But be sure both of your names aren't on the mortgage, because if they are that pretty much makes you married under Texas common law.
From my own perspective, I would say that making it more difficult to get a divorce would make people want to get to know each other better before they make the kind of committment marriage is supposed to be.
Would you sign a 30 year mortgage and not read the fine print?
The scenerio you described above is exactly the reason the divorce rate is so high.
"Awww, it. Next!"
My anti-religious stance?Nice give-up. How is my stance anti-religion? Have I suggested anywhere that marriage should be banned?
As for marriage benefits, here's some reading for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States
Last edited by Spurminator; 12-15-2006 at 09:31 AM.
Even the Pakis refuse to enact a law enforcing a sect's morality:
'Taleban law' blocked in Pakistan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6182395.stm
Texas has never been known as a modern, progressive, open-minded state, at least at the state law level.
Right, because a voluntary and inefficacious marriage option is exactly the same as Sharia law.
You're like the Archie Bunker of anti-evangelicals.
"exactly the same as Sharia law."
You said that. I didn't. They both legislate morality or ethics.
Look, if cookoo conservatives want to enter into a new cool-sounding contract marriage, fine.
Its elective, not mandatory. Call me when they try and make it mandatory. Save your outrage for then.
but which police force is going to enforce this "morality pact",
which judicial agent will be competent to judge guilt or innocence of the accused?
what are the penalties for violation? fines? loss of child custody?
can a person judged guilty of violating a pact enter another pact? be a serial pact violator?
What a ing waste of time (not that it's a surprise for TX legislature).
"...waste of time"
I comlpetely agree. But, think about it, sooner or later one of these convenant marriages are going to want a divorice for a reason not warranted under the terms.
The very people who enter into the agreement will be the same people who strike it down (cons utionally). When it does happen (not if), I hope the Texas Supreme Court does the nation a favor and rules to allow the divorice.
Save the US Supreme Court the trouble of stating "uncons uionality".
Covenant marriage is like a dieter putting the cookies on the top shelf. The first party to want out of one of these will definitely be cut free, via lawsuit, rendering the whole thing moot.
I think Fundys should just cut themselves off from society like the Amish, and stop trying to legislate away temptation, ing up life's fun for the rest of us.
Why would God be laughing at an attempt to reinforce the sanc y of marriage? Explain that if you don't mind.
Apparently roughly 2% of people getting married in states that have passed this legislation have taken advantage of it, which means roughly 98% (yeah, I'm good at math) of those getting married don't really care for it. With that percentage of unpopularity it's a huge stretch to think that the lawmaker's legislation is anything more than a personal conviction.
The thought that he's pandering to his cons uents is absurd.
What's the big deal? It's completely voluntary. If you don't like it, don't do it. Other than that, as many have stated
[QUOTE]^^^Arrogance.
Good take.Its elective, not mandatory. Call me when they try and make it mandatory. Save your outrage for then.
It's optional people. OPTIONAL.
Why not three levels of marraige, then? Why not five? It's completely ridiculous. Just get married and stay married. Don't rely on some law to force you to stay together. Just add some extra stuff to your vows.
... optional, and meaningless ... to the state.
This is another example of you holy rollers wanting religious morality forced into Caesar's law.
This just in: there will now be Covenant driver's licenses for those who REALLY want to drive well. No speeding will be tolerated. Your first ticket costs you your license, permanently.
the sister, beating is wrong unless she really deserves it.
I think this is an attempt by the state to stick its nosy ass nose in citizens' private affairs. I think I wouldn't get married in Texas.
It's NOT reinforcing the sanc y of Marriage. It's mocking it. It's saying that Marriage isn't enough of a commitment, you need a special SuperMarriage, and you need the Government to hold you accountable for your commitment.
It's not a big deal at all. If it passes, it passes. I just think it's silly, and it does more to damage the supposed "sanc y" of marriage than a lot of other things Conservatives shudder at.What's the big deal? It's completely voluntary.
It's a goofy sideshow to bait defensive Christian Conservatives and you guys are buying it. As a Christian, I'm embarrassed, but I've seen worse.
[QUOTE]They're vows with either ceremony, so the marriage vow is a mockery?
And you failed to address your observation of why God is up there laughing at someones desire to make a stonger commitment to marriage.
That makes no sense. Seeing how this covenant is entered into strictly by choice, explain how it "damages" the sanc y of marriage.I just think it's silly, and it does more to damage the supposed "sanc y" of marriage than a lot of other things Conservatives shudder at.
Between 1 and 3 percent of couples getting married take advantage of this, and you label that with a "you guys are buying into it?It's a goofy sideshow to bait defensive Christian Conservatives and you guys are buying it.
And please provide the data to support your assertion that "conservative Christians" are the ones taking advantage of this covenant.
Is there really anything in these supervows that couldn't be addressed in a prenuptual agreement?
I think you might have hit on a key ingredient in this issue; prenups have a negative "preparing for the inevitable failed marriage" stigma attached to them where as these supervows provide a more optimistic, romantic way to "bind" your partner.
Maybe, but it sure seems like there could be plenty of problems if only one party wants to be superbound.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote