While We Are Busy Legislating Gay Marriage; Maybe We Should Take Another Look At Marriage Itself (parties, Michigan)

[PITTSTON2SARASOTA]

Marriage is a "contract", which should not be rushed into nor taken frivolously. Lately we have seen high profile people(who know they are under additional scrutiny) get divorced within 24 hours, what were they thinking???Our current divorce rate is approximately 50%; apparently marriage, for SOME people is equated with buying a car.....the old model is looking "long in the tooth", time to upgrade. My point is marriage is in trouble... but the gays have nothing to do with it! Perhaps if people were only allowed a few marriages per person per lifetime, the institution would not be entered into without a lot of forethought. If your spouse dies or is abusive...etc. ... than obviously you should be allowed to remarry. However how about we set a three strikes and your out rule concerning marriage....maybe people would take it more seriously and realize it is a "sacred" institution.

[equality4all]

I agree with you. Marriage is indeed in trouble and has absolutely nothing to do with gays.

I wonder how the anti-gay marriage posters around here would feel about a Constitutional amendment banning heterosexual divorce? I mean, after all, their goal IS to protect the sanctity of marriage, right?

What say you anti-gay marriage people? Are you really in favor of "protecting marriage"?

[MsMcQ LV]

Originally Posted by equality4all

I agree with you. Marriage is indeed in trouble and has absolutely nothing to do with gays.

I wonder how the anti-gay marriage posters around here would feel about a Constitutional amendment banning heterosexual divorce? I mean, after all, their goal IS to protect the sanctity of marriage, right?

What say you anti-gay marriage people? Are you really in favor of "protecting marriage"?

Well, I'm not anti-same-sex marriage, but I do feel marriage is in many cases just too easy to get. Forty years ago, when I got married, Michigan law required blood tests which took a couple of weeks to process. That gave the prospective bride and groom at least two weeks after the proposal to change their minds. Then, the minister at the church where I chose to get married required a further two weeks of counseling with the two of us, stretching the time from proposal to wedding to a month. I think it was in the mid seventies that Michigan repealed that law regarding the blood tests, but in the nineties they passed a new law requiring counseling about STDs, HIV in particular. Now that law never really made much sense to me, but again it stretched the time between proposal and the wedding, giving both parties time to 'back out' if they wanted. Here in Nevada you can have as little as an hour (depending only on how long the lines are at the license bureau and the wedding chapel!) between proposal and wedding, which I find to be ridiculous. My own engagement period was only about a month, but I honestly think a six month engagement should be almost a requirement, allowing both parties to give more thought to whether this marriage is what they want. (Although, sometimes not even a long engagement will 'protect' a marriage from being 'wrong'.)

[Langlen]

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

Well, I'm not anti-same-sex marriage, but I do feel marriage is in many cases just too easy to get. Forty years ago, when I got married, Michigan law required blood tests which took a couple of weeks to process. That gave the prospective bride and groom at least two weeks after the proposal to change their minds. Then, the minister at the church where I chose to get married required a further two weeks of counseling with the two of us, stretching the time from proposal to wedding to a month. I think it was in the mid seventies that Michigan repealed that law regarding the blood tests, but in the nineties they passed a new law requiring counseling about STDs, HIV in particular. Now that law never really made much sense to me, but again it stretched the time between proposal and the wedding, giving both parties time to 'back out' if they wanted. Here in Nevada you can have as little as an hour (depending only on how long the lines are at the license bureau and the wedding chapel!) between proposal and wedding, which I find to be ridiculous. My own engagement period was only about a month, but I honestly think a six month engagement should be almost a requirement, allowing both parties to give more thought to whether this marriage is what they want. (Although, sometimes not even a long engagement will 'protect' a marriage from being 'wrong'.)

Yeah.. My wife and I was together for about 6 years, and engaged for a about 2 of those years. We decided to move in together and live together for almost our entire engagement period before we got married. Granted, a church didn't marry us, but we didn't want to rush into marriage. And I'm glad we did it the way we did.

[equality4all]

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

Well, I'm not anti-same-sex marriage, but I do feel marriage is in many cases just too easy to get. Forty years ago, when I got married, Michigan law required blood tests which took a couple of weeks to process. That gave the prospective bride and groom at least two weeks after the proposal to change their minds. Then, the minister at the church where I chose to get married required a further two weeks of counseling with the two of us, stretching the time from proposal to wedding to a month. I think it was in the mid seventies that Michigan repealed that law regarding the blood tests, but in the nineties they passed a new law requiring counseling about STDs, HIV in particular. Now that law never really made much sense to me, but again it stretched the time between proposal and the wedding, giving both parties time to 'back out' if they wanted. Here in Nevada you can have as little as an hour (depending only on how long the lines are at the license bureau and the wedding chapel!) between proposal and wedding, which I find to be ridiculous. My own engagement period was only about a month, but I honestly think a six month engagement should be almost a requirement, allowing both parties to give more thought to whether this marriage is what they want. (Although, sometimes not even a long engagement will 'protect' a marriage from being 'wrong'.)

That makes perfect sense to me! Speaking of Nevada, they should probably also prohibit intoxicated people from getting married at 3 am. I am sure a LOT of mistakes are made then, huh? LOL

[PITTSTON2SARASOTA]

Originally Posted by Langlen

Yeah.. My wife and I was together for about 6 years, and engaged for a about 2 of those years. We decided to move in together and live together for almost our entire engagement period before we got married. Granted, a church didn't marry us, but we didn't want to rush into marriage. And I'm glad we did it the way we did.

I agree that it is a good idea to live together before getting married...though some people may think that it is wrong. Better to find out your true compatability before the marriage ceremony. My neice got a severe reprimand when she told her Roman Catholic priest that she and her boyfriend had been living together for a few years prior to the official church wedding. They are still married after 11 years.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

The more I think about it, the more I think it's insane to let the voters decide who should have the right to marry and who should not. I especially think it's crazy that so many states have outlawed civil unions and domestic partnerships in addition to same-sex marriage. What they've basically said is: Gays keep out. We think your relationships are worthless.

[equality4all]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

The more I think about it, the more I think it's insane to let the voters decide who should have the right to marry and who should not. I especially think it's crazy that so many states have outlawed civil unions and domestic partnerships in addition to same-sex marriage. What they've basically said is: Gays keep out. We think your relationships are worthless.

Well said! I would go a little further though and say that it's not just our relationships that are deemed worthless.

[camping!]

I don't think a no divorce rule should be put into place --- but I do believe that mandatory family counseling for a substantial amount of time prior to the divorce (say 9 months to a year) especially if there were children involved. Of course, if the marriage was ending due to abuse then that should happen right away. Otherwise, I do think it is about time that the heterosexual community own up to their flagrant disregard of marriage.

[dcsldcd]

You are worried about marriage being in trouble and you want to add more trouble by adding homosexual marriage?