Getting divorced and getting married in Utah both may require some class time.

Rep. Jim Nielson, R-Bountiful, is sponsoring HB 290, which would require a couple with one or more minor children to take a divorce orientation course.

Rep. Dixon Pitcher, R-Ogden, is sponsoring a bill, which has not received a number yet, that would require couples seeking a marriage license to get at least three hours of premarital counseling. ...

Nielson's bill requires the person who wants to file for a divorce to take a divorce orientation course before the divorce is filed. The respondent in the divorce would have to take the course within 30 days of the case being filed.

Currently the law requires a couple to take a divorce orientation course as long as it is completed before the divorce is finalized.

Nielson said moving the requirement up to the front of the divorce proceedings allows couples to know what their options are before it is too late.

The course is required only for those who have minor children living in the home, Nielson said.

It also would restore a 90-day waiting period for a divorce to be finalized. Currently, the waiting period can be waived if the couple shows proof they have taken the course.

A person is exempt from taking the course before filing for divorce if they can show proof of domestic violence, according to the bill. Also a couple that takes the courses, gets back together and then decides to go forward with their divorced, will not have to take the course a second time.

Labels: children, divorce, divorce reform, Marriage, marriage counseling, parenting, Utah

VOTE

This past week marked the opening of Colorado's current legislative session and Sen. Kevin Lundberg, R-Berthoud, announced that he has decided not to introduce a bill that would have required parents considering divorce with minor children to attend mandatory training on the impacts of divorce on children. The bill would also have introduced a waiting period before filing for divorce.

I applaud Lundberg's decision; legislation of this nature is problematic on many levels.

At the highest level is the clear implication that children are always better raised within a marriage than by divorced parents -- a presumption that is not surprising given that Lundberg says he got the idea for the bill from a presentation by a member of the Coalition for Divorce Reform at a legislative conference for socially conservative lawmakers. But it's not a notion I support. Marriages, just as divorces are not all equal.

I do believe that generally children do best when their parents are actively involved, but marriage is not predictor of the level of involvement and I've seen many examples of where the level of engagement has actually increased following divorce.

While Lundberg's proposed legislation would have granted exceptions for physical abuse, drug and alcohol addictions, and long term incarceration of a spouse, there are many other situations which are just as qualified: a gay spouse, multiple infidelities, pornography or gambling addictions, sexual problems for which the spouse refuses to seek treatment, financial abuse, and even several rounds of couples counseling. The list goes on.

Labels: Coalition for Divorce Reform, Colorado, divorce, divorce reform, Marriage, marriage counseling

VOTE

Can a love letter written in the height of newlywed bliss save a marriage down the road?

The Chinese government hopes so, and it’s betting a national campaign on it in hopes of stemming the populous country’s rising divorce rates.

Under the “China Post” program, newlywed couples can drop off sealed love letters to each other in one of China’s state-run post offices, and the government will deliver the letters back to them seven years after their wedding day.

The idea was the brainchild of Beijing post office branch manager Sun Buxin, who thought that reminding couples at the “seven-year-itch” mark of why they fell in love in the first place would be the extra spark needed to stay together, and away from divorce court.

Divorce rates in Beijing alone have grown from 11,582 in 2004 to 21,013 last year, according to Chinese government data. Nationwide in China, a total of 1.96 million couples applied for divorce, up 14.5 percent from 2009. ...

In case a handwritten note is not enough, China has extended its marriage-saving mission to the courts as well. Courts there last month changed the country’s marriage law to ensure that property bought by the groom before the marriage would not be shared in the event of the divorce, a move they hoped would entrench the institution.

Labels: China, divorce, divorce reform, economics, Marriage

VOTE

Former Georgia Chief Justice Leah Sears (on the short list for Obama appointments to the Supreme Court) and family relations scholar Professor William Doherty have teamed up to produce with what they call, without irony, a modest proposal to reduce “unnecessary divorce”: the Second Chances Act.

