443 Comments
User's avatar
EllenThatEllen's avatar

Well if my husband was going to abuse me, rape me or give me an STD from another woman ain't no way in Hell I am staying married to that asshole . You can "covenant marriage" all you fucking want Oklahoma-- I live in civilized Massachusetts.

Expand full comment
Dianne Marie Leonard's avatar

Massachusetts is civilized *now* but when my maternal great-grandmother was one of only a few women to get a divorce in the early 1880s, the state was anything but. She was granted the divorce not because her husband beat her, but because he "departed for parts unknown" (i.e. abandoned her.) That was one of the few grounds for divorce at the time. When I wrote to ask for the divorce decree about 20 years ago, I was startled to receive not one but three decrees--for three different women. (My g-grandmother's started at the bottom of one page, and continued to the top of the following page, so the preceding and following cases were also copied.) The decrees were identical, except for the names of the women involved: they'd been abused and abandned by their husbands. The states that want to return to the status quo ante, circa 1880, have no problem seeing this kind of abuse happen over again, with people trapped again.

Expand full comment
John Smith's avatar

The Christian fascist movement want to drag the country (and the world if they could) back to the 11th century.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

👆👆👆🎯

Expand full comment
EllenThatEllen's avatar

Okay. Yah that wasn't very civilized then but we are better now. I'm sorry your maternal great--grandmother had to go through that.

Expand full comment
Dianne Marie Leonard's avatar

Indeed. When I find out about stories like hers, I can't help but wonder how many other women were there who weren't as lucky as she was? How many others who endured such abuse for years and never got out? She was a relatively well-educated woman, for her time, and must have had some support in order to do what she did--but how many others had little or none? One common abuser tactic is to isolate their victims from friends, family, and other sources of information and support. It's those forgotten ones that haunt me.

Expand full comment
P. J. Schuster's avatar

The point is; we have to care about all women, not just ourselves, & that we all need to remain vigilant against these Christian Nationalists because they are extremely sneaky & determined to take over our govt. Federal laws supersede state, & our scotus is filled with them. There are currently over 100 of them in Congress now & 10s of 1000s in the legal & judicial systems.

Expand full comment
Joe King's avatar

𝐴 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑚𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑜𝑟𝑦, 𝑏𝑢𝑡 𝑖𝑡’𝑠 𝑎 ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑎 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑒. 𝐼𝑡’𝑠 𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐶ℎ𝑟𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑛 𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑃𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑠 𝑜𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑛 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝑔𝑒𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔, 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑜𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑣𝑒𝑠.

Might sound nice in theory? Not even that. When the reasons allowed for divorce are so narrow it will harm everyone involved. Abandonment for at least one year? Deadbeat shows up on day 364 and starts the clock over. Physical abuse? "She's just clumsy, your honor." Sexual abuse? Not when they don't accept that marital rape is a thing. Notice there is no provision for mental and emotional abuse. How many women in Oklahoma would get the death penalty under this law because they couldn't take one more minute after decades of emotional abuse?

This bill is just a way to impose far right Christianity on the people of Oklahoma, with an eye towards going national. Welcome to Gilead.

Expand full comment
Stephen Brady's avatar

I have no problem with people cohabiting - kind of a test drive. I know the christianist crowd hates the idea, but I personally don't think anyone should get married before age 25. Their brains are still developing and quite simply, people can change. Also, people can lie about their pasts.

Expand full comment
Paula H's avatar

I also think you should try the shoe on before you buy it. If you are so inclined. Sexual compatability is very important.

Expand full comment
Crowscage's avatar

The same fuckers like to say why buy the cow when the milk is free as a put down. Pretty telling that they classify women on the same level as livestock. That said I usually respond that if I'm going to buy the 'cow' I damn well intend to like the taste of the milk.

Expand full comment
Layla Rose's avatar

Eww! IKR and yes. I heard that expression a lot growing up, in church and all over. It's like stop. I'm not a cow! Good grief!

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Also, speaking from experience, you can grow into different people.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

🎼 There is a bomb in Gilead...

Expand full comment
Donrox's avatar

Thanks for the ear worm, fellow former Protestant!

