God, how horrible, let's make a legal assumption that assumes people are going to trash each other like garbage.

I don't find them absurd, but what's the point of getting married? In most vows, it says "til death do you part", but the "license" approach will make it "til the contract terminates". I would think not only would it encourage people to get divorce, it would be so commonplace, that 50% will be a thing of the past.

Let's look at other places in which our society removed the stigma, even small steps. As soon as we removed the stigma attached to being fat, more people grew. As soon as we removed the stigma to being poor and no longer received welfare checks, but EBT cards which can be used pretty much anywhere, more people stayed on welfare longer.

If we remove the stigma to getting divorced, even though it's already being watered down, we will fall into a place where people get married with the change of the seasons. People who would've never thought about it before would do so because inaction (presumptively) would cause the marriage to end and there are quite a few people who just that lazy.

I would instead make an argument to have some standards before getting married. Actual discussions need to take place as well as coming to terms with what the other person said.

Just my two cents

It shouldn't be the role of government to define and license marriage or any other kind of relationship. Why in the hell did anyone ever think it would be a good idea to require a permission slip from the government to get married? The only reason to require a license is to deny it to someone. Let people define their relationships any way they please and form any kind of contract they please. Ain't nobody's business but their own.

Absurd. Why bother getting married for 2 years? Prenumps can eliminate most of the cost of divorce if people would use them.

What Ken R said.

I'm getting married and i am unable to do this without the state lest there was a possibility (very small one) if I died my partner could conceivablely not be awarded full custody of the children. The likelihood was small that it would happen, but I didn't want to take any chances. Had we not gotten pregnant, we would have had a commitment ceremony and have been done with it.

Being "married" with the state is not my cup of tea. I'd prefer to have them out of it altogether. Children or no children. But they certainly do set it up where any choice you make to not participate comes with an extraordinary punitive set of consequences if you chose not to. Especially where children are involved.

And if my soon to be husband and I start making close to the same amount in salary - one of us will have to quit or scale back the hours. Otherwise we will be subjected to a tax penalty without having a disparate income in the relationship.

It's a destructive system if you ask me. I am just glad we are going into it with our eyes wide open. But I'm not thrilled about it. And this has nothing (zero) to do with wanting to be with my husband to be the rest of my life. Nada. I knew that some time ago. This ain't temporary.

And how would the separation of financial lives be any less messy after 20 years with a nonrenewed liscense vs a divorce? You are making quite the argument against having a parent stay home to raise the kids they make. Who would ever make that sacrifice with a 20 year cutoff looming?

The problem is not the marriage license, it's the Sixteenth Amendment:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

That gives the federal government a say as well the state.

Realistically a marriage is not defined by a piece of paper, it is what the people in the relationship feel for each other. The problem is that the piece of paper gives you predefined rights that institutions recognize.

The reason parents who aren't married (even in committed, cohabitating relationships) split up more often than those who do is because they have an out that's easier. You behave differently when that's the case.

"I love you. Let's build a life together ... for the next two years. Then, I'll dump you for some hottie I meet in a bar. But I get the couch and custody of the kid!"

Yeah, removing the aspirational aspect of marriage will work really well.

Yeah, removing the aspirational aspect of marriage will work really well.

We have covenant marriage in my state, which I actually like; it's good to see the Defenders of Traditional Marriage do something pro-active for their cause.

But guess what? The percentage of covenant marriages vs. regular marriages is infinitesimal, even among evangelicals.

People -- even Defenders of Traditional Marriage -- want the option of getting out quickly and cleanly if they choose. This proposed law seems a natural extension of that.

I like what NikkiG said.

Mind you, I am not in favor of some couples staying together just "for the sake of the children." Often times, for some couples, divorce will be better for the children than staying together and screaming at each other.

But, how many people enter marriage without really knowing that it takes work to make a marriage work? Removing the stigma of divorce makes it that much easier to quit when things get tough instead of learning and growing up to be responsible.

Are we turning into a nation of quitters? Do we want to encourage this type of "awe, shucks, this is too hard, let me quit and start over" mentality; especially for an institution such as marriage? With "divorce" as simple as letting the license lapse, how many folks will take this easier route?

