Letters to the Editor
-
I hope she and her partner-for-life have wills
Marriage is a civil contract. If she or her partner are incapacitated, who will make decisions about medical care? I was reluctant to marry my husband until the Terry Schiavo incident; if something similar happened to me, I trusted my boyfriend to respect my wishes more than my mother.
I'm never sure what to make of people like this, who announce to the world that they aren't interested in marriage, but want to act like, and be treated like, a married couple. You can't have it both ways. Refusing to marry because homosexuals aren't allowed to marry makes as much sense as refusing to adopt a child because homosexuals aren't allowed to adopt.
-
People get infuriated
over articles like this because the people who write them sound so damn disrespectful to other peoples choices. "I don't need a white dress to feel pretty.." Well good for you sister because I don't either. I don't think it was a shocking article, but I did sniff a huge whiff of superiority, intelectual and spiritual. Some people will opt for a wedding not because of romance and the ability to be a mega bitch for months up to the day but because it means something to them, something very deep and affirming.
I am not annoyed that this lady doesn't want to get married, but I am annoyed that she thinks hers is the superior choice.
-
Hmmm
I'm a little disappointed. I thought the article would be about a woman who chose to live her life single, not, as is the case, living with a man but not marrying him. I didn't think living together without marriage was such a big deal any longer.
-
@ Anonymous, re: divorce rate
So, you're wrong in your 12.5% stat.
"The per capita divorce rate is different from another method of calculation—the percentage of marriages that will eventually end in divorce or separation. Many experts discount the popular notion that one of two U.S. marriages end in divorce, and suggest the breakup rate, which is hard to calculate, has stabilized in recent years at between 40 percent and 45 percent."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P1MG601&show_article=1
"The USA has the lowest percentage among Western nations of children who grow up with both biological parents, 63%, the report says."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm
-
I have to agree with you Ms. Lloyd, that your personal reasons for getting married were stupid and insufficient. It makes me realize that you are either lying to yourself or
lying to your readers or both.
If you really did allow yourself to be pushed into marriage for other people's needs, is it possible that you put as little thought into your adoption of so many feminist principles?
As in any movement, there are a lot of people who claim to identify with the movement without examining their own philosophy or what the movement stands for, or the policy implications.
They do that to hang out with the kewl kids.
Often times, they fade away over time, or discover the movement ain't really what they thought it was and they disagree with it.
Sometimes though, they still just hang on to it, because they don't want to admit a mistake, or they still just want to hang out with the kewl kids.
I dunno. You were pushed into marriage with no desire of your own. Your reasons for getting married were stupid. You have no kids and yet you look for divorce laws to protect you against some harm you have identified.
I think you're lying. To yourself, or to us, or to both?
-
A piece of paper
The problem with the "it's just a piece of paper" argument is that if you don't get married, there is no single piece of paper that addresses how to resolve problems when they arise. Things can get very confused and confusing. The State is involved, whether you like it or not.
Marriage, while historically an anti-feminist economic institution, has clear ways of dealing with
1. children and parental rights
2. being each other's next of kin (medical and end-of-life issues)
3. property ownership
Nothing in the Domestic Relations laws requires that you become a bridezilla when you get married. It just makes sense. Save your righteous indignation for the campaign to give gay and lesbian couples these rights.
-
"If you really did allow yourself to be pushed into marriage for other people's needs, is it possible that you put as little thought into your adoption of so many feminist principle"
I don't think Lloyd is against marriage, as much as she is indifferent to it. Just like I am.
I am not adamantly against it, it just doesn't matter to me. If you don't care about marriage, what does it matter whether you are married or unmarried to your SO? Has nothing to do with how much thought you put into it, or how much thought you put into anything else. Some men might be very committed to the idea of marriage, yet they may let someone else choose their tux style for them. Does that make them any less committed to the idea of marriage? I don't think so.
-
@ savetigerstadium
No way, man. The Hispanic population in the U.S. is increasing at a much higher rate than any other segment, and that's a hell of a lot of Catholics.
Hmm, hadn't thought of this. You may be right. But I still stand behind my initial statement that left leaning individuals do not hate kids. In face, controlling population leaves the world more inhabitable for future generations, which is arguably more pro-child than the large family proponents.
-
The "Legal" is no justification
I think the one error the essay writer made was not mentioning the legal steps she's taken, because this opened the door for traditionalists to make bad-faith arguments for marriage.
Given common law marriage and civil partner regulations in Californal, it's pretty much a given she can obtain many legal benefits of marriage without a wedding, and cover others with contracts and wills. This includes agreements about child support and custody.
The fact is, with civil partnerships and other measures being offered up in response to the gay marriage debate, there is increasingly no legal reason to get married beyond a tax break, and even this has eroded.
This is why homophobes and theocrats include anti-civil union language in anti-gay marriage legislation. Their goal is not only to block gay unions, it's to restore a questionable legal force to traditional meanings of marriage.
I think a more just society would reduce marraige to purely symbolic status. Separating the legal obligations of partnership and parenting wouldn't kill the institution, but it would remove a great deal of the baggage and undeserved moral power.