High Divorce Rates

[Semele]

Sunday Morning when I was driving home from work I was listening to the radio and really should have turned it off because I got very angry by what I was hearing. They were discussing The divorce rate in Ok, which is second only to Nevada (Las Vegas maybe???). They were discussing Gov Keating's new marriage initiatives and other ways that he is going to change those ratings in the future. They were discussing the meetings with several hundred clergy members in and around the state. Apparently they have agreed to only perform marriages for couples who have gone through a series of premarital classes through the church!!! I am assuming that people will still be able to be married through the justice of peace without said classes.

I just think this is completely absurd! I tend to think that is the Gov playing God in many ways. Separation of church and state??? Not in Oklahoma apparently. Also do they really think that going to a couple of classes will save marriages before they start??? I tend to believe that people who are about to get hitched are so in love with each other and the idea of married life that these sessions will be worthless. There aren't going to be any real issues to discuss at this point. Some things you learn as you go and no amount of premarital counseling can prepare you for that. I am just outraged that this is even alowwed to happen in this day and age. Anyone have any thoughts on this topic???

[Earth Walker]

No comment, lest I be "offensive":bad:


To believe what you see is to be deceived.
**********************************
Reject all illusions of social harmony.

[idusty88]

OK isn't the only place going looney trying to 'fix' marriages. Here in Arizona last year the state legislature was trying to create two levels of marriage. The extra 'higher' degree category would have made divorce almost impossible. As if that could fix anything. Luckily it didn't pass, but who knows when some idiot may try again.
I think the poor marital statistics are just symptoms of a an over-worked, stressed-out, society; and is compounded by media bombardment to expect nothing less than the ideal right now, as well as the devaluing of individual lives inherent in an over populated world.

[Dagda Moon~Lily]

Write you govenor in protest it. After all, it's not your religion....and this holds true for many. Encourage others to do the same. :) Biting tounge now.

[Semele]

Writing the Gov is not a bad idea, however I probably wont because i cannot be courteous to that man!!! Do you detect a strong level of dislike???? It doean't really affect me unless I want to get divorced which they are trying to make couples with children go through therapy before allowing divorce. Hopefully that will never be a factor in my life, but still I resent them having the ability to but in where they have no business.

[Mairwen]

This is completely insane! What's that going to solve? :(

(aside from the whole church and state separation, thing) *grumble* :mad:

[MystyPines]

Well, back in my Catholic days when I got married the first time 15 years ago, I had to attend 3 grueling sessions (all day) of Pre Cana required by the Catholic church. It is ridiculous! And, even though we came out at 98% Highly Compatible in their testing and survey, we were divorced. What do these tests really determine? That we were compatible at the age of 19? Thank the Goddess for the Justice of the Peace the 2nd time around!

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Semele
I just think this is completely absurd! I tend to think that is the Gov playing God in many ways. Separation of church and state???

Awww. Dammit. Am I the only one who REALLY wants to hear what Mystique has to say?

Anyway, the divorce rate is nauseating, and the causes of it are complicated and numerous. I have no idea how appropriate that discussion would be.

In general, I don't have a problem with intervention requiring people to think about what they are getting into before they get into it, because people routinely amaze me with their capacity to make really bad decisions.

And while I'm not at all outraged by the concept, the pessimistic side of me thinks its rather fruitless as people will still make bad decisions anyway.

[sherry]

I went through the classes and he still turned out to be a schmuk!! Then what! I bet the CHURCH would have another class for the attempts at repairing the damage!!:p I think not!!
I didnt like being forced through the classes the first time! And was asked to please shut up so this guy would marry us, I should have looked at that as a clue but I was trying to figure out how that man could go to college for that long and still have a line of bull like he was dishing out

[clef0628]

My friend is getting married in August. He is Christian. Anyhow, the was complaing about the classes his church was putting them though to me. One class they went over the book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus." Like if that would help anything. All it says is that typical women are like this and typical men are like this. Well, what if you don't marry the typical guy or girl? I know I'm not typical. Plus, he told me that the church class also seem to put back the womens movement back a few years.

