vossiewulf: I also don't see a reason why the state would waste time legislating it; there's nothing stopping married people from choosing to follow the described steps now.

DamnYankees: That's the huge blinking red light for me. The only purpose for a law like this is to enforce it against someone's will. For that reason alone I don't imagine any way this could be considered a moral or good law.

The best possible interpretation is that the people in support of the bill are trying to prevent people from making a hasty decision (to get divorced) that they will regret later. For this to make any kind of sense, however, there would have to be a significant percentage of people who, months or years after they got divorced, regretted it and wished that they were still married to the person they had divorced. I'm not aware of any kind of study or survey which documented many divorced people regretting their divorces.


wejash: It's a way of repealing no fault divorce without saying so.

And that is what is mostly likely really going on here. Conservatives have learned that on some social issues they cannot win head-on, so they try to chip away at, or sneak around, their opposition. Abortion is a big example of this. There's no way Roe vs. Wade is going to get overturned directly, at least not for a good long while, so they're doing everything they can to make getting an abortion more difficult or problematic. They know they won't succeed at trying to directly do away with no-fault divorce, so this is their way of trying to get around it.

If this did pass, I'm sure the next step would be an add campaign, most likely targeting women, with some message to try to convince people to insist on the super-duper-marriage. "If he really loved me, he'd agree to a COVENANT marriage!" Probably patterned after the diamond ring marketing campaign.

ZAZ: Nevada offered no-fault divorce since at least the mid-20th century...

This is only news to all 3 Farkers who don't watch Mad Men.

If they can combine that with a Florida-grade 'stand your ground law' they may have something there.

ArkAngel: Considering it's entirely optional, I don't see the problem

optional or no, if there's physical or sexual abuse, I would not care to see a counseling requirement... the farker in jail can meet his/her new wife/husband there.

BuckTurgidson: Alabama's white population is about 74%.

Alabama's state house is about 75% white-dominated,

So, whites are overrepresented by the 1% in Alabama?

Jarhead_h

The very sad thing is these people think they are protecting marriage. Marriage as a religious institution should be strictly between the two parties and their deity. Marriage as it is currently done is a legal function that replaces the deity with government. Currently government steps in to play counterfeit messiah, and that which it has created it may dissolve.

If you want to save marriage go to the source of the problem, don't manage the symptoms. End marriage licenses altogether.


The city should handle the marriage. All that means is the couple exchanges vows at the notary desk and it gets recorded. It's official now, and everybody in the land does this part the same.

The church should handle the ceremony. Dealers option on this one, including not using a church at all.

Surely I'm too late to be the first to speculate on the uptick in the "living in sin" rate. This article points out why I love hillbillies.

If you need state legislation to hold your marriage together, your marriage has already failed.
Several years ago I was approached by some petitioners at a train station, gathering signatures for a ballot measure to mandate parental notification for abortions undertaken by minor girls. The petitioner held out the clipboard and said that it's not about abortion rights, it's about the rights of parents to know what their daughters are doing. I told him if you needed a state law to *force* your teen daughter to tell you she's having an abortion, you have already failed and there ain't no amount of legislation can fix your family for you.

Soymilk

If you need state legislation to hold your marriage together, your marriage has already failed.
Several years ago I was approached by some petitioners at a train station, gathering signatures for a ballot measure to mandate parental notification for abortions undertaken by minor girls. The petitioner held out the clipboard and said that it's not about abortion rights, it's about the rights of parents to know what their daughters are doing. I told him if you needed a state law to *force* your teen daughter to tell you she's having an abortion, you have already failed and there ain't no amount of legislation can fix your family for you.

You are wise.

This is, at least, consistent with the whole "defense of marriage act" thing. If they're going to refuse Gays equal rights based on the "sanctity of marriage", then it makes sense to stop Straights from hopping from marriage to marriage.

Imagine if Rush Limbaugh or Newt Gingrich were required to enter into a marriage of this type. Frankly, I hope the bill passes, and then every Republican in Alabama is shamed into getting this type of marriage.

Harry_Seldon: BuckTurgidson: Alabama's white population is about 74%.

Alabama's state house is about 75% white-dominated,

So, whites are overrepresented by the 1% in Alabama?

Statistics are fun, huh?

