Vows like “For as long as we continue to love each other,” “For as long as our love shall last” and “Until our time together is over” are increasingly replacing the traditional to-the-grave vow
When I was really young, one of my doubts with gospel was that it appeared to associate wickedness with some at-least notional “marrying and giving in marriage.” I just didn’t see how that could be. Over the last few years God has been taking care of that doubt pretty effectively. I only wish he’d done it on less broad a canvas.
I believe in marriage. I believe it should be nourished by custom and sustained in law. But the marriage that should be so nourished and so sustained is the marriage found in Western tradition and Mormon revelation–procreative, heterosexual, and lifelong. One response to the kind of “marrying and giving in marriage” found in these new vows is simply to refuse to give them legal effect. Use them, and you are married in your own eyes, for whatever meaning that has to you–not much, apparently–but you will not receive recognition in law. States that are serious about marriage, e.g., states that have enacted covenant marriage laws, should think hard about clarifying that marriages are only legal if the parties signal some intent to stay together for life.
Although these new vows are the logical conclusion of no-fault divorce laws, and should lead to a re-evaluation of the merits of those laws, even supporters of no fault divorce should be able to support only giving legal effect to marriages where the parties vow to stick the marriage out.
Per the Faulconer-Huff proposal, I’m most interested in hearing from those who agree on what marriage ought to be, and who agree that it should receive protection and encouragement at law.
Adam:
Interesting proposition. If states are going to be involved in the “marraige” business; then they need to take a pro-active stance (unfortunately) to prove that marriage is in society’s best interests and how they are going to support these interests.
re: life-long. Sadly, in most of the SciFi I read, marraige “contracts” are the norm; and seem to be for limited duration, i.e. 1 child, or 10 years, etc. Hopefully, the truth will be not just stranger, but stronger, than fiction.
Having worked (as a missionary) in a land (central america) where divorces are very difficult to get, I have to say that I’m not sure that I agree. Making legal requirements for lifelong committment, while sounding very nice, doesn’t guarantee that couples won’t split up. They just won’t divorce. Then they’ll find someone else to get together with, and start a second family with, but they won’t be able to marry that other person.
It’s true that I feel that our divorcing culture is problematic. I’m not sure that’s the fault of our laws. I’m also not convinced that different laws will fix it.
MRKH
I am not overly impressed with no-fault divorce. But I am unclear on what the alternative is. What kind of legal standard for divorce could be court enforced and still workable?
You misunderstand me, Mark Hansen. Though I am also against guaranteed divorce, that’s not what I’m proposing here. I’m simply saying that, before a marriage ceremony is given legal effect, perhaps the couple should make some sort of lifelong commitment, even if that lifelong commitment is not enforced by law.
Frank M.,
Some of the covenant marriage approaches are described here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_cove2.htm
By report, having a 12 or 24 month waiting period is fairly common abroad, along with the usual adultery, battery, and molestation.
Requiring a lifelong commitment would invalidate common law marriages entirely, since those typically don’t have any ceremony at all. That would lead to a can of worms as well. Sometimes it is in society’s best interest to recognize a less than permanent arrangement as a marriage. I don’t know much family law, but I think a common law marriage, or any marriage, is required to recognize such rights as hospital visitation and next of kin, rights to receive alimony, rights to property division in the event of separation, and so forth.
Also, stating that this state of affairs results from no-fault divorce laws misses the cultural changes that accept this sort of “till we feel like it” lack of commitment. The idea that marriage should be between people who love each and want to be together is a large factor as well. If we went back to the idea that you stayed together even if you were totally miserable, then the “till death do you part” would be valid again. But as a culture, we’re beginning to take it for granted that we should be happy in our relationships, so some people figure they should quit as soon as the difficult times arrive.
Melinda,
Most states don’t recognize common law marriages anyway.
You are correct that no-fault divorce is the result of culture changes. It has also been, and continues to be, the cause of them. But no matter. What do you think about recognizing only commitments to lifelong marriage?
Who can be the judge? Who is to say that a couple is meant to be and has intent to stay together. Is the institute of marriage the same for everyone? There are successful marriages that take place in Las Vegas same as there are unsuccessful ones that are performed in the temple. If you want to judge someone’s quality of relationship and intention in marriage then you must set up standard for marriage. And what would those standards be?