I could see someone getting deathly ill, then the marriage license expires, so the healthy spouse then legally walks away without helping the family member who really needs help at such a dire time. That doesn't sound like something we want to encourge. It really makes the "in sickness and in health" part of the marriage vow ring hollow, doesn't it?

Isn't the market already correcting this by fewer people getting hitched? Also, the thing about 'marriage is important for kids' seems like this isn't how people see it regardless of what govt. wants. IIRC marriage is least likely among the less educated, while they are more likely to have children... so it seems decisions have already been made. Evevn the decision not to decide.

I think govt. involvement at all in marriage has put in a set of perverse incentives that are leading it to doom.
IF marriage was a SOCIETAL issue, but the govt. neither punished nor rewarded, then likely more marriage stability would happen, especially WRT children.
The pressure and need to be married in an agreed upon way before having children would be celebrated by society in intangibles, rather than by government and cold hard cash.

In addition, gay marriage would be accepted by communities that they live in, without the forced inposition of 'correct thought' by an all seeing government.

What're the odds the government and people who are entranced by it, would give up the power to pick winners and losers...
Yeah, it'll never happen, even if it's a good idea.

I think that any two people who want to last as a married couple need to remember this (and women, especially, need to remember it): If you end up having kids, Put Your Marriage First.

After all, the vows do NOT say "I will commit myself to you until children do us part." Why should your spouse tolerate it when you do just that? (Of course, babies HAVE to be treated, pretty much, as the center of the universe until age two or so, but all that means is that BOTH spouses need to work on the baby's needs; it does NOT mean that Daddy gets to watch TV and wait for his wife to finish her chores when HE could be doing other chores - and making her happy.)

Another example: John Rosemond said in 2007:

.......A blended-wife/mother recently asked me for an example of what she could do to let her daughter know that her marriage came first.

“The next time your daughter asks you permission to do something,” I said, “tell her that you’ll ask her stepfather about it when he gets home.”

She laughed and said, “That’ll blow her mind.” If so, it’s high time for the blowing to commence......

(Note that he didn't say "every time" just "next time." Besides, as one commentator said: "Being a team doesn't always mean making every decision regarding the kids together (getting a dog, yes, make that one together, but going to a friend's house or a new toy, not so much)- it can also mean just supporting the bioparent.")

And again from John Rosemond, in 2008:

"I don't think parents should be involved with their children. They should be interested and ready to get involved, but involvement should be the exception, not the rule. A HUSBAND AND WIFE SHOULD BE INVOLVED WITH EACH OTHER. And yes, I'm yelling, because all too many of today's parents need to be strapped to chairs and made to listen to a tape loop of the previous sentence blaring over a loudspeaker until they get it."

It takes time, care and vigilence to make truly excellent wine. Isn't it worth it to invest the time and effort, even though, yes, there is a chance it could turn to vinegar in the end?

It takes time, and many caressing hands, for a wooden bannister to take on that rich glow and satin feel that comes from nothing else. Ongoing friction is part of the process. Some scarring is to be expected.

I am eagerly looking forward to my 33rd anniversary. Our three kids are out of college and working -- without student debt. Now we can focus on that distant dream (hallucination?!) of retirement (and maybe grandkids?). My beautiful wife and I have been through ups and downs while both working our fannies off, including her being a SAHM when our kids were small. It has been our struggles together which have made our love deeper now than it has ever been -- and our relationship more valuable.

Quarrels? "Issues"? Sure. So what? When we are at loggerheads, the tie-breaking vote goes to the marriage. Lo and behold, it has never yet voted to self-destruct, taking everyone in our family down along with it!

It is time, many caressing hands, and some inevitable friction that have burnished and hand-polished our marriage to an ever-richer patina. Still, I will never take it, or my loving wife, for granted. You take the time and make the effort to maintain, and when necessary, repair, something which is precious, and which grows more so with every passing year.

My hope is that we make it to our 67th -- which is how many my parents had before Dad passed away this year, leaving a wife, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who loved him, and who flourished in part because of the protective canopy of an enduring marriage.

Re-usable, re-cycleable, disposable. Should that ethos apply to the most intimate, sustaining, and life-giving of human relationships? Do we not want the basic building blocks of society to be durable?

