Featured Post

Marriage Class

teteatete

Detail, William Hogarth: The Tête à Tête from the Marriage à la Mode series (No. 2).

Greenberg Traurig is the kind of law firm that has come to be associated with the phrase “Biglaw,” meaning it’s a multiple-state law firm employing hundreds of lawyers, most of whom likely have never met one another. GT was founded in Florida and has a very large presence there and we are nominally concerned in this essay with four of its attorneys there, but its headquarters are in New York, from whence its 1,750 or so attorneys operate in ten countries globally. (It’s okay to be impressed. It’s impressive.)

So I was going to lampoon Fred Baggett, John Londot, Hope Keating, and Michael Moody, who are based in Greenberg Traurig’s Tallahassee office (the first three of these are “shareholders,” which means they hold equity in the firm, and Mr. Moody is an associate, meaning he is a regular employee) who were hired by the Florida Association of County Clerks to prepare a memorandum concerning the recent ruling in Florida’s same-sex marriage case, Grimsley et al. v. Scott et al., which was imminently to take effect and bring marriage equality to the Sunshine State. The Baggett memo, however, opined that the District Court’s order required exactly one county clerk to issue exactly one marriage license to a same-sex couple and warned that any county clerk issuing a license to any other same-sex couple would be at risk of criminal sanction.

If you want to see just how plastic the sensibilities of a Biglaw firm can be when appropriately paid by a cynical client, you can read the Baggett memo here.

This was, of course, not what the judge had in mind, and the Miami Herald reports that the judge took the unusual step of issuing a clarifying order on New Year’s Day, clearing the way for same-sex marriage licenses to issue across Florida on Tuesday, as anyone with a whit of common sense would have understood to be the effect of a Federal judge’s order finding a same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional. So same-sex couples can get married on the same terms as mixed-sex couples, as early as January 6, 2015.

But the Herald also included this cryptic description of what those terms are:

A deputy clerk can perform a marriage ceremony immediately after the license is issued, if the spouses have taken a four-hour premarital course. There is no other waiting period for those who have taken the course. The courses are given in person and online, and can be completed in one day. Search online: ‘Florida premarital course.’
All Florida residents must take the course, or wait three days for a license to become valid. This does not apply to nonresidents. Marriage ceremonies must be performed within 60 days of a license being issued.

Wow. Can’t get married for three days after the license is issued, unless you take a four-hour class? I was married in Clark County, Nevada, which as one might imagine, is not quite so precious about ensuring the vitality of marriages created under its marriage licenses as this. So I had a lot of questions.

I notice that the pre-marriage class is not mandatory; if you don’t want to take the course, you just have to wait three days between applying for the license and actually getting married. If the course is the equivalent of three days’ experience of time together (valued at $32.50 in discounted fees for the license), then this pretty much amounts to preventing people from getting drunk together in a watering hole outside of Lake Okeechobee and running down to the pastor and getting hitched before so much as sobering up. So I guess there’s some value in that.

But I also notice that nonresidents don’t have to take the course. They can meet up, drink down in Margaritaville, and get hitched like lovebugs all in one fell swoop. And presumably, that’s because the State of Florida doesn’t much care if they go home and get divorced in some other state’s courts.

And I notice that residents don’t have to take the course, either. But if they don’t, the cost of license jumps up from $61.00 to $93.50.

When I googled “Florida marriage course” I found that the providers have be registered in each of the various counties throughout the state, which looks like basically some paperwork and fee-paying, and at least one of the popular online providers being taught by a minister. They’re all pretty firm that you have to actually do four hours’ worth of actual work, instead of just clicking through (for example, the way you would if you were taking online traffic school) and that it seems they have to process enrollment in their course by hand, which is presumably a safeguard built in to prevent those drunken hookups from turning in to quickie marriages.

So I asked my wife: “What do you think of this?” Her first response was the same as my initial instinct: there shouldn’t be such a course. People should be able to get married when and on what terms they want and it’s none of the state’s business to tell them they can’t. But then she asked, “Does it work? Has the divorce rate among Florida residents gone down since they passed this law?”

