Victory in NY / Progress in Texas / NO-FAULT in New York? - 4/12/07

[Smartmarriages]

- VICTORY IN NEW YORK
- MARRIAGE EDUCATION LEGISLATION PASSES TEXAS HOUSE
- NEW YORK AND NO-FAULT
#########################
- VICTORY IN NEW YORK

NY FAMLI received the good news that the 2007-2008 New York State budget
includes $125,000 for healthy marriage education programs. Senator Golden,
Anne Downey, Chair of NY Famli, and their colleagues fought hard to secure
the funding. 

Famli efforts have now succeeded in winning money for marriage skills
building programs in Utah, New Mexico, and New York.

We need your help to win in your state!
To register as a FAMLI member and to receive regular updates on events in
your state click:  
http://www.famli.us/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=registers

Chris Gersten 
Www.famli.us 

########################
- MARRIAGE EDUCATION LEGISLATION PASSES TEXAS HOUSE

Marriage bill gets an iffy 'I do' in the House
Houston Chronicle
April 12, 2007
Proposal that raises fees unless couples take class faces an uncertain
future in Senate

By POLLY ROSS HUGHES

AUSTIN ‹ Lovebirds wishing to tie the knot would pay $100 for a marriage
license under a bill the Texas House tentatively passed Wednesday, unless
they took a prenuptial class on how to behave as a spouse.

Before the 78-63 vote, furor among Democrats and rebellious Republicans over
the marriage fee hike prompted the bill's author to promise he'll merely
double the current $30 fee before a final vote today. Applicants taking the
classes would get free marriage licenses.

Even with final House approval, though, the bill faces an uncertain future
in the Senate, where it must find a sponsor to get a floor debate.

Debate in the House lasted more than two hours and touched on the wisdom of
no-fault divorces, poverty and broken marriages, government intrusion into
private lives and whether a new "marriage tax" hike violates the state
Republican Party platform.

Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, stressed that his House Bill 2685 urges couples
to undergo an eight-hour marriage education class because children of
never-married or divorced parents are more likely to be poor.

"It's encouragement for them to go there," Chisum said. "Our issue here
today is to keep marriages solid and have them last longer and stop this 50
percent divorce rate."

Chisum called the bill a first step toward ending the high divorce rate in
Texas and beginning to address the "no-fault divorce issue, which is leaving
children without mothers and fathers. ... Even Ronald Reagan said the
no-fault divorce was the worst thing he did in government."

Levity on the House floor
Not all of his fellow Republicans were so enamored of marriage. In a moment
of levity, Rep. Pat Haggerty, R-El Paso, quipped, "The bill says those that
are married live longer. It's not really true. It just seems longer."

Haggerty had proposed an amendment in jest saying all members of the
Legislature must take an eight-hour marriage education course.

When another lawmaker suggested an exemption for House members married 25
years or more, twice-divorced Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, said if he
added up both of his marriages, "I can get over that hump."

The issue is important at the core for Republicans embracing the ideas of
the Texas Conservative Coalition, which is supporting a package of seven
"healthy marriage" bills this year.

Its "Saving Money, Saving Families" report in February argued that "stronger
marriages and families will further alleviate reliance on state assistance."

Some of the coalition-backed bills would require couples seeking a divorce
to attend a 10-hour, intensive marriage crisis class within a 48-hour
period. If they choose not to take the class, under another Chisum bill,
they would have to wait two years for a divorce to be final.

The House added an amendment, 88-54, by San Antonio Democratic Rep. Mike
Villarreal that requires the state to pick up the tab if fees don't cover a
county's cost of issuing marriage licenses. Chisum had opposed the
amendment, saying it would burden the state with the possibility of auditing
all 254 counties.

Criticized for hurting poor

Rep. Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, said it is hypocritical for Chisum, whose
role as Texas House Appropriations Committee chairman is to keep a tight
rein on taxing and spending, to propose doubling or tripling a $30 marriage
license fee.

When Democrats suggested $100 was more than some young couples could afford
to pay for a marriage license, Chisum shot back, "I would suggest if you
don't have $100, folks shouldn't get married."

Chisum's bill is also tied to a funding bill the House also passed
Wednesday. It would help low-income couples pay for marriage preparation
classes by tapping into nearly $10 billion of a federal welfare grant.

For some lawmakers, the issue is about whether families or government should
set personal moral standards.

"I guess it's the libertarian in me that says you don't take a price hike to
coerce anyone into taking a course," said Rep. Garnet Coleman, D-Houston.
"You're being asked to do something you may not believe in."
****************
P.S. To the concern about intruding into private lives let us remind these
legislators that the sure ways to keep the government out of our private
lives is to stay married, stay out of family court, and stay off welfare.
It's when we divorce that family court and social workers make decisions
about custody, visitation, and child support ­ if and when we see our
children, where they'll spend the holidays, what religion they'll practice,
which schools they'll attend. And, because children of divorce and family
breakdown are more likely to fail at school, be delinquent, substance
abusing, depressed - that opens our lives to ever more "intrusion" from
helping professionals - courts, social workers, school counselors, and
welfare agents.   - diane

P.S.S. - Last night 4/12/07 the House emasculated the premarital bill and
took out the $30 incentive.  We'll see what the Senate does.  Maybe they'll
put it back in. - diane

###############################
- NEW YORK AND NO-FAULT

Opinion
No-fault divorce shakes the foundations of all marriages
Times Herald-Record, NY
By Gary Ciesla
April 12, 2007

Imagine yourself as a defendant in a lawsuit. In court, the judge carefully
considers statements made by the plaintiff, but disregards even your most
passionate defense. You are presumed guilty. Is this a court found in some
foreign country? No. This is how no-fault divorce courts operate in 49
American states, and I'm writing to oppose Judge Judith Kaye's recent
support for bringing this travesty of justice to New York.

New York is the only state in America without no-fault divorce. Critical
legal protections safeguarding marriage contracts remain in place in the
Empire State, while divorce courts in all other states operate in a
profoundly unjust and unconstitutional manner. A New Yorker can still oppose
a divorce, ask that the charges be proven and take the case to a trial
before a jury. If Judge Kaye's recommendation becomes New York law,
defendants in no-fault divorce cases won't be able to compel plaintiffs to
prove what they've claimed, and defendants will lose their constitutional
right to a jury trial.

In no-fault divorce the plaintiff prevails almost without exception. A
defendant can't raise a legally recognized defense during the proceedings.
Even an accused child molester is afforded that legal protection. Under
no-fault divorce laws, a defendant is effectively denied that right. If one
spouse wants a divorce for any reason, the state dissolves the marriage
contract, regardless of the other spouse's wishes. The plaintiff/spouse
wanting the divorce needs only say in court: "Your Honor, the marriage is
irretrievably broken."

And what does irretrievably broken mean? Since these words have been used to
dismantle millions of American families in no-fault divorce pleadings over
the past 35 years, you might be shocked to learn that the legal profession
doesn't have a consensus definition of the term "irretrievably broken" that
is objective and measurable. Is it not, therefore, judicially unconscionable
for judges in no-fault divorce cases to make subjective judgments
invalidating marriage contracts based upon the claim of only one spouse?

"But what about wedding vows?" you might ask. What about them? In no-fault
divorce, vows don't matter. "But it was a religious ceremony!" That doesn't
matter, either. In no-fault divorce, if one spouse wants out of the
marriage, the judge grants it.

Judge Kaye's support for no-fault divorce should be judicially examined
through the critical lens of the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 10
prohibits states from passing laws "impairing the obligations of contracts,"
and marriages are legal contracts. No-fault divorce laws impair the
obligations of marriage contracts and give judicial privileges to the spouse
asking the state to nullify the contractual obligations, while denying the
defendant equivalent privileges. In essence, no-fault divorce courts treat
marriage contracts as not legally binding.

Might New York legislators, perhaps mindful of the U.S. Constitution, have
reasoned that marriage contracts must be afforded their constitutional
protection? Judicially protecting the marriage contract is one sound reason
to oppose Judge Kaye's recommendation and avoid joining other states that
have disregarded this section of the U.S. Constitution.

If Judge Kaye's plan becomes law in New York, the legal contracts couples
enter into upon marriage won't be worth the paper on which they are written.
Wedding ceremony phrases such as "as long as we both shall live," and "I
solemnly swear" will be rendered judicially meaningless. If no-fault divorce
becomes New York law, the legal safeguard for marriage will be as protective
as a screen door in a hurricane.

Keep no-fault divorce out of New York!

Gary Ciesla lives in Highland Falls.

**************************
Send submissions and comments for the listserv to: diane at smartmarriages.com
Do NOT hit "reply". If you hit reply your email will go into cyberspace and
NO ONE will see your email.

This is a moderated list. Submissions and comments are read by Diane Sollee,
editor. Please indicate if your comment is NOT to be shared with the list.
PLEASE include your email address or url as part of your signature.

Please also understand that with thousands of subscribers, not all comments
can be shared. Also realize that opinions expressed are not necessarily
shared by members of the Coalition.

To SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, or Change your subscription address,
use the form at: http://www.smartmarriages.com. Click Newslist - in the
column under the puzzle piece.

To read past posts to the listserv, visit the Archive at:
http://lists101.his.com/pipermail/smartmarriages/

11th Annual Smart Marriages Conference, Denver Adam's Mark Hotel,
June 28-July 1, 2007
Download a brochure: http://www.smartmarriages.com/Brochure.07.pdf


List your program and resources on the Directory of Classes at
http://www.smartmarriages.com

Order conference audio & video CD/DVD/MP3s: 800-241-7785 or
http://www.iPlaybackSmartMarriages.com

Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education, LLC (CMFCE)
Diane Sollee, Director
5310 Belt Rd NW, Washington, DC 20015-1961
http://www.smartmarriages.com
202-362-3332

FAIR USE NOTICE: This e-newsletter/site contains copyrighted material the
use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We make such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of marriage, family, couples, divorce, legislation, family
breakdown, etc. We understand this constitutes a 'fair use' of such material
as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed
without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes. For more
information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you
wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own
that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.