In a brief post the other day, I made a modest proposal: gay activists should offer a deal to opponents of gay marriage: if you support gay marriage, we’ll support efforts to reduce the divorce rate.
I wanted to unpack this idea a bit. First, some opponents of same sex marriage say their big fear is the slippery slope toward a weakening of the institution of marriage. Gay marriage would lead to polygamy etc. Gays have correctly pointed out that many other factors are far more likely to hurt marriage than same sex unions. Indeed, writers like Andrew Sullivan have persuasively argued that this drive for same sex marriage really assumes a reverence for the institution of marriage, something that ought to be encouraged, not discouraged.
So, my idea challenges gay activists: if it’s true that you revere the institution of marriage, put your energy and clout toward helping to strengthen it in a variety of ways (more on the particulars below).
Then, it challenges anti-gay marriage forces: if you are truly concerned mostly about the future of marriage, here’s a way you can insure that gay marriage will actually strengthen not harm that institution.
Of course what this potential offer would also do is smoke out those gay marriage opponents who have used the sanctity of marriage argument as an excuse for their real motivation, which is to deny gays equal status. And it would smoke out gay activists who are cavalier about the institution of marriage.
What could actually strengthen the institution of marriage? Below the fold I list several policy ideas but symbolically the most dramatic step would be for gay marriage activist to endorse the concept of Covenant Marriage. This is an idea promoted by religious conservatives and usually mocked by folks on the left. The idea was to give couples a choice between two types of marriage licenses, regular and a “Covenant Marriage.” Those who chose the latter would commit to premarital counseling, emphasizing the seriousness of the institution and agreeing to get marital counseling when troubles arise.” Can you imagine if there was a voluntary movement of gays to encourage the idea and indeed for some of them to choose Covenant Marriage for themselves?
Here are some other examples of ideas to preserve marriage included in a book by religious conservatives Tony Perkins and Harry Jackson. Yes, that’s the same Tony Perkins who runs the Family Research Council and opposes gay marriage — but before gay activists reject anything out of his mouth on those grounds consider some of these ideas with open mind. If you didn’t know who was proposing them, wouldn’t you support these ideas?:
Longer Waiting Periods
Lengthening the waiting period, which is the amount of time a couple must wait after filing for divorce or the time they must live separately before filing, is another way states have limited no-fault divorce. Waiting periods are beneficial for three reasons, according to David Blankenhorn of the Institute for American Values: They “encourage reconciliations … affirm the importance of the marriage commitment, without actually denying divorce … [and] are fairer to the spouse who is being left.”
A proposed 2004 Georgia bill would have extended the waiting period from 30 days to 180 days for couples with children (age 18 or younger) and 120 days for couples without children. The bill also required divorcing couples with minor children to attend a minimum of four hours of classes on how divorce affects children.
A proposed 2003 New Hampshire bill would have required a six-month waiting period for parents with minor children and attendance at classes on how to help children deal with divorce.
Premarital Education
Several states have passed premarital education laws in an effort to help couples prepare for marriage and avoid divorce. Florida was the first, with its Marriage Preservation Act of 1998, which gives a discount to couples applying for a marriage license who attend a minimum of four hours of marriage preparation, allowing them to waive the three-day waiting period before the marriage can take place. The premarital course may include topics such as communication skills and may be taught by licensed psychologists, social workers or therapists, as well as clergy.
In 1999, Oklahoma passed similar legislation–reducing the marriage license fee for those who receive premarital education… The Iowa Senate recently passed a bill to increase the waiting period for a marriage license from 3 days to 20 days for couples who decline premarital counseling. In 2002, Michigan considered a bill offering a tax credit of up to $50 to cover the cost of a premarital or marriage education program.
Community Marriage Policies
Marriage Savers, an organization dedicated to strengthening and preserving marriages, has helped 183 cities in 40 states implement Community Marriage Policies (CMPs). CMPs are signed by clergy and judges in a community, who agree to require engaged couples to undergo at least four months of marriage preparation, including a premarital inventory that helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of an engaged couple’s relationship. Both marriage preparation and the premarital inventory are administered by married couples trained as mentors, who meet with engaged couples at least four to six times before the marriage and continue meeting afterwards. Mentoring couples also help couples in troubled marriages and others who want to strengthen their marriage.
A recent study demonstrated the effectiveness of CMPs in reducing divorce rates. Counties that implemented CMPs had an 8.6-percent decline in their divorce rates over four years, compared to a 5.6-percent decline among counties without CMPs. Over seven years, CMP communities will experience a 17.5-percent decline in divorce rates, compared to a 9.4-percent decline in counties with no CMP.
