I don't? Lets Try I do... seriously

I recently read an article in the June 21 2010’s issue of Newsweek, the Article was titled “ ‘I Don’t’ The Case against Marriage” by Jessica Bennett and Jesse Ellison. The article was the writers’ views of marriage and how it was outdated. Curious, I decided to read it.


Now I think I have been spending too much time with Constitutional Crusader, but after reading the article (and picking it apart as I went along, mainly picking that up from my fiancé), I am, needless to say, not impressed  by the poorly executed article.

First off, They, the writers, did NOT cite any sources for their ‘facts’ or any studies they quoted from. I don’t know about you, but I know that had I written an essay or something like that article in college, I would have gotten it back with red marks (oh no the dreaded red marks that make kids think they did something bad) all over it, asking where my sources were and no matter how great the essay was, or how thought provoking, no sources, no A, simple as that.

Second, I know this is probably asking too much of Newsweek and their writers, but a little Objective Journalism? It couldn’t hurt? Why not make a case FOR Marriage? The Sanctity of Marriage even? Could it harm anyone? I, personally, don’t think so, but then again I’m one of the conservative know-nothings.

Third, I wish they could have listed all the facts, not just the ones that made Marriage to be the “bad Guy”, for example

“In 2010 we know most spousal rights can be easily established outside the law, and that Americans are cohabiting, happily, in record numbers. We have our own health care and 401(k)s and no longer need a marriage license to visit our partners in the hospital.”

Okay No License, okay you can visit them in the hospital. But what about calling the shots when they can’t speak for themselves? What about if they are in a coma, can you tell the doctors what to do for their health? Unless they have a written Medical Power of Attorney, they wouldn’t be treated like a spouse.

What about, like in the State of California, if you’re not married and your partner dies, unless you are married, the surviving partner doesn’t have access to any pensions or Social Security Monies that your deceased partner may have had.

“So when conservatives argue that same-sex couples are going to “destroy” the “sanctity” of marriage, we wonder, wait, didn’t we already do that? “Social science tells us fundamentally that this system is not working,” says Curtis Bergstrand, a sociologist at Bellarmine University in Louisville, KY, who has written on marriage.”

If given enough time, we can destroy anything. But Marriage is one of the world’s oldest institutions and it has survived centuries, yes it has changed with new generations growing and changing with human civilization. But again, that’s human nature. We can destroy, but then again we can create too.

“Gone are the days of the nuclear nest; in its wake is a motley mix of single parents, same-sex couples, and yes, unmarried monogamists. Anthropologist Helen Fisher, who studies the nature of love, might say that it’s a symptom of our biology: She believes humans aren’t meant to be together forever, but in short-term, monogamous relationships of three or four years. For us, it’s not that we reject monogamy altogether – indeed, one of us is going on six years with a partner – but that the idea of Marriage has become so tainted, and simultaneously so idealized, that we are hesitant to engage in it”

How does that explain relationships that have lasted several decades? What about those couples that celebrate their Golden Anniversaries? That’s definitely not “short term”. And I don’t think it’s that Humans aren’t meant to be together forever, but the decline of the emphasis placed on Religion in the public square by the courts that has resulted in the decline of marriage.

And speaking of Nature, let’s look at what monogamous animals there are. First one I can think of are Wolves. Then there are squirrels. There are several other animals out there that are Monogamous, I just can’t think of them at the moment. If it exists in nature, and humans learn from what they see, how hard is it to believe that humans can be monogamous? I mean seriously?

In my opinion, there are three people in a marriage, you, your spouse and God, hence your marriage vows. The article keeps mentioning that we’ve got less religion this and less religion that, okay, that may be one of the problems, don’t you think?

“One study even claims that the simple act of getting married creates seven more hours of housework each week for the woman”

I thought times have changed and the men and women share the chores now? I know, growing up, my parents shared the chores. I saw my Dad cooking more often than I saw my mom cooking, but then my mom worked days and my dad nights. And now, I share chores with my fiancé. How about in your own households? My dad was there for me growing up, but then again the article mentioned that marriage was to get men to take responsibility for their offspring.  So now marriage is a trap? How convenient. Have these writers even been married?

“Committing to one person forever is a long time” says Helen Fisher. “I wonder how many people really think about that”

Gee, I didn’t know forever was a really long time!... thanks for setting me straight Helen. I couldn’t have guessed it on my own. Seriously? I’m pretty sure most of those people who are inviting you to their weddings have thought about that question, hence why they are walking down the aisle. I know I’ve thought about it, and when I think of the future and guess who I see at my side… my fiancé.

The article, in my opinion is nothing but three pages of wasted space. It cries wolf at everything they think is wrong with the institution of marriage because some humans are too stupid to remain in a relationship long enough to justify marrying. It insults those people who have been in a marriage longer than 10 years and makes children of parents who stayed married for years feel like something was wrong with them because they didn’t have two houses that they lived in, or weekends with dad and his new wife. It fails to take in account marriages that ended in the loss of a partner because of death, but seems to include it in their statistics for the amount of times a person in Texas is married. They make those of us who believe in finding our soul mates sound like we’re looking for our next junkie fix. The writers make it sound like romance has no place in the intellectual household. “Waiting for Marriage” is sacrilege to these writers, after all, why marry at all?

Marriage only works when both partners make it work, if one person gives up, then the marriage has no where to go.

Tell me why should we take advice from someone who, in all likelihood, never said “I do”? Would you take sexual advice from a virgin?