
changes. Perhaps getting married in the first place should be what is made
more difficult.



Exactly. It's a mad-made invention, yet it is treated as though it shouldn't
be altered to fit the needs of modern man. And, as far as the Catholic Church
advising on the sanctity of such a union, that's just laughable, considering the
horrible deeds they (and their ministers) have been intimately involved in.




In scenario number one, the problem is not the slap in the face so much as it
is the "you're never going to amount to anything" attitude. She doesn't love or
respect the guy if that's what she's saying to him.

The second scenario is equally awful. Any person who would commit the act
of adultery (or cheating on a boy/girlfriend) in such a blatant way is evil.

Marriage is a union that evolves over time. Two people may love each other
very much, yet transgressions occur. That is why a person can never say
that in all cases of misconduct a divorce should ensue. However, where
physical violence (on either spouse's part) is present, that's a very tough
obstacle to overcome. I would be heartbroken if my husband fell in love
with someone else, but on some level I would understand. But, to be
hurt physically by a spouse - where's the sense in that? It's just wrong.



I couldn't agree more. When someone starts spouting off about scripture I
turn a deaf ear very fast.

Do you think "covenant marriages" are a good idea?

Absolutely not. I thought we outlawed slavery and indentured servitude a couple hundred years ago. I agree that it cheapens marriage in general to have different “levels” of marriage (super-sized …gotta love it). I vehemently disagree with anything that makes a woman a second class citizen and would force her to stay in an abusive relationship because of a so-called “covenant” (i.e. bondage) to her husband. Women are not property to be legally bought and paid for. I don’t believe “covenant marriage” should have any legal standing beyond what is already defined.

I'd like to see how they do that. What an absolutely arrogant statement.

As for divorce rates and the dig at California and Massachusetts , the five states with the lowest divorce rates are Massachusetts (consistently lowest), Montana, North Dakota, Connecticut and New York. Then there are the bottom five: Nevada, Arkansas, Wyoming, Idaho, and Kentucky. Source

(This 1994 report puts Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island and New York with the lowest divorce rate and Wyoming, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Nevada with the highest. Source)

Well, whaddya know.

I’ll leave it to the reader to see what the states have in common.

Since this whole thing seems to have been cooked up by the religious fundies, I can't help but remember Swaggert, Bakker, Gorman, Graham et. al. and laugh at the sheer hypocrisy of it all.

Ah, the clay-footedness of the evangelistic community...

Staying married has a lot to do with maturity and willpower, obviously. If a couple doesn't have what it takes to go the distance, an additional ceremony with another signed document won't make it magically happen.

There are other ways in various communities of faith that are supposed to ensure that the marriage lasts forever, but not necessarily as "happily ever after." I knew a Mormon woman who wanted to leave her husband several times, but the fact that they married in the Salt Lake City temple stopped her from leaving him. She was not happy.

Repeating marriage vows has been a popular thing to do for folks who have been through hard times together and feel that their marriage needs to be revitalized. But for some, it provides an opportunity for the woman to dress up pretty and be a "bride" again and for the groom to have a party. Whatever. But if the couple is sincere about it and wants to revitalize the marriage, then the ceremony serves as a vehicle for them to use to express this to each other and to their friends and family.

There are many things in the Bible that should not be done by people in this day and age even though it was law in "Old Testament" times, like stoning a child who raises his hand to a parent, like owning slaves from captured nations, etc. I am sure that it would be a rare person indeed who could follow all of the laws these days without somehow transgressing. But the most important laws have to do with treating each other decently, and in a time when it was common for a man to beat his wife if he was displeased with her, this might not even be considered as indecent treatment. But it is considered indecent today. Women are not considered property in this society; however, when a bride still thinks she needs a man to "give her away" at her wedding ceremony, the vestiges remain.

Nice to see misandry rearing its ugly head again.

The slap (physical abuse, anyone?) isn't the problem. Of course, if heslapped her, then doom and damnation shall be visited upon him.


more misandry...



and yet more misandry ...


Yup, its all them eeeeevil men who want to beat on their wives, keep 'em pregnant and barefoot in the kitchen.

Can the husband just get up one morning, say "I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you", and be done with her? No, he is just as bound to a her. Few of you seem to care that this potential terrible wrong applies to men just as much as it does to women.