If Big Daddy Gubmint has to be involved, we should be looking at initiatives to discourage divorce rather than encourage it. Unless we WANT an atomized, poorer populace which is so much easier to contol, of course.

Amy, I know you aren't married, but nonetheless, don't your feelings for Gregg become deeper and more nuanced as time passes, even though the initial rush of infatuation may have diminished? Aren't you curious where your relationship has a chance to go if allowed to keep developing with stewards investing in its success, and not focused on failure? Would you really want a "discard by" date hovering death-like over your relationship?

If Big Daddy Gubmint has to be involved, we should be looking at initiatives to discourage divorce rather than encourage it.

Posted by: Jay R at September 30, 2012 12:16 PM
________________________________________

I liked most of your post. However, consider this, from 1993:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-07-06/features/9307060043_1_dear-ann-landers-family-members-parents

Dear Ann Landers: I recently read your column about divorce being too easy to get. I believe that is a mistake. The real problem is that it is too easy to get married.

There are places where people can get married the same day they take their blood tests. I have heard that some states don't even require a blood test. When people are in a hurry, they go across the state line so they don't have to wait.

Why do they do this? Because they are afraid if they don't get married at once, the fish will get away. Well, I have news for them. If love is here to stay, it will be here today, tomorrow, next week, next month or even next year.

If people would take a little more time to get to know each other before they marry, there wouldn't be so many divorces. There should be a law in all states that makes it mandatory to be officially engaged for at least six months. That means couples should apply for a marriage license, and if they are still together six months later, they should be allowed to get married. This would certainly do a lot to knock down the horrendous number of divorces. I am speaking from experience, Ann. If I'd had to wait six months, I would never have married and would have avoided a very nasty divorce.

Learned the Hard Way

Dear Hard Way: The laws vary by state. Some states demand a defined waiting period from the time a marriage license is requested until it is granted. In my opinion, this requirement should be adopted in every state in the union.

It's time for Cridmo's Blog Comment Ratings! for September 30, 2012.

Rather than bore everyone with explication, I'm just going to issue the scores themselves (a scale of one to ten). If anyone has questions or challenges, we can take them up individually; This will save time. Let's get started.


> God, how horrible, let's make a legal assumption
> that assumes people are going to trash each
> other like garbage.

Score: 9.7 / 10

> I would instead make an argument to have some
> standards before getting married.

Score: 9.5 / 10

> It shouldn't be the role of government to
> define and license marriage or any other
> kind of relationship.

Score: 3.4 / 10

> Absurd. Why bother getting married for 2 years?

Score: 9.8 / 10 (1 of 2)

> Prenumps can eliminate most of the cost of divorce
> if people would use them.

Score: 2.1 / 10 (2 of 2)

> I am just glad we are going into it with our eyes
> wide open.

Score: 10 / 10 (Note: the commenter is a adored)

> Who would ever make that sacrifice with a 20 year
> cutoff looming?

Score: 9.7 / 10

> The problem is not the marriage license, it's the
> Sixteenth Amendment

Score: 4.9 / 10

> The reason parents who aren't married (even in
> committed, cohabitating relationships) split up more
> often than those who do is because they have an out

Score: 6.9 / 10

> I suggest that there is a pension plan
> worked out

Score: 2.2 / 10

> removing the aspirational aspect of marriage will
> work really well

Score: 6.4 / 10

> People -- even Defenders of Traditional Marriage --
> want the option of getting out quickly and cleanly
> if they choose.

Score: 8.7 / 10

> Removing the stigma of divorce makes it that
> much easier to quit when things get tough
> instead of learning and growing up to be
> responsible.

Score: 9.3 / 10

> Isn't the market already correcting this
> by fewer people getting hitched?

Score: 1.5 / 10 (1 of 2)

> The pressure and need to be married in an
> agreed upon way before having children would be
> celebrated by society in intangibles, rather
> than by government and cold hard cash

Score: 4.6 / 10 (2 of 2)

> If you end up having kids, Put Your Marriage First.

Score: 9.4 / 10

Any questions, call the office for an appointment.

@ "If people would take a little more time to get to know each other before they marry, there wouldn't be so many divorces."

Lenona,

I agree with you. Some sort of "cooling off" period would be a good idea. "Young, dumb and full of c*m" is not the best reason to walk up the aisle!