Michigan Mediation Project
Some family courts in Michigan plan to have mediators trained in focused thinking mediation, a highly effective technique that teaches couples how to listen to each other and to resolve conflict, thereby reducing acrimony between spouses. The developer of focused thinking mediation, Stan Posthumus, has successfully used this method on divorced couples in The Third Circuit Court in Wayne County, Michigan. After working with Mr. Posthumus, 40 out of 50 couples who had repeatedly litigated over child custody issues settled their cases out of court, and after one year, only five couples returned to court.
I’m sure there are many other ideas worth considering. (How about making it illegal for 13 year olds to marry?) But the point is that gays who want to get married because they revere the institution of marriage should have no problem endorsing such efforts. And conservatives who really are tolerant but fear for the institution of marriage, should view this as an outstanding deal, recruiting passionate new advocates for key parts of the sanctity-of-marriage agenda.
posted March 8, 2009 at 7:05 pm
This idea may have merit, and certainly is worth investigating. But I have to ask the proponents of Covenant Marriage something.
You make your vows to each other and to God in your church marriage ceremony. You swear before the witnesses, both earthly and Heavenly, to love, honor, and be faithful.
Why is it that you need man’s law to put teeth into these vows before God? Do you not take a vow made before God seriously?
posted March 8, 2009 at 7:09 pm
All these ideas for making couples aware of the seriousness of marrying are worthwhile, if, it is their choice to do any of them. I know two gay couples who married between June and Aug. last year in CA, they had been couples for 15 and 17 yrs. They deserve to be married, because they are couples who have lived together with love and respect all those years, and they wanted to be married and live the way their parents, sisters, brothers, and friends have had the priviledge of doing so. Not because they revere the institution of marriage. My husband and I will be married 56yrs. soon, and we wanted to marry because that is what two people do when you love each other and want to share your lives. It’s so simple people, don’t make it so hard.
posted March 8, 2009 at 7:17 pm
One other area of concern…abuse. In instances of abuse I would see the following as being part and parcel of this:
- training for law enforcement in dealing with claims of abuse and responding to 9/11 calls resulting from abuse
- a judicial bypass option where, if the petitioning party can present credible evidence of abuse, the waiting periods can be waived for the protection of the petitioner and the children
- better enforcement of domestic abuse laws…in too many cases police and judges do not take seriously accusations of abuse, especially when the accuser is male and the alleged abuser is female.
If there is a way to package these reforms in with the idea of covenant marriage, I think I could support it as described here.w
posted March 8, 2009 at 8:46 pm
This is an interesting proposal. My one question is, it seems like you’re assuming that gays will oppose the ideas for preserving marriage that you’ve suggested – why do you think that gays are any more likely than straight people to oppose these? This is in contrast with the very reasonable assumption that conservatives tend to oppose gay marriage. I just don’t like to see conflicts assumed to exist where there don’t have to be any.
posted March 8, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Very interesting proposals. Of course the hate filled, bigoted man who formulated them did not intend them for us, only fr people he approves of.
If there were even the slightest chance this would bear fruit, I’d be all for it. Unfortunately, conservative Christians are not above lying to achieve their goal of continuing to oppress us. They have proved that they may not be trusted.
posted March 8, 2009 at 11:58 pm
“the most dramatic step would be for gay marriage activist to endorse the concept of Covenant Marriage. This is an idea promoted by religious conservatives and usually mocked by folks on the left.”
Steve, I’m as left as it’s possible to be and I have never once “mocked” such an idea. I think it would be terrific if heterosexuals started taking the institution of marriage seriously. They’re called marriage vows for a reason. When my husband and I married,it was in our Church, so those vows were taken before not only my faith community but also before God. We both took (and still take) our covenant relationship very seriously, unlike Britney (55 hours) Spears, Rick Rockwell & Darva Conger’s tv game show prize “marriage”, Mickey Rooney’ eight, etc.
“a minimum of four hours of marriage preparation” (Florida) – oooooooooooo, four whole hours! ‘Magine that!
“The Iowa Senate recently passed a bill to increase the waiting period for a marriage license from 3 days to 20 days for couples who decline premarital counseling.”
and
“require engaged couples to undergo at least four months of marriage preparation”
My husband and I had to “wait” through 19 years of ‘marriage preparation’ to get our license. Amateurs.
“this drive for same-sex marriage really assumes a reverence for the institution”. Well, DUH! Hate to be the one to tell you this, but when Mr. Bush kept yammering about wanting to protect the sanctity of marriage”, clearly he weren’t talkin ’bout us fags. As usual, he was lyin’ thru his teeth. And the fundagelicals lapped it up.
Seriously, Steve, howzabout suggesting that drunk couples who met in the hotel’s elevator can’t get “married” in Las Vegas by Elvis impersonators 2 hours later. Let’s ‘illegalize’ those shining examples of heterosexual marriage, Frankly, the marriages of most gay couples I know were all taken far more seriously than the average het wedding.