In my mind for a marriage to work, you got to look at the other persons faults, and if you can live with them you found that right person. Because, you cannot not change people. The problum today is, so many people marry on sex and looks, and then that is gone, they have no reason to stay together.

Steven

[Revelation]

I have to agree with Apotheosis. I dont' see anything particularly wrong with the notion.

I don't think classes or sessions or training or whatever is at all absurd. The idea of teaching people interpersonal communication, shared privacy, quality interaction...yep, you're right, these are outrageous ideas.

But seriously folks. Clergy can decide to marry or not marry anyne they want to. THat's their right. What difference does it make to a pagan whether or not a CHrstian minister decides to marry couple X? Unless you were planning on getting married through CHristian channels, I"m not sure I see what's so horrible about this idea. I didn't read that yoru governor was going to make this a requirement for *all* marriages--oly those who chose to be married through these several hundred clergymen.

Frankly, I think it sounds like a good idea.

[Semele]

I guess my major beef with the thing was that everyone may not be Christian, but may wish to be married in a church for various reasons. I have no problem with churches having their own guidlines to follow before performong marriage ceremonies. It is when the Governor, an elected official of the STATE requests for the RELIGIOUS sector to implement these guidelines that I see a little problem. Doesn't sound much like separation of state and religion to me, in fact it sounds like the state embracing religion and enforcing religious codes. Haven't we been through this before???

Not ranting at anyone in particular...just ranting!! 8O

[Mairwen]

Um .. yeah ... I thought our ancestors came to the States to get away from this kind of ... stuff?

[Rævyn Cigány]

Originally posted by Semele
. Apparently they have agreed to only perform marriages for couples who have gone through a series of premarital classes through the church!!! I am assuming that people will still be able to be married through the justice of peace without said classes.





This is already very much a reality here in Ontario. My husband and I had to go through a weekend of classes (which, I must say, was absolutely ridiculous) before he and I could get married. They (along with the priest that married us) told us that we were not to 'be around each other' before the wedding...ie we could not sleep in the same room...this was a little difficult, seeing as how we had been living together for three months at that point and we had a 2 year old son! Sort of like locking the barn doors after the horses had already escaped, ya know?! Well, I won't go into any more detail, but sufficed to say I'm wishing now that I had gotten married by a J.P. and handfasted (I wasn't pagan when I got married), instead of going through all that bull-roar.

BB
Rae )0(

[Revelation]

It is when the Governor, an elected official of the STATE requests for the RELIGIOUS sector to implement these guidelines that I see a little problem. Doesn't sound much like separation of state and religion to me, in fact it sounds like the state embracing religion and enforcing religious codes. Haven't we been through this before???



I dont have a problem with the state embracing religion, as long is it embraces all religions equally. I have no problem with the state recognizing a problem (high divorce rates), recognizing a possibly viable solution to the problem (religious counseling) and working with the clergy of the religions to bring abotu some sort of solution. The problem occurs when the state forces all people to abide by a specific religion, or when the state tells religious organizations what they can and cannot do.

If the state wants to encourage religious orders to counsel their members prior to marriage based solely upon the teachings, codes, and philosophies of that particular religion I think that's fabulous. Way to go. I find it wretched that government has become anathema to religion--it shouldn't be. They *should* work together, as long as they each maintain their own roles and do not try to exert force *over* the other. The concept of "power with" versus "power over" would work well in this paradigm.

I understand your concern abotu non-Christians who wish to marry in a church...but I have to say, such is life. If you want to be married in the holy place of another faith, go for it, as long as you are willing to abide by the rules of that organization.

[EasternPriest]

A few thoughts to throw into the stew.......

1. Pre marital classes within one's church aren't a bad idea per se.... anything that gets people to think about their commitment isn't a bad idea, although it may not always work.

2. It sounds like the Gov was asking religious leaders to do things within their own churches. No separation problem here. What each denomination does within it's own boundaries does not impact any other faith system or civil marraige. It also does not impact many non-denominational ministers of many faiths.