The Second Chances Act is a brilliant piece of work by two of the nation’s leading pro-marriage liberals. (Full disclosure: The authors kindly give me far more credit than I am due by including me in a list of people to be thanked for “contributions,” which in my case consisted of attending one meeting in which an early draft of the report and the legislation was presented.)

The Second Chances Act proposes new model legislation that includes a one-year waiting period for divorce, along with a requirement that parents of minor children considering divorce take a short online divorced parenting education course, which would include information on reconciliation. Spouses could trigger the one-year waiting period without actually filing for divorce by sending their mates a formal letter of notice. These requirements would be waived in cases of domestic violence.

Now, some might ask, “Unnecessary divorce? What’s that?”

The genesis of the Second Chances Act was Minnesota Judge Bruce Peterson’s observation that at least some of the people he was seeing in his court looked like they needed a “rest stop” on the “divorce superhighway.” “When Judge Peterson looked at his own court system, widely acknowledged as a progressive one,” Sears and Doherty write, “he saw attempts to meet nearly every need of divorcing couples—legal and financial assistance, protection orders, parenting education, and more—except for reconciliation.”

The assumption of the entire legal system is that by the time a person files for divorce, the marriage is already dead. Amazingly, no one really even asked how many people filing for divorce would be interested in reconciliation.

So Doherty teamed up with colleagues to do some groundbreaking and original research, testing that assumption.

What they found shocked the family law community: “New research shows that about 40 percent of U.S. couples already well into the divorce process say that one or both of them are interested in the possibility of reconciliation.” In about 10 percent of divorces, both the husband and the wife are interested in reconciliation (likely unbeknownst to either of them).

Labels: children, divorce, divorce reform, government interest in marriage, Marriage, marriage counseling, mental health, Second Chances Act

VOTE

Conventional wisdom holds that about half of U.S. marriages end in divorce — and that most Americans wish the divorce rate were lower. Still, many are skeptical about whether we can lower the divorce rate without trapping more people in bad marriages.

This skepticism is fueled by two common assumptions: Divorce happens only after a long process of misery and conflict; and, once couples file for divorce, they don’t entertain the idea of reconciling.

We now know those assumptions are wrong.

Research over the past decade has shown that a major share of divorces (50 to 66 percent, depending on the study) occur between couples who had average happiness and low levels of conflict in the years before the divorce.

Contrary to popular belief, only a minority of divorcing couples experience high conflict and abuse during their marriages. Most divorces occur with couples who have drifted apart and handle everyday disagreements poorly. It is these “average” divorces that research shows are the most harmful to children. ...

William J. Doherty and his team of researchers asked 2,500 divorcing parents in Minnesota who were well along in that process whether they were interested in services to help them reconcile. In at least 10 percent of these divorce cases, both spouses were open to efforts to reconcile — and in another 30 percent, one spouse was interested in reconciliation. Results for couples earlier in the divorce process were even more promising.

In other words, a substantial number of today’s divorces may be preventable. ...

We propose a modest reform that U.S. state legislatures can enact: the Second Chances Act, which combines a minimum, one-year waiting period for divorce with education about the option of reconciliation.

Labels: divorce, divorce reform, Marriage, marriage counseling

VOTE

It turns out that divorce may not be "the end" for many couples after all.

According to one new study, a significant number of divorcing parents were open to saving their marriage and would even try professional reconciliation services -- despite having already filed for divorce.

The report, released in late September, surveyed nearly 2,500 divorcing couples with children. Participants were asked, "Even at this point, do you think your divorce could be prevented if one or both of you works hard to save the marriage?" They were also asked to respond "yes," "no" or "maybe" to the following statement: "If the court offered a reconciliation service, I would seriously consider trying it."

The findings were surprising: either one or both partners in about 45 percent of couples indicated that they still had hope for the marriage as well as a possible interest in reconciliation. Overall, men were more likely to say that their marriage could be saved and were more willing to try a professional reconciliation service.