So after that it was off to Florida’s Bureau of Vital Statistics, and its statutory archive. I learned that the law was passed in 1998 and so presumably took effect in either 1998 or 1999. So I found the dissolution rate for marriages in Florida from 1990 to 2014:

YearRate
19903.97%
19914.06%
19924.12%
19934.07%
19944.00%
19953.84%
19963.81%
19974.03%
19983.94%
19993.97%
20003.99%
20014.18%
20014.17%
20023.99%
20034.18%
20044.17%
20054.18%
20064.08%
20073.98%
20084.21%
20094.13%
20103.91%
20114.15%
20123.99%
20133.95%
20143.31%

Florida’s numbers look different from those reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which also tracks vital statistics like this nationally and state-by-state. Florida’s divorce rates according the CDC have, in fact, declined since 1998, but so have divorce rates in essentially every other state as well; Florida’s rate of improvement (query if a low divorce rate is more desirable than a high one; presumably a marriage ending in divorce is one that creates unhappiness, so divorce would be an improvement for at least one divorcing spouse) roughly tracks that of the country as a whole., and Florida’s rate is about .5 per 1,000 population higher than the national average for the whole time, which is well within a standard deviation of the median rate.

So it doesn’t look like this law has particularly helped reduce the divorce rate in Florida. “Well, that’s dumb,” my wife said. Which is right: the law doesn’t seem to serve any point. As a social engineering experiment, it presumably has failed, because it diverts some revenue from the state to private parties (often as not, clerics, at least as far as my very brief survey of the counseling providers seems to reveal, despite the absence of mention of clergy as providers in the statute) without actually affecting the apparent goal: making marriages successful, with “successful” defined as “not ending in divorce.”

But I wonder — well, there are some people who do seem to rush into marriages without a lot of thought. Maybe some sort of good could be realized through this kind of social engineering? The statute speaks of classes addressing the subjects of conflict management, communication skills, financial responsibilities, and children and parenting responsibilities. Those seem like good things for people to have given some thought to before getting married! My wife doesn’t disagree, but she kept coming back to, what’s the point? You can tell people all sorts of good things, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to listen to them or do them in real life.

If you were like my wife and I, you independently gave some thought and discussion to these subjects before you got married anyway — probably not enough in our case, but at least we gave some thought to those sorts of subjects, and we were fortunate enough that the things we didn’t talk about before tying the knot we were able to amicably resolve afterwards. But why should I assume your marriage is like mine? Why should the state of Florida?

One might point out that the course is so poorly incentivized financially (it saves you a whopping $32.50!), and so easily circumvented, means that it probably isn’t actually being done a whole lot and certainly isn’t taken seriously.

One might point out that whatever benefit we might imagine from a mandatory premarital educational class is so easily avoided that the requirement is probably little more than an inconvenience, which might catch some couples unawares and cause some moments of panic and annoying additional paperwork.

Really, the best I can say for the law is that it might prevent some drunken hook-ups from becoming marriages.

But all of that misses the point. It’s a well-intentioned but at the end of the day offensively paternalistic bit of failed social engineering, premised upon the patently false assumption that the state knows what your marriage is all about. For you and your spouse, marriage might not be about good communication, shared finances, sex and monogamy, or childrearing. Maybe it’s a social or economic arrangement between your family and your spouse’s. Maybe it’s low-cost estate planning. Maybe it’s about helping your friend get a green card. Who knows? Who cares? No one gets to tell you what your marriage is or ought to be. That’s for you and your spouse and no one else. Ultimately, whose business is it but yours?

 

Image source: wikimedia commons: detail, William Hogarth: The Tête à Tête from the Marriage à la Mode series (No. 2). Artwork in public domain.

