data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d5ec7/d5ec735b0d160aef2086dfb7713ab32ff2bccb00" alt=""
Even with all the excitement of the weddings, I have to wonder about the future of each couple. How many will be married a year from now or five years from now? I wonder how many of them took their vows seriously or had thought much ahead of time about getting married.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3fdfb/3fdfb4a20c0033992f151447c8be6526742b759c" alt=""
One couple had been drinking a lot, one had been living together for 12 years, another one already had a child together. But they were getting married; that's commendable! Will they get divorced without much planning, just as they got married?
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/35edb/35edbe624bc33674163a946e01bcca30087e4c6b" alt=""
Which brings me to another thought .... there are two proposals being discussed for the Oklahoma legislation. One will make it harder (or more expensive, $175 for license without premarital counseling/classes) to get married and will make it harder (or take longer) to get a divorce. Which one is going to encourage people to be married and stay married? Being a strong proponent of premarital education, instinctively, I would want to give people more of an incentive for premarital classes. But as I think about it, would it only discourage the low-income, low-education, young couples from getting married at all? If couples without children have to wait 90 days to get a divorce, instead of getting an instant divorce, would it discourage them from getting a divorce or would they have a change of heart?