Good luck on your mission, though.
And a P.S. Howzabout a clean-up on the other thread? It seems to have been hijacked (90+% of the posts are by Mr. Incredible.
posted March 9, 2009 at 3:23 am
Steve, your proposal is terrible… think Rorty/Macintyre… Public-Private distinction/Social Practices… civil unions for all is a better compromise…
posted March 9, 2009 at 11:23 am
The same gender folks I have talked to about marriage have a far more serious approach than some of the opposite gender couples I have worked with. For many of them it is the result of dealing with oppression and fear. Many of the gay couples are also older and have had experiences that make them both wary and hopeful. I applaud anyone who proposes marriages are more than weddings (that are in turn more than an excuse for a big party).
I begin by working with them through the entire wedding service. No part of it is taken for granted – there are no “plug in ” words. Then we work on composing vows. The vows each couple composes are never all that different from wedding to wedding, but only I and the organist know that. As far as each couple is cincerned, their effort and the product of our conversations is uniquely their own, and my task is to help them celebrate that. By takingthe wedding more seriously, I have learned couple take their marriage more seriously. This also eleminates some of the family interference and keeps my Still Married record over 25 years well above 80 percent (you can’t anticipate every problem).
Though it is still illegal in our little backward Banana Republic, I look forward to the days when I can work with same sex couples on their wedding in anticipation of their marriage.
posted March 9, 2009 at 11:37 am
I agree with MarcM on the need for safeguards against domestic abuse and with yarr on the separation of church (religious marriage as a sacrament) and state (civil marriage as a contract). Otherwise, no quarrel with your proposal, and I can’t imagine same-sex marriage advocates having a problem with any of it. As for the opponents of marriage equality … well, I would love to hear the response of Perkins, et al. My guess is that they will find other reasons to maintain their opposition. They are not going to compromise or seek common ground here. The bigotry is too deeply ingrained, too much a part of their identity.
posted March 9, 2009 at 12:38 pm
“this drive for same sex marriage really assumes a reverence for the institution of marriage, something that ought to be encouraged, not discouraged.”
Kinda puts the words of W. up to the light of truth. His old “protect the sanctity of marriage” mantra always did ring hollow. Every married gay couple I know actually does revere the institution (and most were married in their faith institutions, btw), and we all fought very hard to be allowed to participate in it. I only wish the same thing could be said of 53% of the heterosexual married couples that treat it like dirt.
(Besides, since when are rights doled out based on the “sanctity” of one’s relationship?)
“if it’s true that you revere the institution of marriage, put your energy and clout toward helping to strengthen it in a variety of ways”
“IF”??? Besides, I don’t think any individual (gay OR str8) or couple (gay OR str8) can “strengthen” other people’s marriages. Yes, we can (and DO) support some of your ideas – who says we don’t? (apart from Tony Perkins, etc.) But it is up to the couples entering the institution to start treating it with more reverence. I/we cannot do that for other people.
“if you are truly concerned mostly about the future of marriage, here’s a way you can insure that gay marriage will actually strengthen not harm that institution.”
Again, what’s up with the “IF”? Plus, in what way do our marriages “harm” the institution to begin with? There’s some pretty big assumptions in your post, despite the fact that I know you’re trying to be supportive.
Regarding the longer waiting periods for divorce, I support that with the exception for abuse. I have 2 (heterosexual) sisters who escaped abusive marriages via divorce, and I would not wish anyone to spend 1 more day in such a hate-filled environment, kids or no kids.
Re: premarital education, the Florida example you cite which “gives a discount to couples applying for a marriage license who attend a minimum of four hours of marriage preparation” – ooo, a whole four hours. How about the 19 years of it I and my husband had to go through? And the Iowa example wasn’t much better, “increase the waiting period for a marriage license from 3 days to 20 days for couples who decline premarital counseling”. Even your proposed CMPs that require “engaged couples to undergo at least four months of marriage preparation” pales in comparison to the 52 years that Del Martin and Phyllis Lyons had to wait.
Why not simply make it mandatory? This would eliminate those Las Vegas “weddings” performed by Elvis impersonators to “couples” who met 2 hours ago in the hotel’s elevator while drunk out of their skulls. (Or maybe those could simply be made illegal to begin with.)
“In 2002, Michigan considered a bill offering a tax credit of up to $50 to cover the cost of a premarital or marriage education program.”
Steve, if you’re serious about this topic, why cite a State that only “considered” it? Again, why not make it mandatory? (And I’ll bet that tax credit would not have applied to gay couples. Clearly not, since Michigan won’t even allow same-sex couples joint health insurance – even if it’s supplied by an employer! – or any of the other trappings that might “resemble marriage”.)
“(How about making it illegal for 13 year olds to marry?)”
