This just in from Topeka, Kansas.. well actually this article, titled
Kansas looks to superglue some marriage bonds, appeared on Thursday in the Kansas City Star. Here is the way the piece begins:
Kansas lawmakers have a plan to put the deadbolt back in wedlock: optional “covenant marriages” that could be ended for only specific reasons or after a trial separation.
To break these bonds of matrimony, couples would have to undergo marriage counseling and live apart for at least a year. Divorces also could be granted after an infidelity or when one spouse has committed domestic violence or has been convicted of a serious crime.
Couples would have to undergo premarital counseling to qualify and sign an affidavit affirming that their marriage is for life. Covenant marriages also would cost more — $25 on top of the existing $69 marriage license fee. Already married couples could upgrade to the covenant marriage.
My first thought is that this might be a part of the full-employment act for lawyers.. there might be a bunch of unemployed divorce lawyers out there.. I just don't know.. maybe they need this legislation.
In theory I think that this sounds like a really good idea. Really.. who would not support beefing up divorce laws.. some may think that our current no-fault divorce statutes need to be strengthened so that terms like "irreconcilable differences" are not the norm for marital breakups. There are critics of the idea though.. the article goes on to say:
Critics contend that the extra obstacles could trap abused spouses or prolong the agony of couples who were never meant to be.
“We need to be in touch with reality,” said House Minority Leader Paul Davis, a Lawrence Democrat. “Some people who get married discover they shouldn’t have gotten married. … I don’t want to force those people to stay in a marriage that is hurting them.”
So I guess we have to talk about the ugly subject of spousal abuse. I guess that is a concern that I have but it does seem that marital separation is not prohibited by the new legislation.. battered spouses could still separate from their abusers.
The real question is should anyone get married to a person who would not commit to a covenant marriage? A few weeks ago I wrote about
Commitment Challenged Relationships and focused on SC Governor Mark Sanford's resistance to including a vow of fidelity in the marriage ceremony. In his case it seems that a covenant marriage was not an option.
Another issue is what happens to the non-covenant marriages? Do they become second-class marriages for people who cannot commit to forever.. or cannot afford the extra $25?Will Kansans one day think that these folks were never really married because they did not marry in a state-defined covenant?
Lastly I have to ask what this new covenant marriage would do to existing marriages where the couples choose to honor their first marriage vows and not upgrade to covenant status? I think many of those folks (like me) feel that marriage is a covenant between them, their spouse and God.. these folks probably would not feel a need to upgrade simply because the state passed a new law.. after all.. the covenant most of us want is not with the state.
So what do you think? I have been rambling a bit. Anything you want to ramble about?