Anyhow, it's nice to see that Alabama is working hard to make itself a shiattier state. Go, go, Alabama! Given long enough, we should be back to debating whether or not bastard children should get the same legal status as legitimate children. Conservatives are going hard in the paint nowadays.

GAT_00: And suddenly, thousands of jobs appeared!

Hell yeah.

DamnYankees: The only purpose for a law like this is to enforce it against someone's will.
GAT_00: By the way, abusers are going to LOVE this law. Just another way to keep the target at home, since so many abused SOs never go to the police.
rynthetyn: it's definitely going to wind up being used to keep abused women in unsafe marriages.
jmomo: Hey look it's the republican war against women again.

All of those.

Cyno01: Well, everybody keeps saying that if the right really were concerned about defending marriage that they should work on outlawing divorce, not gay marriage. Whupps.

Who is this mythical "everybody" you speak of?

Gyrfalcon: Look, some people find they are no longer "in love"... Maybe these folks shouldn't be allowed to just get a quickie divorce...

This is what small-government Republicans actually believe.

In other news, Newt Gingrich seen scratching Alabama off his travel plans.....Film at 11:00.

rubi_con_man: You know what? I kinda think this is a good idea, but let's do it the right way :

1. Require a 60 day waiting period on all marriages

2. Require at least a half-dozen free pre-marriage counselling classes

3. Require that women be of childbearing age, and men have a viable sperm count

4. Require that they sign an affadavid of perparation for parenthood.

5. Make adultery a felony.

Translation: I am retarded.

It just means that divorce lawyers in neighboring states will make more money as will the court systems.

2wolves: Gwendolyn: 2wolves: "I don't recall how his/her head popped off." -Spouse driven over the edge.

Yeah in my first marriage it was either divorce or one of us wasn't getting out alive.

As someone about to graduate with an clinical MSW I can see how this might be good for business but then I would have to live in Alabama.

An acquaintance, who was a former lover of my second wife, got his PhD while in Alabama. Chaos Theory, applied to tornadoes and risk versus reward studies. Nice guy. Once he got out of 'Bama swore that he'd rather pimp dogs out to the Klan than ever go back.

Every time I see you post I'm reminded of something my father once told me. "It's better to be quiet and let people assume you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

rynthetyn: firefly212: ArkAngel: Considering it's entirely optional, I don't see the problem

optional or no, if there's physical or sexual abuse, I would not care to see a counseling requirement... the farker in jail can meet his/her new wife/husband there.

The law does have an exemption to the counseling requirement if there's abuse, but given how hard it can be to prove abuse, it's going to have the effect of discouraging women from leaving bad situations because they're afraid nobody is going to believe them.

... just like women were frequently sent back to their abusive spouses by judges who told them to suck it up and deal, back in the pre-no fault divorce days.

Bottom line is the government has no business in marriages. If they insist on drawing a line for the purposes of tax and spousal rights then there needs to be a civil union law that is equitable to any group of people who wish to fall under those guidelines. I say group because any law enacted by our government should fall outside of religious construct. Government sanctioned civil unions should be based solely on co-habitation, co-parenting, and shared incomes/property ownership. Let the holy rollers dole out marriages but get the government out of it.

rubi_con_man: 2. Require at least a half-dozen free pre-marriage counselling classes

Paid for by whom or are you trying to encourage the poor to not marry?

3. Require that women be of childbearing age, and men have a viable sperm count

Why? Just because you wish to share your life and everything else (ie: medical decisions, insurance, etc, etc) doesn't mean you want to have kids (and no the alternatives do not provide the same protection). Even assuming, as you apparently do,that marriage is only to have children, what if they want to adopt? Or should adoption be illegal in your ideal world?

4. Require that they sign an affadavid of perparation for parenthood.

Why?

5. Make adultery a felony.

Yes, because no couple would ever voluntarily and mutually agree to fark other people. Swingers, open marriages and so on and so on.

God, you must live in such a narrow claustrophobic world I'm amazed (and saddened) you haven't suffocated to death yet.

THANKS UNCLE DAD!

Better go goat them pigs and sheep them cows.

/Seriously, why the hell is anyone tolerating this crap?

If you want these kinds of conditions then put it in the prenup, more legal spam is unnecessary, somewhat counterproductive, and in this case the kind of crap that you can only push in a presidential election year.

