Monday, November 17, 2008

On Marriage

A witty blogger I rarely follow wrote about her 2-1/2 year anniversary. Okay, when I was married, I celebrated my one month, two month, and six month anniversaries. At almost three months, I became a bit nauseated at the monthly anniversaries – the gifts were just not worth me cooking a fancy dinner, getting in a nice dress, and spending a lot of time on hair and makeup, coordinating lingerie, etc., when we ended up dancing horizontally. New hubbie basically showed up for a nice meal, a pretty wife and a night of passionate sex. He actually liked the anniversaries. Imagine that?

I still don't understand a 2-1/2 year anniversary. But that's okay. I also don't understand why people will pay a dollar to vote for someone on television but don't vote for a governor, senator or the president.

But you know, Jill is sort of lucky. She found her husband and they were allowed to get married.

But you know, there are lots of people who don't get the opportunity to get married. I was looking up marriage laws, and I was surprised to find that Mississippi had a law that you had to be 21, unless by parental consent. Some of the states say "written parental consent," and my mind leaps to signing one's own report card in school. Why not sign some type of consent document as well.

But I am not talking about minors. I am talking about the whole Proposition 8 deal that was in the news lately. Not my state, but certainly I have been thinking about it. Living in Georgia, I really should not care what they do in California. I like states rights. For me, if a state wants to make the death penalty illegal, that's fine by me. Same thing concerning marriage. Sort of, I guess. I mean, if I get married in Georgia, I want to make sure I am married in California, Florida or South Dakota. Can you imagine your spouse going to a meeting in Nevada, and your marriage not being valid in that state? I mean, all of those hookers and single women/men? Ouch.

For me, my religion says "man + woman" for marriage. I don't agree with it, but I also think the Pope's hat looks a bit outdated. What 'cha going to do? But my church also believes that gluttony is a sin. And I think it is fine that McDonalds sells a bunch of fat. I mean, the French fries are to die for. A slow death, clogged arteries and all.

I think the government should regulate marriage, but not stamp morality on the issue. I mean, tax marriage – the American thing to do. And I think everyone ought to be able to pay more in taxes, get bored in a sexless marriage, and be eligible for a nasty divorce. Sort of how this guy ended up, rich and alone after a marriage from hell.

American dream, baby. Let's don't discriminate because of body parts.

10 comments:

Knot said...

You made a couple of interesting points at the end. Otherwise I was going to tune out.

First all laws are based on morals - don't kill, don't steal, etc. - you can't separate the two. Or you have to understand that morals are the underpinning of laws and we have to have them to have laws.

Second, do gay marriages want to deal with the consequences of divorce and getting ripped by a good lawyer out of your stuff? If you don't get married, you don't have that.

In honeestly, I think gays should look at the current train wreck straights have made of marriage and stick to incorporating as a business. WAAAAYYY less difficult when the relationship ends.

Knot

Leesa said...

knot: laws may be based on common morals, but not everything that is immoral is illegal. And, yes, I think homosexuals want to be treated separately, but equally. Yeah, they want to be able to sue the pants off of their ex-spouses. It is the American way, now a days.

Grant said...

I think the government should stay out of personal relationships altogether, except for maybe banning marriage for people under 18. I don't think married people should get any tax breaks or be treated any differently than anyone else.

Ian Lidster said...

I needed my shot of Lovely Leesa this dreary Monday morning, and you never disappoint -- probably at no levels, but that's another matter entirely.

Anyway, I think that marriage is a legalistic matter and that morality is not really part of the equation. However you work out your connubial attitudes is fine by me. As an old verse goes:

As I grow older and older
And totter towards the tomb,
I find that I care less and less
Who goes to bed with whom.

Anonymous said...

The only comment I have to add to Leesa's post is that Leesa like anal sex.

Leesa said...

grant: why have the government sanction marriage at all? I mean, reading the rest of your comment and all.

ian: "tot" is an interesting verb to use in this case. It resembles the German word for death.

anon/Amy: Sorry, Amy, but Leesa doesn't like anal sex. So when you are imagining yourself fucking me with your strap-on, I would appreciate it if you imagine the back of my head, but your strap-on entering another one of my orafaces.

~Deb said...

Wait, she criticizes you with your writing style, yet she types out, "Leesa like anal sex" as though she's Tarzan.

Interesting.

I have to catch up on your past two blogs Leesa.

Sorry this loser has no life. I'll be back.

*sigh*

Leesa said...

~deb: I always liked Tarzan. And Amy doesn't bother me anymore. If she was a good writer, her comments may affect me more.

~Deb said...

Ok, back to this post:

I don't understand this... Madelene and I got married in MA. New York recognizes gay marriages, however you can't get married here.

? huh ?

I'm ok with it, but then again I have to ask the question of WHY even bother? Did you know we got marriage penalties through taxes?

Too funny. I shoulda' stayed single. ha! Ssshhh!

Advizor said...

What if the US shifted to a system similar to many in Europe, where EVERY couple had to get married civilly before they got married in a church?

The church wedding would be stripped of it's legal status and becomes a gesture between the couple and God, and not a legally binding action.

The marriage would then be a legal action and not a moral one, God would be taken out of the process for non-believers, and those who wanted to have a church wedding would be free to do what ever they wanted. In fact, it would free up churches to marry whoever, and what ever they wanted.

Would this solution make either side happy?