3. There already are states with two levels of marraige, and it is completely constitutional. Wheter it works or not?????

4. The separation of church and state isn't in the U.S. Constitution.What the Constitutuion does provide is that the U.S. Government may not establish an official religion, and that the churches could operate without influence or interference from the U.S. Government The states, however, were free to have official religions, and some states had official churches even after the Constitution was passed in Congress. The concept of the separation of church and state is found written in private letter of Thomas Jefferson's. The current usage of the church and state issue comes from opinions issued by the U.S. Supreme Court. As such, they are not formally part of the Constitution, and could be changed in later court sessions.

5. Each day the session of Congress is opened with a prayer, and there is a Congressional Chaplain who draws a government salary. When the Apollo 13 mission to the moon was in trouble, Congress passed a resolution asking for the people of the U.S. to pray for astronauts safe return.

5. What our ancestors fled Europe for was the ability to practice their own faith freely, not so the government wouldn't ask their help with societal problems. These same ancestors then proceded to persecute faiths other than their own once they got here. Witness what happened to the Indian nations, and the Salem witch trials, our version of the Inquisition.


Blessings......

[Tigerwallah]

Unfortunately, society and religion try to make people behave other than what is natural. I once took a human sexuality course at the Bronx Zoo. That's right, it was a zoology course. I learned that humans are serial monogamous. Which I pretty much knew before the class. We tend to commit to one partner at a time, but, in most cases, it is not a lifetime committment. I don't really understand why this is a problem for religous and government leaders.
I heard last year that they isolated the monogamy gene in the vole. It was going to become yet another option in the designer gene baby. Why is it that we should find it desireable to have the fidelity of a rodent?
I, personally, like having many different relationships. Sometimes, as we grow, our relationships do not, and become obsolete. This is not a bad thing. It is natural. Maybe we will find harmony when we stop holding ourselves to a standard that we can not uphold.

[Earth Walker]

~sighhh~ So many Women; So Little Time :bad: :cool: :D

[Semele]

Originally posted by Mystique
~sighhh~ So many Women; So Little Time :bad: :cool: :D

Tsk Tsk..... Naughty thing you!!!

[EasternPriest]

Originally posted by Tigerwallah
Unfortunately, society and religion try to make people behave other than what is natural. I once took a human sexuality course at the Bronx Zoo. That's right, it was a zoology course. I learned that humans are serial monogamous. Which I pretty much knew before the class. We tend to commit to one partner at a time, but, in most cases, it is not a lifetime committment. I don't really understand why this is a problem for religous and government leaders.


It would be better to practice serial monogomy without being married then. The vows of marraige usually contain the promise of a lifetime committment. I think the problem for the leaders in this case isn't serial monogomy, but serial marraiges.

[Elaine]

I have to say that I agree with the states making it more difficult for people to marry...if it was maybe I wouldn't be 22 with hubby #2!!! BUT...I DO NOT agree with them doing it religiously....they don't even allow prayer of any type in most public schools and then their going to try to forse couples to have religious counceling before they marry....it doesn't make sense to me...my husband and I were going to get married at my childhood parish, but when we called (first of all the priest we talked to was VERY rude to my husband because he said he considered himself Christian and not Catholic...also that we were both non-practicing!) and then they wanted a couple hundred bucks for the ceremony, plus $$ for the alter boys, plus $$ for flowers, extra $$ if we wanted communion, extra $$ if we wanted music, etc, etc....and we had to go through the classes....which we had to pay for....my cousin got married there and she said a lot of the questions they asked were sex related...and then when you say that you are not a virgin, and that the person you're marrying is not who you lost your virginity to, and that you already live with your soon to be spouse, they got mad and yell at you!! you have to go to conffesion as part of this class too....needless to say we went to a christian church with a pretty garden in the back paid $80 or so for the minister...like $30 or so for all the paperwork and all was well!! no classes...no hassle!! sorry for the rant....this is yet another reason that Catholicism is definately a thing of the past for me!!!

