# How About Making This A Law to Help Marriages **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 19, 2000, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718 "2000-09-19T14:11:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Wildest\_Bill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Wildest\_Bill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wildest_Bill)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/1 "2000-09-19T14:11:52Z")
Lets face it. Divorce is hurting this country’s family unit. Divorce even hit my mom and dad and it messed me up terribly for a long time.(insert wisecracks here). Anyway I think there should be no debate about what divorce is doing to this nation. It is bad. So how about this as a new law to help. When ever two people wish to get married I think that after they register for a marriage lincense they should have to wait 6 months from that date to get married. In otherwords do a way with the speedy marriages especially in Vegas. Lets face it you really need at least 6 months(really a year or more) to get to know somebody. I don’t have any stats for this other than it just makes common sense. For example, I have a friend that I urged to wait to marry but he didn’t and now they have kids involved and now he finds out she is violent sometimes. I pray that they can work through it but I just don’t know. Of course the judge could wave this law for certain circumstances like one party is dieing and he wants to be married to the one he loves before he dies or other stuff like that. But for the most part they have to wait. So what do you think? Is it a good idea or not. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/2 "2000-09-19T14:19:11Z")
I’m sorry, I think its best the more government stays out of our business. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/3 "2000-09-19T14:19:59Z")
I am sooo with you on this, only the time should be a little longer, maybe 18 months. (Anybody can be on their best behavior for a year) Maybe a test of some sort. Just a few hoops to jump through to weed out the ones who aren’t serious about the institution. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/4 "2000-09-19T14:20:03Z")
How would this help anyting? I’ve know people that dated for several years and lived together for some of them, and yet their marriages still lasted less than a year. The fact is that if your parents divorced, as mine did, you are more likely to marry later in life and more likely to have that marriage end in divorce. Divorce does suck, but it happens to people that have know each other for years, just as it happens to drunken fools who meet in Vegas. ---
**Author:** ![kiffa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/d78d45/32.png) [@kiffa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kiffa)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/5 "2000-09-19T14:21:42Z")
Nah, not a good idea, but I appreciate the thought. Why won’t it work? Because people will on acting the way they do now, but there would not be the legal protections that the marriage certificate provides. Also, marriages break apart more often than not when the partners do not invest time in communicating, negotiating, compromising and working on their relationship over the years. Maybe an alternative to lowering the divorce rate would be renewable marriage licenses. That still wouldn’t respond to the sock-in-the-stomach hurt of divorce… ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/6 "2000-09-19T14:22:18Z")
Great idea! Most people are so stupid that they can’t take care of themselves. I strongly suggest that we curtail personal freedoms (which are greatly overrated,) and place our destinies in the hands of our benevolent governments. People also really tend to be stupid about buying houses and cars, always overextending themselves, and paying too much. The world would be a much better place if the government just told us where to live, don’t you think? Jobs are tough to, nobody ever really gets the right job. It would be better if we had to take aptitiude tests and could only apply for jobs which the government deemed we were suited for. I think everybody would be much more happy this way. What about schooling. The world needs garbagemen. We should start much earlier to determine which children will be successful. Those that are inferior because of intelligence, sex, race, or sexual inclination should be sent to special schools so that a good education won’t be wasted on them. That way the best students receive the best education. Isn’t that what we want? The government should also take control of healthcare. Too much medicine is wasted on sick people who aren’t going to get better. We’re not doing them any favors by letting them linger on for years, are we? It would be much better to institute a national triage of somekind so that all the unimportant and chronically sick people could just die a wuick dignified death without becoming a public burden to the important people. I think you are reall on to something here! ---