The study's conclusions lay the groundwork for a legislative proposal aimed to reduce the number of "unnecessary" divorces in the U.S. "The Second Chances Act," published Friday by the Institute of American Values (a conservative organization designed to "strengthen families"), proposes a one-year waiting period for divorce and mandatory education about reconciliation for couples with minor children.

We asked William J. Doherty, a family social science professor at the University of Minnesota and the study's lead researcher, to help us get a better understanding of these findings. ...

HP: Among those surveyed, 54 percent indicated that they had received marriage counseling. Did you see any connection between those with counseling to those who believed that their marriage could possibly be saved?

WD: No, that was one of the interesting things. We looked at predictors of who might be interested in reconciliation services...and whether they had marriage counseling or not did not matter.

HP: Overall, what does your research tells about the divorce process?

WD: There's a lot more ambivalence about "following through" on the divorce than anyone of us realized. The outsider's perspective is that when people decide to get divorced and contact the lawyer and so on--it's over. We all line up accordingly. The marriage counselors decide to do divorce counseling, and the family members say things they never said before about your spouse. But inside a marriage, there is a lot more ambivalence and volatility.

Labels: divorce, divorce reform, Marriage, marriage counseling, men, women

VOTE

Now that government belt-tightening has become a national obsession, divorce-reform advocates are making the argument that they can be part of the solution.

Divorce is costly for everyone, they argue, and encouraging troubled couples to try to work things out could benefit the national bottom line.

The average split costs a couple $2,500. A new single-parent family with children can cost the government $20,000 to $30,000 a year. That’s $33 billion to $112 billion a year total in divorce-related social-service subsidies and lost revenue.

The country is “absolutely” ready for divorce reform, said Chris Gersten, founder and chairman of the nonpartisan Coalition for Divorce Reform. ...

Mr. Gersten’s coalition already has seen a victory: New Mexico state Sen. Mark Boitano introduced the Parental Divorce Reduction Act in this year’s session, and Mr. Gersten expects lawmakers in a dozen states to do so in 2012.

The act requires parents of minor children who are contemplating divorce to first attend six hours of “divorce-reduction” education. They would then enter an eight-month “reflection” period with access to marriage-strengthening materials and workshops. After that, they can go ahead with a divorce, “and we let the lawyers take over,” said Mr. Gersten, who added that couples in certain circumstances, such as domestic violence, would be exempted from the program.

Labels: Coalition for Divorce Reform, culture, divorce, divorce reform, government interest in marriage, Marriage, marriage counseling, no-fault divorce

VOTE

Last year there were approximately five million stay-at-home moms in the United States. (The number decreased slightly from 2008, statistically insignificant according to the Census Bureau because of the recession.) In 2007, the Pew Research Center reported a significant uptick in the number of moms who preferred staying home to raise children.

Ohio State University sociology professor Liana Sayer says that society still generally feels it's unacceptable for men to be stay-at-home dads. Nevertheless, their numbers are on the rise, too. The Census Bureau estimates the number of stay-at-home fathers at 159,000, which tripled over a decade. Some say that's a gross underestimation, however, because it fails to account for nearly 2 million more fathers now primary caregivers due to the recession as well as fathers who work part-time to care for their children.

Whatever the exact numbers, stay-at-home parents are vulnerable to substantial financial risk during divorce. Time Magazine recently reported that unemployed men faced a greater danger of being left by their wives, particularly working wives. And though a wife's employment status had no bearing on risk, neither does the law provide stay-at-home moms sufficient protections either, especially under our unilateral divorce laws. ...

When his son became unable to attend day care because of health issues, Charlie (a pseudonym he asked me to use because custody issues are still pending) and his wife agreed that he would give up his full-time job to become a stay-at-home parent. Several years later, Charlie's wife left without explanation, filed for divorce, and took her high-paying job with her. Though he has been a stay-at-home dad for six years, Charlie told me he never received a penny of alimony and only one year of limited child support. He recently had a job opportunity in another state, but turned it down. It's more important to him to watch his son grow up. ...