For everyone freaking out about how this is the end of the world, though, you do realize that you don't actually have to get a divorce to leave your spouse? Separation is actually fairly common and has been forever, to the point where a lot of states have common-law divorce statutes. Move to a state where a spouse can't seize property that's in solely your name, get a restraining order, and forget about 'em.

//So... just slip out the back, Jack.
//Make a new plan, Stan.
//You don't have to be coy, Roy.
//... great, now that's gonna be stuck in my head forever.

profplump: I'd support an easier way to form the contracts that marriage simulates, just like states have already done in other areas like real property sales. I agree that actually forming and maintaing all the contracts required to enact the benefits of marriage is complicated, but that's an argument for a simplified process, and I don't see a reason for that process to require marriage.

Marriage is a social norm and all the things you mentioned go along with it. Trying to split it into contracts will mean a lot of mistakes and a lot of lawsuits. Medical decisions alone would probably pay for a whole generation of lawyers.

There is also a large and rather unique emotional element involved. In additional there are children usually in the picture.

Trying to tackle all these things individually would be an utter legal cluster fark. Judge A (who deals with financial matters) rules one thing while Judge B (who deals with children) rules something else. Not to mention that you cannot treat someone going through a breakup as if they were merely business partners. Doing so will lead to very inefficient decisions.

snuff3r: Does any of this really matter? The gays are going to destroy marriage and families in the end, eventually.

/sarcasm, in case it was too subtle

Not to mention what the queers are doing to the soil! (new window)

You know looking at divorce rates and the bullshiat excuse of "irreconcilable differences" I almost applaud this move, however to many people fall in love without using their brains for vetoing bad relationships.

Personally divorce should really only be granted under 5 circumstances,

1. Abuse, Either side, and not just a "you asshole every once in a while" /oblig
2. Cheating, another no brainer.
3. Using kids as weapons, in arguments, either side.
4. A Man demanding subservience.
5. Financial lopsidedness either side. A man should never pay ALL bills while married, (the first meal on a date is always free ladies, we as a whole, accept this.) This could include total slackassness as well, like fark getting a job 5 kids can feed themselves.

SeraphicSorcerer: You know looking at divorce rates and the bullshiat excuse of "irreconcilable differences" I almost applaud this move, however [. . .]

Personally divorce should really only be granted under 5 circumstances,

[. . .]

3. Using kids as weapons, in arguments, either side.

Are we talking "using the kids as a weapon" in the verbal sense as a point of contention in the argument, or literally using a kid as a weapon?

Because I can dual-wield toddlers, but I need both hands to swing an adolescent.

Ambivalence: ArkAngel: The state has a reasonable interest in promoting marriage.

The state has a reasonable interest in promoting HEALTHY marriage. Sometimes divorce really is the healthiestmost convenient option for one or both parties.

FIFY

Some divorces...yeah. Definitely necessary.

Current divorce rate in this country = ~50%

Do people (not OP specifically, I'm just pondering out loud here) really think it's probable that half the married couples in the nation are so farked up that divorce is the only healthy option left? Or are a lot of people probably former precious snowflakes who can't comprehend that other people are just, actually *just* as important as they are? Perhaps they should consider other people's needs with as much concern as they consider their own?

Or maybe the entire nation really is that psychotic, in which case, it's probably time to start over.

/seriously, the current divorce rate in this country should make people concerned.
//our society is having...problems.
///in one fashion or another.

cuzsis: Do people (not OP specifically, I'm just pondering out loud here) really think it's probable that half the married couples in the nation are so farked up that divorce is the only healthy option left? Or are a lot of people probably former precious snowflakes who can't comprehend that other people are just, actually *just* as important as they are? Perhaps they should consider other people's needs with as much concern as they consider their own?

Have you ever been alone while in a relationship? There is no worse helplessness than to be in a failed marriage or long term relationship. Unfortunately, when children are involved, it is far more complicated.

wejash: ArkAngel: Considering it's entirely optional, I don't see the problem

The problem is that this can become the default form of marriage because, well, why WOULD you choose the "not really married" option when you can be "really committed?"

It's a way of repealing no fault divorce without saying so.

The state should register marriages and divorces, it should make sure kids are cared for by their parents. But beyond that the gov't shouldn't go.

Pretty much this:

Man: let's to the regular marriage.
Woman: do you not love me enough to get a real marriage?
Man: (damn)...of course I do, let's get the Covenant kind.

