Choosing to Be Bound

According to a New York Times story about "covenant marriage," an option that makes divorce harder, President Bush "has taken no position" on the idea, "which he considers a state issue." So when it comes to the conditions under which a marriage can be dissolved, Bush believes in federalism. But when it comes to who can marry, he supports a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex couples.

People can argue about which aspect of marriage is more fundamental, but it's hard to believe that gay couples pose more of a threat to the institution than laws that, as one Christian activist puts it, make marriage "easier to get out of" than "a contract to buy a used car." The essence of the arrangement, after all, is a binding commitment to stay together, except in extraordinary circumstances.

Critics of no-fault divorce have a legitimate complaint: The state imposed on people a change in the terms of their marriages that many of them did not want. The solution, as advocates of covenant marriage implicitly recognize, is not to change the rules back for everyone but to give couples the opportunity to choose the rules they want.

In the three states that offer covenant marriage (Arkansas, Louisiana, and Arizona), couples can choose between the standard contract and one that is harder to get out of. (Only 1 or 2 percent choose the latter option.) Although most people who support covenant marriage presumably oppose same-sex marriage, the policy they advocate points the way toward a separation of marriage and state that would allow people to enter into any mutually agreeable arrangement.

Comments

[dhex]

no fault divorce is patently ridiculous.

holy moley, instant political headline generator:

_________________ is patently ridiculous.

[Jason Ligon]

Can't we stop pretending that political platforms are supposed to be ideologically consistent? Bush supports federalism to the extent that he has no coalition problems doing so.

[alkali]

Critics of no-fault divorce have a legitimate complaint: The state imposed on people a change in the terms of their marriages that many of them did not want.

A couple who got married in the 1960s arguably may have a legitimate complaint on that ground, but most couples today were married after no-fault laws were enacted (mostly in the 1970s).

[Jennifer]

Critics of no-fault divorce have a legitimate complaint: The state imposed on people a change in the terms of their marriages that many of them did not want.

So you'd prefer a situation where, say, a wife who's utterly miserable is legally required to stay married to avoid hurting her husband's feelings? Why the hell would ANY person (outside of those on a power-trip) want to stay with someone who doesn't want to be with them? Why the hell should the government be the one using force to keep these relationships together?

[Ben]

I think the point is Jennifer that these people voluntarily entered into a contract that had a certain set of terms, and then that contract was changed without their consent.
Just another reason for marriage to be privatized.

[Ben Lange]

Bush is being ideologically consistent. The problem is that no state solution to the problem of same-sex marriage exists. Renegade judges have lately begun declaring laws prohibiting SSM unconstitutional, which is "patently absurd." Perhaps they are unfair, but unfair does not mean unconstitutional. It is not the place of judges, who are not elected, to make laws against the will of the people as expressed through representatives who are elected.

As extreme a measure as a constitutional amendment is, it is necessary to prevent these judges from imposing SSM on a populace that manifestly does not want it. No other solution will work.

[Jennifer]

then that contract was changed without their consent.

Doesn't matter. Changing the laws to allow easy divorce had NO effect on happy marriages ("Gee, honey, I still love you but since we have no-fault divorce I suppose I'll get one purely for the hell of it"); it only enabled people to leave marriages that obviously weren't happy to begin with. So what's the problem with that?

[Lowdog]

Yeah Ben, the only solution that'll work.

How about privatizing marriage like the other Ben says? The government really shouldn't be involved. How about civil unions?

A constitutional amendment is waaay over the top.

[Disgruntled Husband]

But who's gonna cook my dinna?

[Louis Varnson]

How do Republicans claim to embrace limited government when they can't even stay out of America's bedrooms? Republicans endorse a laissez-faire approach to government whenever the religious right tells them to do so. Even on budgetary matters, they can't even get it right anymore. They are addicted to pork, and addicted to power. According to one study, 28 of the 30 "94" Republicans that are still in the House, sponsored legislation to increase, not decrease, the size of the federal government last year.
Here is the link to a New York Times Article Describing the Mess

[kwais]

"Just another reason for marriage to be privatized"

Amen

[mojoe]

L.V.,
You might as well link to Mad magazine for all the trust I have in the N.Y. Times. "All the news that fits" right? As long it doesn't cast a positive light on the conservatives.

