One of the first images that comes to mind at mention of a “nontraditional proposal” might be a couple’s female half making the first move, proposing marriage. But in an interview the other day, actress Angelina Jolie took the logic a step further, announcing that the only nuptial proposal she’d consider would be a plea from her children. Jolie and live-in boyfriend Brad Pitt have been raising six children sans marriage since 2005. “I think it would be hard to say no to the kids,” Jolie said. Does the same go for Brad? (I’m no entomologist, but I just may be hearing crickets.)
But don’t get your celebrity-watching hopes up; Jolie also reported to Nightline that her kids, well, “they’re not asking.” “They are very aware that nothing’s missing.” Once again, nothing’s missing—got it? Sadly enough, sentiments like this seem to be the slight at marriage currently in vogue—not divorce or unfaithfulness, but nihilism about marriage itself. If, as Jolie suggests, marriage doesn’t amount to much in the real world, who needs it? Society responds with widespread cohabitation. I suppose there’s yet another question we might pose to Jolie and those of her ideological ilk: If marriage doesn’t add anything to a family, why is it so meaningful to promote it for same-sex couples and others who seek to change it?
July 15th, 2010 | 4:51 pm
This is why it makes perfect sense to have EVERYONE register for civil unions to get tax benefits from the government and for religious people to seek marriages from their parish priest or what have you. The State doesn’t recognize anything but contracts, and people should be free to make contracts regarding visitation rights, etc with whomever they like.
As an atheist, I don’t believe that there’s anything to any marriage I’d be engaged in beyond a public declaration, in front of our community of our intention to care for each other. There’s clear change in the nature of a relationship pre/post-marriage for secular people.
So why not let the churches handle the spiritual parts that the State has no hand in, and everyone (religious or not) would register their union with the state to receive benefits.
July 15th, 2010 | 5:55 pm
Leah,
So, am I to conclude from your comment that you’re against the idea of same-sex marriage?
July 15th, 2010 | 8:27 pm
I think we get congused about the importance of marriage per se to the gay rights movement, because the discussion has become tangled up in the second class status of civil unions. As long as civil unions have all the civic rights and privileges of ‘marriage’ that secular hetrerosexual couples enjoy now, I’m glad to cede the term.
Of course, gay couples married in churches that recognize gay marriages would still have marriages, but I’d have a civil union.
July 15th, 2010 | 8:41 pm
Excellent points, Kevin.
July 16th, 2010 | 2:26 am
“I suppose there’s yet another question we might pose to Jolie and those of her ideological ilk: If marriage doesn’t add anything to a family, why is it so meaningful to promote it for same-sex couples and others who seek to change it?”
Easy. Ms Jolie is independently wealthy and well able to provide for a family. That would not be true for many of the rest of us in the middle class. We also don’t have the resources to buck the various legal obstacles for unmarried couples, same sex or otherwise.
As a Catholic and a father I’m fortunate to have a spouse–not only in the sacramental and emotional sense, but in the legal as well.
The promotion of same-sex unions is an intent to bypass the several legal obstacles that Ms Jolie and other wealthy citizens can likely purchase their way around.
By the way, I would suggest that sacramental marriage needs a stronger witness from its proponents. A positive witness will be more effective than pouting and fingerpointing.
July 16th, 2010 | 9:50 am
I think that this topic should be cross referenced to the discussion on gay marriage and church/state relations–as a Catholic myself, I also find myself asking why they should get married. State marriages aren’t sacramental. They do not “do” anything to the relationship. If you fill out the state paperwork before getting married in church, are you allowed to sleep together before the sacrament? Of course not! Let’s judge the Christians by Christ’s standards, and admit that no one else understands what we are talking about when we discuss the sacrament of marriage.
July 16th, 2010 | 11:19 am
>>This is why it makes perfect sense to have EVERYONE register for civil unions to get tax benefits from the government>>
Why should the government give someone benefits simply because they’re in some sort of civil union?
July 17th, 2010 | 10:18 am
It is very consistent, if presumptuous, to say that when you are independently wealthy, able to jet all over the world and have unlimited help raising your kids that marriage is “unnecessary” and, perhaps, she simply likes the career benefits that accrue to living with her surrogate husband. But, take away the wealth, or add in a fatal debilitating illness, a premature death, and suddenly, as Joe Carter wrote so movingly, we all seem to be alone.
Sounds like a movie script, actually.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact