Ballot proposal would make pre-wedding marriage classes mandatory in Colo.

Posted on: 9:07 pm, January 20, 2014, by , updated on: 09:14pm, January 20, 2014

DENVER — A group is going to try to get an initiative on the ballot next November that would require people who want to get married to take pre-wedding marriage classes.

The proposal would make it mandatory for every bride and groom to go through marriage counseling before tying the knot.

It would requir 10 hours of classes if it’s your first marriage. Twenty hours would be required for second marriages and 30 hours for third marriages.

The group will need to gather 86,000 valid signatures by August to get the initiative on the ballot.

Eli Stokols has details about who is behind this proposed law and what it would mean to Coloradans.

21 comments

  • I like the idea, but not sure it should be law. It’s easy enough to live together in common-law marriages already, so why would people choose official marriage if they did not want, or need, counseling? It would be too difficult to implement and would hurt the business of weddings in the state. And it’s big business.

  • SloCatch says:

    That’s all we need is to have the Gov. tell us who to love. So if I did take the class and my mariage failed than I can sue the Gov.? Get real, govern and not rule.

  • Bob says:

    Sounds Catholic to me.

  • dapandico says:

    Some moonbat group from California.

  • erma says:

    They can make people take classes, They cannot make them apply to their lives the principals they are taught. Also these classes will not be free, sounds like a way for the state to make money, more than helping the people taking the classes

  • SloCatch says:

    Next it will be a mandatory class on approved positions a couple can enjoy, how many times a week and length of sessions. Get real and fix the obvious State wide problems that effect our Standards of living. Get well soon.

  • Linda Ritenour says:

    It’s not the counseling, it’s the commitment. If the commitment is ’till death do us part’ there won’t be the ‘if it doesn’t work out, I’ll get a divorce’ attitude. We will be married 50 yrs. on Feb. 14. Commitment is what kept us together through some very trying times.

  • Ali Webb says:

    If people want to offer marriage classes – okay. If some people want to ‘require’ them – then it’s another avenue to more government regulation and ‘control’. Want people to have higher standards of ethical and moral behavior? Don’t look to government. Look higher.

  • Bob says:

    Is Fuhrer Obama behind this??

  • Test says:

    “Eli Stokols has details about who is behind this proposed law and what it would mean to Coloradans.”

    But he is hiding them for now? Did you run out of server space to publish those details?

  • Rae says:

    I say, if they want to go through the counseling, thats fine. And if they can show proof then they can get a marriage license at a cheaper cost. If they don’t go through the counseling, then they can pay for the license at a significantly higher price. Its similar to what other states offer as well.

    I think its a great idea, because I personally work in the office that issues marriage licenses. And to see kids come in and get married as soon as they turn 18, then to turn around 2-3 weeks later and say they change their mind, is quite disturbing. Maybe if something like this was in place it would make people think more about the decision their making, that will affect the rest of their life.

  • This is the most dumbest thing to do. Not all conselors know what it takes to stay married. This will cause problems in the long run. We do not need dumbbow our governor to interfear with couples period. WRONG IDEA HERE!

  • i don’t like that idea, my fiance and I have been together over three years and known each other even longer. You have to realize we took our time to get his far and you want us to be in counseling, what if we don’t want to do it? We discuss everything even who we hang out with and how they feel about all this.

    3 years, that’s a long time for any relationship without much draw, we are going to the court house at the end of this month and doing it that way. We’re not big on ceremony and yet, if this passes, what about the couples like us who are too poor for the counseling? Did they ever think about that?

  • Sue Cox says:

    While I think this is a good idea, I do not think it needs to be made a law. It seems to me I have heard some members of the clergy require couples to take classes before they will perform a marriage ceremony for them.

  • Barry says:

    I think in the past many people got married in the church and got premarital counseling there. Nowadays, people get married in various places – and I don’t think counseling is as prevalent these days. I do think counseling is a good thing – but I don’t think we should endorse state-run marriage counseling because the state can’t talk about some of the most important issues (such as the religious aspects). Perhaps the state could offer a marriage license discount if a couple sought out counseling on their own.

  • You need not require it by law. Just allow the marriage license to be $100 cheaper with an notarized letter that the counselor administered 15 hours of counseling to the couple. This concept has worked in Minnesota.

  • Robin Archuleta says:

    A new law as a pre-marital measure – 10 hours of counseling – ridiculous. 10 hours of classes is not going to make or break the deal. Not everyone buys into counseling. Secondly, what about those who don’t have extra funds to attend this 10 hour class. Is the State going to fund it?? Interesting that no comment is provided as to what Eli Stokols, and party is trying to accomlish.
    I’ve known peope to attend couples counseling in order to be married within their spiritual affiliation. However, that is on a whole other platform. Not the place of the State to mandate. Sounds like the State is trying to make $.

  • Billie says:

    Why would anyone want more government control… Can’t you make your own decisions and accept the consequences??

  • Stacia says:

    They should make women and men attend parenting classes before they have children!

  • Fast45 says:

    Ummmm … I think I threw up a little bit in the back of my mouth.

    Catholicks have tried this for, how long now? Some fruitcake who isn’t married, counsels others on how to be married. Now the gay-loving, spineless folks who would take your guns AND your Big Gulp away, want to legislate marital viability?

    Ugh … there’s that icky taste in the back of my throat again.

  • Jack Meoff says:

    Clearly unconstituional..bride and groom ,,means man and woman, fudge packers and carpet munchers are excluded?

Comments are closed.