The sanctity of marriage? Good question.

[Torch]

Seems to me like the only folks making a mockery of the sanctity of marriage these days are heterosexuals. (i.e the Kardashian trainwreck, the SisterWives debacle). This article in www.buzzfeed.com lists 20 couples, all of whom are respectful, devoted and loving partners to each other, and contributing member of the communities in which they live..... but none of them can legally marry because they are of the same sex.

20 couples that put Kim Kardashian's marriage to shame

[Jacqueline]

Wiki says that the two earnt (I'm copy-pasting) "$17.9 million from the nuptials,[46] and that they paid nothing of the $20 million costs associated with it. Three $20,000 Vera Wang gowns and $400,000 worth of Perrier-Jouët champagne were given free, as were invitations from Lehr & Black estimated at $10,000 and $750,000 for catering for the 500 guests at the reception."

It ends that section with "Kardashian gained notoriety after several news outlets surmised that the marriage was a publicity stunt to promote the Kardashian brand and television ventures"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Kardashian#Relationships

[Oniya]

The only good thing that came out of Kardashian collision (or did they even go bump in the night?) was seeing George Takei make commentary about it on Issues with JVM.

Edit:  I just shared that link on Facebook.  Love and devotion need to go viral.

[Torch]

Edit:  I just shared that link on Facebook.  Love and devotion need to go viral.

Excellent! It's about time FB used its powers for good instead of evil.  :D

[Callie Del Noire]

Kim Kardashian.. the woman got her start with a SEX TAPE. She is not what I'd call a 'model for my kids' (if I had any). Not that I watch/care about her on TV anyway..she's reality TV and I avoid that like the plague.

[Oniya]

Kim isn't the first celeb to have a marriage that didn't make it to the first anniversary.  I recall that Brittany Spears had one that was measured in hours before getting annulled.  I don't want to call it amusing ('cause it's not funny) or surprising (because it's isn't really), but the notable thing is how absolutely silent the DOMA supporters are regarding these flash-in-the-pan nuptials.  Because obviously, these have no impact on how people see the sanctity of marriage.

[Jacqueline]

I also read that their wedding was very religious and that Kris Humphries’ pastor officiated the ceremony.

[Lilias]

Kim isn't the first celeb to have a marriage that didn't make it to the first anniversary.  I recall that Brittany Spears had one that was measured in hours before getting annulled.

Kim, though, is 30-something and one would think she'd have learned a thing or three from her first marriage (of 4 years).

What it all boils down to is the old chestnut that marriage is not for selfish people.

[Torch]

the notable thing is how absolutely silent the DOMA supporters are regarding these flash-in-the-pan nuptials.  Because obviously, these have no impact on how people see the sanctity of marriage.

Rush Limbaugh: Twice divorced, on his third marriage to a woman who has also been divorced twice.

Newt Gingrich: Twice divorced, on his third marriage.

Rep. Bob Barr, author of the DOMA: Twice divorced, on his third marriage.

Need I go on?

[Oniya]

No, no - preaching to the choir here.  Mr. Oniya even gave an impromptu 'blessing' at my oldest sister's 'commitment ceremony'.  :D  Like I said, it's neither funny nor surprising that they aren't weighing in - but it seems like the silence speaks volumes.

[Torch]

No, no - preaching to the choir here.  Mr. Oniya even gave an impromptu 'blessing' at my oldest sister's 'commitment ceremony'.  :D  Like I said, it's neither funny nor surprising that they aren't weighing in - but it seems like the silence speaks volumes.

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to come off as preaching.  :-[

But yes, it is amazing how those in glass houses can manage to throw all those stones...as long as the stones hit non-heterosexuals, apparently.  ::)

On the other hand, the giant irony wasn't lost on everyone. The running joke on Capitol Hill when Barr introduced the DOMA was "So Bob, exactly which of your marriages are you defending?"  :P

[HockeyGod]

I love you Torch!

[Torch]

*hugs on Alx and Jsh and wishes she could be at their wedding*

:-(

[Oniya]

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to come off as preaching.  :-[

*makes note to install more emoticons in my post next time*  ;)

[elone]

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Obviously some people do not remember that these words were in our founding document. I am so sick of people imposing their morals and beliefs on others who just want to be able to live their lives in the same manner that is afforded to the heterosexual population.

Marriage has no guarantee of success and can certainly be made a mockery by some. However, it should not be denied to anyone who genuinely, or even disingenuously for that matter, wants to partake.

[TheGlyphstone]

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Obviously some people do not remember that these words were in our founding document. I am so sick of people imposing their morals and beliefs on others who just want to be able to live their lives in the same manner that is afforded to the heterosexual population.

Marriage has no guarantee of success and can certainly be made a mockery by some. However, it should not be denied to anyone who genuinely, or even disingenuously for that matter, wants to partake.

Not that the founding fathers were unscathed on that point either - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." was intended only to refer to white men, and educated/wealthy white men at that, with no consideration of women at all.

[Florence]

Marriage is about as sacred as life. Which is to say, no one treats it as sacred, but everyone is willing to say it is, if that claim is being used to take away the rights of someone else.

First of all, as a legal contract, marriage has no PLACE being sacred. Churches can say and do whatever they want, but the legal institution of marriage is not sacred in any way shape or form, in fact, it's rather secular.

In addition I'm sure I don't need to go through the motions of pointing out the flaws of people who say "we can't change the definition of marriage", do I? That's been said and done before, but it just goes to show that marriage is a very malleable thing. It's shape and form have changed greatly over the centuries, and between culture and culture. As long as marriage no longer involves a man trading some goats and chicken for the ownership of a man's daughter, or two noblemen arranging the marriage of their children to promote a political alliance, I think it's safe to say that marriage is NOT sacred enough as to be beyond human alteration.

[Caela]

I have never understood why folks get so up in arms about this. Let anyone who wants to sign a legally binding contract that gets them certain tax perks (though it can also hose you on the taxes depending on your combined income) as well as rights to make healthcare decisions for their loved one etc. go sign one. It's a legal contract and as such shouldn't be disallowed simply because two people happen to be the same sex.

As for churches they can continue to marry whom they like as they like, they already do. Plenty of churches have all sorts of hoops you have to jump through if you want them to "marry" you or they'll send you packing whether your straight or not. Let them do their thing and leave sex and sexual orientation out of consenting adults being able to sign any contract they want to.

Why is this so darned hard for some people???

[Oniya]

I've heard of some gay couples that have used business law to write contracts that would allow things like insurance payouts on the death of a partner, and transference of things like homes and other valuables.  I agree - it shouldn't be a big deal, at least when you're dealing with groups of two.  (I can see why poly-relationships could get complicated, but that's true with any n > 2 group.)

The 'difficulty' that some people have is that they can't get their heads around the idea that someone can love a member of their own sex as deeply and as completely as (or even more than) the nay-sayer loves their opposite-sex partner.

[sarcasm]I mean really - they can't even have kids together!  How can it be true love?[/sarcasm]

[Torch]

I've heard of some gay couples that have used business law to write contracts that would allow things like insurance payouts on the death of a partner, and transference of things like homes and other valuables. 

Gay couples have to jump through hoops to receive benefits that we (as straight, married folk) receive just because we said "I do." I mean, you can list anyone as a beneficiary on a life insurance policy, but I know for Mr. Torch's retirement accounts (pension and 401K), I'm listed as beneficiary automatically. In fact, he has to have my written permission if he wanted to list anyone else and that includes our children.

[Sabby]

[Christian]Dude, Marriage is serious! Ya don't put two blocks together that don't fit, unless your stupid. And turning them around doesn't count, it's cheating! I don't want my children being taught it's okay to take their blocks and start trying to attach the wrong sides[/Christian]

In all seriousness, Marriage is not inherently sacred :/ that's up to the two tying the knot.

[adeleturner]

It isn't just that same sex couples have to jump through more hoops to get the "same" legal rights as married couples have.  From what I understand, the main legal advantage of marriage is the fact that those legal rights stay with you even when you cross state lines.  Same sex couples don't get that advantage no matter how many contracts they draw up.

On a lighter note, I was at a cigar shop opening once where I got to meet Kinky Friedman.  I'm not sure how well known he is outside of Texas, but he's a Jewish comedian/country singer that has run for office here in the past.  One year he even promised to make Willie Nelson his energy adviser.  Anyway, I don't always agree with his politics, but he has a great sense of humor.  Someone asked him his position on gay marriage.  He smiled, tilted the brim of his cowboy hat back with his cigar hand, and said, "Well, I think they have just as much of a right to be miserable as the rest of us do."  He'd written the same thing before, but it was great to hear him say it.

[LustfulLord2011]

Actually, I saw a YouTube video by a woman on this very topic, and I actually think that her solution bears some consideration, at least. Separate the legal and the spiritual/emotional components of marriage. Make marriage a purely personal thing, to be administered by the various churches and religious sects, in accordance with their customs, but make civil unions a separate proceeding, and more importantly, the part that provides all of the legal protections... and make them available to anybody, and administered by the state. This way, homosexual couples as well have access to all of the same protections and privileges that married couples now enjoy, while those who believe in the sanctity of marriage can rest secure in the fact that marriage has become a spiritual institution again. I am not sure whether I agree with her ideas or not, but they are interesting, and certainly food for thought.

[Lady Kalypso]

What they need to do is outlaw divorce for idiotic reasons. Abuse, adultery and such should be the only reasons (with proof) that a couple should get divorced.

Kim's excuses that she needs to "follow her heart" (how the hell does she follow her heart when she so obviously doesn't have one?!) and do what's best for her is a piss poor reason to divorce.

Marriage is for life. If you can't figure that out before hand, you're stupid enough to be called on it. Can't handle it? There's things called counseling, both marriage and singular to help you figure out your problems.

Torch, thanks for putting this up. I'm very glad to know that not everyone follows the destruction of the human race called reality television these days and can stand up for what's right. :)

[Lady Kalypso]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/arts/television/theres-one-big-question-about-the-kardashian-marriage.html

An interesting article on the Kardashian.... whatever you want to call it.

[LustfulLord2011]

If you can't be bothered to truly devote yourself to someone... to give them all that you are, heart, mind, body and soul... and to accept the same from them, with deep gratitude and joy for the privilege... for the rest of your life... then you have no business getting married to them. That simple. Just my thought on the matter. It has nothing to do with the "sanctity of marriage", in my book (not sure I believe in such a concept). It's a simple matter of, you made vows to that person that shouldn't be broken. In cases such as adultery or abuse, well, that's different. But even if I were married to a woman who cheated on me, I would probably seek couples counseling before I settled on leaving her.