[B.D.]

Ben, it's a tired argument about "judges who are unelected." Those judges are put into place by representatives who are elected. That's the Republic and how it works. If you're unhappy with the judge's decisions, you can elect a legislature that disagrees with the judge and have him/her impeached. Then the legislature can place judges that are more in line with your views.

Besides, judges make all sorts of decisions that the populace may not want now, but which time has proven that they are correct. For instance, desegregation decisions, decisions allowing marriages between races, decisions providing wives with rights, etc. Like it or not, when legislators, representing the populace, drop the ball, the judicial system can step in and correct against the tyranny of the majority. Conservative and liberal causes have benefited from this. So, give judges a break.

On the other paw, like others here, I don't believe the state should be involved in marriages at all. That is a religious institution. The state should only concern itself with contract law as represented by civil unions.

[Gary Gunnels]

Ben Lange,

Your argument would make sense if the two states in question - Vermont and Massachusetts - saw a voter revolt against same-sex marraige/civil union rulings. But they haven't. Indeed, in Vermont, the "Take Back Vermont" movement has officially collapsed with the election in 2004 of a majority Democratic House (the Senate remained Democratic throughout this period). As to Massachusetts, in the 2004 election several of the more vocal members of the Massachusetts legislature who opposed same-sex marraige lost, and the state legislature added pro-same sex marraige members to that body.

In California, which constitutionally bans same-sex marraige, the California Supreme Court overturned efforts in San Francisco to thwart that ban. Eliot Spitzer stopped similar efforts in New Paltz, N.Y.

Second, you are confusing the role of Federal judges, who work within a limited constitutional framework, and state common law judges, who don't. In other words, the Federal constitution is a document which grants powers to the Federal government that the Federal government cannot exercise power outside of. State constitutions, on the other hand, are limits on the powers of state governments. This variance creates varying roles for Federal and state court judges.

No Federal judge has ever (to my knowledge) found that Federal Constitution grants a right to same-sex marraige. Now, state courts have found that STATE CONSTITUTIONS guarantee such a right, but that is different matter entirely.

[Gary Gunnels]

Ben Lange,

Also, note that state court judges are often elected or have to go through a periodic retention process. In Vermont, state court judges are appointed by the Governor and approved by the legislature as a body and ever five years they must return to the legislature for retention hearings (which are open to hours of public comment). If the legislature chose to do so it could boot the member of the judiciary from office.

Note that in Vermont the strategy of the "Take Back Vermont" movement was to put the legislature in Republican hands so as to use the retention hearings as means to remove Judge Amestoy and others from office; that strategy failed. So did their efforts to pass a constitutional amendment banning civil unions.

People like you always stupidly assume that the "last word" on the subject is the court; that they are autocrats in robes whose rulings cannot be overturned; but that's clearly not the case.

[thoreau]

IIRC, Arkansas has one of the highest divorce rates in the country and Massachusettes has one of the lowest divorce rates.

Surely there's a lesson in this somewhere...

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

I believe the Bible Belt generally has the highest rates of divorce in the country.

I know it seems rather common where I am from - LA (Lower Alabama).

[R C Dean]

Gary, if same-sex marriage is so popular in those states, why doesn't the legislature pass a law allowing it?

Jennifer, no-fault divorce did indeed change the marriage contract without the consent of the parties to that contract.

Imagine that you have a job . . . under a contract that allows you to be fired only for cause. Even if you were happy with your job, you probably wouldn't be too thrilled if a law was passed outlawing such clauses, so that you could be fired "no-fault" even though you never agreed to any such change in your contract.

And yes, both the sorry sagas of gay marriage and no-fault divorce are exhibits 1 and 2 in the case for privatising marriage.

[Gary Gunnels]

BTW, only six states lack some sort of judicial election and follow the Federal Constitutional pattern.

Some states have direct, partisan elections and others have direct non-partisan elections; I believe a thin majority (in the upper 20s) of states use either one of these processes.

Five states are like Vermont and have legislative elections.