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

;)

Expand full comment
oraxx's avatar

No-fault divorce was created because it could not be demonstrated where the state's interests lie in forcing two people to stay in a marriage they both want out of. What does this man hope to accomplish? He is just one more Christian conservative trying to mark his territory in the public square.

Expand full comment
ericc's avatar

And it was passed by CA Governor Ronald Reagan.

That is how far right the GOP has swung.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

And pissing himself in the process.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Yup, just more territorial pissings.

Expand full comment
Eddie Graybow's avatar

One step closer to Gilead.

Expand full comment
Jennifer's avatar

Good thing this is all they have to worry about in Oklahoma! They must be tops in education, healthcare outcomes, incomes, and the streets are paved in gold, right? No? Huh! With the amount of time they spend on supposed 'biblical' BS, one would think it's heaven on earth. Why do these barely sentient people keep voting for these characters that offer absolutely nothing of value? Seeing this stuff time and again makes my brain hurt.

Expand full comment
Tee Ree's avatar

Normal rational people live in all red states. Everyone in these states doesn’t vote red. Propaganda over the last 20 plus years has shaped the collective beliefs of the whole. Please stop berating people based on where they live. There are a lot of factors involved but it can mostly be summed up by the long term, sustained lies and disinformation from Fox, local and national politicians, church leaders and business and civic leaders. All backed by the monied people and corporations. The struggle is very real in these places. And they are working on blue states as well so don’t get too comfortable.

Expand full comment
avis piscivorus's avatar

When covenant marriage becomes the norm in a country where almost everybody owns a gun there will be only one remaining option to end an abusive marriage.

Expand full comment
Joe King's avatar

Were I on the jury, I would likely vote to acquit on grounds of self defense.

Expand full comment
Claudia's avatar

Joe, you probably wrote your comment not entirely seriously? Because there’s another aspect to this - the fact that there is a relation between the introduction of no-fault divorce and the femicide rate.

There has been a study (apologies I’ve forgotten where I read about it and hence I can’t provide any links to any sources or references). The study found that there was a noticeable reduction in the numbers of women being killed after the introduction of no-fault divorce.

Expand full comment
P. J. Schuster's avatar

There was also a huge decrease in femicide when abortion was made legal. Expect that number to rise in the states that have abortion bans & severe restrictions

Expand full comment
Claudia's avatar

Apologies for the double posting, it seemed that I had deleted the first post when I merely wanted to edit it and so I wrote it again.

Clearly I’ll need to up my sub-stacking skills ….

(I wrote my first post yesterday. Yippee!)

Expand full comment
Joe King's avatar

Welcome!

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Welcome!

Expand full comment
Claudia's avatar

Joe, you probably wrote this not entirely seriously?

Because there is another aspect to this, the fact that there has been a noticeable reduction in the number of women being killed after the introduction of no-fault divorce. There has at least been one study where someone crunched the data. (Apologies, I’ve forgotten where I read it and hence I cannot provide any sources or references.)

Of course, correlation is not the same as causation.

Expand full comment
Joe King's avatar

I was referring to a woman on trial for killing her abusive spouse before his abuse killed her. An abuser who abused their spouse to death? Life in prison.

Expand full comment
Claudia's avatar

This situation also has nuance: There have been studies that the legal system treats men who kill their spouses very differently compared to women who kill their spouses.

In cases of a woman killing their spouse, she has often had real problems establishing a defence of self-defence, even when there had been documented abuse in the marriage. Women often used methods where they eg waited unto their partner was asleep and thus they were accused of planning the death and their claims of provocation were discounted. Which then resulted in convictions of murder and harsh punishments.

In contrast, men who killed their spouses were often able to claim provocation and that they had acted in a red hot rage. Which often resulted in convictions for a lesser crime and sometimes surprisingly lenient sentences.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Because the religious right is horrified that a woman could escape her abuser, so she must be punished, whereas a white christian man, should, in their patriarchal view, never be held to account.

Expand full comment
P. J. Schuster's avatar

There’s a fairly famous case of a woman in prison for life (or an unreasonably long sentence) for killing her abusive husband in OK. There’s a podcast about her.

