The presumed Speaker-to-be, Rep. Philip Gunn (R-Clinton), has introduced covenant marriage legislation in 7 of his 8 years in the House. And that's all fine and good. Issues of separation of church and state aside, there's a very, very dangerous aspect to what Rep. Gunn's legislation would create. Unlike legislation in other states, Gunn's bill would not allow for a divorce in the case of domestic violence. Here's the sticky part:
Notwithstanding any provisions of law to the contrary, a covenant marriage may not be dissolved except by reason of adultery or desertion.So, if a woman in a covenant marriage gets beaten senseless on a daily basis, but her husband doesn't sleep around on her and doesn't leave the marital home, guess what? No divorce. That would explain why Gunn's bill died in committee every year from 2004-2010. (He didn't submit the bill in 2011.)
So, given the constant failure of his bill, why did Gunn refuse to alter the legislation to provide for a divorce in cases of domestic violence?