Yeah, Steve, how about it? I thought you heterosexuals ‘revered’ the ‘sanctity’ of marriage’. Guess Mike Hucklebee was wrong – it isn’t gay marriage that would ‘lead’ to “marrying a child” after all. You heterosexuals already do that – in many States, apparently.
“But the point is that gays who want to get married because they revere the institution of marriage should have no problem endorsing such efforts.”
Most of us don’t ‘have a problem’ with your suggestions, Steve. But clearly the problem is with heterosexuals not taking the institution seriously, not gay couples.
“And conservatives who really are tolerant but fear for the institution of marriage, should view this as an outstanding deal, recruiting passionate new advocates for key parts of the sanctity-of-marriage agenda.”
The trouble with the “sanctity” argument is it has connotations of religiosity. Way too many couples, gay or str8, do not see the institution as “holy” (certainly not church/faith related), which is why so many of them opt to get married by a Justice of the Peace, in City Hall or in a courtroom instead of a religious institution.
Sorry Steve, but even though I support your ideas, it is entirely in the court of heterosexuals to reduce the divorce rate and to take the steps required to strengthen not the “institution”, but their own individual marriages.
An ironic note: last week in the St. Petersburg Times, there was a letter from a Republican touting John McCain as a “fine example of a family man”. How is it that the ‘right’ have such short term memories? They always forget that McCain left his sick wife for a newer, younger, richer ‘trophy’ wife. Sorry, but the ‘right’ is wrong about same-sex marriage.
posted March 9, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Steve,
You may want to go ‘clean up’ that other thread you started on this topic. Seems 26 of the 39 posts are by a “Mr. Incredible”. I think that’s called hijacking the thread, no? (But his moniker is apt – his content is pretty not credible.)
posted March 9, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I commented on the previous post on this topic, but I guess I’ll post again here…I think it’s an excellent idea. I didn’t know anything about “covenant marriages” except that they were backed almost exclusively by figures on the religious right, so I assumed they were only about making it more difficult to get a divorce, which often hurts people in abusive or oppressive relationships. But you know what they say about assumptions. : ) I doubt my home state is looking at covenant marriages anytime soon, but if they do I’ll support them.
I do think it’ll be difficult to get support for this in the mainstream LGBT marriage movement because of the association of covenant marriages with anti-gay groups.
posted March 9, 2009 at 6:11 pm
While I do think that the idea of covenant marriages is swell — I mean, for persons of serious faith the idea is pretty much a given in our own relationships…but I’m wondering why a couple needs the state to be the enforcer of a covenant that the two parties have voluntarily entered into on their own and in many cases with the support of faith communities who share their values. It strikes me as “Pleez, Mister Government Person, stop me before I disrespect my marriage!” I mean…good grief.
posted March 10, 2009 at 9:21 am
==…conservative Christians are not above lying to achieve their goal of continuing to oppress us. ==
Translation: “Conservative Christians don’t agree with me and I’m right and that means they’re lying and trying to oppress me.”
==They have proved that they may not be trusted.==
Translation: “In MY mind, I have turned what they say into lies so that I can say that they cannot be trusted. Pretty neat, huh?”
posted March 10, 2009 at 9:25 am
==I’m wondering why a couple needs the state to be the enforcer of a covenant that the two parties have voluntarily entered into on their own …==
You and your buddy can go to a lawyer and draw up a contract, and I guess you can take a baseball bat and enforce it yourself.
posted March 10, 2009 at 9:27 am
==Seems 26 of the 39 posts are by a “Mr. Incredible”. I think that’s called hijacking the thread, no?==
No. I precluded no one from posting. I merely answered posts, as everybody and I are invited to do.
posted March 10, 2009 at 9:33 am
Y’see, 15 may post one message each.
I am just one person, and, if I post 15 messages to answer them, I haven’t done more than the 15.
Of course, you wanna silence the opposition, and you know that I am hitting the nail on the head.
posted March 11, 2009 at 11:54 am
So, how many posts am I allowed?
Aren’t all posts deserving of an answer? Isn’t THAT what this is all about???
posted March 15, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Mr. Incredible,
Everyone is allowed to post but yes, you are posting too often. Please try to keep your points consolidated into a small number of posts. This will make it less likely that your posts kill conversations — I assume that’s not your goal — and will also be more likley to enable you to persuade people
thank you
posted March 16, 2009 at 4:14 am
==Regarding gay marriage, my faith allows it…==
All faiths allow it:
A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
==… but my government doesn’t.==
Yes, it does. There is no requirement that the man be heterosexual. There is no requirement that the woman be heterosexual. they both may claim to be homosexual.
posted March 16, 2009 at 4:16 am
My mistake. That last post of mine was stuck in clipboard and I accidentally posted it.
posted March 16, 2009 at 4:18 am
==Mr. Incredible,
Everyone is allowed to post but yes…==
Then, there’s no problem. I’m part of everyone.