Allow me to express my skepticism that this “trend” towards “Till we feel like it” vows is any more than media hype. In fact, the linked article includes this quote:
Frank:
There is no contested “no-fault” divorce in New York. A person who wants a divorce must plead one of several reasons, including cruelty, abandonment, adultery, incarceration for a certain period, etc.
Only if the other spouse agrees to a separation, and a separation agreement is signed and the parties live apart for a year pursuant to that agreement, can a person be granted a divorce without pleading one of the “causes” listed above.
Now, you could argue that it doesn’t really work that way–people lie, if you can imagine that, in court papers and on the witness stand–but the law still says what it does, and a person must state a reason in order for a divorce to be granted.
May I ask a question about the deeper issue?
Is there anything that the Saints can do, individually or collectively, that might help our non-mormon friends to *want* to stay married, as opposed to tinkering with laws that might *require* them to stay married? Or is this a non-reversible trend?
Good question, Julie in A. My feeling is that marriage laws affect public attitudes, but clearly they can’t do it all alone.
Excellent point, Ed. Really, if everyone in the US had changed their attitudes about marriage, pushing back would be hopeless. It’s helpful to remember that we’re often just dealing with trends and percentage shifts, sometimes quite small. These are important but not unmanageable.
This reminds me of a comment made during an EQ discussion. Apparently, more and more these days (according to the word of a professional photographer who attends many weddings) Christian wedding include some mangled form of “And let this marriage be sealed in heaven as it is now sealed on earth”. It seems most devout married people would like their love to last beyond death, so if there’s no theological basis for this, why not make one up and hope. I guess that’s how most of Protestant theology works anyway. Oh well, better that they have faith in their love than not. In Scandinavia, apparently (that word again), people have started to live together and have kids before marriage. Why not? Why make any vows if there’s no intention, just live together and have kids, and then, after 20 years, make the vows. Oh well, thank goodness for the sealing power and the fact that I’m aware of its existence.
Since our own sealing vows don’t include the words “love” or “commit” anyway, I don’t see the big deal about these new vows.
After all, at least they’re talking about love, which is a lot more than come eager high-school grads and date-starved RMs think about when they’re at the temple altar.
“is this a non-reversible trend?”
Raw divorce rates per 1,000 per year for 20 years (from http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html ):
1982 ……….. 5.1
1983 ……….. 5.0
1984 ……….. 5.0
1985 ……….. 5.0
1986 ……….. 4.9
1987 ……….. 4.8
1988 ……….. 4.8
1989 ……….. 4.7
1990 ……….. 4.7
1991 ……….. 4.7
1992 ……….. 4.8
1993 ……….. 4.6
1994 ……….. 4.6
1995 ……….. 4.4
1996 ……….. 4.3
1997 ……….. 4.3
1998 ………. 4.2
1999 ………. 4.1
2000 ………. 4.2
2001 ………. 4.0
More sophisticated analysis at:
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p70-97.pdf
Yikes. I really meant to type “some eager high-school grads…”
Sorry.
I agree that marriage laws affect public attitude. There is something about legislatively endorsing certain principles (whether for good or for bad) that creates an atmosphere that affects public thought and discourse.
Interesting stats. I’m betting that the slightly lower modern divorce rates are a product of lower modern marriage rates (in other words, when no one gets married, no one gets divorced). But certainly there has been a healthy acknowledgment lately that divorce is never a good thing, even if sometimes necessary.
None,
Let’s keep it clean.
Good point, Adam…how about these stat from the “sophisticated analysis” I linked to above?