[Iniquitous]

What they need to do is outlaw divorce for idiotic reasons. Abuse, adultery and such should be the only reasons (with proof) that a couple should get divorced.

And who decides what is idiotic reasons? You? My mom? The government? The church? Which denomination? Wait… which religion? Does the religious beliefs of the couple come into play? Are you seeing the problem with this idea yet? How about this one - people change as they grow older. Fact of life. The person you are now is NOT who you will be five years, fifteen years, twenty five years from now. It stands to reason that if you change, so does the person you marry. Which means, sometimes two people who were once compatible, no longer are.

By putting in some crackpot law that says you can’t divorce except for reasons X,Y or Z, you are effectively trapping people into a situation that is unhealthy for one or both of them.

Marriage is for life. If you can't figure that out before hand, you're stupid enough to be called on it. Can't handle it? There's things called counseling, both marriage and singular to help you figure out your problems.

Again, no. I am sorry but I disagree here. Do you even know why marriages were created? Have you ever looked into history and researched it? It really wasn’t that long ago that people married simply for social/economic reasons.

Daddy Smallbucks has a pretty little daughter, quite a bit of land, but not a lot of social standing or ready cash. Meanwhile, his neighbor Daddy Wealthypants has a son (never mind that the son is twenty five years older than Smallbucks’ little girl) who is in need of a wife. Now Daddy Wealthypants has tons of ready cash, lots of social standing but not so much in the way of heirs or land. Solution? Marry the son to the daughter - viola! Everyone gets what they want (except the two forced to the altar to say ‘I Do‘). This is also known as arranged marriage. Still common in some countries around the world today.

Now, do you realize that marriage is still driven by the economic motivator? All you need to do is look at those denied the right of marriage (not saying I am against same sex marriages, do not presume I am. I personally believe there should be no restriction on who a person can say ‘I Do’ to) and you will hear, at some point, the fact that they want the same rights as hetero couples. (Joint fund of property, legal guardianship over any children, visitation rights to hospital/jail if one spouse, control over a spouse’s property, joint taxes, benefits, etc)

Let’s look at other reasons for the institution of marriage. It was viewed as a way for a man to be assured of the paternity of his children. That would be that little tidbit of the ceremony where they vow to forsake all others and cleave only unto each other. It was also viewed as a way to ensure less strife within villages/tribes.

It’s only been about two hundred years, maybe less, since the idea of marrying for love became popular in the West. And if you actually spend the time researching the subject of marriage, you will see that if our ancestors were alive now they’d think we’ve all lost our minds. Love did not equate into who they married, was not socially accepted and some societies even considered love to be a mental illness.

Now - with all of that said, I do not believe a piece of paper makes a marriage, nor the words of an ordained person spoken over the couple (le gasp! This coming from someone who is ordained and granted the ‘power’ by the state to perform weddings!). I believe, and tell others, that a marriage is a personal and private matter between two people. It is the conscious and willing decision to say ‘I Do’ every single minute of every single day that you are with that person. But I do not tell them that it has to be till the day one of them dies. Because, in the end. People change. Situations change. Nothing remains static. Love wanes, passion dies, arousal vanishes - it is a fact of life.

“Marriage is an institution that brings together two people under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive and most transient of passions. They are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do they part.”  ~ George Bernard Shaw

[meikle]

What they need to do is outlaw divorce for idiotic reasons. Abuse, adultery and such should be the only reasons (with proof) that a couple should get divorced.

Why?

Marriage is for life.

Why?

[TheGlyphstone]

What they need to do is outlaw divorce for idiotic reasons. Abuse, adultery and such should be the only reasons (with proof) that a couple should get divorced.

And who decides what is idiotic reasons? You? My mom? The government? The church? Which denomination? Wait… which religion? Does the religious beliefs of the couple come into play? Are you seeing the problem with this idea yet? How about this one - people change as they grow older. Fact of life. The person you are now is NOT who you will be five years, fifteen years, twenty five years from now. It stands to reason that if you change, so does the person you marry. Which means, sometimes two people who were once compatible, no longer are.

By putting in some crackpot law that says you can’t divorce except for reasons X,Y or Z, you are effectively trapping people into a situation that is unhealthy for one or both of them.

Not to mention pretty much nothing actually changes. If a couple wants to get divorced,  but your law is put in place to prevent them, it's not going to magically change their feelings for each other. They'll find other solutions to their dissatisfaction, such as....abuse, or adultery.

[Florence]

What they need to do is outlaw divorce for idiotic reasons. Abuse, adultery and such should be the only reasons (with proof) that a couple should get divorced.

Kim's excuses that she needs to "follow her heart" (how the hell does she follow her heart when she so obviously doesn't have one?!) and do what's best for her is a piss poor reason to divorce.

Marriage is for life. If you can't figure that out before hand, you're stupid enough to be called on it. Can't handle it? There's things called counseling, both marriage and singular to help you figure out your problems.