 

 

Burt LikkoBurt Likko is the pseudonym of an attorney in Southern California. His interests include Constitutional law with a special interest in law relating to the concept of separation of church and state, cooking, good wine, and bad science fiction movies. Follow his sporadic Tweets at @burtlikko, and his Flipboard at Burt Likko.

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
Share

37 thoughts on “Marriage Class

  1. If a law isn’t working, clearly what we need is to make it more complicated (that’s how tax codes work, right?)

    So, I propose an exponential backoff approach, similar to that used in various network protocols:

    For marriage number i, the delay between marriage license application and wedding is 2^(i) days – so, for a first marriage, it would be 2 days, 4 days for a second marriage, 8 days for a third marriage.

    For most people, that wouldn’t amount to much of an inconvenience – waiting 16 days for a fourth marriage might be slightly annoying, but curb the worst excesses of impulsiveness. But if you’re on your ninth marriage, the state has the right to express some scepticism as to whether it will see you in divorce court real soon now, and so requires that you maintain a desire to wed for at least 512 days.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  2. I heard about the Greenberg Traurig today and it does make me wonder why they took this case at all. Have they previously done legal work for the Florida Associations of County Clerks? Is the Florida Association of County Clerks generally just a front for right-wing politics? There are still liberal sections of Florida and presumably there are liberal Florida County Clerks, my guess is that they are not fans of this memo or that they had to pay for it.

    The marriage class seems like it can and should be another example of the Oh Florida punchline.

    The new tactic I’ve heard is that clerks are just going to not issue any marriage licenses at all.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  3. That’s funny, but my thoughts were similar but quite different from Mrs Likkos’s. I was curious to see if the number of suits for annulment had gone down after the law was passed.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • I’m used to California, where there is pretty much just “divorce.” Turns out in Florida, there are legal annulments, absolute (regular) divorces, and some other kind of divorce that means you can never get re-married. Also, the reconciliation period is a year. Whew! The family law bar has some good friends in Tallahassee, I tell you what!

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • Seriously? Like, not only are you not married to your previous spouse, but the state of Florida thinks you’re such a colossal jerk that they’re pre-emptively saving everyone else from the agony of being married to you ever again?

        I’m not sure what I think of that. But given the news stories Florida Man tends to turn up in, it’s probably for the best if he doesn’t get married…

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • No, no, that only means that you and your former spouse can never remarry one another, not that you are thereafter barred from ever marrying anyone ever again. Now, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t ex-spouses who would like to see that done, but that’s probably more power than we want to give the courts.

          Quote  Link

        Report

  4. Divorce rates in Florida are high because all that’s required is a reasonable belief that you’re at imminent risk of, say, your spouse being unfaithful. It’s what they call Stand Your Grounds.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  5. Unless Florida is different than the states where I’ve lived, the state automatically extends to married couples certain legal arrangements for which non-married couples have to “buy” assorted paperwork (as in pay an attorney to prepare papers, perhaps have a court take notice, etc). Custody of children if one spouse dies, limited powers of attorney in the event of incapacitating illness, privileged inheritance rules in the event of death, probably a requirement that defined benefit pensions default to “joint and survivor benefit” unless the spouse explicitly signs that away, etc. Does the fact that the state is granting privileges give them a sufficient interest to impose restrictions?

      Quote  Link

    Report

  6. Meh, Florida’s “restrictions” on getting married weren’t as tedious as getting married in some parts of the Caribbean. My ex and I got married in a former British colony and had to pay to get our wedding announced three days in advance-in case anyone wanted to object, plus, we had to be “residents” for a minimum of three days before the ceremony could take place.

    4 hours? Meh.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  7. It should be noted that more than Florida have the marriage class, Texas does as well, it waives the 3 day waiting period as well as reduces the fee for the marriage license. I suspect most southern states at least have this feature.

      Quote  Link

    Report

    • Why southern states? Whatever policy reasons underlie this rule would seem to apply with equal force everywhere. Higher influence of culturally conservative and/or religious folk in governments of southern states? I can see that, but then wouldn’t this replicate at least in the Midwest and central states, too?

