Dear Abby today

[rie'smom]

I've known plenty of Catholic girls who got the "express wedding" when they were in the "family way"!

They're refused in our area UNLESS they go through the Pre Cana thing and the priests say they can handle marriage. Ican tell you there have been some very unhappy preggo girls because the priests have told them than being pregnant is NOT a good reason to get married.

 

[weregoingtodw]

It seems we need to begin to legislate common sense

I say this ALL the time!

 

[Laura]

Please, this example makes marriage sound like a joke. Just because many jump into marriage quickly and just because there are many divorces, doesn't mean that this was the original intent of marriage.

True, the original intent was to transfer property (a woman) from one man to another. If the couple getting married had met before or even liked each other, it didn't matter.

 

[DawnCt1]

It seems more like a fraud perpetrated on the wedding guests than any sort of marriage. One of my friend's DDs changed her mind the week of the wedding. (It was a formal wedding, invitations, honeymoon, etc) It took a lot of guts to cancel. A lot of brides would have gone through it and ended up in an awful marriage, as would she have. She went on the honeymoon anyway......with her cousin. It was a cruise to Alaska and the two of them had a great time.

 

[declansdad]

It seems more like a fraud perpetrated on the wedding guests than any sort of marriage. One of my friend's DDs changed her mind the week of the wedding. (It was a formal wedding, invitations, honeymoon, etc) It took a lot of guts to cancel. A lot of brides would have gone through it and ended up in an awful marriage, as would she have. She went on the honeymoon anyway......with her cousin. It was a cruise to Alaska and the two of them had a great time.

I agree Dawn, this was a terrible way to treat the guests and it seems as if they were trying to fool them as well.

Good for your friend's daughter.

 

[Stacerita]

Its hard to believe in the "Sanctity of Marriage" when you can be married in a drive thru chapel.

 

[c4a]

Its hard to believe in the "Sanctity of Marriage" when you can be married in a drive thru chapel.

If the couple doesn't believe in God or follow any type of religous belief...I don't think it really matters if it is in a drive thru chapel, with Elvis impersonators...if that is what the couple wants.

The wedding location doesn't matter. The dress doesn't matter. The perfectly monogrammed invitations that match the RSVP cards that correspond with the Menu card that looks so lovely against the color scheme with the perfect height bouquet in the middle of the table doesn't matter. Neither does the bridesmaid's dresses. The menu-geez, some people put more thought into chicken, beef, fish, or vegan than they do what a marriage is.

It is not the ceremony. The ceremony is an expression of personal taste. That ceremony will be a distant memory when the hard times hit, and may not even be thought of during the good.

A marriage is a day to day, hour to hour, and sometimes minute to minute reaffirmation of the vows taken. It isn't a 50/50 meeting in the middle...it is a meeting together for what is the best of the family. Sometimes,it is 60/40%, sometimes it is giving 100% and sometimes it is getting 100%. It is team work on the deapest level imaginable. And it is very hard work.
It is loving someone when not liking them but still accepting them & getting the same in return.

I don't know if views changed because "the wedding industry" tries to tell us what is/isn't important. Or perhaps, it is my generations fault. Divorce was "shameful" and "taboo" when I was young...it was scandalous and whispered behind hands about. Suppose it is just another way we failed our youth. My generation's children grew up in broken homes...weekend visits to parents have become the norm. I suppose it would be hard to understand the true meaning of marriage when so many of the youth were raised in a home of divorce or seperation.

I need ice cream & a hug from dh, now.

 

[mskani]

The wedding location doesn't matter. The dress doesn't matter. The perfectly monogrammed invitations that match the RSVP cards that correspond with the Menu card that looks so lovely against the color scheme with the perfect height bouquet in the middle of the table doesn't matter. Neither does the bridesmaid's dresses. The menu-geez, some people put more thought into chicken, beef, fish, or vegan than they do what a marriage is.

It is not the ceremony. The ceremony is an expression of personal taste. That ceremony will be a distant memory when the hard times hit, and may not even be thought of during the good.

