I fully support the idea of saving marriages if it's possible and if the relationship should be saved. But the Government has no business there.

A huge problem with this idea is that infidelity and/or abuse would be hard to prove and the last thing a person needs when they're trying to get out of a bad marriage is to have to come up with a indisputable evidence that their spouse is being bad to them. In this 1 year counseling/cooling off time, when the couple is apart, most of the couples will be living as if they were single anyway... leading to more infidelity...

So these Republicans are going to say that same sex couples can't get marries but a woman who's married to some wife-beater has to prove it or stay with the jerk for at least a year until she is allowed to get a divorce?!?!

Umm..I thought Pandora's box referred to Pandora letting all evils out into the world, but preserving hope, which is why one never loses hope. Shouldn't this have a more appropriate term such as a 'can of worms'.

That being said....what a waste of time. Why not make people live together a year before they get married? That might prevent a lot of divorces? Why not make people be engaged for a year? I'm guessing people put a lot more thought into divorce then they do marriage. Making people wait a year will have all kinds of repercussions on delaying purchases (houses, cars) where they do not want to have a soon-to-be ex-spouse on the legal document.

It'd do a lot more to preserve marriage in any state if couples had to get that year of counseling before the wedding, not the divorce. You shouldn't be allowed to get married until you've proven that you can reasonably discuss:

1. Who will be responsible for the household bookkeeping and making sure the bills get paid.
2. Retirement funding plans.
3. If you will have children, how many, and when. (also, if there will be kids, who will stay home with them for how long)
4. What (if any) religious traditions will be practiced in the household.
5. Whether you'll fully commingle funds or maintain separate accounts.
6. Where you'll go for major holidays.
7. How much alone time is too much.
8. The maximum length of time any friend or family member will be invited to stay.
9. How household chores will be divided up.
10. Who is responsible for cleaning up after the pet(s).

Because honestly, barring abuse and infidelity, every relationship breakup I've ever seen comes down to people not having the same expectations about things on that list...

And of all of them, #1 and #7 have tanked the most relationships.

Doug Stanhope on marriage.

NSFW due to language...2 s-words and one hard to hear F-bomb

http://www.rooftopcomedy.com/watch/Would_you_invent_marriage

"State Rep. Anthony Brown, R-Eudora, said his amendment would help preserve marriages and families."

It's not Anthony Brown's job to preserve marriages and families. It is the responsibility of the people involved in the marriage to preserve the marriage and family if they choose to. The government needs to stay out of the bedrooms of private citizens. It's a stupid amendment.

State Rep. Anthony Brown, R-Eudora, said his amendment would help preserve marriages and families.

He forgot the word "bad". His amendment would help preserve BAD marriages. Great. Just great.

I agree with Calliope. The government should stay out of regulating our marriages and bedrooms.

Where are all the pro-gay marriage proponents? They are always yammering about the divorce rate of the breeders. They should be out in full force supporting the efforts to save traditional marriage, since they typically bash the lack of such efforts.

Although the logistics present many problems, saving marriages, especially those with children, is a noble effort. Having the nanny state move into one more area is a scary proposition, however. Best option? Step up and do the right thing – on your own.

What a waste of time! There is no proof that marital separation will help to reconcile the marriage:

http://www.thelaboroflove.com/articles/does-marriage-separation-help/

This amendment is based on Anthony Brown's own religious beliefs.

Not only will I NOT vote for Anthony Brown next election, I will highly campaign for anyone running against him. DO NOT re-elect this person who wastes Kansans' time when we need to be focusing on how to solve the budget deficit.

Well the 'left-wing kids' of Lawrence are again showing their lack of knowledge. A coventant marriage will ONLY be entered into by the most thoughtful and serious of couples. They are the ones that make mariage 'work' today and you would seldom see them in a divorce court. It won't keep anyone in a BAD marriage.

Anthony Brown has more insight into what would help our society than ljw posters. He no doubt has encountered the 'covenant' in some of his experience, and realizes it could benifit those who wish for more in their marriage .

"Well the 'left-wing kids' of Lawrence are again showing their lack of knowledge. A coventant marriage will ONLY be entered into by the most thoughtful and serious of couples. They are the ones that make mariage 'work' today and you would seldom see them in a divorce court. It won't keep anyone in a BAD marriage."

