Oh wow, that's long. Maybe I should hide more of it.
Your silence has compelled me. More hidden now.
You've never heard of covenant marriage before?
I was reading this, but don't quite know what to think:
The British government decided it was "in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom" to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal. Gordon Brown's government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.
Nope. Am I an outlier on that one?
I don't know. It was bandied about quite a lot during the original gay marriage debates. I am sure it has come up here before as well. I don't know if I would expect random person on the street to know about it.
6: Doesn't Louisiana have an option for it? I seem to remember it being a vogue-ish thing in the 90s. I wonder what happens when people who opted for it want to get divorced -- do they sue for the rights everyone else has under the law?
I have never heard of covenant marriages before. They honestly don't sound that creepy to me, certainly not comparied to other right-wing causes.
Louisiana, Arizona, and Arkansas all have covenant marriage laws, apparently.
Do we know for sure what kinds of divorce open to the rest of us are denied to covenant-marriers? Like, if you covenant-marry, are you explicitly saying, "My husband can beat me or cheat on me and I will have no legal recourse"?
Totally gruesome driving while texting PSA from Wales.
They honestly don't sound that creepy to me, certainly not comparied to other right-wing causes.
Maybe I should've said "fucked-up". It's fucked-up to advocate for a policy that would almost certainly keep people in harmful situations for longer periods of time. I'm imagining an abusive marriage, for instance.
The wikipedia entry says "Cause for divorce is typically limited to abuse, a felony with jail time, or adultery; however, these restrictions do not apply if one or both spouses file for divorce in a state that does not recognize covenant marriages."
I am curious about 11 - I've seen it posted all over - but I absolutely do not have the stomach to watch it. Could someone gently give me the gist of it? Is it just "Teenager gets into a super-gory crash because they were texting"?
15: Yup. The texting driver survives, of course, while her two buddies either die or slip into comas, while in another car a toddler yells, "Mommy, Daddy, wake up!" and calm, almost bored-sounding EMTs go through the whole "What's your name? What's your friend's name?" stuff as they cut open the cars to pull out the orphaned kids, the texting driver, etc. Lots of shots of the texting driver's miserable face, covered in blood and mascara, as it dawns on her that her life, from now on, will be one long horrific nightmare of insuperable regret.
Not having read Les Misérables, I can't say whether having the guy read it makes sense, but I wonder what other titles might be suitable. Crime and Punishment? In the Penal Colony? The Stranger?
13: I'm curious whether "abuse" for covenant marriage purposes, incldes verbal/emotional abuse. If so, it sounds like covenant marriage is a fabulous way to ensure really ugly divorces. In Illinois, no-fault has a waivable separation priod (2 years) but you can be done without a waiver in 6 months under mental cruelty. So it becomes a pissing contest. "You want to divorce me? Well I'll drag it out for as long as possible!". "You try to drag this out and I'll make all the nasty shit you pulled part of the trial transcript.". Fun for everyone!
(And if verbal abuse doesn't count, it's just fucking scary.)
yet I remain skeptical the Democrats won't manage to kneecap themselves
I'm completely pessimistic about getting real health care reform. Nevertheless, yesterday I went with M/tch to a health care reform rally and sendoff for Lloyd Doggett, progressive Austin congressman par excellence. Here's M/tch with our sign.
In Arizona "emotional abuse" is grounds as is drug or alcohol abuse.
17:There is a movie that might be appropriate.
I found the sentence given despicably light.
Maybe I should've said "fucked-up".
No, you should have said "it's fucked up," without the hyphen.
I'm sure covenant divorces are a gigantic mess that would have been much cleaner in a less ultimatummy context. I mean, one person has to basically be labelled a gigantic, permanent asshole, which is going to scorch some ground.
Looking at LA's law, it doesn't look terribly different from I'll's non-covenant divorce law. Best I can tell, it just eliminates the ability to waive the waiting period. Not that that's nothing, of course.