        Quote  Link

      Report

    • I live in Texas. I just got married in Vegas. Which we planned for about three months prior, so we didn’t exactly elope or get married on the spur of the moment.

      We hit thirteen years just a month ago. :)

      As for why the paperwork — I dunno. There’s lot of conservatives lamenting how no-fault divorce ruined society, but I honestly just think it’s just knee-jerk “If you make it harder, only people who really want it will do it! Less divorce”.

      Maybe that gets shouted down in other conservative states — perhaps they have more of a semi-libertarian streak of “Why are you telling me I can’t get married? HUH?”

      I know the Southern culture tends towards more…busy-bodying about social lives than I think you find in the mid-west, for instance.

        Quote  Link

      Report

      • I think that the automatic assumption is that there are a certain number of divorces that are for reasons that are reconcilable. Misunderstandings, immaturity on the part of one (or both) of the people involved, that sort of thing. If divorce is (more) difficult, maybe the folks will reconcile.

        (There’s also a hidden assumption that a marriage that can be easily reconciled *SHOULD* be reconciled.)

        I don’t know exactly what to think about that. There were moments in the first couple years of my marriage that made me want to throw in the towel and, lemme tell ya, I AM SO GLAD THAT I DID NOT.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Divorce is bad because….marriage is supposed to be for life, per Christianity. Which informs much of US cultural values, especially the conservative strain. Protestants aren’t as wedded to it (pardon the pun) as Catholics, but even they’ve been historical leery of easy divorce.

        The south is more conservative and religious, so those views…linger longer.

        No-fault divorce is, still, occasionally brought up as some social problem to be addressed — although not one that I think has any traction outside the most conservative religious groups.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Divorce is also bad, as far as I can tell, because it seems to do a number on the kids in the family. I know that many of my classmates in high school had awful experiences when their parents divorced and huge numbers of them, much like the children of alcoholics, said “I am *NEVER* going to do that/let that happen to me!”

        And, much like the children of alcoholics, that was true for many of them and, sadly, not true for many of them.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Divorce is also bad, as far as I can tell, because it seems to do a number on the kids in the family.

        I’m always suspicious of this claim. I think bad parents who fight and traumatize their children via divorce would probably also traumatize them without that divorce. Children who have to adapt to living in two households develop flexibility, which can be a very good thing; and if both households are loving and stable, they may have more adults (and siblings) enriching their lives.

        So I just don’t buy the whole divorce is horrid and ruins kids; and I don’t think cold and unloving parents staying together for the sake of the kids is a good thing. Children learn how to be in loving and respectful relationships from seeing their parents in loving relationships; and sometimes.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • The very short summary of research on kids and divorce shows that toxic relationship really harm kids. High conflict divorces are very hard on kids. Low conflict divorces where the parents get along well enough and can co-parent can be stressful for kids but they can adapt and do just fine in the long run. Conflict, and of course drug abuse if present, is the part that is detrimental.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Jay,
        all frankness, but I think that’s a stupid thing.

        People get married, basically, for three reasons.

        One is “opposites attract” — these are the lusty, conflict-ridden relationships that are going to explode one way or another. It’s people taking a bond that was meant to get them to some relationship-free breeding, and trying to make that into a marriage. Rarely ends well, and trying to pretend it’s not going to end is silly.

        Then people get married to have a partner. These relationships are solid, and nothing ever really seems to go wrong with them. They’re also not for a significant portion of the population — you know the guys/ladies who can’t think of someone of the opposite sex as a partner.

        Then people get married to have a love-slave/sugardaddy. Okay, I suppose if you want to incentivize cheating and staying married, you could “counsel” women out of leaving their husbands because they’re cheating bastards. One can have a “stable” relationship with cheating, so long as the spouse is getting enough attention and “shiny things”.

        I don’t think the last sort of relationship is terribly good, nor that we should encourage people to be rigid, autocratic people.

          Quote  Link

        Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *