Two roads diverging

A couple of members of the state House, noting the absurdly high divorce rate in these parts, have come up with schemes to make it harder to split up. Arthur Hulbert (R-Fort Gibson) has proposed a minimum six-month waiting period for a divorce — maybe, just maybe, you’ll change your mind — and Sean Roberts (R-Hominy) has called for “incompatibility” to be stricken from the list of legal grounds.

To Patrick of The Lost Ogle, who has at least as much legal background as any of these guys, these approaches are bass-ackwards:

Instead of spending so much time on draconian legislation that makes it harder for unhappy people to get a divorce, maybe our legislature should make it more difficult for people to get married. Crazy idea, huh? Maybe introduce a 6-month to 1-year probation period before a marriage becomes official, or raise the legal marriage age to 25? I bet that would lower the divorce rate.

Or, lacking that:

Another solution would be to make a couple pay a $1,000 marriage deposit. If a couple stays married for 7 years, they get the money back with interest. If they divorce prior to the 7 years, it goes into a marriage education fund. Who would be against that? It would make people seriously consider whether or not they should get married, and encourage them to make it work if they do. It’s an idea so logical and brilliant it will never see the light of day.

Make it $5,000, and this state will never have another budget deficit.


  1. roger green »

    29 January 2014 · 5:05 am

    I actually like the idea of making marriage more difficult.

  2. fillyjonk »

    29 January 2014 · 7:11 am

    So do I. A lot of churches (heck, probably a lot of religious groups) have the requirement that you do some counseling and stuff before you can tie the knot with them. The idea being, hopefully you will be going into it with a bit more knowledge and understanding.

    Of course, I don’t know anything about this, having never gotten within about a mile of even being proposed to.

  3. McGehee »

    29 January 2014 · 8:40 am

    A minimum engagement of one year would go a long way, I would think. Of course Wife of Slog and I already qualify.

    If that doesn’t do the trick, a minimum acquaintance of one year before getting engaged…?

  4. Trumwill »

    29 January 2014 · 2:45 pm

    These days, we have the increasing problem of young people choosing not to get married at all. I wish the divorce rate were lower, but I’m more concerned at the moment of transient couplings, maybe offspring, split, repeat process.

  5. Jack Baruth »

    29 January 2014 · 3:49 pm

    I have some concerns about the minimum age. The research is in on this: marriages undertaken early in life are more successful than the last-gasp pairings of the 11:30-on-the-biological-clock crowd.

    Young people who marry tend to be religious. Religious people tend to do better, marriage-wise.

    Perhaps it’s best to have an age ceiling. Logan’s Run. Marry by thirty or be sentenced to what Sting called “The Secret Marriage” forever.

  6. Jeffro »

    29 January 2014 · 11:48 pm

    How are you getting along, Mr. Baruth?

RSS feed for comments on this post