I think this legal construction of marriage, termed Covenant Marriage (its not actually akin to a Biblical covenant, but its a lot closer than what we have now) is a very good idea, although it doesn't go far enough, because AFAIK, it makes no changes in how divorce outcomes are determined.

Fault based outcomes should be adopted. Any husband or wife who wants a divorce should be able to get one. The catch is, if they can't prove that the other party is guilty of adultery, physical abuse, or addiction, then the plaintiff is at fault. As a result, he, or she, gets nothing, the presumption regarding child custody is to the other parent, etc. Unlike the old fault based laws pre 1970, you don't have to prove that the other party is a cad, drunk, or batterer to get the divorce. You simply have to accept the consequences of your decision to shatter a marriage, and quite possibly a family as well.

Break the contract, pay the price. Applies equally to the "walkaway wife" as it does to the business mogul who runs off with his secretary.

Bikerdad is right. There are a lot of instances where women in present-day society abuse their husbands, whether through mental/emotional cruelty or physically. It is more common these days, whereas in previous centuries and for centuries it was the man who had the law on his side and was more or less expected to use force to keep his wife in line. And what's worse, it can be even harder for a man to press charges against an abusive woman because he might still be ridiculed for being the victim in the situation.

So the abuse criterion for dissolving a covenant marriage should apply equally to an abusive female in the relationship.

Once again, mutual consideration is vital to the life and health of a marriage and the couple involved. If a marriage is so damaging to one of the partners that their physical and/or mental health are in jeopardy, there must be a way for the marriage to be dissolved. These days, I don't know of any religious institution that would blatantly ignore the destruction, physical or emotional, of the husband or wife in favor of perpetuating the arrangement, unless perhaps extreme Islamic fundamentalism.

Bikerdad, you should have read my whole post more thoroughly.
I was referring to a scenario thoughtfully created by Neocon30. In the
scenario a woman was verbally abusive to her mate and the slaps in the face
were just icing on the cake. Take a look at the bold print:



I would never advocate a woman's right to abuse her husband. In fact, I fully
acknowledge that there are far too many women out there who manipulate,
mistreat and outright abuse their spouses. It's wrong whoever does it.

Do you think "covenant marriages" are a good idea?

I find it hard to understand how those who oppose gay marriage on the grounds of it re-defining marriage, even though it is merely adding a different type of marriage to the mix, could some how support adding this different type of marriage (not referring to any AD members here).

It seems pretty hypocritical to me to support one addition to marriage, believing it strengthens the institution, while opposing another addition to marriage, claiming that by expanding marriage, we weaken it somehow.

As for the covenant marriage, it seems to me that we are assuming that those who enter into a covenant marriage somehow have a better handle on who they are, who their prospective spouse it, how they will work together, how they will find compromise, etc. When people enter into regular marriage, they almost never do so with anything in mind other then living the rest of their life with the one they love. After a few years of living that life, many learn that they made a mistake. They did not know enough about their spouse, were not willing to compromise, or whatever else.

I just don't see how people entering this type of marriage, will not make the same mistakes. Only in this case, they would be harder to correct.

I personally feel, most people do not invest enough time in determining who their prospective spouse really is, how they will live with each other, what their differences are, etc, etc. I know one couple that married and the guy always wanted a large family and the woman wants nothing to do with children. Not sure how you reconcile that but it would seem to me that if they had discussed this, as well as other details with each other they would have realized they were not a good match to begin with.

If people would invest such time before marriage, we really wouldn't need a new version of it.

Of course the other issue is that people change. That sweet, caring guy slowly turns into a a drunk. That upstanding lady slowly turns into a drug addict. etc.
And in this version of marriage, it would seem you would be stuck with this person, and so would your children.

Do you think "covenant marriages" are a good idea?
I support covenant marriage not as a second level, or super-sized marriage as someone facetiously put it, I was advocating covenant marriage in replace of regular marriage. Too many families are getting destroyed and as a benefit to society the government should intervene. I am also disappointed in dead-beat dad's or absentee parenting. Divorce perpetuates this sort of behavior that is shredding our morals fabric. The victim in a divorce is the child(ren). Adults have the ability to recover from a lost love, or a broken relationship, but children, especially young children, are haunted by a life without a father or mother. Covenant marriage forces these couples together for the good of the family and society. This covenant would put a stop to the, "He's lazy, she's fat" divorces. If you are going to get married and have children you have to make a thorough committment.

