|
I am continually disgusted
by the actions of the Colorado
legislature when it comes to
dealing with the problem of
domestic, or intimate partner
violence (DV). Belatedly
recognizing that a problem
existed, in 1994 they began
passing a series of draconian
laws that now makes virtually
every quarrel between a couple
criminal "domestic violence."
For a decade the Equal
Justice Foundation has been
tracking the impact of these
laws on family violence. The
principal metrics that we, and
others have been able to measure
are:
- Criminal domestic violence occurs in approximately 4 out
of every 1,000 households (0.4%) according to National Crime
Victimization Studies (NCVS), or roughly 7,500-8,000 cases a
year in Colorado, a state with a population of 4.9 million.
- In Colorado Springs, and now replicated in several other
cities, the principal effect of the DV laws has been
a dramatic drop in the number of 911 domestic
disturbance calls after 1994.
- Between 1995 and 2007 the
percentage of police incidents of domestic violence
involving married couples dropped from 42% to 31% as
apparently fewer couples marry or they have learned not to
call the police for any reason. The propaganda about
"spousal abuse" no longer applies.
-
Police incident reports of actual domestic
violence only increased about 12% between 1998 and 2007
despite a 23% increase in Colorado's population. That is
more likely due to reduced 911 domestic disturbance calls
than an actual decrease in DV.
- Between 1998 and 2007 Colorado population grew by 23%
while the number of
domestic violence court cases reported by the state
court administrator increased by 43% as "domestic
violence" cases under current laws rarely involve actual
violence.
Other metrics give basically the same result. There is
no measurable change in actual domestic violence, police
incidents involving violence are decreasing primarily
because citizens are afraid to call 911, but the number of
DV court cases continues to increase due to the feeding
frenzy of the DV industry which has succeeded in defining
virtually everything a couple may do as "domestic violence."
This feeding frenzy is supported by a legislature whose
predictable response is to throw money at the problem.
Whether the funding actually fixes the problem, which it
demonstrably has not, is basically irrelevant to both
parties. If something constructive were done toward abating
family violence that would not be in the interest of the DV
industry.
It is no secret that times are tough and that in
Colorado Springs we have a huge problem with troops who have
been deployed into combat multiple times and are now
suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or
traumatic brain injuries (TBI). For veterans with partners,
virtually every physical manifestation of PTSD and TBI is
criminal domestic violence under current Colorado laws. And
a soldier with a DV conviction in Colorado is
a dead man walking.
Given the above, state senator John Morse (Democrat-El
Paso County) came up with the politically brilliant idea of
providing additional funding for the DV industry by taxing
both marriage and divorce with the rationale that his
bill (SB09-068):
"Specifies that a percentage of
the moneys collected from the fee increases shall be used
for a specified time to reimburse domestic abuse programs
for services to members of the military and veterans or
their families."
The bill immediately ran into considerable opposition
from many groups who realized that feeding the DV industry
could never help the military or veterans, but would
definitely hurt them. But Democrats seem never to have seen
a tax, or fee, they didn't like, especially if it claims to
fight "domestic violence." So the bill advanced. But any
reference to helping military or veterans, the original
rationale for why this tax was needed, was dropped from the
final version. In the end it is clearly only a tax to feed
the DV industry at the expense of marriages society should
be most interested in preserving.
As finally passed the tax will add $20 to a marriage
license and $10 to the filing fee of the 50% who marry and
later divorce. These "fees" are expected to add a million
dollars a year to state revenues and pay the salary and
benefits of one new state bureaucrat. One might reasonably
predict this bill will result in roughly 1,000 new DV court
cases, i.e., broken homes and lives.
As shown in the following editorial, the new law
continues to generate opposition.
________________________________________________
OPINION: The wedding fee
Colorado Springs Gazette
http://www.gazette.com/opinion/marriage-57081-license-state.html
June 22, 2009 - Thanks to Senate Bill 09-068,
sponsored by state Sen. John Morse, D-Colorado Springs, and
signed into law by Gov. Bill Ritter, the cost of getting a
marriage license will triple July 1, from $10 to $30. The
additional money will go to the Colorado Domestic Abuse
Program, meaning prospective brides and grooms are targeted
to fund solutions to a problem that likely has nothing to do
with their own lives.
Here's how prospective couples should respond to this
overnight tripling of a fee: Don't pay it. Simply decline to
buy a marriage license, which is completely unnecessary to
begin with.
A marriage is nothing other than a contract - written,
spoken or merely understood - between two adults. No place
understands this better than the state of Colorado, which
recognizes a heterosexual couple as fully married if they
simply choose to present themselves as married to their
friends and the greater community.
In Colorado, a couple can stand alone in the living room
and declare themselves married.
Or, the couple may find a pastor, priest, rabbi,
rimpoche, or other spiritual leaders to lead them through
vows of marriage. While some third party providers of
marriage services may require a state license, they are
under no obligation to do so and can often be convinced to
perform services without a license. The license does
absolutely nothing to validate a marriage in Colorado that
isn't accomplished by mutual vows of "I do."
By contrast, the act of getting a marriage license
involves red tape and bureaucrats who care nothing about a
couple's love for one another.
Here are some of the rules: The license must be used
within 30 days of issue; the fee is payable only in cash;
the bride and groom must complete the application form, and
at least one must appear at the clerk and recorder's office
in person; if both parties appear in person, they must
appear together; if one of the parties cannot appear in
person, he or she must complete an affidavit and the
signature must be notarized. That, vs. "I do" in the privacy
of a home, in some other favorite place, or before friends
and family gathered in a religious institution. Why would
anyone do this? Is it fun to spend $30 for absolutely no
reason?
Anyone who believes a marriage license serves some
purpose should ask five or 10 couples who've been married
for 10 years or more the following question: "When is the
last time someone asked to see your marriage license, or
when is the last time you actually used the license?"
Mostly, the answer will be "never."
States began issuing marriage licenses in the United
States as a way to regulate interracial couples who wanted
to wed. They are an outdated mode of distasteful state
control that has evolved into the sale of a license for no
purpose other than to levy a fee.
State government should have no role in a marriage,
unless and until that marriage becomes the topic of a child
custody and/or property dispute in need of courtroom
resolution. In that unfortunate circumstance, the marriage
license continues to play no role.
So, prospective newlyweds, show the state how you feel
about an overnight tripling of a fee that targets only new
loving couples to pay for a problem they didn't cause.
Simply decline to buy a $30 marriage license, which has a
value of zero.
_____________________________________________
For many years the Equal Justice Foundation has
pointed out that under current laws a man has to be
functionally insane to get a license and marry and a
drooling idiot to sire a child. This bill by state senator
John Morse simply reinforces that statement.
It might be a bit expensive to draw up a revocable
trust that includes medical power of attorney, health care
directives, a living will, last will and testament, property
schedule, community property agreement, and etc. but that
cost will be minuscule compared to what the couple will pay
to go through "family" court after taking out a marriage
license. And there is a 50% chance today that any marriage
will end up with a divorce. Isn't it much more sensible to
make provision for a possible friendly end to the
relationship at the beginning as is standard practice with
any contract?
Further, simply buying a marriage license doesn't
save you the expense of most of the documents tabulated
above. So save your $30 fee and stay out of family court by
drawing up a contract to start with.
Love shouldn't blind man or woman to reality and if
they have children they should be bound under contract to
raise them together, whether they can live as man and wife
or not. Child support cannot replace a father or a mother
and the State acting in loco parentis is a societal
disaster.
Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
|