Because some version of this conversation will not happen ever....

autopsybeverage: SeraphicSorcerer: You know looking at divorce rates and the bullshiat excuse of "irreconcilable differences" I almost applaud this move, however [. . .]

Personally divorce should really only be granted under 5 circumstances,

[. . .]

3. Using kids as weapons, in arguments, either side.

Are we talking "using the kids as a weapon" in the verbal sense as a point of contention in the argument, or literally using a kid as a weapon?

Because I can dual-wield toddlers, but I need both hands to swing an adolescent.

I am talking the verbal sense, if you're literally using them as weapons, you shouldn't have procreated period. If you're going to use kids as weapons, use your neighbors kids, they're usually more annoying. =P

OgreMagi: skinink: I read the comments, and I'm still confused why gay/lesbians want the right to marry aside from the social benefits.

There a lots of reasons. Here's a few.

1. Taxes
2. Visitation rights in hospitals
3. Wills and trusts
4. It annoys the hell out of the fundies

Hell, for reason #4 I'd almost consider going gay.

Because they deserve to be as miserable as everyone else that marries? :D I still prefer it to be called a Civil Union. But that's my only nuance.

phrawgh: When we go to sleep every night, we go to Heaven to drink energy
provided by God. That's the normal condition, but some people go to their friends in hell and drink the energy of God in hell. All humans, no matter in hell or on heaven or in this universe, need the energy of God every so often. This point is obvious to every person in hell or on Heaven. But many people there, as on Earth, are still ungrateful to God most of the time.

The souls of other animals do not need to go back to Heaven to drink God's energy. That's why other animals are more alert in sleep than humans in sleep. That's why humans die within 7 to 8 days if they do not go back to Heaven/Hell to drink God's energy in 7 or 8 days. That's why we feel energetic in the morning even though we may not yet have breakfast in the morning.

lol, that's bloody wonderful

ArkAngel: Considering it's entirely optional, I don't see the problem

You don't know very much of human nature do you.
wejash: It's a way of repealing no fault divorce without saying so

Doesn't that mean the legislators have committed that sin of Duplicity? Which is related to hypocrisy?

Think about it, in the bible, you have killing, raping, mother raping, father raping, and god just gets little peeved. Hypocrisy on the other hand, in the old testament, god causes your entrails to rot and fall out your ass. New testament he sends Jesus to call you on your bad self in front of everyone. Adultery? Jesus is like wherever dude.

JRoo: Mandatory 18 year marriage if there is a child involved.

Voluntary anything-goes-marriage for everyone else.

So we're incorporating the WWE into marriages now? Adds a whole new meaning to body slams...

TofuTheAlmighty: Why are conservative Christians so determined to use levers of the government to enforce their own personal faiths? Covenant marriage is even weirder than most of their religious cretinism; I genuinely can't understand why they're so gung ho about getting the government's permission to marry and divorce?

A lot of it is just siege mentality. If you think you're under attack, you'll barricade yourself using whatever means you can. For them, passing laws like this is like someone pursued pushing furniture against a door -- it's a desperate attempt to keep Them at bay.

I know a few Christians who support laws of this type. Invariably the thinking is like this (brace yourself):

AMERICA is a CHRISTIAN NATION! AMERICA is UNDER ATTACK by SATAN! WE MUST THROW SATAN BACK AT ALL COSTS! CHRISTIANITY MUST BE PROTECTED! DIVORCE is a TOOL OF SATAN to DIVIDE CHRISTIAN COUPLES! WE MUST FIGHT DIVORCE! WE MUST FIGHT LOOSE SEXUAL MORALS! CONTRACEPTION is a TOOL OF SATAN! WE MUST FIGHT CONTRACEPTION!

You can hear the all-caps in their voices when they talk. Underneath all the rationalization about "legitimate state interests", the above is the sort of mentality you're dealing with at some volume level.

The irony, of course, is that the attacks they perceive are in the context of a culture war they started, with entities like the Eagle Forum and the Moral Majority.

ONWARD, INTO THE PAST!

If I divorce my wife in Alabama, is she still my cousin?

I love marriage. I'm happy with it and my parents have been happy with it for decades. Seems to me though this law would mostly apply to idiots who shouldn't get married in the first place who tell each other "baby if u really loved me we would get a covenant marriage" I don't see how thats going to make anyone any happier or save anyone any money, whichever you're preference might be. Divorces from dumb marriages are ugly enough already.