Reply With Quote
Opponents say covenant marriages are essentially a religious, not a legal, agreement, and states should have no business getting involved in religious agreements.
What do you think of this?
http://www.woai.com/news/local/story...0-b02a9144cb34
Marriage may change here in Texas. That's because a state representative has proposed a law that would allow "covenant marriages." Texas State Rep. Bill Zedler’s bill would allow existing marriages to be converted into covenant marriages.
The idea is to make divorces harder to get. Covenant marriages recognize marriage as a social and moral relationship, instead of just a legal one.
Zelder tells 1200 WOAI News participants in covenant marriages would not be able to utilize 'no fault' divorces currently the law in Texas and other states. To divorce, one of the spouses would have to break one of the "covenants" – which include conviction of a felony, going to prison for a year, being abusive, or cheating.
A covenant marriage would also require a revised marriage oath. It would state, "We declare our intent to contract a covenant marriage. We do hereby declare that our marriage will be bound by Texas law on covenant marriage and we promise to love, honor, and care for one another, as husband and wife, for the rest of our lives."
Covenant marriages would be optional under Zedler's measure, and couples could opt out of covenant marriages and instead enter into a traditional marriage.
Experience in the three states, Arkansas, Arizona, and Louisiana, which currently allow covenant marriages, has indicated that participation in them is limited to between 1% and 3% of total marriages.
Opponents say covenant marriages are essentially a religious, not a legal, agreement, and states should have no business getting involved in religious agreements.
Opponents say covenant marriages are essentially a religious, not a legal, agreement, and states should have no business getting involved in religious agreements.
So the insertion of a "morality" clause changes the sanctioning authority from being governmental to being religious? Interesting.
Why would you want to make it more difficult for people to get out of dysfunctional relationships?? What an idiotic notion!
Covenant marriage would only have value to those people who view the religious and state ins utions of marriage as one and the same.
It might make divorce even easier. Just cheat.
Ah, but the article states that the need for covenant marriages are driven from social and moral influences. Nothing is mentioned about religion, which is the tail that wags the dog to some around here. This seems to be about man being more self aware, recognizing the needs to hold himself to a higher standard of social and moral responsibility.
The only one mentioning religion are the opponents, ironically.
I don't need a special kind of marriage decreed by the state to reinforce my social and moral responsibility to my family.
I don't either, my friend. I already see the vows I took as both a part of my faith and legal obligations. Just being sarcastic about those who foam at the mouth over religious influences.
btw, coming up on 15 years soon and don't regret a minute of it. I just don't get the irreconcilable differences thing. Going to ditch the kids with Grandma in Wyoming and take the Mrs to England for a week.
Why do I get the feeling the sponsor of this bill will be involved in an act that would break "covenant marriage."
I've got a feeling this will allow the "civil union" to come into play, maybe redefined as a lesser degree of marriage. Everyone should mind both edges of this sword, regardless of which side they are on.
I agree with you but why should the state get involved to 'make man more self aware, and the need for him to hold himself to a higher standard?' If it's a symbolic issue then it's just a waste of time and tax payer money. If the issue is more of a legislative one then one must ask what is the limit of the state in regards to legislating behaviour?
dudes an idiot for comin up with this , theres alot of you cant control in life....
No big deal, IMO; after all it's voluntary.
Besides, I'd like to see dudes squirm when their fiance's insist on a "covenant" marriage.
Also, a little surprised at the liberals take on this; that the government ought not have a hand in morality; I thought that's what you people were all about. I mean, the government takes money from people to give to the poor for moral reasons, right - or is it for the stability and betterment of society (which is the stated purpose of this proposal, after all)? What about "hate" crimes; they carry heavier penalties based on a moral judgement, right?
Would it be more accurate to state that society and not government should "legislate" acceptable/non-acceptable behaviors?
Morality is an is an individual issue. One that each person must decide if they are moral. Social programs are designed to assist individuals with the basic necessities. I think we are morally obligated to help other folks. We are not however obligated to make these folks moral people. Now you won't get an argument from if you say there is entirely to much waste and fraud.
I think we do with the current laws we have in place. People who harm society have to pay for their mistakes. When you allow for 'society' legislate acceptable vs unacceptable then you run into problems. How would you define society?
This is so ridiculous, I can't believe some of you are getting sucked in by this. What a sham. Our roads are , crime is bad, and our legislators are busy drawing up a proposal to create a Super-Ultra-Mega-Marriage that's more of a commitment than regular marriage?
Why is the government involved in marriage? What right does government have to give special benefits to two people who enter into a religious agreement, and make rules about who qualifies for these benefits?
Maybe if we weren't allowing a man-made en y like the government to dictate a Religious ins ution, divorce rates would be lower. Just a theory.
The holy-rolling, self-appointed, crusading, sanctimonious do-gooders are trying legislate saving our souls and our morality, and this is just a jerkoff pandering to such a cons utency.
What goes on between a man and women is strictly, "sacredly" between them and absolutely nobody else, especially not the state. Are the sheeple so ing dazed and confused, dumbed down, and lobotomized by the corps and pop culture that they need the state to prop up and enforce their intimate relationships?
Educate the damn kids.
Why say it again when Spurminator has said it so well already?
Is everyone missing the point that it's voluntary? I personally would love another reason to marry my wife and make it harder for us to get divorced. It's not like the law is forcing people who shack up to get married.No big deal, IMO; after all it's voluntary.
But what's the point? Why do you need the Government to hold you accountable for your marriage?
So great, we would have just regular marriages and Super-Ultra-Mega-Marriages. Can you imagine new marriage proposals?
"Will you marry me?"
"Yes. Is it a covenant marriage?"
"Well, I don't want to get THAT married."
"Oh, great, so you want an easy way out if you change your mind?"
"No I just..."
"Oh whatever, just put that cubic zirconia ring on my finger and let's call our parents."
I don't need the government, but based on your argument I never needed to get married in the first place.
Maybe you really do want to destroy the concept of marriage?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