==… you are posting too often.==
What’s “too often”? Is there a meter on this site?
How is one person supposed to answer 15 others, except he post answers to each?
== Please try to keep your points consolidated into a small number of posts. ==
I must answer what needs answering. Sometimes, it requires one post. Sometimes, it requires more than one. These options are available to all.
==This will make it less likely that your posts kill conversations…==
My posts don’t kill any conversation. Everyone has the same opportunity to post. There are enough electrons for everyone. People, including me, are invited to post. They are invited to answer posts. Each person must make a choice whether to post, based on his perceptions, and other things. I’m not responsible for the choice people make. I can’t force them to post, nor can I force them not to post.
==… — I assume that’s not your goal…==
It is not my goal. However, I can’t force anyone to participate, and, likewise, I can’t force anyone not to participate. They make their own choices. They have the Right to choose. They may blame me for their choosing not to post, but, bottom line, it’s REALLY their choice. They must take responsibility for it.
At the same time, I am tolerant and not blaming anyone for posting, or not posting. They must do, or not do, what they say they feel they must do, or not do. I’m not trying to get anyone to stop posting. They, on the other hand, are not as tolerant as they would have everyone believe.
==… — and will also be more likley to enable you to persuade people…==
I offer arguments in order to persuade. That’s the nature of comments sections of blogs.
What THEY suggest is that I squelch those arguments. I’m not gonna do that. My arguments are what they are. Their arguments are what they are. Tolerance is a two-way street.
posted March 16, 2009 at 4:23 am
== Please try to keep your points consolidated into a small number of posts. ==
There’s a little gizmo, called a “scroll wheel,” on the mouse. All one has to do is scroll past the posts he doesn’t like. Of course, they can’t do that. They must read what I post. That’s okay. That’s all one can ask. They can’t blame me cuz they can’t look away.
posted March 16, 2009 at 4:29 am
==…you are posting too often…==
Of course, you didn’t answer my question.
Again, how many posts am I allowed? Is there a set number? Who sets that number?
Anyone who thinks he’s knowledgeable in this area should be able to answer those questions.
posted March 16, 2009 at 5:09 am
==…you are posting too often…==
I’m one person goin’ up against, say, 15 others, and YOU suggest that I should answer one, maybe two, and let the rest go, is THAT it?
What happens if all 15 would like a response, require a response?
God tells me to answer all. On Judgment Day, God asks me, “Why didn’t you answer all?” What’s my answer, if I accept your suggestion?
My answer, even before a get to that point, is that I will answer all, when necessary, at my convenience cuz we are all invited to comment. I’m no less invited than you, or somebody else. If you choose to answer, say, two of the 15 posts, that’s YOUR decision, based on YOUR standards. Your standards are not my standards. You’re not trying to impose your standards on me, are you?
posted March 16, 2009 at 6:19 pm
Sorry, this is a bit late to be entering the argument. But what the heck.
I’m completely and 100% fine with “Covenant Marriages”. My partner and I have actually already participated in counseling when faced with difficult issues in the past. I would also welcome any assistance we could get prior to marriage to help ensure that it is a success.
Anti-marriage people love to talk about how immoral gays are. no dobt they expect the typical gay wedding to involve an reception and S&M orgy down at the bathhouse, so long as we can fit in the desecration of the cross somewhere. The reality is that we want our relationships to succeed just as much as straight people want theirs to succeed.
The Tony Perkinses and the James Dobsons of the world aren’t interested in building up marriage though. Our very existence is an affront to them. Here’s Focus on the Family’s position:
It deconstructs our understanding of marriage as an institution that solves the paradox of humanity: that we exist in two, male and female, and both need each other . . . and society needs them to need each other. It has no need of same-sex couplings. (Emphasis added)
The attitude could not be more clear. We’re disposable people. The social benefit of encouraging long-term, stable relationships is zero when it comes to us.
So while I sincerely appreciate the suggestion, there’s no way on God’s green earth that Tony Perkins or James Dobson will go for it. They make far too much money and gain far too much influence from roiling the base over gay pride parades to actually encourage responsible behavior.
posted March 16, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Geoff G,
I think you summed things up very well.
This was and is an important thread, I hope you kick started it back to life.
Steven makes these wonderful posts (I don’t always agree with) and then he doesn’t seem to moderate them at all. That is unfortunate, some pruning is necessary or folks turn away.
In the end, the conservative Christians have boxed themselves into a corner. One the one hand, they claim the moral high ground, on the other, their lies and false witness are evil. It won’t be until we accept that there can no compromise with those who profit from hate that we can reach those who are open to God’s word, not the perversions spewed forth by Dobson et al.
posted March 17, 2009 at 12:09 am
==… the conservative Christians have boxed themselves into a corner.==
We have???
Oh, here’s the explanation, I guess:
== One the one hand, they claim the moral high ground, on the other, their lies and false witness are evil.==
Where is the explanation of how conservative Christians have “boxed themselves into a corner”?
posted March 18, 2009 at 11:09 pm
==…some pruning is necessary or folks turn away.==
In other words, people who turn away don’t have the guts to stand up and confront the issues I present, if they need confrontation. So, rather than blame themselves for making the choice to turn away and run, they… well… turn away and run but blame somebody else. Typical, Liberal responsibility shift.
People can come up with any number of excuses to turn away.
Your excuse is that I post too much. Of course, that’s not the REAL reason. The real reason is that what I post is too honest, confident, right and correct and that too many people are seeing it. You would like to control that. You can’t. So you go to “Big Brother” because you can’t handle the content. The best way, in YOUR view, is to limit the number of posts. That way, my content is shoved out of sight sooner. You think, then, that I will go away outta frustration. But no. There are other ways. Heh.
posted April 7, 2009 at 1:57 pm
In the handful of states in which they are available, covenant marriages have been very unpopular (low single digits). Any competent lawyer would counsel a couple to avoid opting for such a marriage. I also suspect that jurisprudence of no-fault divorce would re-emerge if someone in a covenant marriage sued to get out. Prior to no-fault divorce, faithful couples who wanted to end the marriage ended up having to lie about having committed adultery in court to get out of the marriages. No-fault divorce emerged because the fault based system didn’t work well and was judicially difficult to administer.
In any case, I’m confused by the logic of the original post. I really don’t see why gays should sign on to some hair-brained policy ideas like “covenant marriages” to secure their own marriage rights. The core anti-gay marriage folks aren’t going to care in any case; their objections are to homosexuality as such.
posted April 7, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Gay couples have been forced by circumstance into some of the suggestions, waiting for example. And with all the complications, we sure do spend a lot of time thinking about whether to take the legal steps.
I’d certainly support the suggestions. But I suspect there would be major opposition from the groups and individuals who now provide the counseling and preparation services. Will they accept gay couples?
posted April 7, 2009 at 4:40 pm
It’s funny that anyone would doubt that we would object to these things. We have fought so hard, for so long for the simple right to marry the people we love, why would we object to anything that would make heterosexuals have to respect it as much as we do?
My wife and I legally married last July 10th. We have been together 9 years. We finished raising my older two children together and now we share the parenting of my 12 year old son who is being raised to believe that marriage is a serious, lifelong commitment. What child who has seen his parents struggle for the right to be married and the joy with which we celebrate the ability to do so would not grow up to believe in the sanctity of marriage no matter whether he is gay or straight?
Like others here, I laugh at the idea that four hours of counseling represents a benchmark. Four hours? Wow. We spent many more hours than that in counseling to make our relationship better with never a thought that we might end it.
These are easy for us to say yes to because we get how important marriage is but Rod Dreher is already saying it won’t work because we are inherently a threat to marriage.
Jackie
posted April 19, 2009 at 9:33 pm
The number of folks with gay tendencies is high. The next generation may see the sheer number of heterosexual unions decline dramatically. If you are on the fence, we need to see you go toward heterosexuality. Otherwise, too many resources will be tied up trying to “make babies” for you. There is economy in doing it the old fashioned way.
posted April 21, 2009 at 5:11 am
If either side would ever go for it, Mr. Waldman’s idea is a brilliant one.
Ironically, the vicious cycle of backlash and nastiness will continue even longer if we continue to allow the gay marriage issue to be framed by all-or-nothing activists and protesters who dig their trenches deeper each year. This much is clear to me: gays cannot be expected to reverse their orientation any more easily than conservatives can be expected to sit idly while the historic understanding of marriage is redefined.
Calling for a culture war ceasefire would be noble, but also unrealistic without a forum for respectful disagreement and dialogue. As I see it, the only way out of this briar patch is through the thorns. Our best option might be to actually sit down and have a sober conversation about the touchy stuff: sex, religion, fear and anger. Slogans and sound bites won’t work in a thicket this tangled.
posted May 24, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Covenant marriage mostly harms women, as it limits their ability to leave an abusive relationship. It forces them to enter into “counseling” which is notorious for continuing abuse (as abusers are good at playing a counseling system) before just GETTING OUT ALIVE. Have we ever considered whether the high divorce rate isn’t to be solved by making it harder to get married and divorced but instead by teaching basic respect and care of others throughout life? Would divorce be such a bad thing if it was done out of loving agreement that it is the best option for all involved and with an understanding that commitments (to children, mutual support, etc) are not to be neglected? In our society, however, conservatives emphasize rugged individualism, absolute self-reliance, capitalistic greed and selfishness, rejection of difference in others, and strict gender roles, and then they are surprised when divorce is high. GLBT people cannot abide by a return to a world in which women are bound up in such an ownership marriage society.