Torch, thanks for putting this up. I'm very glad to know that not everyone follows the destruction of the human race called reality television these days and can stand up for what's right. :)

I see this post has already been picked to pieces, but I guess I feel the compulsive need to throw my opinion in too. People's feelings change. We like to think they don't, that we know how we'll feel for the rest of time, but sadly we are but mere mortals. The person you truly love enough to devote your life to right now, in 10-20 years, you may feel apathy at best or hatred at worst from. I think "I don't love them any more" is a sufficient reason for divorce, and to say that you need to be able to know that you'll never, ever not feel that way towards a person before you propose to them is simply unreasonable. You're basically asking them to predict the future, so more or less, psychics, prophets and characters from the tv series Heroes, are the only people who will be able to get married.

[Oniya]

If divorce is made illegal, only outlaws won't have in-laws.

*flees*

[TheGlyphstone]

If divorce is made illegal, only outlaws won't have in-laws.

*flees*

*fweeeeeet*

[SRT4NightRider]

So the whole thing is a complete waste of time with the media. My girlfriend made me watch it with her (easiest way to get her to go to sporting events with me). One that that stuck out to me was the fact that she was worried about the brand (her name) instead of her marriage. You could see the writing on the wall and I got into an arguement with my girlfriend about that. I know that our society has changed a bit but when you are worried about a brand instead of your marriage, you know it is going to fail.

But hey, just more fun to make of her and the stupidity that she is.

[RubySlippers]

I would do two things.

One bring back Common Law Marriage if you live together as a couple a certain period of time say two years OR at any point have a child together regardless your married legally under the law (no legal paperwork or declaration by the couple it would be assumed and legally in effect for all purposes) unless the pregnancy was from incest or rape or your a minor under the age of legal consentual marriage.

Two bring back fault divorce as in you cannot divorce without a reason and a wronged party who would get the favor of the law when the divorce is filed - adultery, abandonment, abuse and the like. And I would make annulments impossible unless there was fraud such as a married man shacking up with another woman and getting her pregnant (he would be married under Common Law, that is bigamy so a crime - same if the woman did that).

Lastly allow gays to marry there is no reason they should not be able to and apply the same laws to them.

[meikle]

Is there any benefit to telling people that they're not allowed to get a divorce beyond the ego-stroke of knowing that you used the law to force someone to be unhappy?

[Torch]

Is there any benefit to telling people that they're not allowed to get a divorce beyond the ego-stroke of knowing that you used the law to force someone to be unhappy?

That depends. There is a great deal of debate currently that no-fault divorce laws allow marriages to be dissolved too easily. This can be detrimental especially in cases where there are children involved. In general, most children fare better across the board when they are living in two parent homes. They fare better economically, socially, educationally.

The number one indicator that a child will grow up in poverty is divorce. So yes, there is some truth to the old adage of "staying together for the kids".

[Oniya]

The number one indicator that a child will grow up in poverty is divorce. So yes, there is some truth to the old adage of "staying together for the kids".

Although psychologically, if a child is in a house that is 'ready for divorce' of the not-very-friendly sort, that can cause all sorts of emotional trauma. 

[RubySlippers]

I didn't say stay together no matter what but I find its to easy to get divorced marriage is business its two people forming a economic unit and with the intent of sharing assets at the base, which is good for having children in and brings other benefits long term (for gay couples and those that can't have children). But its not something one should enter into without some serious thought and once in getting out of it should demand some reason that makes sense.

Its odd I did some research in cultures with arranged marriages and where the couple are adults and can refuse the partners chosen, divorce is rare and most marriages seem pretty content. They make the case as parents of young people its not just feelings but the need for the couple to be economically stable, be a good match and have the full support of the families to be most successful love will come later.

Even when I got together with my significant other we asked both families to support us and for their blessing, before we moved in together and became lovers proper. I trusted my parents and wanted their support and said if they refused to support me then it would be no to being a couple like that it meant that much to me. I had the same demand for her family. Those ties to me are important to me and the support vital to a good relationship since it makes things also easier especially if not a conventional couple.

But if a marriage has serious issues then naturally divorce may be better did I say that it should be illegal, no, just require fault.

[Torch]

Although psychologically, if a child is in a house that is 'ready for divorce' of the not-very-friendly sort, that can cause all sorts of emotional trauma.

No disagreement here. There are no easy answers and no easy solutions on such a complicated issue.

Is staying in an unhappy marriage better or worse than living a poverty level existence? (rhetorical question, just throwing it out there).

[Oniya]

No disagreement here. There are no easy answers and no easy solutions on such a complicated issue.

Nope.  That's why I can't get behind any of the broad-brush suggestions I keep hearing.

[TheGlyphstone]

Nope.  That's why I can't get behind any of the broad-brush suggestions I keep hearing.

Well, so much for my plan to pass a law that makes unhappiness illegal. ;D

[meikle]

No disagreement here. There are no easy answers and no easy solutions on such a complicated issue.

Is staying in an unhappy marriage better or worse than living a poverty level existence? (rhetorical question, just throwing it out there).

Is it correlation or causation?  Are people who live near the poverty line more likely to get divorced in the first place?

Edit: I guess it's pretty obvious that in cases where both parents work, losing one of the parents leads to a loss of income that probably averages 50% (or more than 50%, depending.)  Mah bad.