A marriage is a day to day, hour to hour, and sometimes minute to minute reaffirmation of the vows taken. It isn't a 50/50 meeting in the middle...it is a meeting together for what is the best of the family. Sometimes,it is 60/40%, sometimes it is giving 100% and sometimes it is getting 100%. It is team work on the deapest level imaginable. And it is very hard work.
It is loving someone when not liking them but still accepting them & getting the same in return.

Amen!!

 

[aprilgail2]

Sorry but this would tick me off too. DH and I have a couple friends who got married and less then 6 months later were divorced, then 1 year later are inviting us to their 2nd wedding. Yea, I know just don't go, but sorry IMOP, 2nd marriages should be "family only".

I agree!

Its hard to believe in the "Sanctity of Marriage" when you can be married in a drive thru chapel.

I also have an issue that people are allowed to pay off the catholic church and get a marraige annulled- how can they possibly say "ok, you were never married" when the couple has a baby- just seems very hypocritical to me- as long as you fork over the cash you can be unmarried in the eyes of the church.

As far as gays getting married- I have NO problem with that, I think perhaps they would do better at it than straight couples. I work with all guys and more than 50 percent of them are cheating on their wives, the gay ones I know at work are either not cheating on their partners or keeping it descret- the straight ones at work are very open about cheating, their girlfriends come down and get them for lunch, their wives call on the phone and all the rest of them cover for the other. Then when we go out to a work function and they bring the wives and their wives are going on and on about what great husbands they have I want to vomit!

 

[beckmrk04]

The Catholic Church makes you jump through hoops. You have to go through Pre Cana which is a series of meetings which discuss the different aspects of marriage. There are forms that both the prospective bride and groom fill out. Those are analyzed for compatibility. There have been several instances that I know of where priests have said that couples have to go through counseling before they can marry or the priest has told couples they are too immature to take on the responsibilities of marriage and a family.

I don't know if all priests are this way but at least they take the Sacrament seriously in our area. BTW, a few of the couples were married outside of the Church and they did end up divorced. There, of course, have also been couples who were married in the Church and have been divorced too but at least marriages aren't rubber stamped.

I know. I had a Catholic Wedding. (DH is Catholic, I'm not).

And, I thought all of it was a great idea! BUT- at our Pre Cana there were probably 20 couples, about 15 of whom sat doodling, rolling their eyes, yawning... I could tell they really got a lot out of it. I'm sort of curious as to where they are today...

 

[ConcKahuna]

Don't waste your time, you are dealing with some spoiled children who didn't get their way on some legislation now they take potshots at marriage every chance they get. They believe in tolerance as long as you tolerate the same things they do and the rule of law as long as the law rules in their favor. If you don't meet those conditions ths is what you get entertained with. Take it for what it's worth.

If it were legislature banning the wearing of certain colors or brands of cloths, you could continue your ingorant rant about "spoiled children." We're discussing civil rights and how many organizations use "Sanctity of Marraige" as a reason against homosexual unions.

I have been with my partner for over 7 years now. It is simply wrong that we are blocked from any legal equality in FL, while couples like the one in the "Dear Abby" letter have full legal rights after possibly only knowing each other for just a few weeks.

If you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, outlaw annulments and make divorce a lot harder.

 

[Octoberbride03]

I've known plenty of Catholic girls who got the "express wedding" when they were in the "family way"!

And this was how many years ago?

These days you generally have to be engaged a minimum of 6 months to a yr b4 you can get married in the church. This accounts for all the parishes I've been in in the past several yrs. And you need premarital counseling with the Priest to go with.


I'd love to know what kind of church the couple was in though that the minister felt 3 weeks was an appropriate amount of time for an engagement. And I'd want my gift back.

As for Dr. Abby. I don't know what her response was, but I rarely read her anymore as she lost it long b4 her daughter took over the column. I'll take Carolyn Hax any day of the week.

 

[Octoberbride03]

I agree!




I also have an issue that people are allowed to pay off the catholic church and get a marraige annulled- how can they possibly say "ok, you were never married" when the couple has a baby- just seems very hypocritical to me- as long as you fork over the cash you can be unmarried in the eyes of the church.