Then why does it need legislation to stipluate requirements to get out of it, or to enter it? Why does it need a govt. hook if the people that would enter it would never leave it? Why does the govt. need to be involved in defining what kind of marriage it is? Contracts like this are only entered if you suspect that the other party, or yourself, won't be able to uphold them and you need a legal lock to force the issue.

This is the exact opposite of what should be expected from a Conservative.

Another way of looking at his issue: the implication of entering into a covenant marriage is that you have every intention of staying married, so the tougher divorce requirements won't be an issue. Consequently, the only reason NOT to enter into a covenant marriage it's because you aren't sure that the marriage will last. Think of the pressure that adds: "Honey, why WOULDN'T you agree to a covenant marriage; don't you love me?"

So, more people are pressured into the covenant variety marriage, which, should it end, means it's harder to get a divorece. Which may be the very reason this idea was proposed. After all, the word "covenant" has Biblical connotations.

The fallacy is that church-based marriages have divorce rates similar to the secular variety. So what we have here is a veiled attempt to inject religion into law with no logical basis.

Unfortunately, I suspect that this may just be a run-up to Brownback theocracy. "Render unto Caesar" will have no place in Kansas then.

If Rep. Brown really thinks that a state-imposed "honorable discharge strategy" will help reduce the number of unhappy marriages that end in divorce, then perhaps he is open to the idea of imposing a "boot camp strategy" that reduces the number of couples whose marriage, if allowed, is likely to fail?

This could be accomplished by passing a law that forces all couples applying for a marriage license to submit documentation proving that they have: 1) lived together intimately for a 12-month period within the same place of residence; 2) went grocery shopping together a minimum of 50 times; 3) had at least two nasty domestic quarrels witnessed by neighbors, and; 4) completed a 12-month long state-certified marriage counseling course.

Only after satisfying these requirements would couples be authorized to marry in the state of Kansas. Sound harsh, even unconstitutionally intrusive? Hey, it would be. But if your idea is to slow down unhappy married drivers so they don't crash the wall at Turn Three, then be consistent and slow down the hot, wild single couples before they go roaring side-by-side into Turn One.

"...amendment would help preserve marriages and families."

This is not only stupid and a waste of time, it places women and kids in danger. Forcing people to stay married will cause abuse to rise and before you know it, someone will die. Like someone said above, if you don't EVER want to get divorced, don't get married.

"I would guess most people will continue to opt for the more loosey goosey bailout marriage license, but many couples would choose to go the covenant route, and knowing that, would go into marriage, understanding that they are in this for the long haul."

So, without the covenant option, you are in essence saying that they weren't going to be in it for the long haul initially?

Can we add the terms nikah and nikah mut'ah to the legislation as well? Or are we only using Christian terms in the legislation?

This would be acceptable if and only if the amout of effort necessary to create one of these covanent marriages is equal to the amout of effort necessary to dissolve one. Letting people enter a covanent marriage does not in and of itself bestow upon them the maturity and strength that may be required to maintain the marriage. If the couple wants one them let them first prove that they understand what they are getting into and that they can handle the responsibility by requiring a longer waiting period between applying for and receiving and marriage license (I think it's currently one week) or requiring a licensed marriage counseler to sign off on it or something along those lines.

My concern is that in relationships where abuse is a problem there is usually a desire on the part of the abuser to manipulate and control the abused. I would worry that an abusive person would be more likely to push for a covanent marriage because it would make it that much harder for the abused spouse to get out of it, and that this abuser would be more likely to succeed in manipulating the abused into going along with it so as not to trigger more abuse. Then a person who has the greatest need to be able to dissolve a marriage would be stuck in a position wheren he or she has to prove to a judge that their spouse was abusive (which is painful and traumatic and probably not that easy to do) instead of simply being able to say "we're incompatible" and getting on with life.

All in all, I am against this law.

ShePrecedes-

Dad's are a very important component to a child's development. Yes, there are father's out there (and mother's) who are not as involved in their child's life and their kids come out fine, but to just state that they aren't needed is a bit extreme and goes against the current published literature.

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/index.cfm Educate yourself before making such claims.

There has been some interesting research done on marriage and divorce. Here is a book (a lot easier to read than a research article) and a link to a website on Marriage by the University of Virginia who has partnered with a few other organizations and does research on marriage and marital issues.

