It's a Question of Faith

Posted by Brooke at 9:09 AM

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Okay, so this one is up for public debate.


My hubby is very happily attending a church in the small town where we live. I attend when I am in town, which is not very often because I work a lot of weekends. But to be honest, when I am in Sunday service, I am just not happy there. I have tried to get involved but something is just not clicking for me. We have a discussion on the table now and it pertains to this:

Should and husband and wife worship together in the same church if they are of the same faith? Will there be negative consequences if our child does not see us worship in the same place? Should one of us bend and go to the place of worship that suits the other better?

Your thoughts?

- The Working Wife

Good Things are Never Easy

Posted by Brooke at 8:54 AM

Monday, April 27, 2009

The hardest and yet the best thing I have ever done in my life…getting married and staying married.

We are always so excited for a couple getting married. We remember those feelings of love from our years of long ago. Or should I say from my years of long ago. My husband and I have been married for 26 years, yet he is quick to remind me it is almost 27, even though it is 6 months away.

I have to say I was like most couples getting married, I was in love and could never imagine life being anything but blissful. I was married at the tender age of 18 and of course was extremely mature for my age (yeah right!) Maybe in some things, but not in the reality of what it really meant “to always love and cherish.” We were not fortunate to have the access to marriage education. WOW what a difference that would have made.

All that being said I couldn’t imagine not marrying my wonderful husband. We have had our tough times and we have had our good times. The one thing that he told me when we got married was “divorce is not an option” and while there were many times that that seemed like the easier option, looking back it was the work we put into our marriage that was definitely the better option.

- The Married Mom

Thoughts on the Divorce Reform Bill

Posted by Brooke at 10:30 AM

Friday, April 17, 2009

Sanchez: How to achieve 'happily ever after'
Ashley Sanchez, REGULAR CONTRIBUTOR
Friday, February 27, 2009

The majority of Americans hope to get married and live happily ever after. But the high rate of divorce and the declining rate of marriage suggest that we might not know how. As with any knowledge deficit, education can help fill the gap.

During the 2007 legislative session, Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, introduced a bill to give a discount on marriage licenses to couples who attend premarital education classes. The bill passed and went into effect last year.

This session, Chisum is proposing education for couples on the other end of the marriage spectrum. HB 480 would apply to couples who have minor children in the home and file for divorce based on the grounds of insupportability (the category chosen by Texas' couples seeking a no-fault divorce, he explained to me). Those couples would have to submit with the divorce petition proof that at least one of them had completed a crisis marriage education course.

The bill stipulates that the course must be at least 10 hours long and "include instruction in: 1) conflict management; 2) communication skills; and 3) forgiveness skills." Chisum told me that because those skills are beneficial in many aspects of people's lives, the courses wouldn't do any harm. Moreover, though the bill wouldn't help every couple avoid divorce, he said, "This is an effort to put as many back together as we can."

Chisum is not trying to trap people in bad marriages. The bill explicitly waives the education requirement for marriages with violence or abuse, whether it's mental, emotional, psychological or verbal.

The bill also stipulates that only one partner is required to attend the class. Thus, a spouse cannot trap the other in the marriage by refusing to attend. Both partners are encouraged to attend, however, by the bill's provision that a judge can use a partner's refusal to take the class as a factor in other aspects of the divorce settlement, such as the division of the estate.

Chisum's bill seems to have no negatives. At worst, it eats up 10 hours of someone's time, an amount similar, I would guess, to the average time that separated spouses spend just in the first month shuttling the children between their two homes. And if their marriage isn't restored, they might well find that their divorces are more amicable and their future relationships better because of the skills they acquire during the course.

At its best, the bill would help couples who would otherwise have divorced learn the skills they need to nurse their relationship back to health and happiness. That's a victory for the adults and children alike.

