Oh…blech. Blech and ick upon Saudi Arabia, whose system still considers it right and proper that a father can marry his 12-year-old daughter off to his 80-year-old cousin in exchange for an ample dowry. At least this time, this suck-tastic story comes wrapped in a possible not-so-miserable ending. The country’s Human Rights Commission has interceded in the case, assigning the girl a government lawyer to argue her side before a local court. Whether this will do the poor child any good remains to be seen.

Traditionalists are arguing to keep the practice, because, hey, the Prophet Muhammed had a 9-year-old bride! Top Saudi Cleric Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh argued just one year ago that people who say a girl under 15 can’t take a husband are being “unfair” to the child. At the time, Al-Sheikh, a.k.a. His Venerable Horniness, was reacting to a judge who had refused to annul the “marriage” of an 8-year-old girl to a 47-year-old degenerate.

Sigh. And you wonder why some people hate religion. Two words, Saudi Arabia: human trafficking. These aren’t marriages. These girls were sold into sexual slavery.

I’m no American exceptionalist, but I’m glad to live in a country where men who even contemplate this are considered candidates for state-sponsored castration.

Uncategorized feminism, islam, marriage, saudi arabia, women

Definition of “oblivious”: Ricky Gervais crowing to a celeb magazine that he sees no need to marry Jane Fallon, his partner of 25 years, because he doesn’t believe in God.

“I don’t see the point,” said Ricky. “We are married for all intents and purposes, everything’s shared, and actually our fake marriage has lasted longer than a real one… but there’s no point in us having an actual ceremony before the eyes of God because there is no God.”

Um, mate? I love you. Really. Your bit on the Old Testament is a comedy classic. But you’re being obtuse. You’ve got dosh, brother. Millions of dolla – er, pounds in the bank. (British people use banks, right?) You’ve even bragged about how much you love being Richie Rich. You don’t have to worry about the practical implications of wedlock, such as tax deductions and health insurance.

Plus? You’re straight. Hardly any hospital on planet Earth would ban you from your partner’s room if (Goddess forbid) she fell ill. It’s a problem you’ll never face, but that most gay and lesbian couples can’t avoid.

Oy, I’m addressing celebrities I’ve never met in the second person again. DAMN you, The Internet.

I could go on about how Gervais is draining all of the romance out of the institution, but I shan’t. Point is, he doesn’t have to worry about marriage because he’s loaded and hetero. Hopefully, next time he’s pressed on the question, he’ll be a bit more cognizant of his privilege, rather than use it as a launchpad for boorish atheist banner-waving.

Uncategorized glbt, marriage, money, ricky gervais, wealth

You’d think marriage would be a touchy subject with me. I know first-hand that divorce is no picnic, especially when kids are involved. But you know what? My ex and I have a good run of it  – 14 years, to be precise. And I harbor no bitterness toward either ex or institution. I still believe in both the reality and the romance of true love.

I hope the same is true of this 20-something couple I saw yesterday at Tony’s Coffee in Bellingham. They were sitting side by side, mutually staring off into the distance past the barista and through the wall behind him. In front of them was a book entitled Sacred Marriage. They didn’t look like they were in rapturous contemplation; they looked like they were in agony.

Over 10 years ago, my second wife and I both fell out of love with Ayn Rand simultaneously, but for months each of us was afraid to mention it to the other. This couple looked like that – as if they were each waiting for their partner to say, “How about we return to Barnes & Noble and get our money back?”

Once I got back home, I brought up the book on Amazon. My heart sank for those two. The full title is Sacred Marriage: What If God Designed Marriage More to Make Us Holy Than to Make Us Happy? From a reviewer:

God made marriage to make us holy, not to make us happy. In his compelling style, Gary Thomas consistently communicates that one marriage-altering message.

As a marriage counselor, seminary professor, and writer of books on the spiritual life, I find far too many Christian books on marriage shallow, surface, and simple. Their solution-focused answers to self-centered questions often do more harm than good as they create more self-sufficient, self-centered sinners.

Good Lord. Would you like a hair-shirt with that wedding ring?