posted June 2, 2009 at 12:51 am
All I want is the right to be by my partner’s side in the hospital. We had the papers and all the legal documents. The VA went out of their way to be cruel. Our children and I sat outside a door while the sanctimonious nurses said we didn’t have any right to be there, that our papers were not valid in Texas and my partner struggled with her illness in a hospital alone. 2003 Texas
posted July 16, 2009 at 4:44 am
You need the approval of gays for your covenant marriage to be sacrosanct?
LOL
posted September 23, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Dan S.,
“Calling for a culture war ceasefire would be noble, but also unrealistic without a forum for respectful disagreement and dialogue.”
I have seen absolutely ero evidence that the so-called “Christian” ‘right’ are interested in “respectful” – anything. Comparing gay relationships to necrophila, beastiality, “marryin’ a plant” (or a “rock” or a “bicycle”, etc.), child-molestation is not “respectful”. They cannot leave it at “disagreement” – they do not wish to grant gay citizens any of the 1,176 federal benefits that come with marriage. They want our current legal marriages dissolved. They change State Constitutions to prevent gay citizens from ever having anything even “resembling” equality in marriage.
Screw ‘em, say I. And tuff if that isn’t “respectful”. I’ve had it with discrimination. No more Mr. Nice Gay.
posted September 24, 2009 at 10:48 am
Your proposal is an “apple and oranges” defense. Just as “husband” has stated, why seek sanction from those you so obviously dislike?
posted May 25, 2010 at 6:03 pm
I don’t have a problem with allowing more than one form of marriage contract. Today in the United States, marriage largely comes in a single one-size-fits-all kind – a creature of common law and statute that contains a single bundle of state rights, and a single bundle of federal rights (the exception being in those states that currently allow marriage on a gender-neutral basis, where gay and lesbian married couples only get the state bundle of rights, and with DOMA and the many mini-DOMAs, they don’t get the federal rights or interstate portability that opposite-sex married couples get.
For businesses, we do not have a single form of entity – why should marriage contracts be different? The statutory bundle could be the default for two-party marriages.
For a covenant marriage, a higher standard of up-front understanding should be required – a covenant marriage should not be allowed unless it is clear that the parties fully understand the nature and obligations of their mutual commitment. They should also be represented by counsel and be examined by mental health professionals to make absolutely sure that they understand. And the legally binding civil covenants should be entered into in the presence of a judge in a courtroom, to distinguish the legal marriage from any religious sacrament or blessing.
I would think that it should be permissible to permit a childless covenanted couple to terminate their contract and divorce, but the presence of children (including those that are in utero) should seal a covenant irrevocably, or at least until the last child reaches majority.
Of course, with the possibility of different kinds of covenants, one could conceivably find a short slippery slope that would permit some kinds of multiparty marriages, though not the kind practiced by a typical Mormon splinter sect, or even the sort practiced under Islamic Shariah. (The key for any sort of marriage that is not a statutory off-the-shelf rdinary (non-covenant) two-party marriage, including would be for the law to provide for an examination of the parties’ capacity to understand the nature of the covenants, to not be under any form of duress, and to freely and willingly enter into the arrangement.
One way to insure the binding nature of a covenant marriage would be for the law to provide that children, from the time they are born, are beneficiary parties of any covenant marriage.
posted August 9, 2010 at 4:31 pm
The title of your post intrigued me so much I just had to read it. You propose some interesting ideas, but it seems to me that most of them would be rejected by both sides of the argument. However, the fact that gays would seek the institution of marriage is a good point that they do see value in that institution. Either that or they are purposefully seeking to destroy it by the simple fact of wanting to become a part of it.
Your comments about having two types of marriage licenses; one for a covenant marriage and one for a contract marriage is interesting. At least it would force couples to come to an understanding of the meaning of a covenant marriage. That certainly would advance the cause of covenant marriage, in my opinion.
You gave me lots of food for thought. I labor on behalf of covenant marriage with premarital counseling being a key component toward increasing the understanding and keeping of covenant in marriage.
posted August 15, 2010 at 7:16 am
Close Nose,border attractive fall sky lay strong change mark detailed individual increased garden conservative traffic game dangerous declare refer band plan however conflict lunch examination merely other sound exactly will ever hard technique sleep commercial border investigation everybody base few narrow carry strategy citizen weak front later sequence general usually last flight normal neck journey approach sense contract chair secretary knowledge free therefore especially relation similar enemy call significance matter of emphasis screen woman soft academic themselves deliver little along same human window top depend alright acquire consist share program under that anyone
posted August 16, 2010 at 1:58 pm
great post
posted September 2, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Greets
Inga said “what a load of crap!” just for teh sake of irony, but i will refrain.
i cant wait for your next posts.
posted September 2, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Hello
Just wanted to say HI. meself found your site a few days ago on Technorati and meself and have been reading it over the past few days.
