Austinist: TX Legislature: Mandatory Marriage Course for all Texans

damnation's delights

Fri, 13 Apr 2007 08:43:55 -0600

who gives a shit? maybe it'll prevent more marriages - which can never be a bad thing.

citizen Able

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:46:24 -0600

jooley ann, The senate would have to sponsor the house bill for it to be brought to the floor and voted upon. Then the two bills are reconciled before it becomes law. Texas recognizes common law marriage. In other words, if two people (of different genders [thanks fundies]) say "we're married," they're married. Unless the current house law penalizes married couples at some point for choosing that route, this bill is utterly devoid of meaning and sense. Besides being an unnecessary intrusion into citizens' private affairs, the bad thing about this bill is the proposal for lengthening the waiting period for no-fault divorces. When no-fault divorces become more difficult to obtain, the parties are more likely to raise more serious and more damaging allegations against each other in order to attempt to avoid delays in moving on with their lives. This would likely lead to greater cost and decreased pursuit of happiness.

s

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:27:23 -0600

Just found out the bill was discussed more today on the House floor. The bill passed, but here's the good news: Rep. Senfronia Thompson successfully added an amendment to the bill that essentially rendered it meaningless. So, even though the bill subsequently passed, all the crap that I wrote about above will not become law.

jooley ann

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 14:15:05 -0600

Wait...it PASSED? *UnbeLIEvable*. So, please edumacate me, S, is this a done deal now?? I'm pissed. I can't believe this. With all the other crap you have to do in order to plan a reasonable wedding, now you have to attend some kinda freakin' state-approved CLASS? Or pony up $40 additional dollars? What happens to the extra dough? Where does that go? That's what this is all about. That extra $40 per license. Believe me, that's going to add up. Also, what about people who take classes or go through counseling at their churches? My husband and I did that, and honestly we really enjoyed it -- but it sure as hell shouldn't be *required* of everyone. Still, if you're already getting guidance from your spritual advisor, does that count? Or do you have to ALSO take this stupid state course? You *know* these courses will end up being very simliar to defensive driving classes. Soon there will be the comedy version...and just wait'll they start offering 'em online! I could go on, but use your imagination. Ugh. Well, I suggest everyone click the "House Bill 2685" link and see whether your rep voted for this piece of shite. My man Mark Strama was a Nay. I'd have expected no less of him.

android

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 13:23:07 -0600

i dunno much about this marrying business, but that bride doing the kegstand..... EPIC.

adamr

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:52:06 -0600

At least civil servants don't have to publicly report on their menstruation like in Indiana. Oh, sorry, I meant India.

adamr

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:49:17 -0600

I reckon Texas could use a good dose of marriage learnin'.

Tim

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:25:33 -0600

I'm sure we'll find that Tom Craddick and Rick Perry have a friend who just happens to be in the marriage counseling business. They don't do anything in the legislature unless it'll make those two apes money.

Tim

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 12:22:54 -0600

Nope. My guess is that if we look closely we'll find that Rick Perry and Tom Craddick have a friend who runs a marriage counseling business, and who will benefit greatly from this. Smells like crisis pregnancy centers part deux...

boobookitty

Thu, 12 Apr 2007 11:20:55 -0600

yes, texans: missionary position only, please. or maybe they're just trying to prevent domestic violence? i mean...that's laudable, right?