23: With nosflow seemingly absent this weekend, it's nice to see someone pick up his ball and run with it.
||
The baby moniter is on, and so I'm eavesdropping on Jammies reading Corduroy to Hawaiian Punch, and I am beside myself with the cuteness.
|>
"Why, here's my button," Corduroy cried. But like all the other buttons on the mattress, it was tied down fast. You silly goose! We don't put books in our mouth!
17:Lord Jim might also be what we are looking for.
The one with Mel Gibson and young Nick Stahl? Man Without a Face. Heaven with Cate Blanchett and Giovanni Ribisi is about guilt, but really strange. This is America, there are a lot of movies and books about driver guilt.
I would look for a work about guilt without redemption. But I'm mean.
We have that book, heebie! Now I'm reminiscing about the cuteness.
Re: 26 -- LA's law, since I can't html: http://www.covenantmarriage.com/article_lou.php
"Maybe WE don't put books in our mouth, but I do!"
I do think that couples that choose covenant marriages may often be slightly more mentally prepared for weathering marital hard times than the average bear. It has the feeling of battening down the hatches before the storm rolls in.
Not having read Les Misérables, I can't say whether having the guy read it makes sense
It makes absolutely no sense. Valjean's crime is to steal bread in order to feed his family, for which is hounded and persecuted. Hard to see the parallel with texting while driving. (Unless, as M/tch points out, he was texting to ask someone to get bread for his family.)
Maybe not. Maybe I'm just seduced by the seeming doggedness of it, on some level. It probably doesn't actually affect the trajectory of the marriage, and just makes it more miserable to try to get out of one that needs getting out of.
I suspect a significant proportion of people who choose covenant marriage are more or less bullied into it by partners,peers, parents. It's the new not-getting-a prenup. How can you refuse to covenant marry -- it's like you're expecting to divorce!
The idea of covenant marriage is particularly galling in light of situations like this.
Maybe I'm just seduced by the seeming doggedness of it, on some level
I'm sure that is the intended message: we will take our covenant marriages *seriously*, unlike those horrible people who just lightly divorce the first time they have a fight!
37: Next step is a required visible tattoo with a distinctive design and the words, "Ask me about my covenant marriage to <insert spouse's name here>" with a unique marriage serial number underneath.
Tatoos can be removed with laser surgey. It's like marriage means nothing to you, JP!
40: Speaking of In the Penal Colony...
Where's will? It seems like the added vitriol necessitated by covenant divorce could be a good thing for divorce lawyers. Amicable settlements are cheap -- bitter litigation is where the real money's at!
Heh. Further to 40-- "Ask me about my covenant marriage to 24601!"
38: Honestly, that's not a fair argument, even though it's the same slimeballs who are preventing meaningful health care and promoting covenant marriage. Health care tragedies need to be addresses by health care reform. Being against a covenant marriage option because it removes a loophole that you need to navigate a failing health care system isn't really an argument against the principle of covenant marriage.
we will take our covenant marriages *seriously*, unlike those horrible people who just lightly divorce the first time they have a fight!
No, unlike those people who divorce after five years of fighting. I'm not saying that I want a covenant marriage, or that it needs to be state-sanctioned, or that it's emotionally healthy to fight for five years. But I know unmarried people who say they'd rather be in a marriage where they are miserable, with the hope of eventually growing out of that period, because Jesus and Christ and blah blah blah. So it's a choice.
I put it in the same category as getting wedding ring tattoos. It's throwing your hat over the fence, and I see the appeal of doing so.
because Jesus and Christ and blah blah blah
They already have the option to define their own covenant in a church wedding. Covenants in civil marriage seem to be about controlling other people.
49: How is it controlling other people? Why can't it be available to secular types?
50: Because I'm inclined to agree with Di in 37, and I can't see any rationale for making it a state matter. Against divorce? Don't get one. And if you need a contractual framework to make it harder to divorce, then write your terms into a pre-nup.
49: Exactly. In The Church, I'm still married. Fortunately, in The World, I'm not.