Good Bye
posted September 2, 2010 at 7:17 pm
my homie couldnt agree more, myself, but not everyone is as clever as you seem to be. Or as my homie seem to be! HA! :-p
Would you be interested in exchanging blogrolls links with my site?
posted September 3, 2010 at 6:50 pm
yours truly found your site on Google and read a few of your other entires. Nice Stuff. Im looking forward to reading more from you.
Goodbye
posted September 8, 2010 at 6:14 pm
Awesome info! i was honestly just thinking about something similar to this the other day so, it was almost weird when i ran across this. You would be surprised how many people simply have no idea when it comes to this kind of stuff. Anyway, thanks for getting this really tight info out there and i am sure i am not the only one who appreciates you taking the time to post this for the masses.
posted September 11, 2010 at 2:29 pm
Hello You
Every one on internet searches for very good content. Its very unfortunate with most of the websites published posts that are boring and out of context articles, just to show that new material is being published. Contrary to that immoral practice, this article is a very good-written article.
Please email me if you are interested
L8er
posted September 11, 2010 at 2:29 pm
I hope this is a good as your other stuff
Cu
posted September 11, 2010 at 2:30 pm
i like your site and wanted to know if you would be interested in exchanging blogroll links. gracias in advance
posted September 11, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Its not actually my practice to post comments, but i thought i would say that this was nice.
My bro a blog owner too.
Good Bye
posted September 11, 2010 at 2:30 pm
Way cool stuff, will have to try it. By da way, down load link does not work. Can you please help? gracias
Very interesting posts and well written.
posted September 13, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Ive been reading along for a while now.
I have a website aswell.
Goodbye
posted September 13, 2010 at 6:47 pm
Greetings
Hey you came across your page by luck on ask while hunting for something totally irrelevant but you am very glad that you did, You have just captured yourself another subscriber.
Would you be interested in exchanging blogrolls links with my site?
posted September 13, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Hi There
Have you considered writing professionally? Like a periodical or something?
Talk Later
posted September 13, 2010 at 6:49 pm
Awesome info! I was honestly just thinking about something similar to this teh other day so, it was almost weird when I ran across this. You would be surprised how many people simply have no idea when it comes to this kind of stuff. Anyway, thanks for getting this very nice info out there and I am sure I am not teh only one who appreciates you taking teh time to post this for teh masses.
posted September 13, 2010 at 6:50 pm
my homie am not going to be original this time, so all my homie am going to say that your site rocks, sad that I don’t have such writing skills
Cu
posted September 13, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Greets
Well im a newbie just starting so ill let you know
my homie will put your site on my blogroll.
Bye
posted September 13, 2010 at 7:09 pm
I am not going to be original this time, so all I am going to say that your site rocks, sad that I don’t have such writing skills
i discovered your homepage by coincidence.
posted September 13, 2010 at 7:36 pm
Added to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you down dha road!
What do you know about coffee?
Laters
posted September 13, 2010 at 7:37 pm
That was a good reading and informative. You obviously know your stuff!
Goodbye
posted September 13, 2010 at 7:39 pm
Well im a newbie just starting so ill let you know
i look forward to reading more in dha future.
posted September 13, 2010 at 7:41 pm
Yo Bro
You would think that they world have OKd it at teh beginning instead of allowing it to go so long without saying a thing and then bringing it back up when it was too late. my homie dont understand it at all.
Me discovered your homepage by coincidence.
posted September 13, 2010 at 7:42 pm
BTW – Im up to about 100 visitors per day.
Anyway, what do you think about film?
posted September 13, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Good stuff myself will try & get back to you thx
Ciao
posted September 13, 2010 at 7:43 pm
refreshing and very informative. My bro wish there were more blogs like it. Anyway, My bro felt it was about time My bro posted, I
posted September 13, 2010 at 7:47 pm
refreshing and very informative. I wish there were more blogs like it. Anyway, I felt it was about time I posted, I
Good Bye
posted September 26, 2010 at 1:57 am
NOTE: All content on this website is not to be construed or implied as advice of any kind. If you are experiencing marriage difficulties, please consult a licensed therapist near you.
Marriage Counseling Book
http://freeonlinemarriagecounseling.com/
posted October 12, 2011 at 10:25 am
I am unable to thank you enough for the blog posts on your web page. I know you set a lot of time and effort into all of them and really hope you know how considerably I enjoy it. I hope I can do precisely the same for someone else sometime.