[Jude]

Actually, I saw a YouTube video by a woman on this very topic, and I actually think that her solution bears some consideration, at least. Separate the legal and the spiritual/emotional components of marriage. Make marriage a purely personal thing, to be administered by the various churches and religious sects, in accordance with their customs, but make civil unions a separate proceeding, and more importantly, the part that provides all of the legal protections... and make them available to anybody, and administered by the state. This way, homosexual couples as well have access to all of the same protections and privileges that married couples now enjoy, while those who believe in the sanctity of marriage can rest secure in the fact that marriage has become a spiritual institution again. I am not sure whether I agree with her ideas or not, but they are interesting, and certainly food for thought.

We don't really need civil unions if we stop recognizing marriage.  Tearing down a governmental institution that rewards you for living a certain way only to replace it with another is missing the point.  No one should get special benefits for any personal decisions they make from the government.  I don't want to give married people lower taxes whether they're gay, straight, or pansexual.  Married people have enough benefits already; we need to stop this kind of social engineering dead in its tracks.

[Caela]

I would do two things.

One bring back Common Law Marriage if you live together as a couple a certain period of time say two years OR at any point have a child together regardless your married legally under the law (no legal paperwork or declaration by the couple it would be assumed and legally in effect for all purposes) unless the pregnancy was from incest or rape or your a minor under the age of legal consentual marriage.

Two bring back fault divorce as in you cannot divorce without a reason and a wronged party who would get the favor of the law when the divorce is filed - adultery, abandonment, abuse and the like. And I would make annulments impossible unless there was fraud such as a married man shacking up with another woman and getting her pregnant (he would be married under Common Law, that is bigamy so a crime - same if the woman did that).

Lastly allow gays to marry there is no reason they should not be able to and apply the same laws to them.

I have a problem with the bolded portion here. There are plenty of people who have children that don't want to be married to the person they got pregnant by/with. They weren't necessarily careless (though most often they were) but even if they were there's no saying they'd be good married.

I'll use myself as an example. I was sleeping with someone casually, just a friendly thing, nothing serious and I ended up pregnant. My own fault, I was careless and left the purse (and the condoms in it) downstairs after a few drinks one night. Nine months later I was a single mother because he had no interest in being a father. Now I am lucky enough that I make enough money to support the two of us fairly comfortably and have a lot of family around who are willing to help out with things like babysitting and picking her up from daycare for me since I work 12 hour shifts and the daycare closes before I get out of work.

By your Common Law standards I'd be married to a man that didn't want to be a father and would have to go through the struggle to divorce him even though there was no real "fault" involved. That would be a lot of time, stress, and upheaval in my daughters life that neither of us would have needed. Not to mention it would have given him rights to MY child. Rights he doesn't actually have right now because there is no father's name on her birth certificate so if he wanted rights to her he now has to go through the time and expense of proving he's her father.

I have no problem with Common Law marriages for people who live together for a certain length of time, I think it used to be 7 years in my state, to protect those involved from losing everything if the other just decides to split one day but don't think you should automatically be married just because you got pregnant.

[RubySlippers]

I have a problem with the bolded portion here. There are plenty of people who have children that don't want to be married to the person they got pregnant by/with. They weren't necessarily careless (though most often they were) but even if they were there's no saying they'd be good married.

I'll use myself as an example. I was sleeping with someone casually, just a friendly thing, nothing serious and I ended up pregnant. My own fault, I was careless and left the purse (and the condoms in it) downstairs after a few drinks one night. Nine months later I was a single mother because he had no interest in being a father. Now I am lucky enough that I make enough money to support the two of us fairly comfortably and have a lot of family around who are willing to help out with things like babysitting and picking her up from daycare for me since I work 12 hour shifts and the daycare closes before I get out of work.

By your Common Law standards I'd be married to a man that didn't want to be a father and would have to go through the struggle to divorce him even though there was no real "fault" involved. That would be a lot of time, stress, and upheaval in my daughters life that neither of us would have needed. Not to mention it would have given him rights to MY child. Rights he doesn't actually have right now because there is no father's name on her birth certificate so if he wanted rights to her he now has to go through the time and expense of proving he's her father.

I have no problem with Common Law marriages for people who live together for a certain length of time, I think it used to be 7 years in my state, to protect those involved from losing everything if the other just decides to split one day but don't think you should automatically be married just because you got pregnant.

If you have sex there is a chance of a child, use birth control all you want but once you have a child verifiable to the man your married in my book. What about your daughter she has no father and your putting the pressure on the man for your choice to have a child under my guidelines the state would have to do a DNA test, that preserves his right. What about the rights to funds from the father and his rights to his child? What about the childs rights your refusing money she is due for her upbringing being uncaring of her rights to things she needs from the other parent?

And I would make divorce a high bar did he commit adultery, physical abuse or abandonment as in over a period of time refused to support you or the child say 7 years. You could still get child support but I figure 7 years is enough time for you both to get counseling and other measures to form the marriage and give the husband time to bond with the child.

Naturally I also will note you marry or he marries or has another child I would treat it as BIGAMY and apply criminal charges as appropriate so the parents use protection or keep their pants on.

Marriage and having children is a big deal to me and should have consequences and not be easy to get out of once made by living together or having a child.

[Zakharra]

  Ruby, your reasoning makes marriage more like a punishment than something people would want to have. It also smacks heavily of religious reasoning. What if the two people decide they don't want to be married anymore? They can end up hating each other. But if it doesn't get physically abusive and they don't have other lovers, they cannot get a divorce by your reasoning.