**Author:** ![WiredGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@WiredGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WiredGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/7 "2000-09-19T14:25:56Z")
The government has no business creating laws to protect people from themselves. People change, the ties that bond break, people get divorce. If you get married for the wrong reasons then you need to live with the consequences. Leave my tax dollars out of it. ---
**Author:** ![Wildest\_Bill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Wildest\_Bill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wildest_Bill)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/8 "2000-09-19T14:35:27Z")
For the people that agreed with me thanks. For the people that didn’t how about these thoughts. The government requires that you get training to drive a car do they not. And they make you wait until you are 16 to get a license. And Sylla I see your point of course we don’t want the govt to get into our live to that extent. But 1 out of 2 marriages end in divorce come on that is pathetic. Divorce is doing tons of harm to this country and its economy. I am not saying that this is going to fix the problem hopefull it will just help a little. But I do think people should be given tax credit for taking a marriage class before they get married. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/9 "2000-09-19T14:37:38Z")
Scylla forgot a couple of important concepts that would really solve this problem: Have gov’t decide, based on a test, which couples are compatible and which are not. Clearly this would solve many dating issues by scientifically selecting the right couple pairing. Procreation. This is a problem for many parents. How many kids to have. All boys or all girls. Maybe one of each. Who needs that headache! Just have the gov’t decide for you and tell you when and how many of each. …Are you sure you’ve given this sufficient thought, Bill? ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/10 "2000-09-19T14:40:03Z")
> [@](#): > > But 1 out of 2 marriages end in divorce This is not true. At all. Not even close. > [@](#): > > Divorce is doing tons of harm to this country and its economy. Neither is this. > [@](#): > > But I do think people should be given tax credit for taking a marriage class before they get married. I don’t. ---
**Author:** ![WiredGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/91b2a8/32.png) [@WiredGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WiredGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/11 "2000-09-19T14:41:18Z")
“Divorce is doing tons of harm to this country and its economy” Last time I checked the economy was doing pretty good. ---
**Author:** ![Wildest\_Bill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Wildest\_Bill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wildest_Bill)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/12 "2000-09-19T14:46:38Z")
Well pldennison, How about some facts on your post instead of just snide remarks. Quick, Maybe maybe not. But I think y’all our taking my thought to the extreme. I don’t think making people wait 6 months is that big of a deal. Is this really that bad of an idea? ---
**Author:** ![Needs2know](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5e925/32.png) [@Needs2know](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Needs2know)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/13 "2000-09-19T14:47:06Z")
I’m not gonna get snippy with you on this one Bill. Your heart is in the right place. But a waiting period wouldn’t do any more good than “living together” has done for marriage. As a matter of fact a month or two ago I saw some statistic that stated “live ins” actually divorced at a greater rate than those who had not given it a “trial run”. One reason divorce has become so much easier to obtain is because now women have rights. Back in the olden days you married who your daddy wanted you to marry and you stayed that way, regardless of how you were treated. People also stayed together because of the social stigma that was placed on divorce. (Once again women suffered the indignity of being “divorced” much more so than men.) Another poster mentioned in their remarks about dictating things like financing a car. You know a big problem with divorce is that people don’t think through the consequences of setting up house with someone any more than they do over extending their budget. But should the government intervene in their decisions on these matters, no not really. People frequently marry when they have an awful lot of doubts about the outcome. It’s such a personal thing that regulating it is just not feasable. Our own society has made divorce as common as it is today. Governmental regulations are not the answer. And it would take a greater mind than I to tell you what is. Needs2know ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/14 "2000-09-19T14:48:06Z")
