Requiring Premarital Classes

[Kheldarson]

Thought about putting it politics, but I think it fits here better.

Basically, a group in Colorado wants to require premarital counseling before a couple can get married.

http://www.denverpost.com/politics/c...-classes-marry

It'd be 10 hours for the first marriage, 20 for the second, 30 for the third.

On the one hand, I can see why people would be upset by this. It definitely seems a bit infringing and there are a lot of issues with the way it's currently presented (like what if it's the first time for one partner but a third for the other?)

On the other hand, there are a lot of benefits to premarital counseling in its effect on the longevity of a marriage, and benefits to society when more couples stay together (and I don't just mean heterosexual couples).

My biggest sticking point for all of this is that it's specified that this is for marriage only, not civil unions.

In which case, how the hell does the state have any say in this case at all? Technically, even though we call it a marriage license and carry it with us to the church, the only thing the state is concerned about is the civil union. The signing of the contract in front of a recognized officiant. That's it. So how are they going to differentiate here? Will it apply only to Christians? Jews? Muslims?

And the site I found this on brought up another good point: what about common-law marriages?

[Gravekeeper]

They should do this for having kids, not getting married. -.-

As for doing it for marriages, even if there would be a net benefit its too infringing me thinks. Perhaps it could be offered as an option. Even as is there seems to be way too many flaws in the plan to work anyhow.

Besides, Colorado isn't the state that needs this. Its Nevada.

[Kheldarson]

They should do this for having kids, not getting married. -.-

As for doing it for marriages, even if there would be a net benefit its too infringing me thinks. Perhaps it could be offered as an option. Even as is there seems to be way too many flaws in the plan to work anyhow.

In the state Kabe and I got married in, you got a discount on your license if you could walk in with proof of having completed a state-recognized premarital session. Since we were doing sessions through my church, we couldn't get the discount, but it's definitely something some states are obviously looking at.

Besides, Colorado isn't the state that needs this. Its Nevada.

*snerk* Amen to this.

[HYHYBT]

My biggest sticking point for all of this is that it's specified that this is for marriage only, not civil unions.

In which case, how the hell does the state have any say in this case at all? Technically, even though we call it a marriage license and carry it with us to the church, the only thing the state is concerned about is the civil union. The signing of the contract in front of a recognized officiant. That's it. So how are they going to differentiate here? Will it apply only to Christians? Jews? Muslims?

This is about *legal* marriage, whether recognized by any church or not, which is not what the phrase "civil union" means. Colorado recently implemented civil unions as a separate legal status for same-sex couples, who their constitution bars from marriage itself.

[SkullKing]

Besides, Colorado isn't the state that needs this. Its Nevada.

Why is that?

[Kheldarson]

This is about *legal* marriage, whether recognized by any church or not, which is not what the phrase "civil union" means. Colorado recently implemented civil unions as a separate legal status for same-sex couples, who their constitution bars from marriage itself.

Ohhh. Then this whole issue just got stupider. Only hetero couples need premarital counseling?

Why is that?

It's a comment on Las Vegas and how many people do on the spot weddings there.

[Greenday]

Why is that?

Because Vegas is where people run off to in order to elope.

[SkullKing]

got it.

Is it really that common, or mostly an urban myth?

[Kheldarson]

The number of people who do may be exaggerated, but it is real. It's part of the industry there.

[HYHYBT]

When pretty much everywhere had waiting periods and so forth for marriage licenses, being able to go to Nevada and get married that day was a bigger deal. But it's still part of their tourism draw, and they're not likely to kill that any time soon.

[Signmaker]

I do not like it as a requirement to get married, because that's just one of those freedoms that should stay free.

However, I think there might be something to requiring such a class in order to file taxes as "married". Along with taking a basic life skills course in order to claim a child on taxes. It wouldnt prevent you from doing those things, but it could be used as incentive for doing something that will probably help you in the long run.

[fireheart17]

Ohhh. Then this whole issue just got stupider. Only hetero couples need premarital counseling?

Because the highest group of people to divorce are hetero that's why!

Seriously though, the only benefit I can see to this is that it might encourage some "fresh outta high school" couples to try going defacto for a few years before blowing $30k on a dress, suits, limo etc.

[Andara Bledin]

The people most likely to be in need of premarital classes are also those most likely to gain no benefit from having taken them.

The best thing anyone can tell people who want to get married is to make sure they're not going straight from school to married with kids. That appears to be the most common situation that leads to divorce.

[Aethian]

got it. Is it really that common, or mostly an urban myth?

Drive-Thru Chapels

[blas87]

My friend and her husband (married in 2009) had to have marriage classes or sessions, whatever you'd call them, with the minister at the church they were getting married at. I think that was mandatory, or lest you'd have to get married in court.