The real challenge in this debate is whether or not marriage as an institution should be preserved. If the most compelling argument for preservation is that it provides a stable framework for the nurture of children, it is now obvious that marital stability is an illusion. In America most marriages end in divorce, and the laws that vest spouses with "marital property" insure that the litigation these breakups engender are often bitter and expensive. That is why so many successful entertainers "live in sin" rather than marry. If the relationship will ultimately create a financial inequality, the participants can always contract with eachother for support on separation. The notion that marriage makes two people one is nonsense. So why not simply allow people to live together for as long as their emotional commitment endures? There will still be child custody and child support issues to litigate, but the law has excellent mechanisms for handling such things. If people insist on all the mummery of a ceremony, at least have them change the vows to reflect reality: These days couples take one another only for richer and richer, and until death or mutual inconvenience force a parting. I maintain that the comedian Bill Maher got it right when he supported gay marriage because, "Why shouldn't gays be just as miserable as straight married people are?"
It's unrealistic to think that the institution of marriage is going to be abolished in the U.S. or in any other country at any time in the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean that it can't be improved in very substantial ways.
My guess is that the pseudo-religious right-wingers would accept same-sex marriage if they actually believed that gays & lesbians were members of the species homo sapiens and not some alien life form.
J. . .I showed this to my father [btw, Happy Fathers' Day! ;-)] -- always guarding your anonymity, of course. LOL Dad read it and laughed. ."So, Justin, you have some lawyer friends!" hahaaa Recognized you right away, he did. Do you dream in "lawyerese"? hehe
Your last line very clever, that Maher. Irish too, isn't he? ;-) If people insist on all the mummery of a ceremony,. . .. I maintain that the comedian Bill Maher got it right when he supported gay marriage because, "Why shouldn't gays be just as miserable as straight married people are?"
It's funny, except for "all the mummery of a ceremony". I haven't looked up 'mummery' but that phrase makes the whole of your remark reek bitter and disdainful. . . that's how it hits me. A marriage ceremony is a pejorative thing? Certainly not in the eyes and hearts of many married people. Not everyone is miserable.
Besides we are the ones who make ourselves miserable, do you agree? Oooppss. no you don't agree . . .else you wouldn't have written it, I suspect.
May I say the whole gay marriage debate is a crock, as far as you are concerned?
That aside, ;-). . .today is such a gorgeous day, fun at our home. . weather is beyond description... hehe. . .out with weather reporters! Mme Bouvier is with us, plus the O'Shea siblings with the grandchildren. And Peter will be here later, after the festivities at DaSilvas. . . .Happy to tell you none of us is miserable. ;-)) ~~~~~~~~~~~~justin
I agree with J that marriage in a church, with all its flamboyance, is a pantomime.
However, if people wanna party instead of going to the local Justice of the Peace in their pajamas at midnight, then that's okay with me. Marriage is not (and never was) my style. But if other people wanna go through the whole pomp and ceremony thing (or even a simple civil ceremony), then I believe they have a right to, regardless of sexual orientation.
I think J would agree with Evelyn Beatrice Hall who wrote in Friends of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
J might sound cynical and even bitter sometimes but he's actually a big softie. I find his comments thoughtful and stimulating.
Thanks, Gary. Maher's father was jewish and his mother catholic, Justin, and he is an atheist. I don't think the gay marriage crusade is in all respects a crock so long as you recognise it for what it is: The ultimate symbol of the respectability of gay relationships in a largely straight society. Unfortunately there never was much need for marriage if children are not part of the equation, and now there is no compelling need to be married to provide for children. I used to think that those unhappily married should stay together so that the kids have a father and mother in the home. Experience has taught me that kids are worse off when the parents continue to cohabit but have no respect for eachother and bicker all the time, like George and Martha in Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe.
