Thursday, November 17, 2011

Philip Gunn, covenant marriages, and abused women

There has been a movement afoot in more religiously conservative areas of the U.S. for the establishment of something called "covenant marriages."  In effect, it is a different type of marriage that tightly restricts divorces.  Louisiana was first to establish covenant marriages back in 1997, then Arkansas and Arizona followed suit.  To my knowledge, no other state has seen fit to pass covenant marriage legislation.

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?


Kingfish said...

This is not even good liberal smack. Come on. Am I going to start up a liberal blog just to show you how its done?

Cottonmouth said...

1) If it's "liberal" to seek to protect women from abuse, then does it follow that it's "conservative" to subject them to it?

2) I find it interesting that you use the word "smack."