The Sanctity of Marriage

10Comments

1. 1.

   BumperStickerist

   March 31, 2005 at 9:40 am

   Here is a guideline- when you start proposing the Courts evaluate the quality of marriages, it is a sure sign you have lost your FUCKING MIND.

   Okay … now that all the Divorce Court Judges will be freed from their duties, maybe we can work on that backlog of violent crime stuff.

2. 2.

   John Cole

   March 31, 2005 at 9:45 am

   Nothing like not knowing what you are talking about but trying to be pithy anyway.

   Land is talking about evaluating marriages outside the context of divorce court. IN fact, divorce has nothing to do with this issue. He is proposing, when discussing end-of-life issues, we judge how ‘fit’ the husband is to act on his legal rights as guardian.

   Try reading the transcript, Bumper.

   BTW- this is just stupid on so many levels. On December 24, 2004, everyone who knew them would have testified in a court of law that Laci Peterson’s marriage was perfect.

3. 3.

   disinherited

   March 31, 2005 at 9:48 am

   The idea that politicians will establish guidelines for auditing marriages is so funny I just honked an entire, intact corn flake through my nose. I’m willing to bet that a substantial number of members of congress have had or are now having extramarital affairs – power is an aphrodesiac and they are rapaciously ambitious people, a formula that usually results in late-night dips into the intern pool, to say nothing of the Hollywood star-fucking possibilities. Trust me when I say that if congress gets near this issue, it will go BA-BOOM in their faces.

   I believe covenant marriages are sort of a right wing phenomenon, which is odd because they are more often the folks who view a marriage vow as a solemn promise before god, which, one would think, would lead them to enter into holy matrimony on the solemnest of terms. It is somehow curious that they mistrust their own promise to god, although I suppose it is an acknowledgment that all people are sinners, even god’s people. Still, the whole thing has a “huh?” quality. As Lincoln observed in another context (and I paraphrase here), “I don’t need a law to tell me not to do what I already don’t want to do.”

   Another curious aspect of it is that the effect of a “covenant” marriage is to ground that institution ever more firmly into the realm of a private contract. I thought their whole premise was that marriage was not a contract made by man, by a promise sworn before god. It is precisely “contract” principles of law that have brought about the easy divorce laws. I suppose their long term goal is to enshrine the “covenant” principles as statutory law, but they may well be setting themselves up for a different outcome.

4. 4.

   Bob

   March 31, 2005 at 9:50 am

   Bumper, divorce courts aren’t evaluating the quality of marriages, they are just making a legal ruling that they are over, and how the property and kids are divided up.

   There was a tv show called, “Divorce Court.” Maybe you’re confusing the two.

   By the way, the rulings in the Schiavo court are not actually about Terri’s life or death, but whether or not her legal guardian, her husband, has the right to remove her feeding tube. If Michael Schiavo said right now, I’ve changed my mind, put the tube back in, the court would not interfere.

   What is dangerous about legislating whether or not Schiavo is put back on support is that the government then gets the right to legislate who lives and dies. This should scare libertarians.

5. 5.

   The Disenfranchised Voter

   March 31, 2005 at 9:57 am

   Ha, “super marriages”…priceless.

6. 6.

   caleb

   March 31, 2005 at 10:08 am

   These people really are stupid.

   Ok…lets switch things up….give parents absolute right to their children(I guess if they do this, the whole tradition and meaning behind the father walking his daughter down the aisle to give her away will lose all significance).

   What will their screams be when the next Schiavo type case that gets national attention involves the parents wanting to stop life support withthe husband vehemately against it?…just switch it around again?

   Stupid….stupid short sighted people.

7. 7.

   BumperStickerist

   March 31, 2005 at 2:16 pm

   sorry about the pith factor.

   The issue of courts judging the quality of a marriage in both contested divorce, child custody, and such is established.

   If two partners have a disagreement over the quality of the marriage, courts come in, evaluate, and pass, ultimately, a societal judgement as to the quality of the marriage.

   In this case, the other partner to the marriage was not in a position to address decisions regarding her end-of-life.

   I think Michael’s been cheap-shotted to a near Richard Jewell like state. The man may be within both his legal rights and his moral duties to have a feeding tube pulled out and allow his wife to starve to death over two weeks.

   Maybe Michael talked the mother of his two kids about this during that time.

   But there’s a whole lot hinkyness in this particular case. And, perhaps, the discussion had about living wills and spousal decisions (especially in cases where the spouse has a competing interest) may lead to some good.

   fwiw I don’t have a Big Fear that Congress, especially a Repubican one, will swooop in and make us take our kids to Sunday School or force my wife and I to have only procreative sex in a state approved position.

   But, then, I figured out that the Free Masons aren’t poisoning the wells.

   Apparently, Tom Delay is.

8. 8.

   John Cole

   March 31, 2005 at 2:27 pm

   You didn’t hear, Bumper? George Bush is putting arsenic in the wells. Remember that pre 9/11 nonsense?

   Look- I take your point about divorce- but that is designed for asset allocation when the couples are separating. What they are suggesting with these trial balloons is that happily married couples, should one have a tragic accident, the parents can go to court and call him/her a shitty spouse and then take away the legal rights conferred by marriage.

   If that doesn’t bother you, no wonder the Free Masons poisoning the water doesn’t (j/k).

9. 9.

   Kimmitt

   March 31, 2005 at 9:40 pm

   especially a Repubican one,

   Hee.