Marriage Debate
By rguyshipe Comments (11) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It has been awhile but I'm finally getting back into Redstate.
What does everyone think about Louisiana's Covenant Marriage law?
In the USA marriage isn't just recently being redefined by the courts (NH, MA, NJ) but has been slowing undergoing redefinition since the start of no fault divorce laws and the lack of enforcement of adultery laws. If you believe the family is the foundational institution of a nation than you'll agree with me these are significant problems.
Louisiana (I think under Tony Perkin's leadership when he was a state rep down there) created the Covenant Marriage concept. In that state a couple can choose either a regular marriage which has all the modern conveniences of no fault divorce or they can choose voluntarily a covenant marriage which has the novel but not original idea that there are high standards and expectations for marriage.
So the left has been redefining marriage for a long time but has moved most drastically recently through the federal courts. My question for everyone is this: Why can't we just redefine it back through covenant marriage? The trends show that we are going to lose the marriage fight over the long term. Why don't we just give them "marriage" and create a concept of "covenant marriage" like in Louisiana that not only prevents homosexual covenant marriage but also adultery, non-commitment, etc.
They can have what they are calling "marriage" and we'll keep Marriage.
I'm going to do a little more research on it but any thoughts or input here would be appreciated. Thanks!
Thanks for your thoughtful reply and the very helpful link. Looks like a ton of information over there.
First of all, out of curiosity are you married? Just wondering how that informs the views of individuals. I've been married for seven years.
Random initial thoughts:
-The "benefits" of covenant marriage would not be considered benefits to someone wanting a divorce. Covenant marriage is harder to get into and harder to get out of. The biggest losers in a no-fault divorce environment are the weaker individuals (usually the woman and always the children) and the biggest winners are the stronger.
-People get duped all the time that the commitment is for a lifetime. The moments before the marriage are usually the times when a person is most likely to say "until death" and actually mean it.
-I see you second point about covenant marriage basically could be seen as running up the white flag on marriage. That's why I see this approach as something to do after we lose. Which again according to the trend lines we are headed toward loss.
I'm happy to discuss personal views/opinions but would rather not divulge personal information at this time, beyond stating that I'm heterosexual, thanks.
It seemed to me the intangible benefits people were wanting out of covenant marriage were associated with the "statement value" of the choice - they are effectively making a statement to their partner and others that they are the kind of couple who intend to be "more dedicated" and "more committed" than your average married couple. The tangible benefits are associated with the legal processes in place to which they agree to submit - it's fair to suspect that where I may personally see presence of greater legal restrictions and requirements as a nuisance, other people might see it as a benefit. The nagging question in my mind is why not just alter your vows, or the (typically) religious ceremony to acknowledge and suit your greater committment - in the end, "civil" covenant marriage as it's legislated still wont stop a divorce from occuring if both persons decide they want out, and probably wont stop it if only one person wants out. I guess another way to look at it is that we often contract with a third party to act as an impartial arbiter in other circumstances, so if two people would like to invite the State to take a greater role in their marriage then it's a similar kind of arrangement, so why disallow that? And that seems fine, but it just strikes me as a little contradictory - A tells B that I love you, I want to spend the rest of my life with you, but just in case I have second thoughts, let's make it harder for me to change my mind. Ultimately, if it remains an option that people may choose or reject, then it increases the choices available to couples and that is a good thing, because some people (albeit a small number) are opting for this different kind of civil marriage.
The biggest losers in a no-fault divorce environment are the weaker individuals (usually the woman and always the children) and the biggest winners are the stronger.
I'm not sure of this, but would welcome supporting data. The thing is I've discussed with a person or persons here previously who believed no-fault divorce and marriage/divorce in general were far more detrimental to men, and favorable to women. So there are probably arguments to be made both ways, but actual evidence that it slants one way or the other would be good. I tend to think divorce law is reasonably balanced, or at worst marginally imbalanced but improving with recent jurisprudence no longer making an assumption that the mother is the de facto caregiver and awarding custody automatically. Courts divide assets equally or "equitably". To the extent that divorce results in each person's earning power standing on it's own again, it's true that the person who is capable of earning less may be "disadvantaged" by the divorce, and it probably can be supported by evidence that women on average will earn less than men... but thats hardly a consequence of the divorce itself.
I also think blaming no-fault divorce for prevalence of divorce in general seems a little misplaced; attempting to get couples to fully think through the arrangment they're about to enter seems more promising as a preventative measure and more consistent with increasing personal liberty and responsibility. The question is who is the best entity to provide this kind of advice? Certainly, parents would be the best teachers in this respect, with close seconds being other older family members or trusted non-familial persons like clergy, coaches, etc. If we abdicate our responsibility to the "next generation" to the State and hope that it comes up with programs and regulations to, for example, require and provide pre-marriage counsel, well... again, my personal opinion, the more the State tries to do, the less it does well, or actually does at all. And it isn't the State's job to raise the next generation, which I think is a statement that is very consistent with conservative principles.
The nagging question in my mind is why not just alter your vows, or the (typically) religious ceremony to acknowledge and suit your greater committment - in the end, "civil" covenant marriage as it's legislated still wont stop a divorce from occuring if both persons decide they want out, and probably wont stop it if only one person wants out.
I think the idea of Covenant Marriage is the standards for divorce are higher. And again, it isn't about stopping divorce but just raising the standards so that it is a real commitment that has the force of government behind it. A vow on the alter couldn't be enforced. The law defines the standards for divorce.
And that seems fine, but it just strikes me as a little contradictory - A tells B that I love you, I want to spend the rest of my life with you, but just in case I have second thoughts, let's make it harder for me to change my mind.
Seems very consistent. It is saying regardless of what happens (even if I myself lose personal commitment) I want to be held to this. Obviously there are ways out but it just isn't as easy.
on who no-fault divorce favors
I don't have any data other than just a common sense argument. Marriage is a contract between three parties: the man, the woman, and the society. Generally speaking, you don't see many women trading in for younger husbands when they get older. You do see older men trading in for younger women. So the old wife gets alimony but what about the relationship? She's left in the dust. What if there are kids? They are better off if the parents make it work. I'm not suggesting forcing two people to stay together in a bad relationship because people can make a hard marriage work. It is a choice they have to make but the society shouldn't be saying through the law that it is ok if you just break it off for "irreconcilable differences."
I also think blaming no-fault divorce for prevalence of divorce in general seems a little misplaced; attempting to get couples to fully think through the arrangment they're about to enter seems more promising as a preventative measure and more consistent with increasing personal liberty and responsibility.
I certainly agree that getting people to think more in advance is a good idea. But if we value the importance of commitment in marriage we shouldn't make it easy to get out. This last paragraph you are starting to sound like a Libertarian. Read my other posts on that. :) Libertarianism is the political philosophy of the strong and all the issues surrounding marriage are a good example of that.
I'm all in favor of strengthening marriage. I would like to see us make marriage a little harder to get and no-fault divorce ended.
I think adding a separate 'covenant' doesn't really help as much as just fixing marriage itself would be.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
But my point was maybe in the political environment we could just redefine a different higher version. In other words if we lose everything on marriage.
If it's lost, it's because heterosexuals treat it as something trivial.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
If marriage is nothing more than a collection of legal arrangements between two people who are "in love", then it has already been trivialized to the point where homosexuals should be allowed to marry.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The state has an interest in marriage because of its importance to a society.
If not definitive. Look at the countries where marriage has been trivialized. They are dying. Europe is unable to sustain itself and emigration rates are exceeding their immigration rates.
As I said in the title this is only indicative but what else are you going to use for data ?
Yes, interesting topic indeed. Some cursory research shows that not only Louisiana but Arizona and Arkansas have similar covenant marriage legislation. Other states appear to have been or are still working on passing similar legislation, see here.
Covenant marriage is interesting for a few reasons:
- when you boil it down, it seems to me a concept wherein people willingly submit themselves to even greater government control, in exchange for being able to demonstrate a greater degree of commitment to each other as well as other observers. And so the first obvious thought is why does anyone need (let alone want) the government to be a part of this commitment process? From one standpoint, it seems to spoil the idea of a serious commitment built from personal responsibility and dedication - as though the two people don't trust themselves (or each other) well enough to commit and stay together without the external threat of government regulation and restriction involved.
- pushing for covenant marriage seems particularly hazardous for persons interested in seeing marriage related benefits and arrangments (i.e. civil marriage or civil union) not extended to same sex partners, because it basically introduces a second kind of marriage recognized by the government. Once you go there, you tend to make arguments against adding a third kind, or against simply making identical benefits available to un-married but "partnered" couples (whether same or opposite sex) much harder.
- it appears between 1-3% of couples getting married in the three states opt for a covenant marriage; LA's legislation went into effect in 1997 so it's had almost ten years to take hold, 3% doesn't seem like a lot of people are welcome to the concept. See also the preceeding point and the difficulty of arguing against government recognition of same-sex marriage for what may be around ~4% homosexual segment when government "modifies" marriage to suit an audience of 3% or less.
- does covenant marriage actually reduce incidence of divorce? Since so few choose it, I'm guessing that those who do probably don't need the extra regulation and restriction. If you're thinking hard enough about commitment to opt for one, you're probably not among the segment of people who tend to make poorer choices as to whom they marry and eventually end up divorcing, which is as I pointed out somewhat ironic - why do such people need the government to help them stay together? So I'm dubious of it's value as an instrument to reduce divorce. The probability that it's not a really effective public policy measure and that so few opt for it makes me wonder if it isn't somewhat pointless legislation - this aside from my general preference that government not engage in social engineering.
Having said that, if there was such a visible movement around this in the states that put legislation in place that indicated a desire for this, and since it represents another option for people to choose from, it certainly isn't harmful. In other words, if we're going to live with government control over (civil) marriage, we might as well be given some choices with regards to the specific arrangements, which is what we'd likely have were marriage contracts left to the private sector to provide - different boilerplate contracts to pick and choose from. Having options is almost always a good thing.