Percent of first marriages to women that lasted to the 10th anniversary, by year of marriage:
Year of Marriage
1955 to 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.8
1960 to 1964 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84.0
1965 to 1969 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.9
1970 to 1974 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70.2
1975 to 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . … 67.7
1980 to 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71.5
1985 to 1989 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.7
A useless legal factiod (my stock in trade): There is a dispute in Islamic law between Sunni and Shi’ia conceptions of divorce. My understanding is that both sides view marriage as a contract rather than a sacrament (there are no sacraments in Islam) and divorce is relatively easy to procure. The Shi’ia’s, however, also have a marriage for a term of years. (Sorry, I forget the term.) As I understand it the parties to the marriage specify that they will be married for a certain period of time, after which the marriage will lapses by operation of law, ie there is no need to go through any sort of a divorce proceeding. The Sunnis regard such marriages as wholely illegitimate attempts to circumvent prohibitions on adultery and fornication, like the oft repeated story of the hormone saturated BYU students going off to Vegas for weekend marriages. The Shi’ia, on the other hand, regard the arrangment as legitimate and deny that it is a cover for sexual sin. According to my Islamic law professor, many Shi’ia marriages are specifically entered into for a term of years — e.g. 99 years — that make the marriages functionally life-long just as a way of collectively sticking it to the Sunni jurists.
This seems like a concrete historical example of a more limited conception of marriage that doesn’t seem to have had a significant impact of the overall health of the institution. Of course, Shar’ia is hardly a hot bed for the companionate model of marriage.
Wow, we really tanked for a while there. Of course, it is not hard to believe that as marriage rates tank, divorce rates improve. The marginal marriages are the kind that are probably the most likely to end in divorce
Another factor in divorce rates is what kind of life individuals feel they can expect post-divorce.
The stigma of being a divorcee is decreasing. I suppose the bellwether is the British royal family. Edward VIII had to abdicate in order to be with divorcee Wallis Simpson. But Charles could divorce Di and carry on as normal.
Child support is being enforced better now than in years past, too. So those who have children have less fear that kids’ basic needs will go unmet.
Women are more able these days to care for themselves and their children post-divorce because of the strides made toward gender equality in education and the workplace. When a marriage goes sour, she doesn’t feel like she must either stay or starve.
We could pass laws that would turn back the clock on these things. We could start a concerted effort make divorced life as miserable as possible, full of penury and public shame. If we did, then more people would find sticking with a problematic marriage to be more appealing by comparison. But I don’t think that would be the right approach to take.
“Is there anything that the Saints can do, individually or collectively, that might help our non-mormon friends to *want* to stay married,”
If we think of something, we ought to apply it to ourselves, since we get divorced at roughly equal rates as our non-mormon friends. Not being snotty here, just pointing out that I don’t think we have the moral high ground here.
“We could pass laws that would turn back the clock on these things. We could start a concerted effort make divorced life as miserable as possible, full of penury and public shame. If we did, then more people would find sticking with a problematic marriage to be more appealing by comparison. But I don’t think that would be the right approach to take.”
Yep, that’s pretty much the only alternative to dithering.
Sheldon–
Do you have some data on that? Because everything I’ve seen (included the book _Statistical Analysis_ that I reviewed here) suggests that the Saints, especially the Temple married ones, divorce less.
(My goal, though, isn’t to claim ‘the moral high ground’; one temple marriage ending is one too many.)
“I suppose the bellwether is the British royal family. Edward VIII had to abdicate in order to be with divorcee Wallis Simpson. But Charles could divorce Di and carry on as normal.”
I’d say that Charles got a lot more grief about his affairs with Camilla than most previous British kings got for carying on with all their many mistresses.
The good old days weren’t always good.and tomorrow ain’t as bad as it seems.
A New York Times editorial has an interesting take on the whole issue. I’m certain it has been relegated into the archives by now, but it’s worth a read if you have access at any rate.
Stephanie Coontz, “The Heterosexual Revolution,” _New York Times,_ July 5 2005.
Ed,
We shouldn’t let chronological pride in our own times blind us to its faults. Yes, lots of things were wrong about the past. So what? The topic of this post is marriage vows and the permanence of marriage.
I don’t have the actual data at my fingertips (from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism) but apparently Mormon divorce rate is neck and neck with the figure in the nation, about 1 out of 2.5. Temple divorce is only slightly better. I myself know a surprising number of couples married in the Temple who are now divorced, at least 10 I can think of off the top of my head. I don’t know what the rate of divorce is among active members, since divorce tends to go along with inactivity.
