Winter 1999-2000 Affordable Housing: An important Minnesota NOW issue "Millionaire" wedding makes a mockery of marriage Letter to the Editor 2000 Legislative Update Response to unicameral legislature proposal Response to covenant marriage proposal Call to conference: Is Minnesota nice? Analyzing victim services consolidation St. Cloud Rally — Joint statement of the Minnesota Coalition Against Sexual Assault and the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women State PAC endorses five candidates Friends and colleagues honor Susal Stebbins MN NOW Times Home Page MN NOW Home Page

MN NOW response to covenant marriage proposal By M. Kathleen Murphy, Legislative Committee Chair The impending bill before our state legislature addressing the option of a covenant marriage is ill advised on many levels. The proposal is not only espousing governmental interference on that which is already available through any attorney, but the bill is also deficient in addressing the multitude of reasons that dissolution reforms have been enacted over the last few decades. Senator Steve Dille (R-20) introduced this bill during the 1999 legislative session and will be attempting to pass it into law during this session. The bill proposes offering two choices of contract, the standard marriage and the “superior marriage.” The bill would amend current state marriage statutes to provide an option to couples that would require more preparation before a marriage license is granted and would be more binding than current law if dissolution is sought. The proposal also offers currently married couples an upgrade to their existing marriage at a cost of $20. According to Senator Dille, it is intended to provide legal support for strengthening marital commitment by publicly agreeing to: • Twelve hours of premarital education that emphasizes lifelong commitment, communication and conflict resolution skills. • Taking steps to restore the health of one’s marriage if it is in trouble, including participating in at least 12 hours of marital counseling. • A two-year waiting period from the time of separation until a divorce decree can be finalized, unless there has been adultery, abuse, abandonment, or felony conviction. At first glance, one would think this a reasonable and benign proposal and even less objectionable due to its optional nature. Upon closer scrutiny, one wonders how the framers could consider all of the possible reasons for dissolution of a marriage and only allow but four to become exceptions. Of the four stated, all appear deficient when considering the following: • On adultery: What proof will be required? How will false accusations be handled? • On physical or sexual abuse: If women are already most at risk during the separation process, wouldn’t this measure incur even more burden? Has emotional abuse been taken into consideration? • On abandonment: In the language of the bill, it is defined as “absent for one year with refusal to return.” Would recurring absences for less than one year qualify? What if the abandoning spouse claims not to be refusing, just not able to return? • On felony conviction: The bill specifies that the exception is granted “after sentencing,” so does this take into consideration the length of the criminal process? How would cases involving technicalities or plea agreements be addressed? There are many other issues that have not been addressed by Sen. Dille or the task force that was commissioned during the interim, chaired by Dr. Bill Doherty, Director of the Marriage and Family Therapy Program of the University of Minnesota. The issues pertaining to the voluntary elimination of a ‘no-fault’ divorce include, but are not limited to: • Defining separation and whether or not it must be a legal separation • The time limitation between receiving counseling and petitioning for divorce is stipulated as within one year • The penalties involved if ‘proper’ measures are not taken other than not being granted the divorce that is sought • The effects on the court system if all cases must become subject to litigation • The increased costs incurred through required counseling and legal separation The counseling required on either end for a covenant marriage has good intentions but is myopic if this is to be open to all Minnesotans. The bill requires that only “ordained ministers, a minister’s designee, persons authorized to solemnize marriage or licensed marriage and family therapists” are authorized to fulfill this stipulation. One must either belong to a faith or have significant financial resources to meet this requirement. Again cultural differences have not been considered when the proposal dictates even what this counseling must include. According to a poll conducted by the Minnesota Family Institute in 1998, a Virginia based research firm learned that 90 percent of Minnesotans expect to be married for life. It would be fair to assume that these same Minnesotans already support the notion that marriage should not be entered into lightly without a great amount of thought and consideration. So, why should this concept be legislated when the state already requires a legal acknowledgment of a lifelong commitment between these individuals? This commitment should not be strengthened by the state but by the parties involved. The average age of both men and women entering into marriage is continually increasing. This statistic is society’s way of addressing the alarming divorce rate. Politicians should stay away from legislating morals. The express reason for this bill is to deny unilateral dissolution of marriage for those that choose to enter into this “stronger” marriage, but because of entrenched patriarchal power, any diminishment of access to unilateral divorce denies women power. Action: Contact legislators and tell them you oppose this legislation for the reasons stated above.