Yes it is too easy to get a divorce, but you  make it very very hard to get one. You go too far the other way in restricting marriages. Especially with your common law marriages.  That is just plain wrong, the way you want them and very bad for all parties.

[Oniya]

Telling two people they have to be married is just as bad as telling two people they can't be.

[Zakharra]

 It makes it extremely easy to entrap someone into a marriage they don't want. 

Ruby, what about fathers that don't want to be?  Who are willing to sign away their parental rights?   Why should having a baby automatically mean you are married?  That's a damned cruel thing to do. Especially if it was just a fling for one night of a short time.

Telling people to keep it in their pants won't work either. That has never worked.

[Steven Auldous]

So why does anyone have to tell anyone else what they should/ should not do?  Or can/ can't do for that matter?  Why cant marriage be an option to all people?  Benefits shouldnt be contingent on a piece of paper.  If I choose to insure another person, i should be able to.  If I want to leave my possessions to a specific person when I slip the mortal coil, why not?  What business is it of anyone's who I care for (either platonicly or more intimately) as long as /I/ am the one who is happy?

[Iniquitous]

Ok, so if things were done Ruby’s way, I’d be forced into marriage with the man that raped me because I ended up pregnant from it. And I would have to seek counseling with him to make the marriage work.

Excuse me. What the fuck?!

Yeah, that would be interesting counseling sessions. “Ok, so let’s discuss the reasons why this marriage is not working.” “He raped me, got me pregnant and now I want to castrate him while he sleeps.” In all honesty, we’d never make it to a counseling session cause I’d be in jail for being the next Lorena Bobbit. And unlike her, I wouldn’t throw his penis into a field, I’d put the bitch in a blender and hit puree. End result, I’d have my ‘divorce’.

Fact of the matter is very simple. You do not have the right to tell people who they can marry, can’t marry, that they have to marry or stay married. It is not a marriage of you, the man and the woman. Nor it is a marriage of the government and the couple. End of story right there.

[Caela]

If you have sex there is a chance of a child, use birth control all you want but once you have a child verifiable to the man your married in my book. What about your daughter she has no father and your putting the pressure on the man for your choice to have a child under my guidelines the state would have to do a DNA test, that preserves his right. What about the rights to funds from the father and his rights to his child? What about the childs rights your refusing money she is due for her upbringing being uncaring of her rights to things she needs from the other parent?

And I would make divorce a high bar did he commit adultery, physical abuse or abandonment as in over a period of time refused to support you or the child say 7 years. You could still get child support but I figure 7 years is enough time for you both to get counseling and other measures to form the marriage and give the husband time to bond with the child.

Naturally I also will note you marry or he marries or has another child I would treat it as BIGAMY and apply criminal charges as appropriate so the parents use protection or keep their pants on.

Marriage and having children is a big deal to me and should have consequences and not be easy to get out of once made by living together or having a child.

What about child's right to have parents that LOVE her and WANT to be in her life? I chose my childs emotional well-being as being vastly more important than any amount of money I could ever get from a man that doesn't want to be a father and would just resent being forced to be in her life.  By your reasoning my child should be punished by having to put up with someone who would treat AT BEST as an unwanted obligation and at worst could be abusive, for up to seven years before I could get rid of him!

No thanks.

Yes children are a great responsibility but, as a parent, I am responsible for far more than just her economic well-being. I am responsible for her physical and emotional care as well and neither of those would be serviced by forcing me to be married to man I never saw as "husband" material but was just having a good time with. By your reasoning I and my daughter are supposed to be miserable for up to 7 years simply because I forgot to make him wear a condom one night.

Sometimes it's better for the child NOT to have one of the parents in their lives. Not always. Perhaps not even a majority of the time, but sometimes.

As for child support she's owed, again I chose her emotional well being over money. I make enough on my own for us to be comfortable and with my schedule I am home with her 4 days out of seven and the other 3 she is with my folks. She is surrounded by people who love her, want her, think she is one of the most important things in the entire universe...I'll take that over money any day of the week!

Now, as to the rights of the sperm donor (he's not a father, that requires a presence in the child's life in my book) he has none and we are both happy with that arrangement. He doesn't want to be a father and I let him stay out of our lives and MY daughter doesn't have to deal with the emotional stress of a Mommy who is always upset with the fight to try and keep someone in her life that doesn't want to be there. Again, her well being is vastly more important to me than supposed "rights" that he doesn't even want.

Personally, I'm of the belief that a lot of the problems children from single parent homes face, stems from the emotional, as much as the economic, stresses that a lot single parent homes are under. They are always watching their parents play some kind of tug-of-war about them or money, they watch their primary parent stressing out because the child support check didn't come again, their primary parent is not the best parent they could be because they are stressed out by the other parent all the time, etc. These are all things I watched my own mother go through with my brother's father and they tore a huge rift between us and her when we were younger. We thought she didn't care, but the simple truth was she was just so stressed she didn't get the chance to be the best mother she could have been and that puts any child at a disadvantage.

I don't need the stress, she doesn't need the stress and neither of us is under it. I have an incredibly happy, well adjusted, polite, well behaved (most of the time, we all have our days! lol) daughter who knows she is loved and cared for beyond reason and who doesn't have anyone in her life that doesn't want to be there making her feel badly.

