December 17, 2006
In which I pay for your marriage counseling...
... and hate every fucking minute of it. Seriously, if some jackass couple is getting state funded marriage counseling, shouldn't that be part of the public record? No, really, I want to see what the hell the problem is because now I'm going to be paying to help heal the rift thanks to Rep. Bill Zedler (R-Asshat) who has prefiled a Covenant Marriage bill that may actually pass this session.
Arlington state Rep. Bill Zedler stepped forward as the point man on the issue when he filed a bill this week that would allow couples to opt into such a marriage by attending state-paid premarital counseling. Should the union turn sour — as defined by adultery, physical or sexual abuse, felony conviction, or living separately for at least three years — couples would have to attend counseling and go through a two-year separation before a judge could hear the divorce case.
I have sooo many problems with this and they all stem from a belief that the more government gets involved with marriage, the worse it's going to be for the institution of marriage. NTL has an excellent write up on this and a Fort Worth Star-Telegram op-ed ripping it up.
Rep. Zedler, this is a dumb idea. Don't waste time in the Lege even arguing for it.
Posted by mcblogger at December 17, 2006 12:44 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.mcblogger.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1286
Comments
Stupid or not, it's illegal according to Prop. 2, approved by the voters in 2005:
A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing a constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article I, Texas Constitution, is amended by adding Section 32 to read as follows:
Sec. 32. (a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage.
SECTION 3. This proposed constitutional amendment shall be submitted to the voters at an election to be held November 8, 2005. The ballot shall be printed to permit voting for or against the proposition: "The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Is there some part of that that isn't clear?
Posted by: mayor mcsleaze at December 17, 2006 02:42 PM
technically, passing a law would make it legal. But, because dumbass Texas voters passed prop 2, that law would be Unconstitutional.
Posted by: To be picky at December 17, 2006 09:27 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