About a dozen states follow what is called the Missouri plan, where the judge is initially appointed to a fixed term (e.g., five years), the judge having to stand for direct election at the close of term.

[mojoe]

thoreau,
The law hasn't been in effect here in Mass. for very long. Where are the stats you're referring too from?
And face it, when you're married to your sister (as I'm sure many in Ark. are) how long is that going to last?
Plus let's look at two typical examples, one from Mass. one from Ark.
Ted K. lives in Mass. and is married, he decides the marriage is over, he a) puts her in a car and drives over the Chappaquiddick bridge. b) goes to the pope and claims that despite many years of marriage and several children, the marriage never existed, thus being granted an anullment. Two ways to get past the stigma of divorce.
Next we have Bill C. from Ark. He finds out the little lady is messing around with a business associate, he a) has him killed and left in a D.C. park, or b) realizing it would be best for his and the wife's career decides to start banging a chunky intern. Divorce to come later I'm thinking.

[Gary Gunnels]

R.C. Dean,

They have of course. The irony of the Baker decision is that merely formalized much of what the Vermont legislature had already granted to gay couples over the years regarding adoption, health insurance, etc. Indeed, that was one of the more bizarre features of the state's argument that gay marraige would harm marraige, children, etc., since much of what the Civil Unions legislation (as passed after the Baker decision) recognized as applying to both types of couples already applied to them via prior piecemeal legislative acts. The same argument may also be true for Massachusetts though I am not as familiar with its state law in this area.

[thoreau]

Gary, now you're confusing us with the facts. It's so much easier to just assume that judges are unelected partisan hacks, rather than elected partisan hacks 😉

[Gary Gunnels]

R.C. Dean,

Also, as I recall, the majority in Baker noted this irony in its decision.

thoreau,

Well, Chief Justice Roy Moore of the Alabama Supreme Court was elected to office; I don't see this made him a superior judge. 🙂

[Gary Gunnels]

R.C. Dean,

I do believe we can agree that getting the government in large part out of the marraige business is the best of all possible solutions. At the very least we could de-sacralize civil marraiges more than we already have.

[Gary Gunnels]

Ben Lange,

New York (via statute) recognizes Vermont's Civil Unions; I don't know if that means that New York citizens can enter Civil Unions in New York, but certainly they could cross the border, get a civil union in Vermont, and return to New York and have their legal relationship recognized.

New Jersey (as of 2004) has a "domestic partnership" law that is virtually identitical to Vermont's "civil union" law.

[Coarsetad]

First off, I should state that the more private marriage is the better. Now being that this is a world where is it up for public scutiny and definion; let me say that "Just what the hell does the legislature have to do with confering rights?!"
Nothing infuriates me more than folks thinking this is some kind of popularity contest between gays and straights and once 51 out of 100 people think is ok, then all will be right in the world.
Gay relationships already exist, but do they have a right to be recognized? Damn right they do! Why? Because not recognizing can cause harm to individuals, but please give me one example where recognizing them will harm someone else. And what is a right, besides a set of actions that cause no harm to anybody else?

[dhex]

it will cause irreparable harm by, uh, forcing people to explain to their kids that some people don't live like they do. which is unnecessarily traumatic.

i think if i got drunk enough, i could actually make that work.

the case for private marriage is simple: until bureaucrats start sucking my dick, they have no say in my marriage.

[free form]

>>no-fault divorce did indeed change the marriage contract without the consent of the parties to that contract.

[MP]

A marriage contract (whether state or privately issued) involves pretty major issues, including asset ownership and child custody rights. A dissolution of this contract (i.e. a Divorce) involves the establishment of individual rights over objects that previously involved joint (usually equal) ownership. In entering into such a contract, two parties should up-front be able to decide the steps required to dissolve the contract. They should be able to make it easy or hard to dissolve it. And one of the primary functions of the state is contract enforcement.

You cannot state that marriage is simply a values related issue. In a society based on property rights, the contract underlying a marriage is of extreme importance from a legal perspective.

[Stevo Darkly]

I believe the Bible Belt generally has the highest rates of divorce in the country.

I'm speaking entirely ex rectum here, but I'd guess that's because people might tend to marry at younger ages in that region. Looking around me, it's my personal impression that people who marry younger than age 30 have a tougher time and are less likely to still be married at age 35 or so.