As for beating the spouse, I do not agree that that problem is not solvable. If couples were working on their marriage and had respect for themselves they would not be put in that sort of situation. We can overcome get hit, or a verbal assault, but we cannot overcome betrayal. Based on my own empirical evidence, friends/lovers remain so after physical altercations, but not so after an act of betrayal.

How about, if we, as parents or future parents instruct our children about what marriage is really about? By replacing the marriage with the covenant marriage you are not solving the problem, you are only forcing people to stick out what was a bad decision in the first place. Why not solve the problem at the source?



Having experienced this type of abuse, I'm going to have to disagree. First, if a person did not have respect for themselves, I would think they shouldn't be getting married until they did. Those who remain in abusive marriages tend to do so out of co-dependence, and these are people who probably shouldn't be married in the first place.

Having been divorced, I find it kind of alarming that poeple think that somehow, divorce is easy. It is not. First, you feel like a failure, because, well, you failed!

Second, it is horrendously expensive if you have any possessions at all.

Third, it takes AT LEAST a year AFTER you filed for seperation-

So what does covenent marriages accomplish?

Marriage, when the religious element is taken out- comes down to this. You are stating, in front of your friends and family, that you intend to love and live with this person the rest of your life. How does covenent marriage alter that situation?

I left my ex because she was emotionally abusive and just a nasty human being all the way around. She didn't show this until AFTER she got that ring of course LOL- I dated her for two year prior to this. She stalks me to this day. I have been divorced for 10 years from this woman- and she still tries to put some kind of control on my life!

How would have a covenent marriage fixed all that? By adding one more year of misery?

I think covenant marriage has the effect of "ratcheting" up marriage before people go into it. It will put societal pressure on the couple at the outset to make the more "serious" vows. Entspeak and Cruising Ram look at it from the perspective of a relationship that seems to have serious flaws. Proponents of covenant marriage look at the current situation with marriage and see that there are many couples out there that do not have such serious flaws in the relationship and instead choose to divorce because the marriage has lost its luster; is more difficult than expected; is boring etc.

Both points are valid. But there has to be a way to get the population to take it more seriously IMO without making marriage a prison where people are stuck in abusive relationships.

This all seems like a political exercise to me. What does covenant marriage really change, outside of the external pressure not to split up? Nothing. So how will these marriages be any better? Now, I'm not married, so I will admit that my 'expertise' on the subject is limited; but this makes about as much sense to me as locking a Klansman and a Black Panther in a room together and hoping that after X amount of time they have moved past their differences.

I see no problem with people creating a marriage contract that is more difficult to leave as long as it doesn't necessitate a change in the institution of marriage itself. The question I have is this: is it possible to do this without altering the institution of marriage? Will a court recognize an agreement with a spouse outside the marriage contract that specifies how the marriage contract will be handled in the event of a divorce? If this is the case, then the equivalent of covenant marriages can be achieved without the need for covenant marriages to be recognized as marriage. The upside to this is that the contract will be recognizable in any state rather than the current situation where someone need only cross a state border and the covenant marriage means nothing. Or do we need to change the marriage laws in order to accomodate covenant marriage? If this is the case, I don't think it should happen because it doesn't solve a problem, it only delays it.

I certainly don't see it as a replacement for marriage. Marriage is a responsibility, yes, and we need to teach people exactly what type of responsibility marriage really is. That is how you decrease divorce -- not by forcing people to stay together, but changing the reasons why they get married in the first place.

Do you think "covenant marriages" are a good idea?
First of all, what is this really changing and how is this going to solve the big problems with marriage?

From hayleyanne's opening post:


So that's it? You have to seek counseling and endure a 2 year separation instead of 6 to 12 months? Big deal.

Speaking as someone who is married that sounds to me a lot more like throwing a political bone to the "sanctity of marriage" crowd instead of actually doing something useful. If you have gotten to the point in your marriage where you are going to counseling and especially if you have gotten to the separation point - I'm sorry it isn't going to work, move on. What benefit does having to endure 2 years of separation vs. 6 to 12 months serve? None in my opinion, other than making it harder for both of you to move on with your lives.

I don't know what the solution is to keeping people married, and frankly I don't care I just concern myself with my marriage, but I do know that your only chance is by reaching people before they are married.