Because Chisum said that Michael Smalley, founder and executive director of the Smalley Marriage and Family Center in The Woodlands, has been conducting such courses successfully, I asked Smalley about his program. Of the couples in struggling marriages who participated, Smalley found that eight years later, 87 percent were satisfied and still together. Though his data comes from an in-house longitudinal study, other research has documented the effectiveness of a variety of marriage programs across the country.

Even in the absence of a program, however, unhappy couples can turn things around. A 2002 Institute for American Values' report (from a team led by University of Chicago sociology professor Linda J. Waite) found that among couples who were in troubled marriages, 64 percent of those who stuck it out were happily married five years later. Furthermore, "(u)nhappily married adults who divorced or separated were no happier, on average, than unhappily married adults who stayed married."

The report notes that divorce itself can bring "new sources of distress, from financial troubles to new relationship problems with the ex." At the report's end, the authors explain that good and bad marriages might not be fixed opposites, "but the same marriage at two different points in time. ... If marriage is no panacea, neither is divorce."

Of course, plenty of people testify that their divorce did, in fact, make them much happier than did their miserable marriage. No legislation threatens their right to choose that path, and our society is widely accepting of that decision.

Marriage education in general, and Rep. Chisum's bill in particular, simply provide a relatively low-cost opportunity to help some couples achieve their happily ever after.

asanchez@austin.rr.com

Bring on the Rain ~ Luck is for the Dogs!

Posted by Brooke at 9:49 AM

This weekend, in North Texas, it is going to rain. A lot. And why am I playing weather girl for you? Well let me tell you: I work with a ton of wedding vendors who are preparing for a rainy weekend of work while couples all over this Lone Star State celebrate their day of nuptials. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard these vendors say- well rain is supposed to bring luck to the marriage. Hogwash!

Here is the deal oh young lovers- marriage is not about luck. Sorry, but that is the God-honest truth. Marriage is about two people making a firm decision to make it work: NO. MATTER. WHAT. It is making a commitment to the institution of marriage and what it supposed to mean for the rest of your lives. THE REST OF YOUR LIVES!!!!

Now abuse and other tragic situations aside, everyone needs to look at the decision to marry as a very serious one. I did not, and I almost lost mine. But thank goodness I had someone tell me exactly what I am saying to all of you. Marriage is for life. And that is not a death sentence either for all you cynics out there. There should not be this "Starter Marriage" mentality. Because when you stay married to the person you said you would stay married to, the blessings are amazing!
Not the luck, but the blessings that hard work and commitment bring make your marriage great.

By staying with one person I have learned to forgive and be forgiven on a level that cannot be compared by any other relationship on earth. To be loved and known as I am by my husband is the greatest thing, aside from my relationship with God, that I have ever known. It makes me walk proud and feel confident. I can be fully woman and fully myself with this man. This did not happen on our wedding day. Heck- it did not happen after 3 years of marriage! It happened after times got tough, and then got tougher, and then we worked through it. Now we are on the other side and we have a depth that is found no where else. It is a depth that allows both of us to go through our days content with one another and at peace that neither of of will ditch the other when times are rough. It also has allowed us to laugh deeper and relax more- in each other.
That is what happens in a healthy marriage. Not because we got lucky, but because we have made this our top priority.

And as a side note, it was sunny as ever on my wedding day- and 90 degrees outside!

- The Working Wife

Why Divorce Reform is Beneficial

Posted by Brooke at 11:08 AM

Friday, April 3, 2009

An article published today in the Dallas News expresses a negative outlook on the divorce reform law being reviewed for legislation. I'd like to flip the coin on the writer's thoughts, and provide insight from someone who has actually benefited from the TwoGether in Texas program and the state-funded marriage initiative curriculum. My rebuttals will be posed in italics for easy identification.


"State-mandated divorce counseling would be too little, too late for most"


06:33 AM CDT on Friday, April 3, 2009


How's your marriage?


No, seriously, because if you're not feeling the love, a man from Pampa wants to help you. More specifically, he wants the government to help you.


The man is state Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, the government is the state of Texas, and the "help" is a particularly officious brand of interference in your private affairs.


