Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Marriage Counseling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves optional $20 premarital counseling discount; supporters call it prevention, opponents decry government in private life
Summary
On March 7 the House passed First Substitute Senate Bill 54, which creates an opt-in $20 discount on marriage licenses for couples who complete premarital counseling (counties and couples opt in); sponsors said it could reduce divorce and public costs, while opponents warned of government intrusion.
SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House on March 7 approved First Substitute Senate Bill 54, a measure that would allow counties with online marriage-license systems to offer an opt-in $20 discount to couples who receive premarital counseling or education.
Representative Edwards, the sponsor, said the program is voluntary for both counties and couples and argued it could reduce divorces and save public money. "It's an opt in for counties. It's an opt in for couples, and it's an opt in for you right now to vote yes on the bill," Edwards told the chamber.
Under the bill as explained on the floor, counties that already offer an online license could provide a lower base fee; the difference becomes a $20 discount for couples who choose to receive premarital counseling. Sponsor Edwards said the discount funding would support the Utah Marriage Commission up to a $400,000 cap, after which the funds would revert to the general fund.
Supporters included Representative Christiansen and Representative McKay, who noted the marriage commission's history and urged the body to support the preventative approach. Representative Christiansen called the program "simple" and "essential," and Representative McKay said the measure was an opportunity to help young couples.
Opponents framed the bill as government intrusion into a private decision. Representative Acton said she opposed the bill even though she supports marriage, calling it "too much government oversight in our private lives." Representative Stratton raised detailed questions about fee mechanics and whether the change would effectively raise fees in some counties; the sponsor replied that counties opting into online licensing could maintain existing fees while using cost differences to fund the discount.
Representative Chu asked about the substance of the counseling; Edwards said the bill specifies counseling or education on topics such as commitment, communication, problem-solving and avoiding violence and abuse, but that providers would determine the format and delivery.
Sponsors cited potential fiscal benefits. Edwards estimated hypothetical savings to the state from reduced divorces and said even a modest participation rate would yield public-cost savings; those projections were presented on the floor as illustrative and were not accompanied by an on-floor citation.
The House completed debate and recorded final passage on the concurrence calendar; the bill will be returned to the Senate for final consideration.
What’s next: If the Senate signs the returned substitute, counties that choose to participate will need to implement online licensing options and establish how counseling providers are verified or approved.
