Sen. Kruse’s SB 119 concerning ‘covenant marriage’ is one of those evergreen (pdf – from 1998) bills that seems to get introduced over and over again. It would be a kind of super duper marriage. You have to pinky swear (I might be making that up) that the marriage is for ever, take 8 hours of premarital counseling, and only get a divorce when things are really awful. (Instead of those casual marriages I guess we have right now).
Here is one part of the bill I really like. The people getting married have to sign a statement that says, in part:
We have chosen each other carefully and disclosed to one another everything that could adversely affect the decision to enter into this marriage.
Now, really, how can a new couple honestly make such a representation? You can’t possibly know everything about yourself that will drive your spouse nuts in 20 years. Sure, there is the obvious stuff, but I’m reminded of Danny DeVito’s line in Ruthless People: “I hate the way she licks stamps!”
Maybe I missed something, but what’s supposed to be the point of this? What’s the effective difference between a covenant marriage and a plain-ol’-marriage?
@Ben C:
I’m not familiar with this particular Bill, but typically, there will be no “no fault divorce” for a couple in a Covenant Marriage. Maggie Gallagher for good reason described “no fault divorce” as “The End of Marriage” in a book by that title, and covenant marriage seeks to make the bonds more permanent for those who want to make more binding commitments.
@Doug:
Pan back a bit. It has been aptly noted that “straights” have damaged marriage more than “gay marriage” has (or could?). Before SSM was anything like a serious issue, a few people were proposing Covenant Marriage to begin rebuilding the institution of marriage in NFD’s wake, at least for those who wanted more binding ties than no fault divorce allows.
It’s not paranoid to suggest that what we have now is, in a sense, “casual marriage.” For instance, lawyers routinely put “in the event of divorce” language in antenuptial agreements that really could (and in some cases should) be tailored to segregating assets into “yours and mine” for blended families (especially couples where each has grown children) in the event of death.
Why to I add the parenthetical “in some cases should”? Because in Roman Catholic canon law, an “in the event of divorce” clause in an antenuptial agreement can be proof of intent not truly to marry in the RC sense; it’s an issue I raise when mature Catholic clients are contemplating marriage with a prenuptial, sending them off to their Priest or Canon lawyer if they want to examine the booby trap more carefully. I’m doing my bit to strengthen the institution, too.
If I’m honest about it, my feelings about marriage are so tied up in my personal history, I probably can’t be too objective about the whole thing. My folks got divorced when I was two. Knowing both of my parents now, I can’t imagine how they could possibly have been happy if they had stayed together. (But, recognizing that they would be different people had they stayed together, so who knows). My commitment to my own marriage is, if anything, stronger because of my reaction to my own parents’ divorce.
If we want to strengthen the institution of marriage, making it harder to get on the front end isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Pre-marital counseling isn’t necessarily a horrible thing. But, it might also be helpful to do things like raise the minimum age for marriage or require a couple date each other for a minimum period of time. I don’t know that back end restrictions, preventing divorce by people who no longer want anything to do with each other is a very healthy thing.
I don’t know if it’s what proponents of covenant marriage are going for, but it seems like a “fewer but better” approach to marriage would be contrary to the “red state” approach to marriage as described in that “Red State v. Blue State” book. That book seemed to make the argument that, in “red states,” the notion is that gutting out a hard marriage and taking care of your family turns you into an adult (contrary to a “blue state” notion that only once you are an adult should you begin your family.)
In any event, there you have my semi-coherent, pre-coffee thoughts on marriage for the morning.
Again, this is something the churches could solve on their own. If the LCMS decided that they would not perform a marriage unless there was a pre-nup that spelled out the only legitimate reasons for divorce (Jesus said “Marital unfaithfulness”, something open for interpretation), then for them, the issue is settled, and a LCMS marriage becomes more binding than a “normal” one.
Why would any church want the government involved in this?
I might consider going a step further than Jason and put the question as to what interest we want the state to take in marriage?
For myself I can see an interest in assuring for the welfare and upbringing of children. However, if a couple (or line or other group arrangement) has no prospect or interest in children I might suggest any private, legal contractual arrangements they wish to enter into should be of no interest to the state. The state could provide a registration service for a fee. If the couple (or group) has an interest in producing or adopting children (or produced children regardless of their intention) than default conditions added by statute would come into play if not already met or exceeded privately.
A respectful question to Jason, I understand fully why the LCMS might react in the way suggested, but is everyone reading here “up” on the particularities of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod?
Paul, I guess I’m not even up on all of the particularities. I used them since that is what my church is a member of.
I know they have infighting over silly issues like common cup or individual cups, or if projectors should be used, but I get the sense that every denomination has that to some extent. (See all of the Baptist church variants or the United Methodist Church split on gay pastors). I’ve even seen websites that had a listing of REAL LCMS churches so if you’re travelling, you don’t have to worry about visiting a LCMS church that might have *gasp* drums and guitar, but only organ music & common cup, the way GOD intended it (even thought he lyre proceeds the organ by a few hundred years).
But, I think that is mostly silly stuff that has nothing to do with salvation, and some people spend WAY to much energy on.