You knew it was coming: “MANDATORY Marriage Counseling”

Wedding Rings 4645

Seriously, if the State can redefine what marriage is, this was merely a matter of time:

From The Denver Post:

As if getting married wasn’t complicated enough, a proposed ballot initiative would require mandatory pre-wedding education before couples could say “I do.”

Lumped onto the hours spent debating centerpieces, picking a photographer, finding the perfect dress and corralling future in-laws, the proposed Colorado Marriage Education Act calls for 10 hours of pre-wedding marriage education.

If either the bride- or groom-to-be is marrying for the second time, the requirement kicks up to a minimum of 20 hours. It goes up to 30 hours for a third- time’s-the-charm.

A re-marrying widow would be held to the same standard as a first-timer. The law would not apply to civil unions.

For the record, I think pre-marital counseling is a wonderful idea. My wife and I not only went through an intensive Catholic pre-marital counseling (which helped us tremendously), but we also helped provide and coordinate similar counseling through our church for many years.

But: STATE MANDATED pre-marital counseling, by its very nature, is a horrific Pandora’s Box in the offing.

Think about it: if the State can order you and your betrothed to receive “counseling”, doesn’t it logically follow that the State can also mandate what TYPE of counseling you receive, and specific features therein? Which means you can practically guarantee that various sexual practices, new-age psycho-babble, and whatever else you can imagine will end up being “essential” aspects of any such “approved” counseling.

Think “Obamacare’s Minimum Coverage” standards, just for marriage.

Oh, yeah: this’ll help. 

17 responses to “You knew it was coming: “MANDATORY Marriage Counseling”

  1. Can’t we start with mandated VOTER EDUCATION first, and then follow that up with mandatory YOU DON’T HAVE MORE KIDS TO GET MORE WELFARE education? Oh….wait. Better educated citizens and less welfare recipients would mean the end of the Left. ……sigh…….

  2. FTA:

    “A re-marrying widow would be held to the same standard as a first-timer.” … what if the widow was a third time re-marrying black widow? hmmm? Does SHE get to be a ‘first-timer’!? 😉

    “The law would not apply to civil unions.” RACIST! or something. It is not ‘fair’ if ‘some people’ get special privileges!! :p

    ‘marriage’ is a religious act. The state has co-opted it, in order to make money and have control. There should be two forms of marriage… so that state and religion marriages are not intertwined and confused. ‘Religious’ marriage counseling is a wonderful blessing… it’s God’s Word based and very helpful. Having state ‘counsel’ is not gonna be the same thing… and it will fail. Geesh, when will the world ever learn? :/

    • p/s: ‘black widow’ = not the spider, and not the color of a persons skin, but rather, a woman who has murdered her husbands and continues to re-marry. 😉 Thought I would make that obvious, for those out there that LOVE to twist words and make EVERYTHING about race.

    • Anyone want to bet that, if this gets passed and then spreads to other states, that eventually churches will not be allowed to “marry” folks who have failed to go through approved “counseling”?
      And if they do, those couples will not be considered “married”?

      Well? Any takers??

      • I wouldn’t bet against that, it’s a sure lose… I agree JTR. This is a slippery slope, (LIKE ALL BIG GOVERNMENT POLICIES WHICH (supposedly) INTEND TO ‘HELP/SAVE/PROTECT’ PEOPLE) <— yep, I was yelling… I'll chill now. Look at this in even a bigger picture… state ran indoctrination.

        • Indoctrination is certainly an appropriate term, Teach.

          It’s having the State, in fact, “bless” your marriage.
          And if THAT turn of phrase doesn’t make your skin crawl, something’s wrong.

      • I ain’t betting against that. It’s all about control by the state over the ‘common folks’ and more importantly over the churches. See, if there’s anyone who will stand up against a tyrannical government it’s gonna be US.

  3. Richard M Nixon (Deceased)

    Reblogged this on Dead Citizen's Rights Society.

  4. This is how it starts. First you get the Mandatory practical idea, where people think “Well I was going to do that anyway so who cares?” From there you get more mandatory laws effecting small groups of people and before you know it our rights are gone. Everything turns into, this is for your own good and no one thinks for themselves anymore. Maybe I am over reacting, but sadly I’m not sure I am.

    • Not at all, DD: you’re right on.
      The Left is patient and is very, very good at incrementalism.

      Which is why it doesn’t require any special imagination to see where this will end up, and sooner rather than later.

  5. Would the Catholic Church’s “Pre-Cana” classes count to satisfy the requirement, or would the state require Catholics to enroll in their sessions as well?

    • Exactly my point, James.

      One would hope and might even assume that Catholic Pre-Cana or Engaged Encounter classes would be more than sufficient.
      However, we all know that Catholic teaching does not wholly conform to ALL aspects of what the Federal Government is “teaching” right now. Therefore, I can all too easily see the State not “certifying” Pre-Cana or EE as an approved pre-marital counseling option.

      Can’t you?

      Consider the arguments the Government has already given for Obamacare and against Religious Freedom: they’ve already proven that they’re willing to go to COURT over healthcare, among other things.
      And THIS would give them total control over all marriage as it currently exists, and has the potential to be FAR more intrusive than mere licensing could ever hope to be.

      Which is why it seems rather obvious to me that IF this rule ever comes to pass, …there’d be NO question about potential abuse taking place, or in what direction that abuse would be.
      None whatsoever.

      • Among other things, there’s a strong difference with regard to the teaching on the use of birth control. I would imagine that a state program would promote using contraception as part of their agenda. Allowing Church programs which would teach against that would create a conflict of interest, unless they were to understand that natural family planning methods alone as meeting their standards. Quite unlikely.

        Then you have a problem. If the state did not recognize Church programs as satisfying the mandatory requirement, then Catholics would have to attend two different pre-marriage programs that would contradict one another. In my opinion, it really is not in their interest to do that, though I’m sure the state does not see it that way.

        You are right. If a law like this were to pass, it would lead to abuses of power and more state sanctioned indoctrination. Let’s see how far it goes.

        • You’re right, James: they’d have to attend two. However, I can also see them having to “agree” to various “truths” in the training, can’t you?

          Don’t have to pull on that thread too hard to see where it’ll lead.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s