(Officious? I myself have read through the curriculum several times, and have found it pertinent, easy to relate to, insightful, and even entertaining. I wonder if Ms. Floyd has founded her opinions without bothering to read the curriculum first.)


He had introduced legislation mandating that if you have kids and you want a divorce, you won't get it until you sit through 10 probably fruitless and possibly embarrassing hours of state-approved marriage counseling.


(This law does target families with children. As any concerned parent would attest, wouldn't you do anything for your kids? Even take a bullet if you had to? Just to keep them as safe and and happy as you can. That's every good parent's responsibility. So, tell me then, why would you balk at potential embarrassment? Hasn't parenthood in itself primed you for endless occasions of mortifying situations? This law provides parents with the ability to honestly say to their children, "We did everything we could." So kids can know that their parents truly care about their emotional well-being. And 10 hours is sacrificing one or two Saturdays for your child's welfare. Is it really so hard to exchange two football games for the sake of your child?)


Disclaimer: I'm not an anti-government crank. And I'm a great believer in the institution of marriage, being a contented denizen of that blessed state. I have firsthand experience of the misery and trauma that divorce engenders.


(So it's written here that divorce engenders misery and trauma, for all parties involved. This law strives to help families rectify as many common family problems so that even if the marriage can't be saved, the parents can still function with each other civilly and keep their kids out of a hostile environment. Marriage education teaches effective communication and conflict resolution. Hardly officious, it serves to open up each party to communicate honestly to avoid misinterpretation and potential conflict, keeping tempers - and kid's tension - low.)


No question that many of us are too quick to make major life decisions – marriage, parenthood, divorce – on impulse, or without realistic expectations. Ours would be a more stable society if everyone afforded these decisions the gravity and respect they're due.


(Floyd admits here that many file divorce impulsively, without thinking through the full ramifications before it's too late to turn back. This law encourages both parties to really sit and consider what is really going on in the marriage, and see if it's possible to change things for the better.)


Chisum has already tackled the issue from the front end. He authored a law that took effect last September giving engaged couples a price break on the marriage license if they underwent state-approved counseling before the Big Day.


(It is incorrect to call the curriculum "counseling". It is not one-on-one, but in a group setting of several couples, often on a Saturday with lunch and cake provided. Couples receive research-proven effective relationship skills. This strives to head off conflict before getting locked in. Learning things such as spending personalities can help couples learn how each differs from the other and understand why, instead of quibbling over why she went out and spent last week's grocery money on a new pair of shoes.)


Absurdly named "Twogether in Texas," the program hasn't exactly caught fire. In February, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported during its first five months, only 602 couples statewide had taken advantage of the deal.


(This is a blatantly false statistic. The Twogether in Texas program - and don't ask me why alliteration is now deemed absurd, being a fan of grammar and wordplay myself I think it is aptly named - has served nearly 20,000 families in Texas. A staggering number considering the legislation was only passed this last September. 602 couples have obtained their marriage licenses at the reduced rate. Considering the fact that you can only file for your license 30 days out from your wedding, and prime wedding season hasn't even hit yet, I'd consider that number wildly successful. The TNT program is not exclusive to marrying couples either, singles, parents, teens, and even seriously dating couples can attend the workshops - again, not counseling as was falsly stated previously. None of whom would be filing for marriage licenses any time soon.)


But at least you can opt out of that one for a few bucks. The new counseling bill, with narrow exclusions for those who can prove they have been victims of abuse, would apply to every married person with children who petitions the court for a divorce.


(A few bucks is more specifically considered $60. Hardly petty cash to a struggling familly in this current economic status. And these free, yes free!, classes help those same families learn relationship skills to prevent the even costlier fees of divorce. As far as her allegations of "narrow exclusions", the bill outlines that any sort of paper trail - be it protective order, DV report, hospital bill, threatening email even - will omit the petitioner from any requirements.)


