Covenant in Anticipation of Marriage and
Arbitration Agreement
When bride and groom get a state marriage license, parties do not put in writing the terms of their marriage agreement. The language in this Covenant and Agreement includes sections on Covenant of Marriage, Arbitration Agreement Between Husband and Wife, Property, Debt, Support and Household Expenses, Household Tasks, Will, Life Insurance, Having and Raising Children, Adoption, Upbringing of Children, Governing Law, Promises regarding disputes, and Designated Rules applicable to one’s marriage (i.e. Catholic Code Canon Law, or Rules of Procedure for Christian Conciliation of the Institute for Christian Conciliation).
FAQ Frequently Asked Questions
A bride and groom who promise more than simple civil marriage, would want a Covenant in Anticipation of Marriage and Arbitration Agreement. They never intend to have unilateral no-fault divorce in their future and expect marital situations to be managed by those who respect the promises parties made.
With simple civil marriage, there is no expectation for parties to uphold marriage promises and all that those promises entail. Civil courts have a divorcist mentality. No consideration is given to children and the other spouse who wants to keep the family together and were critically counting on the marriage promises being upheld.
Yes. Contact [email protected] and inquire.
The Covenant and Agreement is like other pre-written documents distributed as office supply legal forms, or do-it-yourself legal forms. Different state and county courts may enforce the terms of the agreement differently. Some states have implemented a form of the UPPA Uniform Premarital Agreement Act as described on the website of the Uniform Law Commission. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy published article by Jamie A. Aycock, “Contracting Out of the Culture Wars: How the Law Should Enforce and Communities of Faith Should Encourage More Enduring Marital Commitments.” Aycock explains the benefit of parties having their own marriage contract:
“[A]dvancing contract in marriage reduces the role of the state to only (1) setting the minimum requirements for entering marriage, (2) setting the minimum responsibilities spouses must assume toward one another, and (3) enforcing any additional terms agreed to by couples. This is significant because covenant marriage has drawn criticism from those who argue that it advances a particular normative vision of the family by adopting a form of fault‐based divorce. Advancing contract is not likely to draw the same political fire because it avoids enlisting state support for a particular normative vision. Instead, advancing contract principles amounts only to legal enforcement of the terms to which a couple agrees apart from any state influence or endorsement” (page 247).
If a priest, who was not a civil lawyer, explained the language in the Covenant and Agreement, and recommended that a couple sign the agreement, someone could complain that the priest should be charged with engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. However, signing the Proclamation of Consent would not involve the question of unauthorized practice of law, because it only restates the language in the Catholic Order of Celebrating Matrimony.
The Accompanying Document Booklet has a disclaimer explaining that it should not be deemed legal advice of any type. Those receiving it should consult with an attorney for determining the local laws and rules affecting these agreements, or consult a lawyer familiar with the law in the state in which parties are married.
A diocese could decide to have a lawyer available to give instructions about this.
See endorsement from Prof. Lynne Marie Kohm’s Regent University School of Law: “Strengthening marriage with an express agreement is a great idea.
Listen to 23 minute interview of Mary’s Advocate’s founder by religious liberties lawyer, Whit Brisky, AM 1160 Chicago-based radio program “Lawyers of Jesus.”