It seems to me like there is some component of education and societal change necessary here. When you are growing up all you hear about marriage is that "you live happily ever after" and depending on what your background is that is the only time it is permissable to have sex. In my opinion there's one of your big problems right there, people just don't understand how much work it actually is. Sure there are days when it is a fairy tale, but there are plenty of days when it is hell too.

I also think that another valuable thing young couples should be doing before they get married, which is sneered at by the "sanctity of marriage crowd", is they should actually live together. There really isn't any better way to see if you can spend the rest of your life with another person than to live with them. That is just simple common sense. If you just have this dating relationship then there are some things you'll never know until after you are married, and some of those things you just might not be able to get past. If you can say after 6 months of living with someone that you still want to get married then I think you have a far better shot at making it than everyone else does because you are going in with full disclosure.

Actually, the statistics don't bear this out. There is a greater percentage of divorces in the group that lived together before marriage than there is in the group that got married without living together. I think this is probably explained by the fact that those who live together already have a tendency to not take "commitment" for commitment's sake seriously.

I don't see how you can draw the conclusion that those who live together don't take "commitment" seriously. I'd say that living with someone is a pretty serious commitment in and of itself and in my mind the last big step you can take with a relationship before you get married. There could be any number of other variables at work here making your conclusion completely flawed and without a specific study presented it really isn't much more than opinion.

There are a lot of studies/statistics out there that support my assertion that couples who live together first-- generally have a much higher divorce rate.

http://www.sbotfam.org/cohabitation.html

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi5025b_qa.html

http://www.smartmarriages.com/cohabit.html

The more interesting question is why is this the case? It seems to go against common sense. Some posit (like the Texas study above) that it can be explained based on who is choosing to live together first. I take that to mean people who are not likely to favor commitment first.

[b]Question for Debate:

Do you think "covenant marriages" are a good idea?[/B]

I really don't like this idea at all. Marriage is marriage, whether it is by a justice of the peace or by the most respected and powerful religious official in a large city. Not only that, but this new covenant marriage is not a secularly inspired creation, but rather, the creation of religious sectarian interests that want this pushed through. Family.org has quite a resource on this, though I have yet to see a civil group free of religious influence really back this. What is interesting is that these religious groups want their own interpretation of marriage to be held in higher esteem than contemporary marriage.



From my vantage point, I don't see how our government should put a religiously inspired model of marriage on a step above even the "lowest" civil ceremony. It's also quite telling that the word "contract" is implied to be of less value than the religious inspired one of "covenant" If this isn't a de facto way of scrapping the first amendment, I have no idea what is. The constitution of our government is a contract, and subseuent documents should be considered as such. When we start talking about covenants and that kind of thing, we are getting away from the constitutional basis that this nation was truly founded upon. Not only that, but it's exactly a perfect example of a narrow, sectarian religious group using the government to basically state that their model of marriage is better, or more desirable than that of others. Here's a great observation from a blog:


Source

Does the government truly need to weigh in on this? Was it absolutely necessary? I fail to see how the governor could be for less government after backing such a bill. Whether you are for increased welfare payments or this covenant marriage bill, you are still for greater government participation in the lives of civitizens at large. If a church wants to create it's own covenant upon which individuals can be excommunicated for breaking, then they should do that-but the government should not be used to make it harder for those who desire to opt out.

Question for Debate:

Do you think "covenant marriages" are a good idea?

First, it is entirely possible that the Gov. did the deed in part for political gain, attracting the votes of like minded people, the moral majority, the Bible Belt, etc.
Anytime a politician does anything, we should look into ulterior motives.
Otherwise, why publicize what should be a private, intimate event?

Concerning the question, I think any marriage should be entered into with some serious upfront counseling, especially among the young and/or the first timers.
If a covenant marriage can help us enter into matrimony with our eyes a bit more open, that would be a good thing.
As far as limiting the reasons for divorce, I am against that. If both are in agreement that they want to go their separate ways, so be it. If children are involved, and the spouses cannot agree on support or custody, then the courts have to be involved to protect the children, who are the innocent parties of divorce.

