This editorial in the Anderson Herald-Bulletin, deploring the whole idea of "covenant marriage," finally gets around, in the antepenultimate paragraph, to revealing the faulty premise on which its conclusion is based:
When the state begins meddling in people's lives, especially in such a private matter as marriage and divorce, more harm than good usually comes of it. Trapping people in a bad union should not be the function of state government.
In the first place, marriage itself is a contract recognized by the government, so if the state wishes to offer a different kind of contract, it doesn't seem logical to call it "meddling." In the second place, "trapping people in bad marriages" is hardly the aim of such legislation. The idea is simply to offer people a choice of something close to what marriage vows used to mean in this country before no-fault divorce laws came along (were those "meddling, as well, by the way?). People who choose covenant marriage have to undergo counseling before their vows and when they seek a divorce, which also requires a separation period of up to two years.
Note the key feature of such legislation: People are offered a choice. If they want the easy in-easy out marriage, they can have that kind. If they want a more serious commitment, they can go that route. That's not government exerting draconian authority where it ought to have none. It's pretty darn libertarian, as a matter of fact.