You are required to get training to drive a vehicle because unless you meet minimum standards you represent an immediate and direct threat to other motorists lives. Anything the government has to tell me about marriage, I most certainly do not want to know. I resent the idea that I would need to be taught by my Government what is expected of me and what kind of commitment I would be making if I got married. These are items of personal choice, and are none of the governments business. Who would decide what material should be included in your marriage course? Please explain to me how divorce “is doing tons of harm to this country and economy.” I would appreciate cites. The burden of proof is upon you to support this contention. I see this as a dangerous and a foolhardy idea, a movement away from personal responsibility and freedom, and an attempt to legislate morality. Attempting to fix the the problem this way is about as naive and harmful as rubbing butter over a man with third degree burns over most of his body. When I hear about this kind of lunacy I’m always reminded of an old quote. “When the Barbarians finally come to destroy us, we will throw the city gates wide for them, all the while thinking it was just the piza guy.” ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/15 "2000-09-19T14:52:02Z")
It’s a terrible idea. As has been stated before, I don’t think that the state should be involved in the myriad things that people do to screw up their own lives. If, as you say, divorce is destroying the nation, then might you have some evidence of same? And, **Bill** : My parents were divorced. Hell, I only met my father once, and didn’t feel comfortable telling him who I was, or why I was there. And despite what others, including myself, may say, I don’t think I’m any more screwed up than the average bear. -GLW ---
**Author:** ![Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/bc8723/32.png) [@Unauthorized\_Cinnamon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unauthorized_Cinnamon)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/16 "2000-09-19T14:53:32Z")
Well, I think we could do something more useful and less invasive by including education in interpersonal relationships, anger management, etc. in the public school curriculum. This would also (I hope) reduce the incidence of parental violence toward children. [I think Hawaii instituted a program for new mothers in this vein - anyone have any facts on that?] Of course, certain people would probably complain that such classes are indoctrinating children into Secular Humanism (apparently this is synonymous with “evil.”) :rolleyes: **Bill** , as for the 50% divorce rate idea, check these threads from Snopes. It appears this is just an urban legend. [http://161.58.238.106/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001765.html](http://161.58.238.106/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001765.html) [http://161.58.238.106/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001411.html](http://161.58.238.106/ubb/Forum1/HTML/001411.html) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/17 "2000-09-19T14:58:52Z")
Your view would also be horribly discriminatory against woman. There would be no shotgun marriages. Young men who would like to take formal responsibility for the pregnancies they helped cause would be prohibited from doing so. You would be forcing these children to be born out of wedlock and without the formal financial security that a married partnership could provide. There’d be a lot more single moms deprived of their support network in their hour of greatest need because of this idiocy. Dude, this is a bad bad idea. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/18 "2000-09-19T15:02:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wildest Bill \* > I am not saying that this is going to fix the problem hopefull it will just help a little. Of course you are right Bill. So little that it will be statistically imperceptable. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wildest Bill \* > But I do think people should be given tax credit for taking a marriage class before they get married. How about a tax credit for recycling? What about a tax credit for walking to work instead of using your car or public transportation? Definately a tax credit for bringing up you children with a religious education instead of letting the little godless heathens run around the streets. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/19 "2000-09-19T15:07:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Well pldennison, > > How about some facts on your post instead of just snide remarks. Well, I don’t see why I should be held to a higher standard than the original poster ( **cough** you **cough** ), who presented no facts, and it **is** your assertion, after all . . . but what the hell. First of all, I refer you to Wendell Wagner’s recent post in another thread: > [@](#): > > The real figure seems to be that about 40% of marriages end in divorce. (Note: All statistics in this post apply just to the U.S.) A statistic that you frequently see is that 50% end in divorce, but that’s based on a mistaken reading of some real statistics. In 1981, the number of divorces during that year was quite close to being half of the number of marriages during that year. **If that were true every year, it might really be true that 50% of all marriages end in divorce, but 1981 was the only year that that was even close to being true.