7 comments:
The real challenge in this debate is whether or not marriage as an institution should be preserved. If the most compelling argument for preservation is that it provides a stable framework for the nurture of children, it is now obvious that marital stability is an illusion. In America most marriages end in divorce, and the laws that vest spouses with "marital property" insure that the litigation these breakups engender are often bitter and expensive. That is why so many successful entertainers "live in sin" rather than marry. If the relationship will ultimately create a financial inequality, the participants can always contract with eachother for support on separation. The notion that marriage makes two people one is nonsense. So why not simply allow people to live together for as long as their emotional commitment endures? There will still be child custody and child support issues to litigate, but the law has excellent mechanisms for handling such things.
If people insist on all the mummery of a ceremony, at least have them change the vows to reflect reality: These days couples take one another only for richer and richer, and until death or mutual inconvenience force a parting. I maintain that the comedian Bill Maher got it right when he supported gay marriage because, "Why shouldn't gays be just as miserable as straight married people are?"
It's unrealistic to think that the institution of marriage is going to be abolished in the U.S. or in any other country at any time in the foreseeable future. That doesn't mean that it can't be improved in very substantial ways.
My guess is that the pseudo-religious right-wingers would accept same-sex marriage if they actually believed that gays & lesbians were members of the species homo sapiens and not some alien life form.
J. . .I showed this to my father [btw, Happy Fathers' Day! ;-)] -- always guarding your anonymity, of course. LOL Dad read it and laughed. ."So, Justin, you have some lawyer friends!" hahaaa Recognized you right away, he did. Do you dream in "lawyerese"? hehe
Your last line very clever, that Maher. Irish too, isn't he? ;-)
If people insist on all the mummery of a ceremony,. . .. I maintain that the comedian Bill Maher got it right when he supported gay marriage because, "Why shouldn't gays be just as miserable as straight married people are?"
It's funny, except for "all the mummery of a ceremony". I haven't looked up 'mummery' but that phrase makes the whole of your remark reek bitter and disdainful. . . that's how it hits me. A marriage ceremony is a pejorative thing? Certainly not in the eyes and hearts of many married people. Not everyone is miserable.
Besides we are the ones who make ourselves miserable, do you agree?
Oooppss. no you don't agree . . .else you wouldn't have written it, I suspect.
May I say the whole gay marriage debate is a crock, as far as you are concerned?
That aside, ;-). . .today is such a gorgeous day, fun at our home. . weather is beyond description... hehe. . .out with weather reporters!
Mme Bouvier is with us, plus the O'Shea siblings with the grandchildren. And Peter will be here later, after the festivities at DaSilvas. . . .Happy to tell you none of us is miserable. ;-))
~~~~~~~~~~~~justin
I agree with J that marriage in a church, with all its flamboyance, is a pantomime.
However, if people wanna party instead of going to the local Justice of the Peace in their pajamas at midnight, then that's okay with me. Marriage is not (and never was) my style. But if other people wanna go through the whole pomp and ceremony thing (or even a simple civil ceremony), then I believe they have a right to, regardless of sexual orientation.
I think J would agree with Evelyn Beatrice Hall who wrote in Friends of Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
J might sound cynical and even bitter sometimes but he's actually a big softie. I find his comments thoughtful and stimulating.
Thanks, Gary. Maher's father was jewish and his mother catholic, Justin, and he is an atheist.
I don't think the gay marriage crusade is in all respects a crock so long as you recognise it for what it is: The ultimate symbol of the respectability of gay relationships in a largely straight society. Unfortunately there never was much need for marriage if children are not part of the equation, and now there is no compelling need to be married to provide for children. I used to think that those unhappily married should stay together so that the kids have a father and mother in the home. Experience has taught me that kids are worse off when the parents continue to cohabit but have no respect for eachother and bicker all the time, like George and Martha in Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolfe.
Hellooooooooooooooooo?
Pardon me???
Bite me!
j.
Be careful of the slippery slope, Coop. First the sunglasses, and then what?
Post a Comment