An alternate defense of marriage for Hank Erwin
Posted by BrianAlabama senator Hank Erwin (R-Montevallo) recently proposed legislation that would force feuding spouses to wait one full year before a divorce can become final. His intent is clear, although I believe his proposal would certainly contribute to prolonged spousal abuse. Erwin believes the government should impose his pro marriage beliefs on the people of this state. I disagree with using the weight of government to impose one’s beliefs, but I have an alternate proposal that I would propose if I were in the Alabama senate just to get under Erwin’s skin.
I would most certainly agree that a healthy marriage is a great thing. In order to ensure that most marriages were healthy ones in the first place I would propose a one year waiting period on getting married. When two young lovebirds come to the court house to apply for a marriage license the clock begins ticking. One year later the couple can proceed with the official ceremony. That waiting period would go a long way to prevent people from getting married due to a temporary lusty attraction rather than a true, eternal bond of love. Of course this proposal would probably decrease the number of people getting married, although I would argue that a greater percentage of those marriages would be strong. I bet the wedding industry would get behind the measure if they could get over the first year of no weddings (think how much money all those bridezillas could plan to spend in a one year engagement!).
Related content:
May 29th, 2007 at 9:45 am
To be honest, it’s not a bad idea. I know you’re being sarcastic, but the liberal in me just went, “I could get behind it.”
May 29th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Brian, I like your idea better than Sen. Erwin’s (remember that Sen. Erwin’s bill is ‘for the children!’ - but I think that his bill may harm children).
Most churches require counseling in order to marry at their facility, so obviously somebody thinks your idea has merit. And somebody probably has data that would illuminate the idea’s effectiveness.
IIRC Judge Bell (D - here) has a thirty day waiting period for divorce. I agree with you that the potential for spousal abuse exists during a waiting period, plus if there are children then there may be nasty temporary custody issues. I think if someone wants a divorce, it should be easy and fast and cheap.
Generally, I agree with the Government imposing beliefs (because that’s what laws do - to me the discussion is what and where is the line).
Willie Nelson in Dukes of Hazzard: why is divorce so expensive? Cause it’s worth it.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Marry in haste, repent at leisure.
May 29th, 2007 at 11:17 am
AL Mod - This is the first time in months that one of your comments wasn’t trapped by the spam filter. Wahoo!
I agree that all laws are merely an imposition of morality, but I feel there are two kinds of immoral behavior: those that rob another of life, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness and those that simply offend another group. For example, if two gay men got married it would not harm me and would not cheapen the value of my relationship with my wife so why should the government restrict them from being married? I have bigger things to worry about than the personal lives of others.
May 29th, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Brian, good point - we’re probably in total agreement about number one. However, using your ’simply offensive’ model, one could argue for bestiality. After all, wasn’t Mr. Hands pursuing happiness (having sex) with his own property (horse) - Zoo movie?
I’m sure that didn’t impact your marriage either (or your relationship with your pets
Again, where’s the line? I think it’s more complex than ’simply offensive’. I think that our laws must be informed by our cultural norms, history, and traditions. For example, the legislatures of the State of Alabama and the USA believe that gay marriage does not promote the general welfare of the people.
May 29th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Love and Marriage
Love has very little to do with marriage, although I am surprised at how many people — even “educated” youngsters in places like India that were culturally mature in the past — think otherwise. Married life, first with a partner, and then potentially with other genetically allied human beings, is essentially a lesson in the recognition of limitations on individual freedom. It has to do with tolerating and appreciating different points of view in a sequence of very prolonged and intimate interactions, where politeness may fade with time. So the initial flush of physical infatuation soon ceases to be a “decoupling” interruption in the reality of married life. Hence those marriages are likely to be long-tenured and successful that have been socially organized or arranged.
In all societies, marriages are arranged to more or less degree, although the rituals/brokerage mechanisms may be very divergent and appear disguised, particularly in societies where the mythology of individual freedom is widely accepted. The idea of individual choice in marriage is of course a mental construct that reinforces the acceptance of what is primarily a social and socially enforced institution. What is fascinating in “new” European societies such as the US, is the strong idealized belief that love is a necessary prerequisite in marriage, when there is dramatic empirical evidence to suggest that marriages fail for a variety of more mundane reasons such as wealth tolerance, brand preference, work-sharing, etc. It appears that despite marriages being based on “love”, there is an ex ante probability of greater than 70% that love cannot overcome individual differences on the mundane criteria stated above.
So marriages are more likely to succeed where they are arranged and where there is a consistent connection between deep social networks, cultural celebration of social institutions including marriage, a clear/pragmatic recognition of gender differences, and a recognition of the balance between social intrusion and private space.
May 29th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Reactionary,
Your question about bestiality is a salient one. I think some level of “rights” should be conveyed to animals, although I admit this is a very perilous concept (I am a proud and unapologetic carnivore). I’ll also admit that it is oxymoronic to say “bestiality is wrong because it is an act against the will of the animal” while simultaneously saying “it is acceptable to kill an animal (which is most certainly against their will) for purposes of consumption.”
While going down this path, I don’t personally have a problem with polygamy as long as all involved do so under their own volition. I don’t see how one man could psychologically and physically pleasure (or afford) more than one woman, but that doesn’t mean that option should be off limits.
I would argue that there are any number of perfectly legal actions (such as alcohol consumption) that, although enjoyable, don’t “promote the general welfare of the people.”
May 29th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Svaha, it sounds like your experience(s) with marriage has been significantly less enjoyable than mine. BTW, no one really likes it when you just lift one of your own posts and drop it in as a comment on a barely related post.
May 29th, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Animals already have some rights, in some cases it seems more than children (judging by the penalties for animal cruelty vs child abuse).
Since there are problems arguing that an animal has capacity to consent, what about the argument that it’s an act against the will of society? Isn’t this a bright line if ever there was one?
I think if you agree then I’ve got you; and if you disagree I’ll go ‘Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back’ on you (paraphrasing the van scene with Sean William Scott - ‘Brian says he has an absence of judgment on mammal to mammal love!’).
BTW, did you see this NRO article (IMO pretty fair) about Rep. Paul (and just what would he say about bestiality? - I know he opposes gay marriage):
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODIyYzRiMWZiZjg4NWRmNGRjYzg1YmZlNjFlYWU0OTg=
May 30th, 2007 at 4:33 am
I’m not going to dedicate much effort to defending bestiality, which I consider to be an abhorrent act. I like playing devil’s advocate, but even I have standards. I’ll concede this round to you.