Weightless / Instant Wedding Vows Online / Study Details High Cost of Divorce - 6/21/09

[Smartmarriages]

- A WEIGHTLESS WEDDING IN FLORIDA
- SIGN OF THE TIMES: ONLINE VOW GENERATOR
- STUDY DETAILS HIGH ECONOMIC COSTS OF DIVORCE

################################
- A WEIGHTLESS WEDDING IN FLORIDA

Looks like fun....though guess you have to be young and able to take the
thuds.   

video: 1st-ever weightless wedding http://bit.ly/7aLx3

###################################

- SIGN OF THE TIMES: ONLINE VOW GENERATOR

For Better or for Worse: When Marriage Vows Get Creative
Wall Street Journal
June 19, 2009 
By DAVID LAPP

> And as my pastor said: "A church acts like family: We share in the couple's
> vows as we witness the vows being made, as we pray for them, support them, and
> even keep them accountable to those vows during difficult times." . . .

> . . . A recent report from the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University
> finds that 71% of high-school senior boys and 82% of high-school senior girls
> believe that having a good marriage and family life is "extremely important."
> But when the same group is asked whether it is "very likely" that they will
> stay married to the same person for life, only 63% of girls and 57% of boys
> think so. So our young people value marriage -- but they find it difficult to
> believe that marriage can last. Unfortunately, many of the wedding ceremonies
> they watch -- or listen to -- won't convince them otherwise.

It's the end of spring, and that means engaged couples are putting the last
touches on their summer wedding celebrations. Should the cake have three
tiers or four? Do the chairs for guests need bows? And, finally, what will
they say in their vows?

This wasn't always a problem, of course. Until recently, everyone just used
the words provided by his or her church or synagogue. In recent years,
however, more and more couples have decided to write their own vows. This
departure from tradition has become so common that some couples now choose
to buy the words that will bind them together for a lifetime -- online.

In the world-wide Web of wedding options, instantvows.com offers a
competitive "Instant Vows Wedding Package" ($17, limited time offer).
Ghostwriters Central promises vows "that capture your personal voice while
encompassing the appropriate etiquette and emotion" -- with "the added
advantage" of being written by professionals. You send the site a brief
description and some memories of you and your beloved and it will send you
the vows (for $125).

In this custom-made vows market there is plenty of opportunity for mockery,
although it is also easy to dismiss the writing of one's own wedding vows --
or farming them out to professionals -- as a harmless exercise, just another
way for a couple to personalize their love for each other. As one online
seller puts it: "There is no better way to express your true feelings for
your partner than to put together the perfect words for that unforgettable
moment."

Brides.com, a popular wedding guide, agrees. After noting how momentous the
words are, it suggests that personalizing your own vows makes them "all the
more meaningful." Innocent enough, right? Maybe not, for it goes on to
suggest that a bride try the question-phrase "Will you promise to be honest
in your relationship, and give him support and strength?" over the more
traditional "Will you love and honor him, comfort and cherish him, and
forsaking all others, be faithful to him?" The traditional vows insist on
exclusive faithfulness. In this revised vow, all that's required is honesty
and "support and strength."

To be fair, though, many couples want to express the kind of commitment
enshrined in the traditional vows -- they just want to personalize it. This
is exactly what my fiancée and I had in mind when we recently sat down with
our pastor for premarital counseling. I told him that we planned to write
our own vows. He dismissed my idea and directed us to the Book of Common
Prayer (published in 1549) for the vows he thought we should exchange. The
vows there are more formal, and hardly original: "to have and to hold from
this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness
and in health, until death do us part." My sensibilities were offended.
"Don't you know this is our wedding?"

But let's imagine for a moment that, instead of reciting the oath that his
43 predecessors have taken, President Barack Obama had insisted at his
inauguration on personalizing it, perhaps replacing "I will faithfully
execute the office of president of the United States" with the more flexible
"I will try as hard as possible to do the job of president of the United
States." That sounds a little more natural and honest, he might have argued:
How does he know if he'll always be able to live up to his word? Besides, he
might have stated, "The traditional oath is what every other president has
said. I want mine to be original."

We, the people, would have been outraged -- and rightly so. The very
specific words our Constitution requires the president to recite demonstrate
the gravity of the obligations he assumes. They can't be reduced to the
whims of one person.

Like the presidential oath, the traditional marriage vows -- whether
Catholic, Jewish or Protestant -- typically ask a marrying couple to make
specific pledges: as the Catholic marriage ceremony puts it, "I promise to
be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health." And for
how long? "I will love and honor you all the days of my life." The words of
religious marriage vows are direct and uncompromisingly clear.