So it's controlling other people because it's unrealistic about how people in a marriage grow and change, and so it's not giving your future self full reign over your life?
No, it's controlling people because it is a law that imposes legal limitations on people.
And a law that exists only as a bit of Christian evangelical one upsmanship -- not so much even about how those whose choose such marriage want to live their lives, but a swipe at those who don't choose it.
We let people make terrible, permanent decisions that are very tough to undo all the freaking time. The argument that you can get peer-pressured into it doesn't seem that compelling. You can get peer-pressured into having a kid. You can get peer-pressured into a polyamorous situation, or an open marriage, and yet I believe that some people do these in a healthy way, and I'd be okay if they were legally recognized.
This seems more like "legally enforced" than "legally recognized."
55: But it's not controlling anyone who doesn't opt in. Granted, I'm sure people opt in under duress, which I think is what bothers you guys. But that's what I was trying to address in 57.
58: True. That is a valid point. This restricts your future freedoms.
And a law that exists only as a bit of Christian evangelical one upsmanship
I think this is what you guys don't like. And I don't like that part at all, either. But I feel like the eXtreme Xtianity is coloring your opinion of the practice.
This may be one of the arguments where later on I wonder what the hell I was arguing so strenuously for. I certainly feel disconnected from the point I'm trying to make.
They invented the practice. It exists only because of their contempt for current marriage law. I'm not should why that should be separated.
I think this is what you guys don't like. And I don't like that part at all, either. But I feel like the eXtreme Xtianity is coloring your opinion of the practice.
It's not that it comes from a position of eXtreme Xtianity, it's that it has no other reason to exist than as a gesture of one-upsmanship.
52
... And if you need a contractual framework to make it harder to divorce, then write your terms into a pre-nup.
You can't waive grounds for a divorce in a prenup.
54: No, it's controlling other people because it provides a broad legal apparatus for limiting the options of the weaker party in a relationship. A person could still be bullied into a pre-nup offering the same terms, certainly, but on an individual basis rather than according to state law.
On preview, pwned by Di because I was reading that stupid LA law (not to be confused with LA Law, which was also stupid).
Can any of our lawyers comment on the enforceability of the terms of covenant marriage? It seems to me that if someone chose it and yet decided that they wanted to be divorced NOW that they might claim that they were entitled to the same laws of divorce as anyone else.
I certainly feel disconnected from the point I'm trying to make.
Is the point you're trying to make that people really do get covenant marriages out of genuine commitment? Like, because they really do believe in God-endorsed Marriage, capital M, and it's condescending to pan that? Honest question.
"Covenant marriage" squicks me because I've seen too many painful divorces in which the situation was actually really complex and having to nail down fault or cause makes things incredibly bitter, but one thing I'll say about it is that at least in the attempt to stop "frivolous divorces" (which I don't think are the problem, just as I don't believe "frivolous abortions" are the problem) there is at least a nod at the front end of the problem, in that there's pre-marital counseling and stuff. It has more integrity than just foaming at the mouth about divorces. But, with divorce and abortion, I can't understand why taking something that already has the potential to be unbelievably painful and difficult for the parties involved and adding to it a lot of legal restrictions out of some moral fervor does anyone any good.
You can't waive grounds for a divorce in a prenup.
Fine, I stand corrected. Then don't get married.
Nah, I consider myself Christian and support people's right to make choices consistent with those beliefs. If, today, a wife wants to submit to her husband and chooses to reject the idea of divorce as anathema to her faith, I support that. I don't like making it into law, even if she freely opted in.
71: Right. If you want to vow to your spouse and your community that you're not going to divorce, great! Go ahead! Why try to make some kind of opt-in law that punishes you in addition? Your vow to God wasn't enough?
Is the point you're trying to make that people really do get covenant marriages out of genuine commitment? Like, because they really do believe in God-endorsed Marriage, capital M, and it's condescending to pan that? Honest question.
