TOPEKA, Kan. - Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee debated leaving the Covenant Marriage Amendment as a part of HB 2667. This amendment was added by Rep. Anthony Brown (R-Eudora) on the floor of the House. It would have changed marriage statutes in our state without even having received a formal hearing.
Yesterday, Kansas NOW testified against the amendment in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The opposition to the bill was overwhelming, while absolutely no supporters came to offer testimony in favor of the amendment. Even the fellow who introduced it stayed away. The bill was "worked" this morning and I am happy to report that the amendment was removed from the bill! Only two Senators voted in favor of the amendment, Senator Pilcher-Cook (R-Shawnee) and Senator Donovan (R-Wichita).
The following is the testimony that I presented on behalf of Kansas NOW...
I am testifying today in opposition not to HB 2667 as a whole, but to the covenant marriage amendment approved by a majority vote in the House. I wish to first state that it is not the mission of Kansas NOW to act as some sort of marriage police. However, one of the core issues of Kansas NOW is fighting domestic violence. Kansas NOW believes that the narrow and specific conditions that must be met for a divorce in a covenant marriage contract places women and children at risk.
While domestic violence is stated within the amendment as an "allowable" reason for divorce, the bill states that the married parties must still obtain counseling, as with the exceptions for rape or indecent liberties with a child. This most certainly puts abused women into a position of sitting through counseling with their abuser or the abuser of their children. Simply scraping together the money for a traditional divorce is difficult, add to that the cost of required counseling...this makes her escape seem even more insurmountable. Additionally, it lays the burden of proof at her feet. She must "prove" that the abuse is taking place. Abusers can be master manipulators; she may decide that staying in this relationship is easier than leaving...the abuse will certainly continue.
There is even a clause in the bill that states that if a child is abused, although this will be "allowable" grounds for a covenant marriage divorce...the couple is required to first live apart for one year. We should be protecting children, not mandating that their mothers stay married to their abuser. There is also a provision that allows for a divorce if certain felonies or "like" felonies subject to judicial discretion, have been committed. There is no exception for misdemeanors in this amendment. Some examples of misdemeanors include assault, possession of marijuana and theft. Divorce of one's pot smoking, thieving spouse with anger control issues would not be "allowed" under covenant marriage.
Children as young as 16 and 17 are allowed to obtain a covenant marriage with parental consent. We know that teenagers are impressionable; there is a real possibility that they will enter into a covenant marriage that they will find great difficulty in escaping.
I am sure that the intent of this amendment is to strengthen marriages and reduce divorce, but I can find no proof that covenant marriages actually achieve this. In fact, a very small percentage of married couples in the three states that currently have covenant marriage take advantage of it. This leads me to believe that adding a Covenant Marriage option in our state will have little to no impact on strengthening marriages in Kansas. Should we allow special interests to continually re-define matrimony in our state? Conservative opponents have opined that the creation of covenant marriage may cause traditional marriages to be taken less seriously. What if people with traditional marriages cannot afford the fee to convert to the covenant option? Will they be viewed as less committed within their church communities?
There have been a host of bills introduced in various states across the US that mandate pre and/or post marital counseling, mandatory waiting periods for people with children, some with age requirements for the children, suggested tax credits for going through pre-marital counseling...the list goes on and on, almost all of these bills have been defeated, some have been repealed. I think if you talk to the people that have been successful in marriage, they will tell you that that marriage is a matter of the heart. That the commitment, strength and love required for success cannot be legislated.
Marriage, whether with State approved license or not is a covenant relationship that signed paper CONRACTS have little more value than to bind both parties to a relationship that either never rationally existed or has ceased to exist. The State approved license serves as a contract whose value is only realized in material possessions and their disposal. And, that is an important value. Sad to say, children are often treated as material possessions!
Attempting to force a continued covenant relationship will more times than not create a living hell for both parties.
Kari, I think you have the entire argument wrapped up in your last sentence. "That the commitment, strengh and love required for success cannot be legislated."
Interesting! I'm glad that I found this after the fact, since the anticipation would have killed me. You made a great argument, and had the party representing the bill shown up, they would have been speechless. You almost have to wonder why marriage seems to be such an issue lately, especially when marriage is a bond between two people and not three (the third being everyone else outside of the marriage). I guess we can imagine that as long as there's room for change and variation, there will be people pushing it in both directions.
I enjoyed reading this!