Letters to the Editor
-
"I suddenly needed protection from divorce laws"?
For us uninitiated, would you please expand on this and explain what you mean about your needing protection from divorce laws?
What on earth are you talking about?
Thank you,
-
Newsweek
My favorite part of my newsweek magazine is the "My Turn" essay. They chose stories from a broad rage of people and the essays are alwasy entertaining and sometimes heart-wrenching. I know and know of many people who chose to live as the writer does, she sounds like a lovely confident woman and she can write a clever essay too! It is sad that there would be such an outpouring of hatemail towards such a neat person. There are many examples of famous people who have simmiler non marriage comitments to their partners, they include some of our most famous writers and movie stars. I am almost positive that the people judging this lady so harsly have no problem whatsoever whatching the movies of people who have been happily living in long term sin or should I say lifetime partnerships with their chosen one.
-
To wed, or not to wed
Well, if heterosexuals don't even want to get married, how can anyone defend the institution of marriage from homosexuals?
-
How do you define a few drops as a Shit Storm?
Carol LLyod writes "But talk about stirring up a marital shit storm! Outraged readers call Eslinger about every name in the book -- pompous, selfish, clueless, condescending, adolescent, rigid, unconvincing, infuriating, weak, ignorant, annoying, presumptuous and stupid -- to repeat but a few."
As of the time Carol's post went live. The Newsweek essay had a total of 20 comments.
8 praised the ariticle, 9 opposed it and 3 were blank or repeats. Two of the negative responses read like they were the same person.
This doesn't qualify as a shit storm in my book, but a near even split.
Maybe Lloyd exaggerates the response to make her own essay more interesting (not necessary, it could stand on its own).
Or maybe she's conflating the overall uproar when marriage is questioned with this particular essay.
Either way, such hyperbole irritates me, especially when it's made part of the thesis. It verges on outrage mining. She says the essay "doesn't seem terribly radical" even as she's priming people to read it in a state of agitation.
This strikes me as dishonest treatment of a thoughtful essay. I'm sure in a few hours there might be a real shit storm in the comments, but this will Lloyd will have been the one of the instigators, not the observers.
It depresses me, because this type of dishonest drama-mongering undermines a valid argument against weddings.
I don't really see how this rhetorical trick is different from Jerry Springer/Faux News style sensationalism.
-
Marriage is more than making the extended family happy.
People who say that their marriage provides very little benefit have never had a loved one in the hospital (and I'm glad). The word 'wife' or 'husband' delivers instant rights of visitation and the ability to make hospital decisions that no other relationship can-- no matter how many durable powers of attorney are filled out. No matter what your personal ambivalence might be, that piece of paper might well prove invaluable someday.
-
Men's Activists know what Carol Lloyd is talking about
" Ironically, the only meaningful benefit to being married for me would come if the marriage self-destructed and I suddenly needed protection from divorce laws."
That is, if one parses the sentence. Carol Lloyd probably does not literally mean that she needs protection from the divorce laws if her marriage were to "self-destruct" (by itself, as a free-floating entity--ok, no vivisection needed, since the utmost tact must be employed when mentioning the possibility of one's own divorce, even in the abstract). But then the improper grammar might be a necessity: presumably Lloyd is referring to the protection afforded by the divorce laws. Writing "protection from the divorce laws" is akin to mumbling off to the side.
Now there are controversies over which parties benefit more by the protection afforded by the divorce laws. Conservatives don't like the new arrangements; more progressive folk don't like giving up certain hard-won protections. Some men's activists claim that some of these protections are implemented so as to affect men adversely (it is often financially devastating). And men's activists propose that this has led to a marriage strike. (Perhaps "propose" is an unfortunate choice of words.) Others are so put off by the politicization of the matter, that they don't want to get married.
The 50% divorce rate figure has to be included in the risk. Your expected income after marriage must be reduced by the probability of divorce times the cost of divorce. The looming uncertainty over the cost of losing a coin toss is enough to deter some people.
-
Apparently the topic no longer even merits mention in the world of the pale, artistic and affluent, but....
...one of the main functions of marriage, as a legal sanctioning of male-female relationships, is to confer legal benefits and protection on any children produced by such relationships. Back in those heady days before DNA tests, the most popular way to officially determine a child's "real" parents was by a couple of names on a government certificate.
You do remember children, don't you? They're those little creatures who represent the propagation of our species. They are found in abundance among the most decidedly un-progressive demographics in society, such as the poor and the religious.
-
Good post, Carol.
I too still fail to see why an agnostic and fiercely independent bloke like myself needs the endorcement of a church and the government to say my relationship is official.
My lady and I have been together for almost 10 years now. We have made our pledge to each other and our families. We are honest in our commitment to each other, and it's clear to anyone who knows us that we are in it for the long haul.
Marriage ceremonies are for the religious types. I respect their faith and right to do what they see fit, why can't they respect mine?
-
I don't think so
The debate should rage on. I personally would pronounce the lady in question as having two brains to rub together. Having been married and divorced, I think people who think that marriage is the greatest thing since pizza and canned beer need to have their heads examined. Like you, I think the piece of paper is meaningless if the relationship is there and worthless if it collapses. I also think that any male who actually wants to get married should be required to sign a release acknowledging that he is forfeiting his rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the event of divorce (the male is the one who needs protection from the divorce laws, not the female).
And for the religious types out there, stop whatever you're doing and pay attention. Marriage is not about religion. It's about the state. You can't get married without the state's official Okey-Dokey (aka a marriage license) and marital behavior and eventual dissolution will be governed by state law, not church canon.