The Unexpected Legacy of Divorce by Judith Wallerstein This is a very interesting analysis done discussing the long term effects of divorce on children. There has been some other interesting research done linking divorce to increased drug use, sexual promiscuity, criminal behavior etc. in adolescences. I'll have to go back to my child psychology textbooks to find the references...I've always found this topic quite interesting.

Here is UVA's website. http://www.stateofourunions.org/ Some of the statistics are quite surprising.

Marriage, Divorce and Parenting all play an important role in our society as a whole.

Choice? Maybe for a most people. But there will be churches that will only do the wedding if it is a covenant marriage. Those people could then get stuck in abusive marriages.

Brown should focus on his own d@m! family!

"""you forget that a vast majority of fathers are parenting children that are not biologically theirs. just heard a researcher in genetics talk about it last night.""""

According to whom? Very skeptical of this I am...

Wow, if you were writing a research paper for me I'd give you an F for not citing your sources.

I will continue to be skeptical, thank you, just like I always am when someone says something outlandish and then refuses to demonstrate that they didn't just make it up.

no, you are not. that's why i said IF.

Yes, a genetic researcher who wants to follow a family's dna should know about the dna of the children, but you refuse to name a researcher, or what percentage of these kids are supposedly being raised by fathers who are not their own, or how big the sample is, or what kind of margin of error there might be for this alleged research.

As for your "slight source" what are you, a sphinx? If you can't be bothered to back up a statement with a tiny little "according to so-and-so" them I'm certainly not going off on some journey for knowledge that may or may not exist. Even if i did find a source that backs up your statement, how am I supposed to know it's the same source you used if you won't tell me what your source was? And supposing I found a source that states the opposite how am I supposed to know whose source is more credible? Sorry if I sound mean, but refusal to cite sources is easily my number one pet peeve, and just because this is an anonymus message board is no real excuse.

What's stupid is I think we're on the same side regarding this bill. I'm against it, and clearly you're against it, but we're arguing over one stupid little unverified fact.

Okay, I know a troll when I encounter one. I'm done.

Awesome! A cat fight, and the dumbass of the day, all in one post.

yeah, I'm talking about you...

Mr. Kealing,

I would sincerely appreciate an explanation on what rule I could have possibly violated with that post to garner removal. Fairly certain there was nothing untoward there, but if so I'd like to not make the same mistake again.

Thank you.

No one is supporting staying in an abusive marriage; not sure how some here are defining an 'unhealthy' marriage. The point is that it's too easy to jump out of the union that each party vowed to remain in under any circumstances (not abuse of course). Too many people bail for trite reasons and leave a trail of destruction in their wake. Not all marriages can work, but I'd wager the vast majority would if people really gave an honest effort in making the lifelong investment in the other person's happiness.

The beginning of the divorce-for-no-good-reason mess can be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan and his signing of the Family Law Act of 1969. For shame.

HomeSlice (anonymous) says… "No one is supporting staying in an abusive marriage; not sure how some here are defining an 'unhealthy' marriage. The point is that it's too easy to jump out of the union that each party vowed to remain in under any circumstances (not abuse of course). Too many people bail for trite reasons and leave a trail of destruction in their wake. Not all marriages can work, but I'd wager the vast majority would if people really gave an honest effort in making the lifelong investment in the other person's happiness.

The beginning of the divorce-for-no-good-reason mess can be laid at the feet of Ronald Reagan and his signing of the Family Law Act of 1969. For shame."

The people who "bail for trite reasons and leave a trail of destruction in their wake" probably had no business being together in the first place. I think the basis of the problem is that there are a lot of stupid people out there getting married for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately, we can't fix stupid, nor should the government try to compensate for the actions of stupid people by proposing an amendment to keep stupid people together.

Calliope877, I understand where you are coming from. It is a Catch-22 these days. Too easy to get married for the wrong reasons as it is so easy to dissolve a marriage for virtually no reason. Perhaps if the 'rules' were more stringent, frivolous marriages would diminish significantly.

Sounds like this effort could benefit from both sides - prevent poorly planned marriages from happening in the first place, and existing, hopefully feasible marriages from failing due to lack of effort. Any marriage with children should deserve special scrutiny with the stakes involved.

Have seen first hand what a failed marriage does to all involved. Few things are more wicked than someone choosing themselves over others. Trail of destruction......indeed.