My marriage vows are a binding contract, and we changed our legal status

According to the Ohio State Bar Association, the promises made by couples in their marriage vows constitute a binding contract.  ( The Law & You - Chapter 10 - Family Law, pg. 132 &153 )

According to Ohio Law, any religious society [(transcriber's note:) man and woman in the Roman Catholic Church] in conformity with the rules of it's church, may join together as husbnad and wife any persons who are not prohibited by law from being joined in marraige.
Ohio Revised Code, See title 31, chapter 3101, 3101.08. Who may solemnize.

Catholics agree during their marital investigation and preparation (prenuptial agreeemtn), and at just before they exchange vows and during their vows to exhange specific rights and obligations.  These verbal agreements are predetermined and the verbal contract is the Catholic Marriage Rite.

According to the Unites States Supreme Court, marriage is more than a contact, it establishes a change of status. "Marriage is a contract; but it is one which creates a status. Its contract [137 U.S. 147, 152] obligations are mutual faithfulness; but a breach of those obligations does not destroy the status or change the relation of the parties to each other. The parties remain husband and wife no matter what their conduct to each other,-no matter how great their disregard of marital obligations. It is true that courts have power, under the statutes of most states, to terminate those contract obligations, and put an end to the marital relations. But this is never done at the instance of the wrong-door. The injured party, and the injured party alone, can obtain relief and a change of status by judicial action." (see middle of paragraph three, Grimley 137 U.S. 147)

The Unites States Supreme court also stated, "Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation, once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress." [...] "It is rather a social relation like that of parent and child, the obligations of which arise not from the consent of concurring minds, but are the creation of the law itself, a relation the most important, as affecting the happiness of individuals, the first step from barbarism to incipient civilization, the purest tie of social life, and the true basis of human progress " (Maynard vs. Hill 125 U.S. 190)

The Ohio Legislators defined this contractual obligation in Statute 3103.01.  "Mutual obligations.
Husband and wife contract towards each other obligations of mutual respect, fidelity, and support."

Prior to exchanging vows, we were educated about the nature of our marriage and had to agree to the written specifications to accept a family in accordance with the "laws of Christ and his Church." (Universal Marriage Rite, English translation Interrogationes ante consensum, no. 24)   Before exchanging vows (ante-nuptial), we also had to agree to the written specification to love and honor each other as man and wife for the rest of our lives. (ibid)

Excerpts from my marriage contract are pretty typical.
"I take you for my lawful husband (or wife) to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part." In my marriage Rite, the word lawful means in accordance with the laws and Codes of Canon law -- not civil law.  We have a termination contract defined by these written codes.

In some contracts, parties define conditions for terminating the contract as part of the contract itself.  The conditions for terminating our civil marriage were predefined by laws which we agreed to follow before we were married.

I'm familiar with the concept of a legally binding contract. If one of the parties fails to perform or deliver on its promises, a breach of contract occurs. And the law provides remedies for the injured party. He can sue for breach of contract, and seek remuneration or compensation for lost financial support, punitive damages, emotional distress and pain and suffering.

From my and my four young sons' perspective, even if my husband wanted to quit being married, nothing can compensate for the emotional distress and suffering caused by his ending our marriage.   From my husband's perspective, I haven't failed to deliver on my promise. Why does the civil judicial system permit him to just wriggle out of his vows, in breach of his antenuptial contract and his marriage contract, and his marraige status?

The hidden termination agreement

The Ohio State Bar Association says something else which I found very interesting.  "Marriage is a three-way contract involving the state and the two people who are joined in marriage.. . .Under Ohio law, the state is automatically a party to this contract.  (The Law & You - Chapter 10 - Family Law, pg. 132 &153 )

I can't find any laws written by the Ohio legislators which list the State as the third party in our marriage contract.  But there is another kind of law, common law. "Courts make common law as they decided cases that do not involve statutory interpretation...  When courts decide cases, they often write opinions to explain the reasoning by which they have reached their decisions.  These opinions, when not based on statutory interpretation, state the common law." (A Guidebook for Ohio Legislators, Appendix B, page 159)

According to common law, if one spouse loses interest in living with the other and moves out, the court will quickly order their children to leave their own home to visit the abandoning spouse, both evenings and overnight on weekends.  The court will do this regardless of the innocent spouse's asking the abandoning spouse to spend time with the children at home.

According to common law, if one spouse alleges that the other spouse might be "annoying", the court will kick the potentially-annoying spouse out of his own home, and will order this spouse to pay child support and spousal support to the complaining spouse.

According to common law, if the above spouses live separate and apart for one year, the marriage shall be dissolved.

According to common law, the court will terminate a marriage for gross neglect of duty because one spouse doesn't take out the garbage, and the court will terminate a marriage for extreme cruelty because one spouse told the other to "Go to hell."

The courts forced termination agreement for all Ohio Marriages could be written like this:  If either of you: a) lose interest in living together, b) feel your spouse is annoying, c) have petty arguments about chores, or d) speak harshly to the other,  you will have met the conditions for terminating your marriage.  If you lose interest in living together we will make sure you see your kids, even if it ruins their home life and breaks their hearts.   If you are annoyed, we'll keep the spouse away from you and make sure he/she give you money if there is any.

This termination agreement makes vows meaningless.  Why get married at all?  If our legislators believe this termination agreement is reasonable, then they should have people read it before they register for a marriage license. If our legislators don't support this termination agreement, they should do something about it.

This is important for everyone who wants to get married, or knows anybody who is married.   If our culture values parenting and integrity it must protect marriage. If our state condones divorce simply because one party has either lost hope or has no integrity, and wants to wriggle out of his vows, every family is at risk.  If I were a young man, I wouldn't want to get married knowing that at any time my wife could quit and demand that I pay her $10,000's annually for child support and spousal support, but not get the benefit of actually having a wife and living with my children.  As a full time mom, I've sacrificed job stability to be with my kids, and if no authority is enforcing my husbands marriage contract; my kids' home life is shattered.   By its very nature, divorce places my children at risk, and dramatically increases the probability of harm to their well-being.  These increased risks include, socio-economic harm, drug and alcohol abuse, early sexual activity, interpersonal relationship difficulties, inability to thrive educationally, suicide risk, their own eventual divorces -- to put it mildly, increases risks to my children's physical and spiritual harm in general.

Shouldn't the state enforce my marriage contract and enforce it vehemently?  Couldn't we expect the professionals in family law to protect the best interests of the children, which is for their parents to say together?

If you share my concern, please spend a minute sending the questions on my homepage to your State Legislators.