Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Kermit from Tallahassee, Florida on August 6, 2007:

Should the state charge high fee for marriage license?

Only if they want to make the marriage license redundant.

If the marriage license is unexpectedly expensive, many, maybe most people will opt to not get the license.

Should the Clergy get out of the marriage business?

They can't so why ask the question?

Besides, shouldn't the clergy be asking "why does a blessed marriage fail?"? Why has the blessing lost its power?

The obvious answer is that the marriage partners never had a total commitment to the marriage. No amount of "blessing" can fix a spiritually empty marriage.

For the same reason that drug traffic interdiction will not solve the drug problem in this country, Clergy postponing marriage ceremonies for newlyweds will not change the demand for marriage ceremonies. What would happen if clergy united behind the idea of postponing the marriage ceremony? Suppose clergy waited until it became evident that the marriage was strong enough to survive without the clergy blessing, and the priest would not be embarrassed by blessing a failed marriage?

I would guess that, as a result, a large number of "marriage preachers" would pop up. The number of newly wed church marriages would not change. Not until the population at large has reason to change its behavior would the marriage divorce situation change.

Manipulation of the public behavior is tricky. The most obvious attempts will almost always fail because majority of people will simply find ways around those attempts. If you wish to change the public opinion, you should seek ways to persuade everyone why it should change.

If it's not possible to persuade almost everyone that a particular idea is superior, then perhaps that idea is not so superior after all.

---

"Why ask the question?" Because that's the only way to a solution. -rc

Posted by Mike from Dallas on August 7, 2007:

"Why ask the question?" Because that's the only way to a solution. -rc

But is a solution necessary? Other minds besides a single forum have been debating the topic of failed marriages for decades. Nobody has arrived at a consensus despite increasing statistics of failed marriages. What do I care about other people's marriages failing? It's mine that I'm concentrating on. Might as well try legislating good manners in city traffic. Or, like the Pope recently, try instituting some 10 Commandments for drivers. Old Chinese proverb, very old, very wise: Rotsa ruck.

---

This is a discussion about individuals, as well as institutions. It's thought-inspiring (for those with open minds). I know when I was first married, I thought I "had" to do it in a nice church. The second time, I chose the "church" -- the shore of a mountain lake. The witnesses: two friends and three ducks. Guess which marriage has lasted longer? My mind was more open the second time, to my benefit. Society at large? As you indicate: not my problem. -rc

Posted by Jennifer in BC on August 20, 2007:

RC, here's why I thought your tagline was sexist: because of your comment, "My wife didn't like the tag, but I figured most divorced men would -- and left it despite her disapproval."

As a divorced woman who paid alimony, I do tend to bristle at the notion that men are "taken to the cleaners" by divorce.

Possibly if we returned to the concept of marriage as an economic union, people would think more before getting married, instead of being carried away by hormones and romantic fantasies.

You may not know that the church didn't take over the marriage business until the Middle Ages. About the same time they started refusing to bury unbaptized children in holy ground. Another source of revenue, and ideological control.

---

Thanks for following up (Jennifer had made a side comment about the tagline on this story being sexist in the calling someone "blonde" is racism entry, and I asked her to explain here).

To say that it's common that men get taken to the cleaners in divorce isn't sexism, it's an observation of what is. That doesn't mean all men do, or that no women do. I suffered financially a bit in my divorce, but felt lucky that it was only "a bit". In my case, I had a bachelor's degree and had helped my wife to get two master's degrees before she split. If anyone "owed" anyone money in that split, it should have been the one with the big education. Didn't work out that way. Was it because I'm male? I don't think so; it was because I had the better job -- and that was because I went and hustled for it, while she continued her education.

But I digress. I still don't see it as sexism, but I appreciate your taking the time to answer the question. -rc

Posted by Nancy, Illinois on September 10, 2007:

Several commenters have indicated that any two consenting adults should be able to declare themselves married without the state having to sanction it, and I'm fine with that. But why should a marriage be limited to two people? If the participants' gender doesn't matter (which idea I applaud), then why is the number of marriage partners important, if all of them are happy with the arrangement?

Posted by bandit, albuquerque on September 4, 2010:

In the US (not knowing other country's laws) ONLY the State has the authority to marry a couple. A minister MUST have a marry/bury license from the State in order to legally marry folks. The State issues the license to proxies - ministers and Justices of the Peace. Boat Captains are a weird exception, because they are granted under Maritime Law, which still flows from the State.

A marriage is a legal contract revolving around property and specific obligations and responsibilities. The latter include making medical decisions.

Thus, all the talk about "Church" vs "Civil" marriage misses the point. Given the divorce rate is about even for "Christians" vs "non-Christians" (50%) the place/cost of the ceremony is really irrelevant. The reason folks want to marry doesn't matter, because the mechanism is *exactly* the same.

Gay marriage is consistent with this. Technically, ALL marriages are Civil Unions, because the State issues the license. All the squawking by various religious leaders and organizations are so much noise. In my experience, gay couples raise well-adjusted children at the same rate or better than hetero couples.

(As a monogamous, married (20 years) Christian, I see NO reason gays should not marry. It is a matter of being a Citizen, not straight or gay. I don't even care about the number of spouses - as long as they are consenting adults. For those "traditionalists": look up the number of wives and concubines King David had - It's Good To Be The King. However, my experience and observations lead me to the conclusion most men could not handle multiple wives - not just the sex, but the politics. If the wives argue, the man cannot win. If the wives get along, the man cannot win.)

Also - on the divorce side, both parties should be treated as temporarily insane. Divorce lawyers should be thrown in jail for contempt if they try to strip the other side. If there is real abuse, it should be treated as a criminal matter. If you *really* wanted to reduce divorce rates, make it *hard* to get married and easy to divorce. Put the couple in really stressful conditions. If they work well together, the marriage will last. If they don't, better to not marry. (BTW - my wife and I did this basic thing. It worked. She was also a Marine before I met her.)