No class, no split. The nonpetitioning spouse doesn't have to take the class – but if he or she does not, the judge can weigh that lapse when doling out property or even custody of the kids.


(And why should an unresponsive second party not be considered? Wouldn't a judge rightly see this as uninvolvement? That this person is unwilling to provide 10 measly hours - again, two football games' worth - to learn useful skills for a functioning relationship, whether married or divorced? I'm sure the kids would appreciate Mom and Dad negotiating who gets the kids for spring break without verbal lacerations.)


Look, I have nothing against counseling, a noble resource which helps a lot of people in desperate need. I think judges should have the option of ordering counseling as a condition of divorce, if they see fit in individual cases.


And I think programs that help divorcing parents minimize the stress on their children are all to the good.


But Chisum makes no bones about the fact that his idea of counseling isn't to make divorce more civilized – it's to talk you out of it.


"The deal is, we need to take marriage more seriously," he told the Austin American-Statesman last summer. "If this just saves one marriage, it'll be fine with me."


(Why would saving a marriage be a bad thing? Yes, if it saves even one marriage, keeps one family whole and functioning, wouldn't you consider that a winning cause? And even if it doesn't save the marriage, it at the very least helps civilize divorce, another positive outcome. So, basically Floyd is just muttering over the inconvenience over spending 10 hours with someone you're already irritated with, not considering the fact that this inconvenience is highly beneficial for your children. I wonder what her opinion is on pregnancy.


Well, not you gay couples. You don't have to worry about divorce counseling, because this same lawmaker was behind the state amendment that makes it illegal for you to get married in the first place.


(I don't see why riling up her audience with the gay marriage issue is pertinent to divorce reform. When the day comes that gay couples can file for a marriage license and a divorce, lawmakers will be just as concerned for reducing taxpayer responsibility there as well.)


As for the rest of us, though, a lot of veterans of the divorce wars will tell you that once somebody already wants out, it's too late for 10 hours of earnest training in "conflict management" and "forgiveness skills" to rekindle those refrigerated embers.


Worst of all, though, is the awful, one-size-fits-all assumption that the same "skills" workshop is the fix that every troubled marriage needs.


In Chisum's cheery view, everybody's just like him and his neighbors and his church friends back home in Pampa.


(I also do not see how criticizing Chisum's hometown is pertinent to reform either. Visit any of the nonprofit providers of the TNT program workshops and read the participants testionies. Here's a link, even. Once again, how is attending a 10 hour workshop in order to learn how to improve lines of communication such a burden? And though couples do attend workshops in groups, it is by no means a "one size fits all" solution. Facilitators work with each individual to address their specific needs.)


He seems to think a government handout and maybe a (shudder) sharing session with a roomful of unhappy strangers can address the most complex issues of human relationships – kind of like a licensing exam for morticians or a class in boat safety. There's an eerie mix of impersonal regimentation and deeply personal intrusion about the whole thing.


Chisum is right about one thing: We, as a culture, need to take marriage more seriously.


But making people fidget through government divorce school won't make it happen.


(Comparing a relationship workshop to a mortician's exam is quite a simile. Kind of like the time my judge compared my annulment petition on the grounds of domestic abuse fraud to my sadistic, abusive husband telling me he preferred Marlboro Lights to Camels. He was a real sweet guy too, Ms. Floyd.)


My only response to this article is that it seems to be written by an embittered woman with a personal vendetta against laws requiring inconvenience. Nowhere in this article did I see a presentable argument to a legislative committee. Could marriage education reduce divorce costs? Yes. Either by preventing the divorce or aiding with an amicable dissolution. Could marriage education benefit the children? Yes. Either by helping parents stay together or preventing those messy divorces that scar children for life. I suggest Ms. Floyd do her research before writing such an opinion piece, and get the facts straight. She could start by calling the agency providing the TwoGether in Texas program in Dallas and serving her own local families. Anthem can be reached by phone, 214 426-0900, and you can learn more about the program by visiting their website, www.anthemnorthtexas.org.