No...I think my point is that there's a kind of jumping-off-a-cliff-ness to it, point-of-no-return, that kind of appeals to me. It's like agreeing to be locked in a room, and then signing onto the option where the room is submerged in the bottom of the sea. Now there is really no getting out of the room. It's got a kind of nutty freakiness of which I see the appeal.
4: I'm eager for OFE, Nattar and ajay to wake up and remind me of how the unblemished jewel of Scottish justice was profaned by the tawdry political meddling of the U.S. State Department.
Except, that's not the Scottish Executive: it's the British Government. And in fact, the Scottish Executive made it very clear that they were not going to play along, no matter what Westminster wanted. So, yeah, not really anything to do with Edinburgh.
If anything, this makes the SNP look better; oil money to left, vengeance to the right, and they manage to do the right thing none the less. At the moment, I'd feel very much like voting for independence if I lived in Scotland.
And yes, I personally am Not Happy with the Foreign Office and Labour for this. Political interference with the justice system is not OK.
Even a prenup would only be between you and your spouse -- s/he'd be the only one who could enforce it. Covenant marriage means that even if you both agreed the marriage was a huge mistake, the Government could hold you to the terms of the covenant marriage. The idea that you can't waive grounds for divorce sounds right (though I don't know), but the Covenant Marriage law in LA doesn't seem to eliminate grounds, just subject them to a waiting period (living separate and apart for two years is an independent ground). I can imagine a prenup could require the counseling/cooling off terms. Seriously, where's Will?
Gah. I'm firmly in the "why does the government need to recognize this" camp.
Speaking of marital law nuttery, can we take adultery laws off the books already? Seriously, people get ticked off during divorces and call the cops thinking they are going to get a spouse arrested for screwing around.
I don't think there's much ignorance among Baucus' constituents, at least among those who care enough about the issue to be paying attention. Anyway, a lot more attention right now is being paid to our congressman, who was injured in a boat accident over the weekend.
I never thought you could get injured on a boat, motherfucker!
On Flathead Lake, no less. There seems to have been drinking. No word yet on whether there was singing.
80: I read somewhere he was in pretty bad shape. Regardless, as a human, I hope he pulls through.
I think Rehberg is OK, but one of his staffers isn't. The boat was being driven by a 'tough on crime' Republican state senator. Of course one hopes everyone recovers. And maybe gets a chance to reflect on what their situations would be without health insurance.
http://www.missoulian.com/news/local/article_5099aa84-95a8-11de-a38f-001cc4c03286.html
Two staffers.
Oh man, the severe cognitive dissonance involved in advocating "character education programs in public schools to teach 'traditional Judeo-Christian values' and other principles that he thought many youths were not learning in their homes" at the same time as "less government encroachment on parental authority" would be funny if it weren't actually somehow electable. "I want Caesar teaching my kids values, I just don't want him telling me how to raise my kids. What part of that don't you understand?"
Also, I think 61 gets it exactly right.
re: 85
Heh, there've been rumours right since the start that the UK government had indicated to the Scottish government that they wouln't stand in their way, etc. The Scottish justice secretary, afaik, still denies that was a factor, though.
Fuether to 85, the prisoner exchange detail discussed in the leaked letters was discussed 2 years ago and under quite different terms from the current release. I suppose it depends whether you believe MacAskill, or not.
And also, iirc, far from your 'tawdry meddling/unblemished jewell' snark neither OFE or myself thought there was a problem with the US government expressing their opinion. We just thought the Scottish administration was perfectly entitled to ignore them.
Which was probably excessive, but as a rule, US politicians pontificating about justice are both wrong and hypocritical, which tends to rub me up the wrong way.
Divorce is so easy now that Covenant marriage is necessary? Right. Ask any divorced person about how easy it was.
McDonnell is wacked. He was also the guy who thought a judge should be removed from the bench bc, as a lesbian, she was certainly violating our then-law against sodomy.
How can this guy have a lead in VA?!?!?!?!
Also, covenant marriage does not mean that people dont separate, just that they cant get divorced. Which, of course, means that they cant get remarried.
So your spouse can leave you or you can leave your spouse any time they want.
92 is sort of what I was musing, later on, in my head. You'd still separate, you'd just be undivorceable. Then later on people would still shack up with new people and the whole thing would be delightfully sinful.
Also, often there is a fault provision that would allow for a divorce.
So this is what lawyer-client conversations will look like:
client: "we dont hate each other. we just want to get divorced."
lawyer: "I cant help you unless you go out and have sex with someone else and give your wife (husband) proof of the adultery. Maybe a video? Or a picture? Or even an explicit letter or email? Or one of you can hit the other."
94: Well, it'd at least be very early twentieth century Britishly traditional -- people going on weekend trips with random members of the opposite sex so as to provide divorce evidence.
93: No, it's the so-called "Irish divorce" and there's nothing delightful about it. (I knew people who grew up in such families.)
92: which, of course, means no legal division of property. Or custody. And you are still on the hook for various debts your spouse racks up. Informal separation sounds like a total blast --especially if you are lucky enough to be the vulnerable partner.
95:
I'll need to open up a side business, offering weekend-time services. Any volunteers?
97:
Di hits the nail on the head. You cant force a sale of the house. So, no pulling out the equity to pay off debt or buy a new place.
If you are married to someone racking up huge debt, you are screwed.
94.last: Does this differ substantially from the situation in most states before the advent of "no fault" divorce (which seems to have swept most of the country from 1969 to the early '80s)?
100: IIRC, that was why the Vegas divorce existed. Nevada had a no-fault? Or at least very low standard for divorce, so people would go to Vegas, wait the month or two needed to establish residency, get divorced and go home.
Might have been other loose states, but Nevada is the one I know about from fiction.
NY still doesn't have no-fault -- you want a non-ugly, consensual divorce, you need to move out, wait a year, and plead abandonment.
101: I love those movies where elegant NY women head off to "Divorce Ranches" for 6 weeks to await their paperwork.
oudemia,
Will you come teach a short course at my Divorce Ranch?
m/tch can help with the garden, just keep Sir Kraab/Wrongshore and their unionizing-selves away from it.
103: Will Will's proposed Divorce Ranch be a more successful project than Will's proposed Co-op? Am I dooming Unfogged's song-recording side project if I mention that it seems to be continuing, if not exactly apace? Important questions, these.
Maybe it would have been more successful if I had called it a co-op, and not a cult.
I suppose I am too happily married to get to come cook at the Divorce Ranch.
You can both come! Ill buy heirloom beans! Come teach me how to cook them.
The great thing about covenant marriage is that it ups the appeal of murder relative to divorce. I'm snarking, but I'm willing to bet that there are enough marginal cases that the murder vs. divorce rates for covenant marriage will be tilted in favor of murder compared to regular old "we don't really love each other all that much" marriage.
Murder and divorce really aren't perfect substitutes even in plain old regular marriage.
Also - the texting killer ought to be doing at least five years. It's not like there was some big mystery about the risk he was taking, or the fact that he was endangering other people's lives.
94
So this is what lawyer-client conversations will look like:
client: "we dont hate each other. we just want to get divorced."
lawyer: "I cant help you unless you go out and have sex with someone else and give your wife (husband) proof of the adultery. Maybe a video? Or a picture? Or even an explicit letter or email? Or one of you can hit the other."
In Arizona mutual agreement is grounds.
The spouses both agree to a divorce.
110
Also - the texting killer ought to be doing at least five years. It's not like there was some big mystery about the risk he was taking, or the fact that he was endangering other people's lives.
So how much time should Kennedy have got?
112: Don't be dense, Shearer. John wasn't driving. He was in the back seat. So I don't think there's any way it could be construed as his fault.
He always found it hard to take her
She wouldn't listen to advice
And though he never tried to make her
She often thought it would be nice
Oh, and now she's headin' out to California
It's been a long time comin' but she's feeling like a woman tonight
And she left a little letter said she's gonna make astop in Nevada
Goodbye
Goodbye