** There seem to be two reasons why the proportion of divorces to marriages was so high in that year. One is that the proportion of divorces was rising during most of the 20th century (in the U.S.). It appears that it peaked around 1981 and has been slowly dropping since then. The second is that the Baby Boomers were in their peak years for divorce around 1981. The most likely time for a first marriage is in a person’s early '20’s and the most likely time for a divorce in a person’s early '30’s. > > **There’s an even more complicated reason why even the 40% figure for the proportion of marriages that end in divorce is slightly deceptive.**. . . There’s a difference between the following two numbers: Suppose you go up to a random couple at their wedding and ask, “What’s the probability that this marriage will end in divorce?” Now suppose you go up to a random person on the street and accertain that he or she is married. You ask, “What the probability that this person’s marriage will end in divorce?” Surprisingly, the answer to the two questions can be different. To explain why, let me make up an exaggerated example. Suppose we have a population of 100 people who only marry among themselves, 50 of whom are male and 50 of whom are female. Suppose that we can divide these people into a divorce-prone group (25 of the men and 25 of the women) and a divorce-resistant group (the other 25 of the men and the other 25 of the women). Suppose that the 25 divorce-resistant woman and the 25 divorce-resistant men are matched up in pairs and married and their marriages last all their lives. Suppose that the 25 divorce-prone mena and the 25 divorce-prone men also all marry. Each of the divorce-prone marriages ends in divorce. All 50 choose another mate in the divorce-prone group and marry again. Each second marriage ends in divorce. All 50 choose still another mate in the divorce-prone group and marry again. The third marriages also end in divorce. There have now been 100 marriages in this group of 100 people. 75 of them have ended in divorce. So the probability that a marriage will end in divorce is 75%. However, the probability that a random married person will ever get divorced is only 50%. > > Yes, this situation doesn’t completely fit the U.S., but it is true that there are divorce-prone and divorce-resistant people and it is true that divorce-prone tend to marry divorce-prone and divorce-resistant tend to marry divorce-resistant. **Because of this, although the percentage of marriages that end in divorce is about 40%, the percentage of married people who will eventually get divorced is somewhat less, perhaps about 35%.** And also Homer’s post, which is about as sensible as you can get: > [@](#): > > A certain amount of people get married in a year, and a certain amount of people get divorced in a year. Most people will take these numbers, divide one by the other, and get the ‘percentage’ of divorces. I feel this is a tainted sample. > > The reason is, the marriages are only from that year, whereas the divorces are from every year, from, say, 1920 to 2000. It’s counting people who’ve been married 2 months, and people who’ve been married 80 years. In order to get a clean statistic, you would need to count the marriages in, say, 1990, and come back in 2030 and count the number who’ve been divorced since. Of course, this still won’t give you a good percentage, because the trend towards divorce will likely have shifted in the 40 years of the study. > > This being as it is, I don’t think we really can find a clean statistic on something as long (or short) term as this. > > Overall, I’d say about 20-30% get divorced, just from my own observations. Now, as to > [@](#): > > Divorce is doing tons of harm to this country and its economy. First of all, the economy is flying, so if divorce is having any effect, it’s negligible. Second of all, I don’t know if you’ve seen the latest stats on who is doing most of the divorcing, but the sad truth is that it’s Midwestern Christians. So many of them are raised in an environment in which premarital sex (or even copping a feel) is a mortal sin, so they rush into marriages they aren’t prepared to handle. Simple logic, and a glance at any individuals own family, will demonstrate how simple this is, though. (And keep in mind that, necessarily, those marriages that don’t “end in divorce” end in the death of a spouse.) **My parents** : Married 1965, divorced 1984. **Me and my wife** : Married 1991, still married. **Maternal grandparents** : Married nearly sixty years, still married. **Mother’s older sister** : Married 36 years, still married. **Mother’s older brother** : Married more than 40 years, still married. **Mother’s younger sister** : On her second marriage, still married. **My sister** : Never married. So, in a self-selected sample, out of 7 marriages, 5 have not ended in divorce. But, in the final estimation, **it’s none of the government’s goddamned business** how long my spouse and I know each other before we’re married. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2000, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718/20 "2000-09-19T15:37:55Z")
Lastly, the federal government does not have the authority to regualte marriages. It is a state matter. It would be a little awkwad to fit under the “commerce” clause (not that they haven’t tried equally ridiculous things) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-about-making-this-a-law-to-help-marriages/33718.md?page=2)