Women are definitely treated more harshly for killing a spouse, especially in red states, where the patriarchy rules.

Expand full comment
Claudia's avatar

There are also cases in France and the UK.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

"stand your ground" only works if you are a white man here in FL.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

Indeed. What could possibly go wrong?

Expand full comment
Stacey E's avatar

Oklahoma, Texas and Florida: the little Afghanistan wannabes.

Expand full comment
Troublesh00ter's avatar

𝑊𝑒 𝑑𝑜 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑒𝑚𝑛𝑙𝑦 𝑑𝑒𝑐𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑑𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝐺𝑜𝑑.

Fine. Any foolish, misguided couple can do that all they want ... IN A CHURCH. Giving such a marriage the force of secular law is a massive mistake which should be rejected by the Oklahoma state legislature, never mind its governor.

Har-de-har-har! Who am I kidding? I would imagine that Ryan Walters would LOVE this news, even if he has no particular involvement in this process, and I'll bet that the governor is gung-ho about it as well.

Eddie Graybow has it right. The Sooner State is slouching toward Gilead at a breakneck pace.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

Sooner rather than Later

Expand full comment
Donrox's avatar

The marriage license is a legal document. Because I was an ordained Unted Methodist minister, I signed my name on it. I could have signed it "Mike Hunt" and it would not made a difference!

Expand full comment
Troublesh00ter's avatar

My point is that "covenant marriage" should have no place as a legal, secular concept, at least not from where I sit. If some church wants to offer such a marriage, that's THEIR business, and they can attempt to enforce its principles all they want.

Covenant marriage should have no state support or recognition whatsoever.

Expand full comment
Donrox's avatar

100% percent agreement. The church has no business dealing in legal contracts, which is what marriage is. My point was that religion is rightfully losing its grip on all things that should be secularly.

Besides, lots of people have state authority (check out the Inernet) to marry. Can they do covenant wedding services?

Hope you're out of the Snow Belt!

Expand full comment
Gray Zebra's avatar

Emotional abuse is ABUSE and is absolutely a reason to leave a marriage by divorce!

Expand full comment
Val Uptuous NotAgain's avatar

It is telling that the loudest voices promoting covenant marriages are men, and it’s no surprise any women supporters are their spouses. Their complaint about no-fault divorce is that it is women who initiate those divorces by a large margin. They do not want women to have agency. They’re crying that women aren’t choosing to get married in the first place, not wanting to have children, are developing careers before settling down, are continuing to work after marriage and children, and even that women are expecting their husbands to take up being responsible for household labor. These are patriarchy dinosaurs fighting for their “God given right” to have a live in sex cook-maid to raise children they only want out of a desire for legacy. Like their fathers had before them, and their fathers before them, and their fathers before them…

They want women to be at the whims of their husbands, husbands that chose them not the other way around, and they want women to be trapped with children (abortion rights), and to go back to the time where women couldn’t even speak in court. They’ve attacked voting rights, working outside the home, and no-fault divorce since Trump’s first term (at least). They took our right to healthcare, they’re not going to stop there. We knew this, we warned people.

Expand full comment
Claudia's avatar

I posted this in a different place in the thread, but I think it’s worth repeating: There have been studies that the number of women being killed went down after the introduction of no-fault divorce laws.

Someone sat down and crunched the numbers! I cannot remember whether that study provided any information about reasons for this development. I have also forgotten where I read about it, which also means that I cannot provide any links, sources or references.

Expand full comment
Bagat's avatar

til death do we part...

Expand full comment
Lakshmi Kapoor Willis's avatar

Sharing this document for your review. Please add your inputs as comments directly in the document. Looking forward to your feedback!

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:9715d15a-69bf-4f54-bce1-28d5ac6d0a7d?comment_id=e6485964-5672-446a-a6e9-fddd6af622df

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆👆🎯

Expand full comment
Jane in NC's avatar

You can just imagine young people, especially young girls, having been brought up in a fundie household and with limited experience of the real world being pressured into these no-divorce marriages. Just look at the Duggar offspring: one young girl was pushed into marriage with a Duggar son, she has very little education, no work experience, and now she's stuck with 8 kids and her husband is in federal prison for possession of child porn. OH HELL NO!! to your fundie 'covenant' marriage crap.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

She has eight? Good grief, I though it was only four (bad enough). I must have missed something.