When Charlie's divorce became final, he was excited to learn about that part of President Obama's stimulus package that provided for a reduction in COBRA insurance premiums of 65% for those who had lost their jobs. Like me, though, Charlie's excitement was short-lived. The plan excluded divorced stay-at-home parents who lost their "jobs" and their marriages.

The list goes on. The lack of pensions for stay-at-home parents. The social security benefits breadwinners build up, but stay-at-home parents don't. The absence of disability insurance to protect divorced stay-at-home parents.

Labels: divorce, divorce reform, economics, parenting

VOTE

Statistics Canada will no longer collect and crunch numbers on the country’s annual marriage and divorce rates, a sign both of cost cuts at the agency and the changing nature of relationships, as definitions get fuzzier and harder to track.

The national statistical agency published its last national figures on marriage and divorce rates last week. It has been collecting divorce data since 1972 and marriage data since 1921. It pegs the cost of reinstating the collection at $250,000. ...

It will also be trickier to assess what is going well. This week, Ontario said it would require every couple in the province hoping to split to attend an information session on alternatives to going to court before getting a divorce. Evaluating whether measures like that work, five years later, has become much more difficult, Mr. Benmor said.

Statscan says it will still examine trends in family composition through its census, conducted every five years, and general social surveys. But annual data on marriage and divorce rates won’t be replaced.

Labels: Canada, committed relationships, common-law, divorce, divorce reform, economics, family policy, family structure, Marriage

VOTE

According to the website, the [Coalition for Divorce Reform] is a "non-partisan coalition of divorce reform leaders, marriage educators, domestic violence experts, scholars and concerned citizens dedicated to efforts to reduce unnecessary divorce and promote healthy marriages." Tell me more about the members and how it was formed.

Chris: I knew we needed draft sample legislation people could look at before becoming involved so we worked with divorce attorneys, domestic violence experts and victims of divorce to craft the Parental Divorce Reduction Act ("PDRA"). After the Act was drafted, I used the Internet and my database of contacts from a decade in the marriage education field to reach out to people from all walks of life. Our 17-member advisory board includes the nation's leading marriage educators, scholars, attorneys, political leaders and other concerned citizens. It's bi-partisan and includes people from left to right; some are victims of divorce themselves. I have also spoken with hundreds of community activists and state leaders. ...

Tell me about the Parental Divorce Reduction Act.

Chris: It's still a work in progress, but provides a new framework for divorce reform. It focuses on reducing unnecessary divorce among couples with minor children. Before filing for divorce, couples must complete divorce reduction classes of four-eight hours (two hours online). This program is a first cousin of marriage education and will be modeled from the top programs in the country and taught by certified marriage educators. The classes will educate couples about the harmful effects of divorce, help them develop skills to improve their relationships, and work with couples who want to reconcile. Couples will then wait eight months before filing for divorce. This is a reflection and reconciliation period during which many couples will continue to work on their relationship. These requirements must be fulfilled before the divorce filing because afterwards attorneys take over and couples struggle over children and finances. There is also an opt-out for victims of domestic violence.

Why do you think passage of this legislation will reduce divorce?

Chris: I know passage will reduce divorce. For 25 years, marriage education classes have demonstrated they reduce divorce by 50%. The U.S. military invests heavily in classes for the armed forces, and it's proven to be a good investment by helping keep couples together.

Labels: Coalition for Divorce Reform, culture, divorce, divorce reform, Marriage, marriage counseling

VOTE

The road to divorce for couples with children might become a lot longer under a bill introduced Thursday in the Legislature.

State Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln introduced Legislative Bill 408, which would give judges the option of sending married couples with minor children to marriage counseling before being granted a divorce.

It's one of three judicial options that Fulton proposes in LB 408. The others are continuing divorce proceedings for no longer than six months, in hopes of reconciliation, or taking other actions deemed in the best interests of the parents and children. ...

The bill also would give courts the authority to require marriage counseling in divorce actions where no minor children are involved, if one spouse believes the marriage can be saved.