Covenant Marriage, or lifelong commitment marriage, won’t work until the culture changes to reflect altruism in marriage, not the self. I’m talking a metamorphosis of the whole culture here, which stresses the needs of the self over all other considerations. If “I’m” not happy, in our current culture, I’m certainly encouraged to make an instant decision to get out, or at least take a drug.
Covenant Marriage is part of an attempt to change the culture. It may be misguided, but waiting for the culture to change on its own is useless.
I certainly agree Adam — waiting for the culture to change on its own is useless.
D. Fletcher -
According to most authoratative sources, including Statistical Analysis that Julie mentioned, as well as Latter Day Saint Social Life: Social Research on the LDS Church and its members and a few others I don’t have handy 0 LDS temple marriages have very low divorce rates. However, mixed LDS marriages (where one spouse is not Mormon) have much, much higher than average divorce rates, and non-temple marriages have about average divorce rates – this raises the average somewhat.
The problem with all Mormon statistics is that many are simply not reported. There are quite a number of divorces among inactive couples who were originally married in the Temple — when they got divorced, they didn’t bother to seek a Temple divorce. My own ward in Manhattan continues to list MANY couples married in the 60s who drifted out of the Church, never to be heard of again. At least 3 of them are in our ward directory — people in their 60s who haven’t been to Church for 30 years. For all intents and purposes in the Church, these couples are still eternally married, and the numbers reflect this.
Gay marriage advocacy and responses thereto should be taken elsewhere.
If we are concerned about too many Mormons divorcing, why not follow the lead of the Catholic Church on divorce? Most people are surprised to learn that Mormons are so lenient about divorce, especially when Mormons seem so strict about other issues.
Not to worry, Adam — I won’t ever post to this site again.
D., I think Adam means on this thread only (re-read the last line of his original post). T&S would disappear if we never talked about gay marriage :)
I like reading your comments, D. Please stick around.
I think it was Bill Maher, or maybe Jon Stewart who made the very good comment that marriage isn’t all that sacred in America. I mean, uh, who is that basketball player who married himself? And Britney Spears? I have a few like that in my circle of friends.
He, whichever he was, said we should outlaw divorce instead of gay marriage and make it harder to get married. I thought he had a good point.
Maybe it was Chris Rock.
D. Fletcher -
the sources cited correct for underreporting of temple v. civil divorces. When all is taken into account, temple marriages while not divorce free are still much lower than the national average. “Lower” does not equal “low” necessarily, but the stats show a temple marriage equals a much higher chance of success.
Oops. Yes, I meant this thread.
How can the status of temple divorces be accurately determined when:
1. A woman cannot request or be granted a cancellation of sealing (“temple divorce”) until she is ready to remarry *in the temple*?
2. Members who go inactive or leave the church do not recognize or request a “cancellation of sealing” when they divorce civilly?
3. A man can remarry in the temple as often as he wants, yet a woman cannot. He may be civilly divorced from his previous wives but will still be “sealed” to all of them.
Ink Red,
The statistics referred to have nothing to do with temple divorce. They have to do with civil divorce in temple marriages. Further discussion of temple divorce will be treated as off-topic axe-grinding.
Does the church keep track of inactives or former members who divorce? Most wards I’ve been in have included a good 20-30% of active members on their second or third marriages, many of those marriages in the temple. I have a hard time believing that people married in the temple (especially in this generation) don’t get divorced as often as people who marry “civilly”.
Ink Red-
are u sure about that info?
i am a convert (granted almost 30 years), but we have no experience with temple divorces.
my daughter , (19 years old), was “swept off her feet” by a 23 year old rm. he proposed to her during a prayer. he told her that after going to the temple, he knew that she is to be his wife.
well, to make a short story shorter…he said he “wasn’t happy” and now wanted to divorce her. oh, did i mention 3 months later??
now she cries at all church meetings and says the promises made to her didn’t happen.
we are helping her get a quick divorce at the urging of our/her bishop.
he said she can petition the first presidency to get a temple divorce (cancellation) without wanting to get remarried right away…she’s talking 10 years before she’ll ever trust a man again.
what do you all think??
SadMommy,
I think you can trust your bishop on this one. The internet isn’t always the best place for advice.