Covenant marriage is not a "new version", it is a return to an old version that worked better than the new no-fault regime. This is an important point, because you are attempting to equate an untested, unproven concept (gay marriage) with a concept that has served Western Civilization for more than 1,000 years. "Covenant" marriage isn't perfect, in fact on a societal level it bears remarkable similiarities to democracy, per Churchill's wisdom:

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
-Winston Churchill

You say that it's an important point, but you don't support it in any way. So I ask, in what ways did the "old version" of marriage stretching back 1000+ years work better than the current system?

This has to be the most asinine and uncaring statement ever submitted to this board. So, and abused partner should stay in a relationship in hopes that they can “overcome getting hit.” Whether one is part of the 3000 who ended up dead in 1976 or the 1800 in 1998, it’s kind of hard to work things out from a grave.

Further, what kids may get from two parents remaining in a bad relationship is diminished by being eyewitnesses to marital violence.

BTW: I’m just dying to hear the nature of your “own empirical evidence.”




http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ipv.txt



The quotation above is from another thread. It sounds to me like your take on marriage is what you want it to be rather than what is, in fact, reality.

Hmmm, let's see. Under the old version, not only did the vast majority of children grow up in the same home as both their parents, but fewer children were bastards in the technical sense of the term. These two differences resulted in fewer sociopathic children. Marital discord caused less economic and social disruption, as a result of far fewer divorces.

Children were safer in their own homes than they are today.

Families were better able to care for both the young and the old.

People took marriage far more seriously, which means that they took more care entering it, and society as a whole took a more active role in discouraging violation of the marriage vows.

Now, you may think that no fault divorce is the best thing to ever happen to marriage. If so, back up why it is better for society.

Regarding "technical bastards": How does making divorce easier discourage unmarried parents from tying the knot? It seems that it would have just the opposite effect. If marriage is a much greater commitment, wavering unmarried parents would have an additional reason to stay unmarried.



These points are arguable (especially children being safer in their own homes when it was so hard for a parent to leave an abusive spouse) but I realize we're debating a flawed premise. Covenant marriage isn't truly a return to an older version of marriage (which definitely wasn't better), it's a combination of old and new. It's an increased commitment (closer to that of the "old version") with allowances for abuse and infidelity.

So while I stand by my assertion that the "old version" of marriage (which made it so hard to remove kids and wronged spouses from an abusive or faithless marriage), most of these concerns are addressed by new covenant marriage laws.

It seems that it would have the opposite effect, but the data proves otherwise. "Out of wedlock" births have skyrocketed along with no-fault divorce. This holds true across all demographics, although the increase rate does vary somewhat.

There's nothing arguable about it. In order of danger to a child, a mother is most dangerous, followed by a stepfather or unrelated live-in boyfriend of the mother, followed by the stepmother/live-in girlfriend, with the adult presenting the least danger to a child being the father.

Infidelity has been grounds for divorce in America since our founding. It has been grounds for divorce in Western Civilization for more than 1000 years, with remarriage being permitted since the Reformation. Social restrictions, not legal ones, are much of the reason why divorce had been so limited. Abuse has also been recognized as grounds for divorce over much of that time, but the definition of abuse has been much, much narrower. Not much other than attempting to kill your spouse qualified.




Are you a member of a home owners association? Do you object to being bound by the "codes, covenants, and restrictions" of the association? Do you reserve your disdain and/or objection to religious intrusion into government affairs to covenant marriage, or do you find other religious language regarding for governmental definition of social arrangements to be noxious as well?

Do you think "covenant marriages" are a good idea?

I feel they are a religious concept, so they should be a religious form of marriage enforced by the churches who think it's a swell idea. The Catholics have their own marriage rules, the Mormons have theirs, clearly some Protestants want their own. So ask the church to define it and enforce it.

I do not think legally recognizing "covenant marriages" is a good idea. Having it in the law makes it appear that the law favors some couples as being more married than others, giving couples from a particular denomination a special status (the Covenant Marriage Movement is pretty much all Protestants). I reckon we should either have a different legal status for every kind of religious marriage or just have one. I'm sure we can imagine it: Roman Catholics could have legally recognized Sacred Marriages, Mormons could have legally recognized Eternally Sealed marriages, and radical fundamentalist Mormons in southern Utah could have Poly...hey waaaaaait a minute...

Every marriage is unique. I can understand feeling that your marriage is special. So renew your vows, have a party, or start your own religion with a tiered marriage system. Leave politics out of it.