Labels: children, divorce, divorce reform, marriage counseling, Nebraska

VOTE

One final point on the National Marriage Project report. I’ve been emphasizing the bad news, but I do think it’s genuinely good news that well-educated opinion — as opposed to just well-educated behavior — has been moving in a more conservative direction on divorce. (48 percent of college-educated Americans now agree that “divorce should be more difficult to obtain,” up from just 36 percent in the 1970s.) When social conservatives try to envision public policy responses to the crisis of the American family, they’re almost inevitably stymied by the fact that our upper class (which is, by extension, our policymaking class), while increasingly conservative in the way its members arrange their own private lives, remains intensely allergic to the kind of legal and cultural paternalism that certain earlier elites practiced as a matter of course.

Labels: class, culture, divorce, divorce reform, economics, Marriage, National Marriage Project

VOTE

For years, I fought in court to stop him from ending our marriage. Now that NY has become the 50th state to enact no-fault divorce, women no longer have that option. ...

I’m not sure my attorney thought I’d actually try and exercise my right to keep my family together. But that’s what I did. In any other state it would have been impossible. But in 2003, New York was the last state in America that still didn't have no-fault divorce on the books. After California passed America's first no-fault law in 1970, divorce frenzy swept the nation, and by 1985, every state in the country had followed suit–every state except for New York, where my husband and I happened to live.

When I refused a quickie divorce on his terms, he served me with divorce papers filled with baseless complaints.

“The whole thing is a pack of lies,” I said to my attorney, sobbing. “He’s the one committing adultery.”

“Then deny it, and sue him for divorce,” Saul said.

“But I don’t want a divorce,” I cried. “I love my husband.” Twenty years wasn’t something I wanted to chuck overnight. Made of strong Southern female stock, I grew up believing the words “until death do us part” were non-negotiable. Family was paramount, and divorce virtually unheard of. “I don’t think there’s anything in life that can’t be forgiven,” my aunt said when I asked for her advice. To me, that pretty much covered the whole territory.

One night when I was up reluctantly working on the divorce papers, my eldest daughter appeared by my side. “I don’t want you to get a divorce,” she said. I didn’t either. Yet until this moment, it hadn't occurred to me that I had the power to stop this from happening. I realized perhaps the break-up of my marriage wasn't inevitable and that by standing up, maybe I could also help others.

Labels: culture, divorce, divorce reform, New York

VOTE

No-fault divorce is now legal in every state, making filing for divorce in America — whether both parties agree or not — simply a matter of getting the proper paperwork.

New York just became the last state to adopt the legislation, passing a bill in early July that was signed into law this week by Governor David Paterson. ...

Robin Fretwell Wilson, an alumni professor at Washington and Lee University School of Law, also noted that no-fault laws erroneously overlook the fact that sometimes, one spouse is at fault:

By bypassing mutual agreement, S3890 would treat nearly all divorces alike. Under current New York law, fault matters in property distribution and alimony only in rare instances, when “so egregious” as to be “a blatant disregard” of the marriage. Beating one’s wife with a barbell until she is unrecognizable would count, but verbally abusing and striking one’s wife and child while intoxicated would not, even if the abuse required a physician’s care. Not all reasons for divorcing are equal. Often someone is at fault and that should matter if the law is to do justice.

...
McManus advocates reforming divorce laws on a state-by-state basis, recommending that states lengthen mandatory separation periods prior to granting divorce and replace no-fault divorce (which he calls “unilateral divorce”) with mutual consent divorce in cases involving children. His goal is reconciliation between spouses whenever possible.

Marriage Savers is one of several groups expressing a surge of concern for the state of marriage in the U.S. Marriage Savers works through “Community Marriage Policies” that establish standards requiring premarital counseling and ongoing marriage-enrichment courses, including conflict resolution and step-family support. According to the Maryland-based nonprofit, once a community gets a significant number of people to sign this type of agreement, the divorce rate drops.

Labels: culture, divorce, divorce reform, Marriage, no-fault divorce

VOTE

It used to be all business for divorce lawyer Regina DeMeo.