[Tigerwallah]

Originally posted by EasternPriest


It would be better to practice serial monogomy without being married then. The vows of marraige usually contain the promise of a lifetime committment. I think the problem for the leaders in this case isn't serial monogomy, but serial marraiges.

Yes, but when you are in love, you can't see the messy divorce down the road. I, personally, do not believe in marraige. I see it as an obsolete institution. However, I can understand those who do. People don't get married thinking that they will ever be divorced. No one I know will even admit to being serial monogomous. Which, if you analyze how we pick a mate, in most cases, you will see that there is a pattern of serial monogomy. Sure, there are the exceptions to the rule.

I think people also feel pressured to live up to these ridiculous expectations set by religious leaders and society. Up until 20 years ago, sexual, non marital relationships were frowned upon. In some cases, they still are. As a non married woman, society frowns upon my choice. I'm looked at as a freak for not wanting a commitment or children. I had to laugh watching Sex and the City this week. Carrie & co. go to an engagement party where they are all asked if they have "someone." When they say no, they get,"Don't worry. There is someone out there for you," accompanied by a look of sympathy that makes the girls feel pathetic.

I can totally relate to this. So what I'm saying is that society makes it unacceptable to not be married, but nature makes it difficult to uphold the institution.

[clef0628]

I remenber reading about how in the old pagan ways people would marry for a year and a day and then they could decide to renew for another year and a day or end it. Sometimes, I've seen 3 year time period too. Of course back then the kids were rised by the tribe, so their was not that problum.

Steven

[EasternPriest]

Originally posted by Elaine
I have to say that I agree with the states making it more difficult for people to marry...if it was maybe I wouldn't be 22 with hubby #2!!! BUT...I DO NOT agree with them doing it religiously....


The states are not forcing anyone to marry religiously. Civil marraiges and non-denominational ceremonies would be totally unaffected by what the govern has asked religious leaders to do withing their own denominations. Also, a request was made, no law or mandate.

[EasternPriest]

Originally posted by Tigerwallah


Yes, but when you are in love, you can't see the messy divorce down the road. I, personally, do not believe in marraige. I see it as an obsolete institution. However, I can understand those who do. People don't get married thinking that they will ever be divorced. No one I know will even admit to being serial monogomous. Which, if you analyze how we pick a mate, in most cases, you will see that there is a pattern of serial monogomy. Sure, there are the exceptions to the rule.



I agree. Been through the divorce and remarraige myself. My point was that many people enter into marraige lightly or unprepared. Some people spend more time seriously thinking over the purchase of a new car or trust fund than they do the person they marry.

[Elaine]

sorry EasternPriest...I misunderstood.....

-Some people spend more time seriously thinking over the purchase of a new car or trust fund than they do the person they marry.-

that is so true....I'm guilty of it myself....(I'm embarrassed to admit that...but I am)

[Tigerwallah]

Originally posted by EasternPriest


I agree. Been through the divorce and remarraige myself. My point was that many people enter into marraige lightly or unprepared. Some people spend more time seriously thinking over the purchase of a new car or trust fund than they do the person they marry.

I agree.

[Kaylara]

Well, I have to say, this in my eyes is ridiculous. I think that marriage is a vow between two people that can be disolved if the people who have taken that vow wish it to be disolved. This is not a matter for the government. Me and Traz are married in spirit, if not legally. And the only ones who can break this relationship are us.

To me the divorce rate represents that some people just refuse to put up with the really bad crap. (ie, abuse, alcholics, etc.) Divorce used to be really frowned upon, because it showed a failure in the most sacred vow of all. So people either were separated, or lived together in agony. Now instead of doing that, they leave the person who is making their lives miserable.

Now, I am not talking about all marriages... There are happily married people, and there are people who take advantage of the permissive air in this society and screw some people over through marriage... It's all on an individual basis, but unless you look at individual cases, you can't really say anything. That's why the divorce rate is completely useless to me, I can't generalize about anything, especially in such an intensly personal area of life.

The government should have more important things to worry about than what is going on in my bedroom.

Kaylara