I think my way works just fine thanks.

Marriage should be about two people who love each other choosing to make a commitment to each other.

[Lilias]

I understand that all too often divorce is a snap decision - about as snap as the marriage itself was, actually. Marriage is not for the faint of heart; it's a lot of work to maintain, and people who swan into it expecting everything to be pink hearts and roses are likely to throw in the towel very quickly.

But forcing people to remain married forever is guaranteed to make them miserable at best and lead them to crime at worst (in an effort to enforce the 'till death do us part' bit). I would settle with a set period of adjustment, to work out the issues. British law demands a two-year legal separation before a divorce can go ahead - enough time for the couple to make up or make sure they want to go their separate ways and work out the details. That's something I'd like to see more widely implemented, myself.

[pentarath]

This is my (humble) opinion on the subject:

The promise to protect someone and be true to him/her in whatever circumstances should come to pass (for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health) really is the strongest bond imaginable. A vow like this should never be given lightly, and once given, cannot be withdrawn without expilcit absolvation by the person it was given to.

IMHO this is the essence of marriage. And it has nothing to do with law or religion. Nor does the fact whether any children rely on this bond alter in any way its significance. Everything else is just a matter of social conventions: The gender (and even the number) of people taking such mutual vows has no impact on their relevance.

Today, marriage and divorce is all too often diverted from its intended use of mutual protection from physical and emotional harm. Instead it is used, mainly by persons of public interest like actors and politicians, to circumvent the "moral" convention that you should not have sex without being married. We should throw away those "morals" and let people live together freely for as long as they wish and part whenever they like. If, and only if a couple or a group of people really is prepared for the task of protecting and supporting each other for the rest of their lives, should they proceed to taking the vow of marriage.

As a consequence, the threshold for severing such a bond should be very high. Seven years might be a little too long a time, but IMHO a three years consensual separation barely measures up to the significance of the original vow.

~Penta

[Oniya]

That assumes that one uses the standard RC vows.  Many people write their own vows - mine specifically eschewed the 'forsaking all others' bit (Mr. Oniya and I are poly) and used the line 'As long as love shall last' (admittedly lifted from Roger Daltrey's treatment of Liszt's 'Liebestraum (Nottorno No. 3)' instead of 'Till death do us part'.

[pentarath]

That assumes that one uses the standard RC vows.  Many people write their own vows - mine specifically eschewed the 'forsaking all others' bit (Mr. Oniya and I are poly) and used the line 'As long as love shall last' (admittedly lifted from Roger Daltrey's treatment of Liszt's 'Liebestraum (Nottorno No. 3)' instead of 'Till death do us part'.

I grant you that.
And I admit I exaggerated my point to make it more clear. Of course what has to be done to keep your vows, depends only on what you promised.

Although, I think that using the line 'As long as love shall last' is rather noncommittal and therefore not much of a vow. Your own feelings (love) are governing the promise, so you just might not have given it. Just imagine someone has promised to protect you "while there is no danger". You wouldn't feel very confident being out there in the mountains with a bear on your heels and only said person at your side ...

IMHO a vow should always be a warrant of your actual feelings, sustaining them in a future when they might falter. Therefore it should be taken deliberately and should not contain any loophole.

~Penta

[Scott]

Do whatever you want, the same sex thing... great, more power to y'all, but please for the love of God don't ever use the Kardashians as an example to follow by anyone for anything (besides maybe reasons for birth control).

 

[Iniquitous]

I grant you that.
And I admit I exaggerated my point to make it more clear. Of course what has to be done to keep your vows, depends only on what you promised.

Although, I think that using the line 'As long as love shall last' is rather noncommittal and therefore not much of a vow. Your own feelings (love) are governing the promise, so you just might not have given it. Just imagine someone has promised to protect you "while there is no danger". You wouldn't feel very confident being out there in the mountains with a bear on your heels and only said person at your side ...

IMHO a vow should always be a warrant of your actual feelings, sustaining them in a future when they might falter. Therefore it should be taken deliberately and should not contain any loophole.

~Penta

I actually think that Oniya and her husband have the right idea. No one, and I mean no one, can say with 100% certainty that they will still feel the same way for the person they are marrying 50 years down the road.

Do I think there is no hope for love lasting? No - I understand that it is a full time job. But I also know that there are some things that cannot be saved. Sometimes, the towel has to be thrown in. And it makes more sense to me to say the vows “as long as love shall last” than “till death do us part”.

But then again, I still do not see a reason to get up and pledge anything in front of 50, 100, 250, 500 of your ‘closest’ friends and relatives. It is a private pledge between two people - no one else is involved in it (and shouldn’t be involved in it).

Just my two cents.

[TheGlyphstone]

I actually think that Oniya and her husband have the right idea. No one, and I mean no one, can say with 100% certainty that they will still feel the same way for the person they are marrying 50 years down the road.

Do I think there is no hope for love lasting? No - I understand that it is a full time job. But I also know that there are some things that cannot be saved. Sometimes, the towel has to be thrown in. And it makes more sense to me to say the vows “as long as love shall last” than “till death do us part”.

But then again, I still do not see a reason to get up and pledge anything in front of 50, 100, 250, 500 of your ‘closest’ friends and relatives. It is a private pledge between two people - no one else is involved in it (and shouldn’t be involved in it).

