Covenant Marriage

[softwareNerd]

Some states (Arkansas, Arizona and Louisiana) allow a special type of marriage known as "covenant marriage". The couple are bound by special rules -- basically making divorce more difficult.

Ideally, every couple can write their own marriage contract. However, in many legal agreements, not just in the case of marriage, it is practical to have a set of default rules. When one buys a house, there are usually a standard set of forms for that state. Again, in a partnership firm, if the partners have not stipulated the shares owned by each, then each owns an equal share.

Similarly, if we say we're married and our contract is silent about a particular situation, then a default rule can apply. Perhaps when a couple signs up for marriage, they can sign "we adopt the standard agreement in its entirety". Or, if there were a few different standards, they would sign that they: "Adopt standard agreement 'C'".

As I said, they're always free to make a detailed specific agreement of their own too.

Comments?

[DavidV]

Ideally, every couple can write their own marriage contract.

Yes, they should be free to do so, but “covenant” marriages are a stupid idea. The message of such an agreement is either “I am incapable of making a commitment to marriage, so please force me to” or “my spouse should be forced to remain with me despite their wishes by making divorce too difficult.”

Besides, the state has no business mandating one marriage contract over another, which I fear this “optional” contract is leading up to.

[DavidOdden]

There is an idea which is essential to "convenant marriages" which is, IMOO, anathema to decent contract-like principles, and that is the idea of the absolute obligation. A good agreement anticipates the possibility that one party will need to not fulfill their end of the agreement -- and states what the consequences are for that option. Covenant marriages do not specify a means of escape if, say, two people get thoroughly tired of each other and really just don't want to deal with each other. From what I can tell, the "till death do us part" stuf is a matter of law in these states. However, construing marriages as partnership agreements is exactly right. In 49 states in the union, such contracts could entirely and equivalently replace legal marriage -- except for tax consequences. (But taxes are immoral! So let them not be an impediment to a rational understanding of marriage).

BTW I think it is a really bad idea for every couple to write their own "marriage contract". Most people can't understand a simple software licensing agreement, much less an actual binding or legally sensible obligation. Off the shelf packages would probably be the best bet in the majority of cases.

[softwareNerd]

From time to time, I have heard politicians from the Christian camp advocate rules that make people go for counselling and take various other steps before they can get a divorce.

What I like about the idea of covenant marriage is not the specific agreement itself -- I do not even know what one contains, but the idea that the state will recognize a voluntary variation on the marriage contract.

I see it as less likely that such states would impose onerous rules on "ordinary" marriages, because those who want the onerous rules can opt for the covenant marriage.

[DavidV]

What I like about the idea of covenant marriage is not the specific agreement itself -- I do not even know what one contains, but the idea that the state will recognize a voluntary variation on the marriage contract.

Except that this is less of a “voluntary variation” and more of a legislative initiative to appeal to Christian groups.