Expand full comment
Duke  Stuart's avatar

Eight ? Groucho Marx,on his "Your bet your life" tv quiz show,had a guy on like that, as a contestant....but he had 10 kids, He told Grouch 'Well, I jus love my wife" Grouch replies, " Well,I LOVE my cigar,too, but I take it outa my mouth once in a while" (attributed)

Expand full comment
Duke  Stuart's avatar

shows were taped LIVE in front of an audience ,then edited for public broadcast...The 'cuts' were later put on a 'blue reel' for the sponsors ,and others (privately shown)

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

I'd like to see that blue reel. Is that possible?

Expand full comment
Duke  Stuart's avatar

Sure, utube has some clips,

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

He got away with saying that on TV back then? Amazing.

Expand full comment
Bensnewlogin's avatar

Sex four times, to be precise.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

Wow. I missed a lot. When I got fed up with Everything Duggar and decided there were better things to read about/watch, she had four.

I hope she has some help from somebody, somewhere!

Expand full comment
Jane in NC's avatar

I'm not a big follower of the Duggars; they always impressed me as weirdos from a strange cult - just the type of people TLC loves to boost. But I do remember when Josh Duggar was arrested, indicted and then sent to prison on child pornography charges. It made me wonder how many young children he had access to in his own household. I thought it was 8, turns out it was 7. From what little I've heard, his wife is still firmly under the control of JimBob and Michele.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Because daddy Jim-Boob takes all the money from the shows.

Expand full comment
Jane in NC's avatar

That's seems par for the course on TLC family freak shows. Daddy always pockets the cash and the lifestyle upgrade that comes with it.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

I read about that. It seemed one of his married daughters decided that she didn't want to be on the show anymore, but he plunked a contract in front of her that she had never read before and ordered her to sign it. Since she was about to get married in a few minutes, she didn't have time to read it, and only later realized she agreed to be a part of the continuing saga.

Jim-Boob needs to be beaten about the head and ears with a rubber hose.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

I suspect daddy Jim-Boob is offering to help her get more.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

EEEEEEEEEWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!

Expand full comment
Whitney's avatar

"...having been brought up in a fundie household and..."

The first three times I read that I would have sworn the phrase was "...brought up in a fondle household..."

Then I finally read it correctly, but realized that there is far less difference than there should be.

Expand full comment
Jane in NC's avatar

Your post makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time, because you're undoubtedly right.

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

And speaking of that ,there is no get out of marriage for him being guilty of abusing kids, or being jailed for it!

Expand full comment
Joe King's avatar

I wonder, how would Oklahoma treat one of their covenant marriages if the couple flies to Vegas for a quickie divorce? For that matter, if the couple moves to another state and divorces there? Do we end up with balkanized marriage laws? Would those legally divorced people only be legally divorced outside of Oklahoma? That's why the Christian Nationalists want to push it nationwide. Welcome to Gilead.

Expand full comment
Zorginipsoundsor's avatar

When considering interstate recognition of marriages, many lawyers and most newspapers believe that the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to recognize one another's marriages. Although this clause can be so interpreted, the Supreme Court and most courts have not yet used it for marriages. Instead, they use various choice-of-law theories, all of which start from the principle that a marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere. Most states have statutes to that effect and validate out-of-state marriages even when a marriage is or was prohibited within the resident state (for example, because the partners are underage or first cousins, or were interracial or previously married). After the Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation statutes as unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, most states validated out-of-state marriages if they were valid where celebrated.

For more:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol30_2003/summer2003/hr_summer03_interstate/

Expand full comment
ericc's avatar

Yes but that doesn't really answer the question. Which is: is the couple's *no-fault divorce* valid everywhere? Because Oklahoma's (future) law says they can't legally get divorced that way while Nevada's law says they can.

Expand full comment
Zorginipsoundsor's avatar

They have to honor out-of-state marriages and divorces.