It may be pot/kettle for a twice-divorced man to lecture anyone on marriage. But, since failure’s never shut me up before…

Look. A healthy relationship involves self-sacrifice. It demands your time, your attention, and your heart. It insists that you be both strong and vulnerable. But this is all borne out of love. Self-sacrifice doesn’t mean self-abnegation. You’ll never be happy in a relationship unless you can be both a loving partner and a self-realized individual. And some couples can’t. Not with one another, at least. That’s sad. It’s hard as hell. But it’s not The End of The World As We Know It. Life – and love – endure.

I’m not a praying man, but I’ll send a few words Heaven-wise that Bellingham Couple stumble upon a copy of Passionate Marriage.  Soon.

Uncategorized bellingham, love, marriage, relationships

And hey, maybe Nebraska’s right. Maybe Nebraska knows you better than I do. Who am I to say?

To be fair, though, it’s not the entire state that distrusts your hookup. It’s state Sen. Mark Christensen, who has proposed that couples have a 30-day restriction imposed on marriage licenses, and be forced to pay $100 if they don’t take eight hours of pre-marriage marital counseling. Sen. Christensen’s brilliant idea is aimed at lowering the divorce rate, which he and most of the rest of Western civilization see as an appalling black stain on the national psyche.

As far as draconian, statist proposals for interfering with the sanctity of marriage go, this one isn’t so crazy. Heather Long at Families.com is for it, on the grounds that more counseling can only help. And it’s hard to argue with that. But the question is, what constitutes “valid” marriage counseling for the purposes of this law? Let’s take a peak at the draft legislation. According to the bill, a qualified marriage counselor consists of:

(a) An official representative of a religious institution or his or her designee;
(b) Any member of the clergy authorized to perform marriages, or his or her designee, including mentor couples or other lay volunteers if they are working in a clergy-supervised program;
(c) Any marriage education provider or program approved by the person performing the marriage; or
(d) Marriage education or skills training providers listed in directories which shall be maintained by each county clerk’s office.

And what constitutes a “religious institution”? Can a local Wiccan priestess give a couple counseling? No? Then how does this not pass the Establishment Clause sniff-test? And what criteria is used to determine who gets added to the list of “skills training providers”? Not surprisingly, the bill is eerily silent on that point. The bill, in short, would give Nebraska a lot of leeway in determining what constitutes a “good” marriage.

Also, consider that a member of the clergy won’t usually won’t charge for administering counseling to members of his or her flock. A private counselor or class, however, will surely charge in excess of $100 for a full work day’s worth of quality counseling. So if you don’t attend church regularly, where’s the benefit for a couple in putting themselves through this crap? My bet is that the majority of folks would just pay the $100 and have done with it. Given that there were close to 6,000 divorces in Nebraska in 2005, this means that the state would stand to make around half a million dollars off of the backs of failed marriages. Which would be a nice way to offset the costs of running the state’s divorce courts, but wouldn’t do a damn thing to “promote good marriages.”

Is it the state’s business to promote marriage at all – either good OR bad ones? Hell no. First of all, why would anyone want to promote an institution that makes half of its participants miserable? It’s typical government thinking: “Wow, this is failing. We better do more of it!” What is so abhorrent about being single that it needs to be stamped out like cancer? Where is the compelling societal interest in pressuring people to make “‘Til Death Do We Part” decisions before age 30?

It’s one thing to be “conservative” on an issue, and to push the status quo; but it takes a whole other level of delusion to refuse to put 2 plus 2 together when reality is screaming “FOUR!!!” (Perhaps that’s why I’ll never be a conservative.) If you want to cut down on the number of divorces, there’s an obvious solution: cut down on the number of marriages! Encourage single living for a while. Don’t push young into making several financial and emotional commitments in their 20s. Open up domestic partnerships to all couples, and let people create the types of bonds and families they think are appropriate, rather than try and engineer the perfect society from the top down. Save “marriage” for the people who are truly ready to make that kind of heavy commitment.

That would be a sane, pragmatic approach to marriage and relationships. Which is why I expect a state legislature will never go near it. We wouldn’t want to inject sanity into the law now, would we?

But hey, I’m a deviant. What I think matters little to polite society. What’s your take? State-sanctioned pre-marriage classes: yay or nay?

Uncategorized love, mark christensen, marriage, nebraska, relationships