[Jennifer]

RC-
I don't think an employment contract can be accurately compared to a personal relationship that's supposed to be based upon love, or at least compatibility. The fact is, the only people who could even remotely claim to have been harmed by the introduction of "no-fault" divorce are those people whose spouses wanted to leave them, but couldn't legally do so until the divorce laws were changed. What possible reason could the state have for compelling people to remain in marriages they do not want unless they publicly label their partner "at fault," which means publicly declaring various reasons why said partner is a slimeball? Isn't it more respectful of marriage to allow people a way out without having to smear their formerly significant other?

Should marriage mean that Soupse A has a lifetime claim on Spouse B in all non-abusive circumstances, even if B wishes to leave?

[Jennifer]

That's "Spouse" A.

[MP]

Jennifer,

If you privatized marriage, it wouldn't surprise me if the boilerplate contract included language that made termination of a marriage very difficult. Under those circumstances, regardless of any notion of "compelling interest", the state has an obligation to enforce the terms of the contract, as per the wishes of the parties entering the contract. If Spouse B wanted out under terms that differed from the allowable reasons specified by the contract, the Spouse A would have every right to utilize the power of the state to enforce the contract, and would be morally right in doing so.

However, this logic is not completely applicable to the introduction of "no-fault", because the parties entering into a marriage contract before that time had only two options...agree to the contract as defined by the state or don't get married (and enjoy the various legal benefits of being married).

[Jennifer]

If you privatized marriage, it wouldn't surprise me if the boilerplate contract included language that made termination of a marriage very difficult.

Now that's getting into another topic altogether--how many rights do people have the right to give away? You can't sell your own self into slavery, and I'd oppose a law that said you could; your version of marriage sounds like a power of attorney that can never be revoked. Especially considering that for most people the decision to get married is made at one of life's more emotional moments, and you're saying the state should enforce among the most serious and life-altering of consequences for a decision many, many people make when they're too young and lovesick/horny to know what the hell they're doing?

[MP]

Under a hard-to-break contract, exactly what rights is one giving up? A marriage contract does not require two people to live together.

And yes, the state should enforce the contract. In the same way that the state acts as an arbitrator when two young idiots lovesick/horny idiots have a baby. Life has consequences.

[Jennifer]

the state should enforce the contract. In the same way that the state acts as an arbitrator when two young idiots lovesick/horny idiots have a baby. Life has consequences

The baby is a natural consequence of biology; the notion of lifetime marriage is an invented consequence. The two cannot be fairly compared.

This sounds like a strawman, but I'm serious: would you also support the idea that if a nun--a Bride of Christ--had to sign a contract with the Church when she entered the convent, the state should also enforce that contract and require her to remain a virgin for the rest of her life?

Ignoring the possibility that the existence of other Brides of Christ would trigger the "adultery" clause, of course. Better yet, what about a guy who decides to become a monk? I don't think monks are the Husbands of Christ, so adultery is not an issue. Should the state enforce a contract signed by an eighteen-year-old man who agrees to spend the rest of his life living in a monastery working for the church?

[Jennifer]

Under a hard-to-break contract, exactly what rights is one giving up? A marriage contract does not require two people to live together.

The right to live your life as an independent person with no legal attachments. The right to have a sexual relationship with a consenting adult without legal sanctions. The right to marry someone else, for that matter.

[thoreau]

As a practicing and believing Catholic who is happily married and takes marriage quite seriously, I actually find "covenant marriages" rather disconcerting.

First, as a purely personal choice, I would never want to "upgrade" to such a contract. I have no desire to leave my wife, nor do I forsee any reason to do so in the future. In fact, I firmly believe it would be a sin to leave her for any reason other than severe abuse on her part. But if for any reason she should ever want out, I don't see any point in using the courts to reel her back in. I would of course try everything possible to persuade her to reconsider, but if she was really determined to go, I can't see how a court order would change her mind. If anything, it would solidify whatever negative opinions she held about me.

