Topeka — A proposal to establish “convenant marriage” in Kansas was stripped out of a bill on Wednesday by a majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
House Bill 2667 started out as a bill to re-organize various statutes. But when it was approved in the House, an amendment was added to provide for optional covenant marriages, which would make it more difficult to end a marriage by doing away with no-fault divorce.
Under a covenant marriage, couples could only divorce after undergoing marriage counseling and living apart for one year. A divorce could also be granted in cases of infidelity, domestic abuse, or if a spouse was convicted of a serious crime.
But legal groups and women’s rights groups said covenant marriages could increase the potential for domestic abuse.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
OldEnuf2BYurDad (anonymous) says…
"But legal groups and women’s rights groups said covenant marriages could increase the potential for domestic abuse."
So, is the arguement that some would resort to battery in order to fast-track an otherwise lengthy process? Surely that's not what they are afraid of... is it?
ksjayhawk74 (anonymous) says…
No, the concern is that when someone is in an abusive relationship, they need to be able to get out of it. Ending an abusive relationship can be hard enough without having the Government make someone stay in a relationship for a year until they are allowed out.
The "covenant" marriage would allow someone out early only in the case of infidelity or abuse, however both of those are hard to prove. The last thing someone who is being abused needs to worry about is proving the abuse to some court.
Calliope877 (anonymous) says…
Good!
It was a dumb idea.
ShePrecedes (anonymous) says…
"The "covenant" marriage would allow someone out early..."
This "would allow" statement is highly alarming!! In a country founded on strong individual freedoms, the premise of minimal government and a magnificentm, profound Bill of Rights, "would allow" is totally unconstitutional.
EyeonKansas (anonymous) says…
This was a stupid thing to add in the begining and a WASTE of time, money, and effort in a financial climate that we have. The Covenant Marriage was optional, cost additional money, and cost additional money to end... especially when you consider it required marriage counseling and still being legally married while living apart. WHY would anyone opt to have this???? I know of several people who's divorce took MONTHS to end and during that time the other spouse racked up additional debt that was considered "joint" because they were legally married at the time although separated. It was stupid. The legislator that added it in should seriously reconsider whether he is doing a good job for his constituents in these economic times. He should have spent more time figuring out how to save the state money rather than costing more to print his stupid idea and then wasting other legislators time in getting the stupid idea removed so more serious items could be considered.
jrlii (anonymous) says…
As I understand it, it is routine to apply for a restraining order tor prevent addition of debt or disposing of major assets in divorce proceedings. . . At least my lawyer did so.
Ludus (anonymous) says…
Still made it too far, we are fortunate it stopped when it did. However, I'm sure it will come to the floor again and again in the future.
rbwaa (anonymous) says…
hopefully, sanity will prevail if it does come up again
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
I can't wait to see what those goofy Ks. legislators come up with next! Maybe they should work on a ban on cow tipping.
xbusguy (chris Ogle) says…
Just ban marriage and be done with it.
KSManimal (anonymous) says…
Consider how stupid the average person is, then remember that half the people are stupider than that.....
This is the kind of nonsense we have to endure in order to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people - some folks in government can't see past their own narrow, self-righteous agenda; nor do they care. They're just posturing to show the conservative base how "pro-marriage" they are.
Want to protect marriage? Based on what we see in the news, the best way to do that is ban politicians and pro athletes from saying "I do".
none2 (anonymous) says…
Perhaps when Kansas couples think about the future maybe their top conversation is not health care, not jobs, not taxes, not their children's education, not their aging parents, not their own retirement; but whether they should spice up their relationship by renewing their vows with a covenant option and helping their fellow Kansan by having a reception with lots of sugar sodas and drinks and turning in texters they see as they drive to their second honeymoon..
blue73harley (anonymous) says…
I think most recently failed marriages were because of a lack of K-2 and novelty lighters.