Her approach was always the same: "This is a partnership and the partnership is dissolving. What are the assets? What is the time-sharing arrangement you think is going to work best? Okay, come on," she would think. "Get yourself together and let's move on."

Then, after seven years of marriage, DeMeo went through her own divorce.

"It was a very humbling experience," she says. "All your dreams are shattered . . . your whole world is rocked."

DeMeo began reading everything she could about what makes and breaks marriages, and she changed the way she practices law. Soon after the divorce, the George Washington University Law School graduate became trained in a growing practice called collaborative divorce.

Now when a potential client lands in her office, she asks to hear the story of the marriage and the reasons for divorce. When there's even a hint of ambivalence she'll nudge the client toward a counselor. "If you can save this marriage, that's what you should try to do," says DeMeo, 37. "Because I can tell you personally, I've been down this dark path, and it's not fun."

But if clients are sure that ending the marriage is the only solution, she'll encourage them to consider collaborative divorce, a process that requires both spouses to agree not to go to court. Instead, they and their individual lawyers, along with mental health professionals and a neutral financial adviser, meet to openly hash out the terms of the divorce. The process requires that all relevant information be shared willingly -- "so I don't have to issue subpoenas to 50 different banks and waste time and money," says DeMeo, a lawyer with Joseph, Greenwald & Laake in Rockville.

Labels: culture, divorce, divorce reform, Marriage, marriage counseling

VOTE

In 1969, Gov. Ronald Reagan of California signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce law. He later called it the worst mistake of his life. But other states eventually followed California’s lead, and no-fault — under which one spouse can end a marriage, with no proof required of wrongdoing by either party — more or less became law of the land. New York State was the longtime holdout, since South Dakota passed its law in 1985.

That may be about to change. On Tuesday evening, the State Senate approved legislation that would permit no-fault divorce after a marriage has “irretrievably” broken down for six months or more, without the need to identify a fault, like adultery or abandonment. The package must still pass the State Assembly, which is considering two bills that would adopt some version of no-fault divorce.

New York’s failure to permit more accessible divorce has long been denounced as archaic, but longtime opponents of “liberalization” have included the Catholic Church and the New York chapter of the National Organization for Women.

What should the New York Legislature consider as it works out the details of its no-fault measures? What do we know about the effects of no-fault laws in the rest of the country?

* Betsey Stevenson, economist, University of Pennsylvania
* Robin Fretwell Wilson, law professor, Washington and Lee University
* Andrew J. Cherlin, professor of sociology, Johns Hopkins
* Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Institute for American Values
* Marcia Pappas, New York president, National Organization for Women

Labels: divorce, divorce reform, domestic violence, feminism, New York, no-fault divorce

VOTE

Marriage absence is the greatest domestic problem America faces. Our most daunting social, economic, budgetary, criminal and constitutional dilemmas are driven by marriage absence and will not abate unless traditional marriage is protected and encouraged.

Establishing sensible policies to return America to a marriage-based society will prove rewarding, productive and seminal. The major problems of most unmarried mothers and their children will be naturally resolved. A woman's right to be supported by, cared for and helped by her husband will be ensured. Health-care coverage will become commonplace without resorting to national health care. Chronic budgetary deficits at state levels will disappear, and the federal deficit will drop as the number of single-parent families costing taxpayers $20,000 each plummets. Most children will grow up in intact homes, disciplined and prepared to learn in school. Substance abuse, child abuse and neglect and poverty will decrease to manageable norms. The dollar will regain strength as the currency of world exchange.

The future of the United States is in jeopardy. Therefore, we must recreate marriage in America now, while we still have time to prevent certain financial and social collapse.

The rewards of the following "Marriage Values" policies are certain. We can reconstitute our nation's most valuable asset: healthy marriages, the social and economic cornerstone on which all successful nations have been powered.

