by Kimberly Blaker

Conservatives have their hopes on making divorce unviable for many Floridians. 

Options being considered by some legislators, typical of right-wing proposals, include the requirement for more pre-marital counseling, a 6-month to 1-year waiting period for divorce, more counseling for couples applying for divorce, and, while unlikely, mutual consent to divorce when there are children.

According to reports, this issue will likely be brought up during Florida’s March and April 2003 legislative session.

While Governor Jeb Bush has stated that he does not favor making divorce more difficult to obtain, he is interested in “strengthening families,” which he has made clear is a vital goal for his second term. What exactly this means, coming from the brother of the most Christian Right president seen in recent decades, can only be imagined.

Of greater concern, however, is Florida’s House speaker, Republican Johnnie Byrd who has established a House committee for just this purpose—to explore marriage issues. Byrd has repeatedly criticized no-fault divorce and blames it for the suffering that exists among today's children and families.

According to an Associated Press report, Byrd has divulged, “I want the chairman of the Committee on the Future of Florida's Families to come up with some great ideas about how we can establish marriage as the foundation of our society, how we can put marriage on a pedestal as being the rock foundation of our society.”

Byrd, as it so happens, received a perfect rating—100%—from the Christian Coalition during his campaign, for his views on marriage reform.

For a representative who touts himself as having “a firm belief in less government” and “more personal freedom,” Byrd’s pronouncement seems a bit out of line.  Such contradictions are typical, however, of the conservative right.  Less government is good, only when it suits conservatives’ needs.  When it comes to “personal freedom,” there is little that goes untouched by conservative lawmakers who attempt to govern everything, from what Americans can read and hear to what they can do behind closed doors among consenting adults.

Granted, Byrd is free as an individual to place marriage on a pedestal. But it is not the government’s place to dictate what lifestyle ought to be for everyone.  Today, we no longer need large families to survive, and there is a growing need to reduce population growth.  Therefore, establishing marriage as the foundation of society could have minimal benefit while catastrophic damage. 

First, as more Americans choose not to have children, there is no dire need for marriage—although it is generally the preferable alternative for those who do wish to have children.

But idealizing marriage and stigmatizing singleness, as has been done throughout history inevitably leads individuals to marry who, for a variety of reasons, are better suited to a single lifestyle if not indefinitely, at least for the earlier part of their adult life.

Stereotyping that suggests married individuals are more upright citizens leads many to pursue marriage as something they should do rather than waiting for the right time and right person.  In turn, many couples then feel pressure have children and then do so, with the best of intentions but not for the right reasons. This, in the end can be disastrous for all involved.

Although religious conservatives have every right to preach marriage and their brand of morality to their followers and congregations, they do not have the right to dictate their particular standards to society through our government. I hope that Florida lawmakers will see it that way, too.