Now, it would be tempting to say that's just my personal preference, and if other people want to enter into such contracts, well, so be it. And that was my first reaction. But then I started thinking about what it would mean to enforce such a contract. And the contracts would be enforced at everybody's expense (i.e. the taxpayers' expense), and with possibly severe repercussions for third parties who did not sign the contracts (children, relatives, and to a lesser extent friends, neighbors, and co-workers).

Say that the wife wants out. So she leaves. But the judge finds that there aren't sufficient grounds for divorce under the terms of the "covenant." Do the cops have to drag her back to her husband's house? Why is the burden on her? This is a sacred covenant, so why doesn't he go to the effort to go to her place and work things out, instead of demanding that she come to him? Isn't a sacred covenant like this worth the effort of going to her?

Now, maybe the "covenant" will include language saying that the party who leaves without proper cause is in fact wrong and has the obligation to return. Well, if that's going to be enforced then the cops will basically be in the position of dragging an adult back to his or her spouse kicking and screaming.

Consider the drama that ensues when a court orders a child to visit a hated and feared parent. The fucking lawyers call it "visitation", and some pig-fucker of a judge once visited this injustice upon me. The asshole said that if I didn't go visit my fucking sadistic father he'd send me to a juvenile detention facility. To this day, I still fantasize about slowly killing that goddamn judge and all of the fucking lawyers involved. It is the reason why I get a big smile every time I read a lawyer's obituary.

Now, imagine that instead of forcing this on a defenseless child (that fucking judge is undoubtedly proud of himself, and I hope he burns in hell) the cops are ordered to force this nightmare on an adult. Adults are bigger, they fight harder, and they (supposedly) have the right to keep and bear arms.

So you can see how enforcing such an order might be problematic.

On the other hand, if the "covenant" doesn't include any language that would require a spouse to return, what we've got is a couple that's separated without any formal legal arrangements. Legally they're still married.

All well and good, until the one who left gets a paycheck. The one who didn't leave says "Hey, that's marital property, I want some say in how you spend it!" Or until the person who left goes back to get some belongings. If the "covenant" doesn't grant superior status to the person who didn't leave, then a judge is going to have to issue some kind of ruling on how to divide property until they formally re-unite.

Gee, that sounds similar to a divorce decree: A legal document specifying how 2 people (who previously signed a marriage contract) will divide assets.

On the other hand, if the "covenant" says that the person who left has to share her paycheck and can't start removing items from the house, you have a sure-fire incentive for that person to move to another state where the order can't be enforced, or to start living on a cash-only basis and avoid banks, credit cards, and other aspects of the formal economy. Not good.

Basically, these "covenants" sound like a nightmare to enforce. If they really feel strongly about punishing the person who initiates the divorce then I can see how one might write a contract that puts that person at a disadvantage in dividing assets. But, at the end of the day, a contract that makes it almost impossible for somebody to leave the marriage just sounds like a quagmire.

[thoreau]

I predict that the religious right will find itself with a big dilemma in the next few years with a "covenant divorce" test case.

Some woman in a covenant marriage will seek a divorce. (Doesn't have to be a woman, but I'm betting it will be.) Her reasons for leaving will fall short of what the covenant allows. So she'll seek the divorce in some other state where the divorce laws are more lenient.

The husband will ask various right wing think tanks and legal foundations to render legal assistance and submit amicus briefs and whatnot. They'll find themselves in a dilemma, because he'll probably turn out to be a first-class jerk but not quite bad enough to trigger any of the escape clauses in the covenant.

It will be fun to watch various pundits, talk radio hosts, and other blow-hards argue on this guy's behalf.

[Jennifer]

It will be fun to watch various pundits, talk radio hosts, and other blow-hards argue on this guy's behalf.

You're right! I formally revoke all my previous arguments against covenant marriages, especially since you did a much better job of expressing them.

I'm still kind of curious if folks would support legal enforcement of the monk covenant, though.

[thoreau]

Jennifer-

I agree. It's all well and good to say that a contract is a contract. But if enforcing a contract requires that the courts take constantly intervene for the rest of an adult's life, then maybe it's better to just dissolve the contract with some sort of penalty to the party who wanted out.

