Kelly Erickson and Dr. Alan J. Hawkins, Family
In an effort to combat the no-fault divorce era and it=s social repercussions, two states, Louisiana and Arizona, have already passed a Covenant Marriage Law (CM). This law is meant to strengthen the marriage commitment from it=s inception by requiring the following conditions of couples who choose to participate in a Covenant Marriage: 1) that they have carefully chosen to marry and have disclosed any information that could adversely affect the relationship, 2) that they understand that the legal grounds for separation or divorce include adultery by the other spouse, felony and imprisonment, abandonment for one year, physical or sexual abuse of spouse or children, habitual intemperance, living separate and apart for two years or a legal separation for one year, 3) that they believe that marriage is commitment to live together as husband and wife for life; 4) that they promise that if they experience serous marital problems they will seek all reasonable measures to preserve their marriage, including marital counseling; 5) that they have received premarital counseling form either a religious leader or a marriage counselor and understand what covenant marriage is. CM is also available to married couples who wish to Aupgrade@ their marital commitment.
This purpose of this study was to better understand how the Utah population would react to this type of legislation and if Utahns would support this legislation in their state. Due to the high density of members from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS) in this state and their unique religious perspectives concerning family, I hypothesized that this type of legislation would be fairly well received. However, I also anticipated some resistence in relation to government interference, as well as other perceived infringements on religious ideals.
My qualitative methods of investigation included formatted focus groups and individual interviews. Participants were recruited by flyers, telephone, personal contact, and referral from previous participants. All focus groups and interviews were tape recorded, transcribed, and coded for similar response patterns. To date, our focus groups are comprised of the following: 2 groups of male and female, predominantly LDS single students; and 2 groups of young, married LDS women. To date, our interview participants include: 2 male, LDS, married, divorce attorneys; 1 LDS, married, former Bishop; 1 LDS engaged couple; 1 LDS, divorced, Brazilian woman; 2 LDS men with backgrounds in law; 1 elderly, LDS married woman; 1 middle-aged, divorced, LDS, woman; and 4 male religious leaders from various faiths in the community. I plan to continue the focus groups and interviews before compiling all the information into a comprehensive report that will be submitted to a Utah state representative.
The results of my research to date support my hypothesis. In general, it appears that Utahns believe in the cause that Covenant Marriage legislation promotes and would support it in their state. However, Utahns do have several concerns about this legislation and their support would perhaps be apathetic at best.
It appears that Utahns support CM for the following reasons: 1) Premarital education is very much needed, would be effective, and is non threatening; 2) CM considers the entire family unit rather than the individual, especially when children are involved; 3) Marital counseling is already built into the relationship should problems arise; 4) It’s a choice rather than a mandate; and 5) It=s purpose is to foster long term family relationships.
On the other hand, Utahns would not support CM for the following reasons: 1) The LDS concept of eternal marriage is so much more binding and concrete than anything the law could establish. CM would merely be over legislation; 2) CM is superfluous and potentially ineffective. The couples that would choose CM are the ones that already have the makings of a lasting relationship. Those that do not choose CM are the ones that are doomed to fail no matter what they do; 3) Utahns are unclear about the quality of counseling provided by religious leaders and the funding sources for professional marital counselors. Will the government subsidize marital counseling, and if so, will CM couples have unfair access to these resources? 4) It is possible that CM couples may create their own elitist groups and receive preferential treatment from insurance companies and banks due to their seemingly more stable lifestyle; 5) Marital relationships encompass a host of moral issues that are impossible for the government to regulate. Theses issues are of personal and religious concern; 6) CM does not allow a couple to dissolve the relationship for reasons other than listed above. For example, what if one spouse is financially irresponsible or simply falls out of love? They would be stuck in an undesirable relationship for longer than is necessary. Utahns consider this risk to be especially high amongst themselves where they typically marry very young and have short courtships; 7) Members of the LDS church will feel unduly pressured to accept CM because they will assume that the church supports it. Not choosing CM would incur great social stigmas; 8) The word covenant, although it has both secular and religious meanings, has sacred meaning for members of the LDS faith and they would prefer that the law have a different name.
In general, most Utahns believed that CM would pass in Utah and agreed that they would support this legislation in an effort to encourage pro-family activity. Interestingly, Utahns seem to believe that CM would be obsolete and useless to themselves, but think it is a good idea for people who do not have access to eternal marriage as they know it. If this depiction of Utah perceptions about CM is correct, then I would suggest abandoning the effort all together. The law would be merely symbolic and not accomplish it=s purpose. Considering the data, I would suggest creating a new law that is more likely to appeal to LDS belief systems. Specifically, I would draft a law that strongly promotes premarital education/preparation in the school systems.
References
- Goodman, Kristen L., & Heaton, Tim B. (1996). LDS Church Members in the U.S. and Canada: A Demographic Profile. AMCAP Journal, 12(1), 88-107.
- Hawkins, Alan J. (1998, November). Perspectives on Covenant Marriage. The Family in America, 12(11), 1-8. 120
- Nock, Steven L., Wright, James D., & Sanchez, Laura. (1999). America=s Divorce Problem. Society, 36(4), 43-52.