Why? Because when one enters marriage, one steps into an institution bigger
than oneself: It includes another person, the community and future children.
Acts of this magnitude warrant precise and time-tested words. And as my
pastor said: "A church acts like family: We share in the couple's vows as we
witness the vows being made, as we pray for them, support them, and even
keep them accountable to those vows during difficult times."

In 1943, German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote a letter to a young
bride and groom, reminding them that "it is not your love that sustains the
marriage, but from now on, the marriage that sustains your love." In the
traditional vows, the institution -- marriage -- makes and forms the couple;
the vows set out what marriage is and what it requires. In today's
write-your-own or instant-download vows, the couple picks and chooses the
promises they make to each other -- they make their own definition. The more
casual attitudes toward the vows are probably a symptom of our more casual
attitude toward marriage.

The good news is that young people generally take marriage seriously. A
recent report from the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University finds
that 71% of high-school senior boys and 82% of high-school senior girls
believe that having a good marriage and family life is "extremely
important." But when the same group is asked whether it is "very likely"
that they will stay married to the same person for life, only 63% of girls
and 57% of boys think so. So our young people value marriage -- but they
find it difficult to believe that marriage can last. Unfortunately, many of
the wedding ceremonies they watch -- or listen to -- won't convince them
otherwise.

Mr. Lapp is a research assistant at the Institute for American Values in New
York.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124537660360130153.html

#################################



- STUDY DETAILS HIGH ECONOMIC COSTS OF DIVORCE

Here's another keeper.


Broken Marriages
Study Details High Economic Costs of Divorce
By Father John Flynn, LC


> Coleridge accused mothers and fathers who fail to commit to each other of
> engaging in a game of "PASS THE PARTNER" that has left millions of children
> "scarred for life," according to a June 17 report in the Daily Mail newspaper.
> 
> In his speech supporting marriage, Coleridge called for a change in attitudes,
> so that the destruction of family life would attract social stigma.
. . . . 

> The institute concluded the report with a list of recommendations. They ranged
> from marriage education at high schools to making information available on the
> public benefits of marriage, and the costs of divorce.
> 
> The report also called for the government to publish clearer data on how much
> is spent supporting cohabiting and single parents. It also recommended
> reforming the taxation system to give a break to married couples.
> 
> Governments need to understand the difference between marriage and
> cohabitation, and they should promote marriage for all the benefits it offers
> over cohabitation, the study urged. Valid points founded on strong empirical
> evidence.

ROME, JUNE 21, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Family breakdown is causing social
anarchy, according to a speech by an English judge, Justice Paul Coleridge.
A senior Family Division judge for England and Wales, he addressed the
Family Holiday Association charity on Wednesday evening.

Coleridge accused mothers and fathers who fail to commit to each other of
engaging in a game of "pass the partner" that has left millions of children
"scarred for life," according to a June 17 report in the Daily Mail
newspaper.

In his speech supporting marriage, Coleridge called for a change in
attitudes, so that the destruction of family life would attract social
stigma.

"What is a matter of private concern when it is on a small scale becomes a
matter of public concern when it reaches epidemic proportions," he added.

The public dimension of marriage breakdown was the topic of a recent report
by the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada. Titled, "Private Choices,
Public Costs: How failing families cost us all," the Institute detailed the
economic impact of marriage failure.

The study made an estimate of the cost of family breakdown in relation to
government spending for the fiscal year 2005-06. The impact on the budget of
help to broken families amounts to around 7 billion Canadian dollars (US$6.1
billion) a year.

The report also highlighted how marriage breakdown has a particularly
damaging economic impact on women, leading to what it termed "the
feminization of poverty."

Although the study concentrated on the economic costs of family failure, it
did also acknowledge the impact on children. Not only is divorce linked to
poverty, but a large body of research demonstrates that children are better
off being raised in a married, two-parent home, the institute pointed out.

Social impact

"Where families fail, as they so often do today, it is up to the rest of us,
via government agencies and institutions, to pay for those failures," the
report commented.

Family breakdown is more than just divorce, the study pointed out. It
includes couples who cohabit, single mothers who have never married or lived
with the fathers of their babies.

Some affirm that family structure does not matter, the report observed.
Family life, however, is not just a matter of consumer choice, the institute
argued and given the economic impact of such decisions it is perfectly
legitimate for governments to be concerned about the future of family life.
These choices are more than just a private arrangement, but are a vital part
of society, the study affirmed.

While government programs can offer some support, they are a poor substitute
for a strong family life. The institute cited a 2005 report that looked at
the situation of people on social assistance in the province of New
Brunswick.

In the study people commented on the great loss of self-esteem and the
feeling of helplessness from being dependent on welfare. The institute added
that family breakdown leads to what has been described as the three Ds:
"dissolution, dysfunction and dad-lessness."

The Canadian report referred to a study published in 2007 in the United
Kingdom that examined the problem of poverty. To a great extent, the British
study concluded, attempts by the government to alleviate poverty have failed
and the poverty of those living on the margins of society is, instead,
becoming more entrenched.

The breakdown in family structures has played a significant role in the
problem of poverty in the United Kingdom, the study noted, leading to the
conclusion that committed married couples lead to the best results for both
children and adults.

The Canadian study admitted that intact families also require state help
through welfare or subsidies. The proportion of those who need such
assistance is, however, much lower than single-parent families.

Impact on children

The Institute commented that when divorce laws were liberalized in Canada it
was generally assumed that what is good for the parents would be good for
the kids. Subsequently, empirical research shows this has not been the case.

"Whether couples are married or not is a remarkably accurate predictor of
outcomes for children on many social science scales, even when economic
factors are excluded," the report said.

A whole range of social outcomes, such as drug use, academic results, health
and happiness, are affected by family structures. Both children and adults
fare much better in a stable married situation.

"The point of debate should not be whether a lack of two married parents
matters for children but rather what to do with the reality that it does,"
the report commented.

Unfortunately, the study continued, the proportion of married-parent
families is unmistakably decreasing, as the number of common-law and
lone-parents families increase. This trend is also detrimental to economic
stability, the report pointed out, given that married adults tend to
participate more fully in the economy and generate increased tax revenues.

Economic burden

The report noted that opinions differ as to why being part of a married
couple brings with it economic benefits. Some speculate that marriage
promotes greater responsibility in both spouses, while others look at
economic explanations, for instance the ability of two partners to
specialize and divide the many tasks of providing and caring for a family
according to their own talents and abilities.

Whatever the reason there is most certainly an economic impact. The
institute referred to a variety of international studies on the cost of
family breakdown. A February 2009 report from the British Relationships
Foundation, described as a non-partisan think tank dedicated to enhancing
and improving relationships for a stronger society, put the cost of family
breakdown there at 37.03 billion pounds ($61.07 billion) annually.

Another report, this one by the London-based Centre for Social Justice, put
the cost of family breakdown in the United Kingdom at an annual rate of 20
billion pounds ($32 billion).

Returning to Canada, the institute calculated that if family breakdown could
be cut in half, the direct taxpayer costs of poverty alleviation for broken
and single-parent families would be reduced by close to 2 billion Canadian
dollars (US$1.76 billion) annually.

Canadian census data shows that two-parent families are the least dependent
upon government assistance, single-father households are more dependent, and
single-mother households the most dependent.

Happier and healthier

In addition, such a reduction would also greatly reduce the suffering and
trauma of family breakdown. "Members of families that remain intact would be
happier, healthier and wealthier, but there are also benefits that extend
beyond these families," the report added.

Society needs healthy families in order to flourish. "Neighborhoods in which
adult male role models are scarce contribute to a culture of machismo,
violence and irresponsibility for young men which harms even those children
who live with both their parents," it argued.

The institute concluded the report with a list of recommendations. They
ranged from marriage education at high schools to making information
available on the public benefits of marriage, and the costs of divorce.

The report also called for the government to publish clearer data on how
much is spent supporting cohabiting and single parents. It also recommended
reforming the taxation system to give a break to married couples.

Governments need to understand the difference between marriage and
cohabitation, and they should promote marriage for all the benefits it
offers over cohabitation, the study urged. Valid points founded on strong
empirical evidence.

###########################

This is a moderated list. All submissions are read by Diane Sollee. Please
indicate if your comment is NOT to be shared with the list.  PLEASE include
your email address and/or url as part of your signature. With thousands of
subscribers, not all comments can be shared.

Also realize that opinions expressed on this list are not necessarily shared
by members of the Coalition.

To SUBSCRIBE, UNSUBSCRIBE, or Change your subscription address,
visit: http://www.smartmarriages.com/app/Newsletter.Subscribe

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

13th Annual Smart Marriages® Conference, The Shingle Creek,
Orlando, Florida, July 6-12, 2009 (General Conference July 8-11)
Pre-Conference Training Institutes July 6-8
Post-Conference Training Institutes July 12
 
Shingle Creek: http://www.rosenshinglecreek.com/

To download a Conference brochure, register online, or for Exhibit
information:
http://www.smartmarriages.com/conferencedetails.html

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

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: 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.