E-Cards, Rhymes or Nasty Grams!

Im not necessarily disagreeing, but just pointing out some issues.

Marriage is thousands of years old. But, the rules were created with different social values.

In those days, a man could have numerous wives (I think having 2 wives would be very bigamy).

In addition, women were considered property more then equal in relationship.

Breeding and house administration was the job.

If one could not fulfill the duties, she became second and another wife was sought.

Thus, marriage has changed over time. There is nothing that says marriage cannot change further.

The issue is what one considers marriage. The perception that marriage by older definitions needs to be "saved" is a statement that says,

My perception of right and yours is wrong.

It is each persons responsibility to define the marriage by their values, not societies.

You qualify your statement by using a caveat

"Ignoring obvious social changes like wage equality between men and women and a greater ability for women to provide for themselves, one might say that marriage really only works two way".

Ignoring facts to hold onto a perception is obtuse. Selecting the facts one wishes to use to get to a determination is political wrangling. This sort of decision making wont solve the issues marriage faces, it will only exacerbate them.

Interesting that I have heard great pontification about marriage by people who have never been married, have never observed a working marriage, nor have a history of functional relationships. Institutions are structures. They are empty until someone(s) enters them. Like homes, the design changes over time, codes for safety and new technologies change, the price and value changes, and every so often they need to be remodeled. Most people desert the property before they look at other options.

From someone who has a degree in bad marriage and a doctorate in a good marriage, I suggest that one take responsiblility for themselves and not make the "building" responsible for what goes on in it!!

It seems that democracy is attacking democracy.

In Oklahoma at least, the state is trying to play it both ways.

Is it a contract, and therefore the state is able to regulate it, or is it a covenant, and therefore religious only?

Also, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution trumps all states that say homosexual marriage is illegal. As of yet, it is not a federal law, and what is legal in Massachusetts is(should be) recognized in all states. I am seriously contemplating getting married in Massachusetts, going to California or Virginia where claiming the benefits of marriage is illegal, and fighting it to the Supreme Court. It's unconstitutional.

Society does not need to save marraige as an institution. Society needs , and this means Government, needs to get out of the marraige business and let people live their lives.

If marraige goe bad and two people come to "not" be happy together, to "not" love each other any longer, to "not" even like each other any longer then staying in a marraige can only cause harm for everyone involved, including the children.

I have learned one thing as I aged, that men and women are capable of a lot of love, so much love that they are capable of falling in love more then one time. They can meet and love again and be happy again.

Is that not far better then a miserable existeance with someone we no longer share any interest with except children.

Marraige laws are all the needs changing. They need to be made more fair for all concerned.

And the marraige itself needs to be left in the hands of those who live it.Of course, being happilly devorced for twenty three years after fourteen miserable years of marraige makes my opinion biased.

Having raised my kids without their mother tells me that courts need to understand that men are as capable of raising kids as women are as well.

Owl