I know that nullifying a contract would be cause to have a judge impeached in the Property Owner's Republic of Libertopia, but courts just aren't very good at running an adult's private life. They can figure out who owns a piece of land or how much money somebody is entitled to as compensation or whatnot, but they do a poor job when it comes to micro-managing families. It's better to just say "That's it, if she wants out this Court can't stop her."

If it weren't for the fact that I know just how miserable divorce is (I was the subject of 2 very bitter and nearly-bloody custody fights) I would sit back and enjoy the show when the inevitable "covenant divorce" comes along. It would certainly be fun to watch some right-wingers get humiliated as they defend some asshole who didn't quite rise to the level of covenant-dissolving. But the fact is that a covenant divorce will be even messier than a regular one, and hence even more tragic.

[kmw]

The fucking lawyers call it "visitation", and some pig-fucker of a judge once visited this injustice upon me.

You go, thoreau!

I can't recall you typing "fuck" once before, and now you go and weave a tapestry of pure beauty.

[kmw]

That?s a compliment, BTW. In case it wasn?t apparent.

[thoreau]

kmw-

I guess I have very strong feelings about lawyers and divorce. In fact, I think my conversion to a libertarian became inevitable the day that the judge ordered me to visit my father. Although I spent many years as a Democrat (I naively believed that the system could help people "if done the right way"), I never really trusted the government.

Seeing the way my father profited from drug prohibition (and learning that he had friends in the government) didn't hurt either. I wish I could tell the full story there, but nobody would believe me.

[Mo]

thoreau,
Sorry to hear about your horrible experience. No one should have to go through what you went through. I'll bet you a dollar (pull it from the wad from Ben Stein) that no matter how outrageous the story is, people here won't find it too off the wall. Have you read some of the stories posted here?

[Mo]

Don't interpret my comment as trying to goad you into telling it. If you don't want to tell the story because of personal reasons, I wouldn't think less of you. Just stating that fact is far stranger than fiction and the denizens of H&R are no strangers to that.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

As a libertarian I really have no problem with a court merely awarding damages and moving on. Indeed, that is the attitude of courts to most contracts which have been broken in such a way that the parties cannot create a "work out" (notably most parties settle their contract troubles without the aid of a court). Only in cases such as land sales, where the property is "unique" (note that this may indeed be a legal fiction) is the court going to enter the situation and mandate specific performance.

The court system shouldn't be in the business of long-term policing of contracts generally; since this is the case, most contract cases merely and rightly award damages (and generally these are not punitive in nature) and let the parties move on.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

Indeed, in the case of employment contracts, a court is more likely to award damages rather than require specific performance because courts simply don't want to police a situation where feelings have say gone sour. There is also a 13th Amendment question involved that scenario as well, but that's of lesser concern. Accordingly, if Pavoratti is scheduled to perform at your Opera house and fails to show up and will not reschedule, the court 99% of the time will tell Pavoratti to fork over your lost revenues (since you've likely already reimbursed your ticketholders).

[thoreau]

Mo, the drug angle on the story is better left vague. I've already said enough on this forum to identify myself. The drug angle would involve some things that I don't want to reveal for my own safety, and the safety of my family.

Suffice it to say that he has laundered drug money, and I know at least one of his business associates had a successful career in the public sector. Not a name that most people would recognize, but you don't have to make headlines to enjoy access. He probably prefers obscurity anyway.

The details of this person's career, and how I know about it, are better left unsaid. But it's safe to assume that the estranged son of a minor money launderer only gets to see a tiny portion of what's going on, and even the tiny portion that I've seen is pretty outrageous.

[thoreau]

Gary-

It seems to me that if the courts handle "covenant marriages" in the manner that you describe for other contracts, then I doubt that "covenant marriages" will make much of a difference in practical terms. The person who attempts to leave without "just cause" (or whatever the term is) might not get as good of a settlement as he or she (but, let's be honest, probably "she") might get in a regular divorce, but that's about it.

Then again, maybe that's all that Republicans really want: Some sort of penalty for women who leave their man.

[Gary Gunnels]

thoreau,

Maybe. I know that (some) Republicans definately want folks to get and stay married. Much of the rhetoric of some Republicans concerning the tax laws is driven by such concerns at least.