Even though my wife and I fell in love at 16, we waited seven years before we were at the stage where our marriage could best thrive (post-education). And, as Catholics, we were required to participate in a formal matrimonial preparation program before we could get married in the church. (Those Catholics, you know, are pretty serious about the "permanent" thing!)

A diversity of opinion about the composition of stable unions.

> The problem is not the marriage license, it's the Sixteenth Amendment

>Score: 4.9 / 10

I object to this rating. I know I shorthanded, but you should know my arguments by now. The federal tax code means that the federal government has a saying in what happens in the individual states. They fed should have absolutely no say in marriage other than Loving which was a Fourteenth amendment issue.

Ok.

Score: 6.2 / 10

Still fails to grapple with the resentment all these people express for government certification of unions in any context, or with their paradoxical demand for adjudication of petty conflicts nonetheless, or with human hearts that yearn for attachment & fidelity: The marketplace of romance is a place that some people don't want to have to revisit.

These "term" marriages are a solution looking for a problem.
In most states the difficulty of getting a divorce is directly proportional to the complexity of the relationship. You both want out and no kids? Pro se paperwork down at the county court house. Kids and financial assets you are battling over? Just like any other contracts case, you can work it out in mediation (with applicable state laws applied) or you can take it in front of the judge and let the lawyers have a large share of any proceeds.
Marriage as an institution is one of those things I dont want the government reading my mind to decide if I am in in for the "right" reasons or want out of it for the wrong reasons. Good relationships, in many cases dont need a piece of paperwork to validate them, and the bad ones are not improved by the contract.
My ethical obligations to my husband would be exactly the same ten years from now, as they are today, even if we divorced next week.

My problem with the "stay together until the kids are in college" model is that if you do it right, the kids going to be blindsided at a really inopportune time. They're already dealing with a major transition as they adjust to leaving their family and home, then suddenly it turns out that the marriage was a sham and they no longer have an intact home to return to. Somehow I imagine the reaction isn't going to be, "Gee, I'm glad mom and dad stuck it out for the graduation pictures" so much as "Why is this happening? Is it my fault? I can't believe they'd do this to me!"

Of course, you could argue that an 18 year old is legally an adult and therefore should suck it up and deal...but if you have that attitude then why bother staying together for the kids in the first place? If you want the best for your children at 5 or 8 or 16 then you should also want the best for them at 18, and dealing with an unexpected divorce while away at school is probably not the best situation for your college freshman.

I'm not sure what the solution is or whether there's ever an ideal time to split up a family, but also I just don't think that waiting until the kids are 18 is always the answer.

Wallerstein says divorce drops the probability of a child receiving financial for college tremendously.

My parents divorced while I was in college. It was not pretty for any of us. And while I had been told dad did not want me to work while in school and that he'd pay my bills (by HIM), after the divorce the tune changed. Somehow he thought he'd "given" my mom (who worked his way through law school) enough that she should pay them. I'll be in debt for a loooong time. Not to mention my concentration ability and therefor grades dropped. And the sheer annoyance of having to visit 2 different places every time I came home for the weekend. There is no good time to divorce when you have kids. A friend of mine who is 40 went through her parents divorcing last year. It was really stressful on her, and she's wa past college.

Yeah, I'm with Isab, here. It's a solution looking for a problem. People who consider marriage disposable are free to dispose of them already, so why make those who actually mean that whole "as long as you both shall live business" fit in a renewal into our lives.

I also don't care for the idea of holding off on divorce til your kid(s) are in college. It's a blindside, and what exactly are you modeling for your kids in the interim? Not a healthy, honest marriage. Those of us whose parents split up in childhood or never really were all that together (like mine) already know the drill with regards to splitting our time and attention between our parents, and switching off with siblings (and our siblings haven't been across the country when the news hit, so we could lean on each other) and have gotten past most of the issues by the time we're getting married and having our own children, so it's peaceful. My parents were as happy as clams at my wedding and with their new spouses (my stepmother and I got to know each other and even become close while I was a teenager---so much that she was there when my kids were born) they've been happy, available grandparents for my kids. And since my husband has no parents, my kids still get four grandparents.