Just my two cents.

It's an excuse to have a party afterwards, and people love to party.

[meikle]

Just imagine someone has promised to protect you "while there is no danger".

Just imagine being married to someone who didn't want to be around you.  I'd much prefer that my SO leave if they're not happy to be with me.  I would hate for someone to be forced to spend their life with me because they have no other option.  It would make me feel pathetic.

[Torch]

It's an excuse to have a party afterwards, and people love to party.

Don't forget the boatload of cash received by the bride and groom. I was suspicious of this Yankee tradition (we Southerners wouldn't dream of giving anything that isn't on the registry), but once I saw the checks and cash starting to roll in at the reception, I was like "Damn, this doesn't suck..."  :P

[Trieste]

I think that forcing people to jump through more hoops like waiting 7 years before a divorce would mean that fewer people would get married, and would put everyone's rights back. Considering that the gay community has been fighting so hard, it seems like a slap in the face.

And if you think that just because I have sex with a man and my birth control fails, that I'm going to marry the dude, you're nuts. I don't need a man to help raise my child if I have one so badly that any man will do, and certainly not one selected by a) random chance, or b) the state. I don't want the state in my uterus, in my bedroom, in my marriage, or in anything of the sort. Pardon me, but butt out.

[pentarath]

Just imagine being married to someone who didn't want to be around you.  I'd much prefer that my SO leave if they're not happy to be with me.  I would hate for someone to be forced to spend their life with me because they have no other option.  It would make me feel pathetic.

I wouldn't want to force anyone to spend their lives together, if there is no reason left to do so.
I'd only like people to have a deliberate close look at the real meaning of the marriage vows and then either leave them or really mean them. If you promise to protect someone "till death do us part" you should really mean it. If in the end it doesn't work out, this is sad story, but should not lead to even more sorrow by tying people together against their will.

And hey, I don't want to spoil the party  ;)

~Penta

[Torch]

But then again, I still do not see a reason to get up and pledge anything in front of 50, 100, 250, 500 of your ‘closest’ friends and relatives. It is a private pledge between two people - no one else is involved in it (and shouldn’t be involved in it).

Just my two cents.

There's no one "right" way to get married.

Some folks prefer a private ceremony, others prefer to invite friends and family to share in their celebration. One way is no better or worse than any other.

[Envious]

Given the history of marriage, I'm surprised people make such a fuss over same sex folks wanting to tie the knot.

Well, no I'm not. Hater gunna hate hate hate. And history has shown us that any difference between one person and the next is a totally valid reason to cry havoc.

[Trieste]

It's not a big deal for everyone! Some of us live in civilized areas.  O:)

[Oniya]

It's time.

Saw this today - really quite powerful, and shows what it's really all about.

[Caela]

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

It's time.

Saw this today - really quite powerful, and shows what it's really all about.

A couple of my friends posted that on FB, loved it! It's well done and it makes the excellent point that non-hetero's are just as normal as everyone else as well as that marriage should be about the commitment of two people who love each other.

I think some people get so caught up in being AGAINST homosexuality or how they perceive the "homosexual lifestyle" to be that they totally lose sight of the fact that most people really do want the same things in life irregardless of who they love, what job they have, who they worship, what color they are etc.

If there's an award out there for public awareness ad's, the folks that made this one should get it.

[Rinzler]

It's time.

Saw this today - really quite powerful, and shows what it's really all about.

You'd have to have a heart of granite not to be moved by that :-)

[Oniya]

A couple of my friends posted that on FB, loved it! It's well done and it makes the excellent point that non-hetero's are just as normal as everyone else as well as that marriage should be about the commitment of two people who love each other.

I got it off of George Takei's FB page/blog.  :D

[Samael]

I saw that link posted on another messageboard I regularly visit.
I love how it leaves you pretty clueless at to what gender the other person is till the end.
I think that conveys a powerful message, because it lets the viewer associate these people with themselves.
From there on its a bit more difficult to go "Oh... that's them gays..." instead of "Oh... just like everyone else..."

[Rinzler]

^^I have to confess a twinge of sadness at the end, knowing that there are guys out there who'll watch that and just want to beat those two blokes to a pulp.

[Serephino]

Divorce can be a good thing.  I see that every day from my neighbor.  I don't know if there was any cheating, but if that poor guy had to stay married to that woman, he'd probably end up killing the crazy bitch.  I want to kill the crazy bitch, and I just live in the other half of the duplex.

Rather than getting a job she tries to get him to pay for everything.  He loves his kids, but my god, the screaming!  The walls are thin and it keeps us up at night.  She leaves the kids alone to go out with other men, then tears him a new one for having a girlfriend.  Oh, and the kids are both under 12...

He needs to just take those kids and forget she exists.  The situation isn't good for the kids now, how would it be any better if they had been forced to stay married?  Right now they only have screaming matches when he's over there. 

My boyfriend and I have been together for going on 6 years.  It hasn't been all smooth sailing, but so far we've managed to make it work.  That's a lot more than many hetero couples can say.  Though my boyfriend wanted me to promise him I would never cheat on him.  If I'm that unhappy, he wants me to talk to him about it.

Problem is, I couldn't promise that.  It upset him, but I told him I don't have a crystal ball.  I could be perfectly happy, but meet someone I fall in love with.