Expand full comment
avis piscivorus's avatar

They will re-activate pre-civil-war laws where free (divorce) states have the legal obligation to send fugitive couples looking for a divorce back to the state from where they escaped.

Expand full comment
ericc's avatar

So does Nevada have to honor Oklahoma's rule that they can't get no-fault divorced and so not give it to the couple at all? Or does Oklahoma have to honor Nevada's no-fault divorced performed legally in that state?

Personally I'd side with Nevada, under the logic that the couple can perform any legal ceremony in Nevada that it is legal to do in Nevada. But I recognize I'm biased so am happy to hear from a legal expert if that's incorrect.

Expand full comment
Troublesh00ter's avatar

THAT is a damned good question, one which I wonder if those promoting this bill have considered.

Expand full comment
Joe King's avatar

Another question for them:

Since their intention is obviously a far right Christian idea of marriage, how would they react to a same sex couple requesting this?

Expand full comment
John Smith's avatar

The Christian fascist movement would not even acknowledge the same sex couple as a “true” couple. In fact it might put the same sex couple in danger of being attacked by some right-wing nut job.

Expand full comment
Troublesh00ter's avatar

I may be fulla beans here, but I can't imagine a same-sex couple WANTING that kind of marriage!

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Three words: Log Cabin Republicans.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

Oh, to be a fly on that wall....

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

😂🤣😂🤣😂🤮That's how.

Expand full comment
John Smith's avatar

Those representatives never think long term as long it gives them instant jeezy boy points to their Christian fascist base that is all that matters.

Expand full comment
Lynn Veit's avatar

I'm betting they have. I'm sure they took a clue or two from going after abortion rights and SSM laws, and now realize that they have to have it across the board to ensure total obedience. Meanwhile, they have probably figured out all kinds of clauses to help them get around more lax laws in other states.

Maybe they'll pull a Texas and send bounty hunters to stop couples headed for Vegas.

Expand full comment
Tinker's avatar

Typical conservative thinking. No one ever needs to change or grow. Therefore couples will be stagnant and never grow apart.

Expand full comment
Straw's avatar

I remember much fun mostly when we were joining other parts of our family, friends and relatives. But I also remember my parents quarrels. It was an awful experience for a teenager.

Expand full comment
NOGODZ20's avatar

Hey, Deevers...

"Christian marriages are stronger than everyone else's?" You live and work in a bible belt state. The bible belt has the highest divorce rate in the country.

Expand full comment
Robot Bender's avatar

And the highest rate of porn downloads.

Expand full comment
NOGODZ20's avatar

Especially gay porn. Oopsie!

Expand full comment
John Roberts's avatar

"Purity Culture" A look into what's to come when the MAGA cult is in full control of the United States federal government, White House and a twisted theocracy.

The Purity Police and In MAGA We Trust?

Expand full comment
Joan's avatar

Indeed! Total hogwash.

Expand full comment
Val Uptuous NotAgain's avatar

“Given all the ways Republicans have tried to control marriage over the years, opposing interracial marriage, refusing to protect same-sex marriage, allowing child marriage, making it harder to get divorced would be right up their alley.”

But they are actively fighting no-fault divorce already. If not by legislation yet, they are doing it in the media. Steven Crowder is one notable example, look into his divorce situation. His abuse was caught on video, he even released it thinking it makes him look like the aggrieved party, but since it wasn’t an actual physical assault on his wife, folks on the right are siding with him. And who’s to say that the conservatives won’t claim his abuse isn’t abuse just because it wasn’t physical in that moment.

He’s not even the only one, there are plenty of people across the country trying to end no-fault divorce. I think this covenant marriage law is just the camel’s nose under the tent.

Expand full comment
John Smith's avatar

Maybe the reason the Christian fascist movement want these covenant marriages, because they are worried that their wives might want/get a divorce (due to various reasons), and they are trying to prevent their wives from succeeding. Also if the wife is able to get a divorce, it would make the husband look less masculine (in the husband’s mind anyway).

Expand full comment
Ethereal fairy Natalie's avatar

Probably more that he doesn't want to lose his sex slave, gestational incubator, maid, and cook.

Expand full comment