I can't imagine how much it must suck for a twenty-year-old baby-of-the-family to now have to spend Thanksgiving with one or the other for the first time, without a court order. Or how it must feel to plan your wedding while your parents are divorcing, and try to figure out the grandparent thing while the grandparents' divorce wounds are still fresh---it's hard enough to figure out the grandparent dynamic with inlaws, working in dad's brand-new wife or whatever must be insane.

Momof4, I want to say something in defense of your father and the whole college thing. Often divorcing people make the mathamatically incorrect assumption, that their single living costs will be half of what they paid as a couple. It rarely turns out that way. In fact once they split the mortage or move to a rental, the utility costs, the income tax (when you only get to claim dependents every other year) the health insurance, the car insurance, the phone, all remain the same or go down only a little.
Too many women and men I know of have not looked at the expenses they had to pick up again on their own that used to be split, and it has led their mouth to write checks, that their ass could not cash, and still plan for any sort of retirement.
You have got to have some serious issues to want to impoverish the other parent of your children, to leave them for no other reason, than the sex got a little boring.

> it has led their mouth to write checks, that
> their ass could not cash

Can't dew that when you have kids.

> for no other reason, than the sex got a little
> boring.

Verily.

(See also the first response)

My sister and her STBE (Soon To Be Ex) have worked out a deal. The kids stay at home. The parents move.

The kids sleep in the same home and bed every night. Mom spends a week in the house, dad comes in and sleeps in the other room. They usually overlap in separate rooms one night a week in separate rooms.

But the kids have a relatively stable life. Mom and dad don't fight, the kids go to the same school and have the same friends everyday.

I barely remember suggesting it but she liked it.

About the only issue is going to be who owns the house in seven years when the kids are put of school.

>If you become a parent, because of the damage divorce does to kids, you need to stay together while your kids are growing up (at least until they go away to college, or are that age).

So you demand people stay in an abusive marriage for the sake of the kids. I'm sure that will work out great for everyone involved.

This thread is dead, nobody cares anymore, but let me affirm this in this clearest possible terms:

> So you demand people stay in an abusive marriage
> for the sake of the kids. I'm sure that will
> work out great for everyone involved.

The commenter "tax nerd" is a wretched, dim & cowardly fuckhead.

Any questions on this matter can be addressed to the email described below. Thanks.

Also, and this is important, and I know the thread is pretty much dead and this will come up again but it's the first time I've ever thought to put the question in exactly these terms, but I'm certainly going to remember to present the question again next time there's a divorce topic, which shouldn't be too long since divorce is a huge part of our culture nowadays....

Also, how is it that grown men and women can say 'always fighting in front of the kids' like it's a get-out-of-jail free card?

You're grown men and women!

1. You should have had better judgment about the partner with whom you were going to create human life. Excuses are worthless.

2. If you made that mistake and already have kids, you should take control of your behavior and not make family life so brutalizing and distracted. Again, you're the grownups. Excuses are worthless.

As social cohesion becomes less reliable in all other contexts, in commercial affairs and religious (and atheist) practice and in government, divorce seems even MORE repugnant.

Someone, somewhere, has to give a rat's ass for the generations to come... You'd think the parents of the those generations, the people who brought them to this planet, would be poised to offer some leadership.

Resorting to name-calling I see.

There were no qualifyers in Amy's statement, and none I could find in the thread. Maybe I missed them. Sorry if I did.

And too many people have told me I should consider going back to my abusive (including at times physically) soon-to-be-ex wife for the sake of our boys to let this pass.

I made a huge mistake marrying her, no doubt.

> Resorting to name-calling I see.

It's the first stop after sarcasm, Buttercup:

> I'm sure that will work out great for
> everyone involved.

(After that, we put them both together, as in "Buttercup.)

> Maybe I missed them. Sorry if I did.

And sarcasm continues. You've given no evidence of taking responsibility for events, or seeing the effects of your behavior on others. So far it is all, all about you.

> told me I should consider going back to my
> abusive (including at times physically)
> soon-to-be-ex

You've left your sons in the care of a violent woman?

Well, maybe you were just speaking theatrically. But either way, it doesn't sound like you've done much for the kids.

> I made a huge mistake marrying her, no doubt.

So you should be ashamed and reflective, not bitter and aggressive. See how that works?