Labels: culture, custody, divorce, divorce reform, economics, Marriage, parenting, poverty, stepparents

VOTE

...Robert Stein, a conservative economist who served as deputy assistant secretary for macroeconomic analysis in George W. Bush's administration, says the tax code is unfair to one particular group of Americans: parents.

He argues that parents invest thousands of dollars in raising members of society who eventually fund programs such as Social Security and Medicare, but retirees who chose not to raise children get the same old-age benefits as those who did. ...

Stein would replace this system with a $4,000-per-child tax credit. That parental tax credit would be funded in part through Stein's other big idea: Simplify the personal income tax to two brackets -- one that taxes 15 percent of income and the other 35 percent. He estimates that few people now in the 10 percent bracket would pay more if they move to 15 percent, because of the child exemption. ...

Much of the energy from conservatives went to promoting marriage as a cultural virtue. But Bradford Wilcox, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, argues that it is important to highlight the economic benefits of marriage. ...

"We need to appreciate that marriage is more than an emotional connection between two people," Wilcox said. "There are kids; it's a kind of economic cooperation, a form of social insurance."

Wilcox says churches, the entertainment industry and other cultural institutions would have to embrace this view of marriage, not just the government. He proposes federal funding for public-service announcements and other social marketing to promote marriage, modeled on anti-smoking campaigns.

And to discourage divorce, he says, states should change marriage laws so spouses who are being divorced against their will and have not engaged in abuse or adultery would be given preferential treatment by family courts in determining alimony, child support and custody of children.

Labels: culture, demographics, divorce, divorce reform, government interest in marriage, Marriage, tax policy, W. Bradford Wilcox

VOTE

A measure to require couples to undergo two hours of counseling before marriage won approval 51-45 on Wednesday in the state House of Representatives.

House Bill 2634 by Rep. Mark McCullough, R-Sapulpa, would also allow people who have eight hours or more of premarital counseling to receive a $45 discount on the $50 marriage license.

McCullough said the goal of the counseling is to expose couples to the idea that they can get help if problems develop in their marriage.

The measure would also abolish common-law marriage, through which two people who have not had a civil ceremony but present themselves as husband and wife are considered legally married. ...

The bill would also require educational classes for couples who seek to divorce, McCullough said.

Labels: common-law, divorce, divorce reform, Marriage, marriage counseling, Oklahoma

VOTE

Touching on a sensitive issue among conservatives nationwide, the Republican-controlled Oklahoma Legislature is embroiled in a dispute over whether lawmakers should remain focused on the state's budget problems and other fiscal priorities or delve into family issues, especially the state's chronically high divorce rate.

Republican members proposed three pieces of legislation imposing new regulations on marriage and divorce in Oklahoma. Two of the measures were defeated, but another — requiring counseling for those planning to wed, and therapy sessions for couples considering divorce — is awaiting action.

The issue has produced sharp clashes among conservative colleagues who normally find themselves in agreement. The debates have featured charges of hypocrisy and of betraying Republican principles against government intrusion into private lives. ...

The most recent federal health statistics in 2007 show the state has the third highest divorce rate in the nation, behind only Nevada and Arkansas. More than half of marriages in Oklahoma end in divorce. In 2007 there were 28,419 marriages and 18,851 divorces.

The divorce problem, which is attributed in part to poverty, teenage pregnancy and a tradition of marrying early, is particularly bedeviling because Oklahoma also has one of the highest rates of church attendance. Promoting family values is a staple of political campaigns at all levels. ...

A study released in 2008 by the Institute for American Values, a private, nonpartisan research group in New York City, estimated the taxpayer cost of divorce and unwed childbearing at $112 billion a year nationwide.

The Legislature debated a bill to require troubled couples to visit a therapist or a faith-based counselor before seeking to end their marriage and another to eliminate incompatibility as grounds for divorce if the couple has children or has been married 10 years or more. Neither were approved, but McCullough's measure to require pre-marriage and troubled-marriage counseling remains alive.

Labels: divorce, divorce reform, government interest in marriage, Marriage, marriage counseling, Oklahoma

VOTE