[David T]

On the "good old days" before no-fault divorce:

There was a time when New York would allow divorce only for adultery. Which of course led some couples to agree that one of the spouses should commit adultery and get caught. (Woody Allen's joke about it was, "The Bible says, Thou shalt not commit adultery--but the state of New York says you gotta.")

[joe]

"Gary, if same-sex marriage is so popular in those states, why doesn't the legislature pass a law allowing it?" Um, because they don't have to? Because it's already in place?

Seriously, there were civil union bills filed in the Massachusetts legislature for years before this decision. They passed the Senate, and actually had a majority of the House sign on as sponsors, but they were killed in committee by the anti-marriage House Leadership.

It's funny, I don't think I've ever heard the oh-so-democratic gay bashers complain about that bit of autocratic tyranny. But with the losses in the last election, the old Speaker (Thomas Finneran) has resigned his seat, his crony who headed the committee that repeatedly killed the bill (John Rogers) lost his post, and the legislature is going to refuse to put an anti-gay marriage amendement on the ballot. Because of the results of the last election (in which zero pro-gay legislators lost their elections, while at least on anti-gay rep was defeated in the primaries), it seems that a number of reps who formerly thought they had to vote against gay marriage have realized that, in fact, they can vote their conscience without backlash. Just like in Vermont.

If opposition to gay marriage is so popular, RC, why doesn't the legislature pass a bill outlawing it?

[raymond]

In 2001, Arkansas passed the Covenant Marriage Act. Couples who choose this path are required to agree to pre-marital counselling by a clergyman or a therapist and a two-year "cooling-off" period before a divorce can be granted. The only exceptions are the three As: abuse, abandonment or adultery. Couples hit by one of these qualify immediately for judicial separation, but still have to wait two years for a divorce.
...
The point of covenant marriage is not to make divorce impossible (a couple can always travel to another state and do it there) but to make it harder. In a covenant marriage, a person cannot refuse counselling to save the marriage; that would be in breach of the covenant. (The Economist, 10 Feb 2005)

Covenant brochure

Invitation. (It's already too late.)

curious if folks would support legal enforcement of the monk covenant, though.

Your question is perfectly a propos.

In my opinion, the only legally enFORCEable aspects of a marriage are those which pertain to property. The "matrimony" part of it is an on-going renewed commitment. ( In my opinion, matrimony is a process and not a single act. The "ministers" of the sacrament or matrimony are the spouses, btw. A priest is not necessary. He's just a witness for the Church.)

Insofar as the monk is concerned...

The solemn vow [of poverty] by common law has the following special characteristics: it extends to all property and rights; it renders one incapable of possessing property, and therefore of transferring it; it makes all gifts or legacies which a religious receives, as well as the fruits of his own work, the property of the monastery; and in case property is inherited, the monastery succeeds in place of the professed religious, in accordance with the maxim: Quicquid monachus acquirit monasterio acquirit. Some orders are incapable of inheriting on such occasions, e.g., the Friars Minor Observantines, the Capuchins, and the Society of Jesus. The inheritance then passes to those who would succeed under the civil law in default of the professed religious.
...

The simple vow of poverty has these common characteristics: it leaves the capacity to acquire intact, and permits the religious to retain certain rights of ownership. In exceptional cases the simple vow may involve incapacity, as is characteristic of the last simple vows of the Society of Jesus. ("Poverty" Catholic Encyclopedia)

So, your monk. Vows require regular recommitment and renewal (imo). Sure, a solemn vow is for life. But even solemn vows get renewed. But this is not something the state can interfere with.

Who the property belongs to is a legal matter. If the monk makes a gift of his possessions to the monastery (and the monastic order doesn't hand them over to the Holy See), then they belong to the monastery. (qv, Judge Judy)

(The Latin means: What the monk gets the monastery gets.)

[Pietro Armando]

Is there a reasonable expection on the part of any individual for society and/or government to legally recognize her or her personal adult relationships? If governemt recognizes one is it obligated to recognize others?

[Dave]

So let me get this straight....these people feel so strongly that marriage should be difficult to get out of that they need a law to force them into that position? How about just doing it because you (supposedly) believe in it, not because the government is forcing you?