As far as gays getting married- I have NO problem with that, I think perhaps they would do better at it than straight couples. I work with all guys and more than 50 percent of them are cheating on their wives, the gay ones I know at work are either not cheating on their partners or keeping it descret- the straight ones at work are very open about cheating, their girlfriends come down and get them for lunch, their wives call on the phone and all the rest of them cover for the other. Then when we go out to a work function and they bring the wives and their wives are going on and on about what great husbands they have I want to vomit!

An annulment in the catholic church takes longer to get than a divorce at a courthouse. I know ppl who've done it, and I know ppl who sit on the committees who investigate the marriage. Yes it does cost money, so does the courthouse.

A catholic annulment DOES NOT mean that the children were never born. That any subsequent Baptisms of the children are null and void. It means that in the church's opinion that the couple did NOT recieve the sacrament that is performed during the ceremony/mass.

FYI the quickest way to have your marriage annulled is to have an abusive spouse. The rest is at the discretion of your local Parish/diocese committe.

It took my cousin's wife 5yrs b4 her first marriage was annulled from the date of her application.

 

[Shannon G]

If you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, outlaw annulments and make divorce a lot harder.

I don't think the answer is to make divorce harder. While there may be people out there who think nothing of getting a divorce, I don't think they are the norm at all. I'd venture a guess that most of us who have gotten divorced have thought long and hard about it, and did not reach that decision overnight. Believe me, if you've been there you know - you worry about the impact on your kids, you worry what people will think, you worry that you've failed because you couldn't make it work. Making it harder to get divorced is not going to magically create great marriages - it's going to trap people in miserable ones.

 

[cinmell]

DH said, you know we get penalized for staying married, maybe we should have a big party just for staying married, we could use some extra money, new towels and new pots and pans.

And at times I tend to agree.

I think your husband is on to something, a staying married shower or honoring the sanctity of marriage shower!.

 

[wvjules]

Yea, I know just don't go, but sorry IMOP, 2nd marriages should be "family only".

What if its my second marriage and his first? Do I only invite my family and he invites all of his family and friends?

 

[bigolive9]

If it were legislature banning the wearing of certain colors or brands of cloths, you could continue your ingorant rant about "spoiled children." We're discussing civil rights and how many organizations use "Sanctity of Marraige" as a reason against homosexual unions.

I have been with my partner for over 7 years now. It is simply wrong that we are blocked from any legal equality in FL, while couples like the one in the "Dear Abby" letter have full legal rights after possibly only knowing each other for just a few weeks.

If you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, outlaw annulments and make divorce a lot harder.

Amen! This is what I was trying to say earlier- there would be all sorts of outrage if there were legislation in these areas, yet somehow who someone marries is the government's business? Like I said before, there are some areas of life that the government should not interfere. And many very conservative groups do use "sanctity of marriage" as the reason why homosexual marriages should be illegal. The discussion is not whether or not marriage should be a sacred institution- it should, and those who believe that will treat it as such. The discussion is why the government is allowed to decide who is permitted to be married.

 

[daisax]

I also have an issue that people are allowed to pay off the catholic church and get a marraige annulled- how can they possibly say "ok, you were never married" when the couple has a baby

There are probably a half dozen threads on the DIS explaining why this is not true. The short version is that marriage is the only sacrament that the people confer on themselves -- and only they and God know if a sacrament took place. If one or both were not sincere (or there was coercion, or no intent/ability on somebody's part to be a true husband/wife), there was no sacrament, but you have to prove it after the fact. At that point, the marriage can be annulled.

Doesn't mean there was no marriage, it means there was no sacrament. And it has zero effect on the children's status.

 

[Disney Doll]

One example of a stupid heterosexual couple does not mean that every heterosexual couple would treat marriage in the same manner. You don't like homosexuals being painted with a broad brush, so please don't do it to heterosexuals either.

I would like to think that most people getting married, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual, aren't standing there thinking "well, if this doesn't work out...whatever..." I would like to think that most marrying couples (again, regardless of sexual orientation) go into it with the intention of it being a sanctified, forever kind of a thing. I know that when I married DH, I married him witht he intention of being married for life. We're going on 18 years, so I guess we're doing OK.

Pointing out the flaws in behavior some heterosexual marriages doesn't make any kind of argument for homosexual marriage because homeosexuals are human beings who might be capable of having the exact same flaws.

The argument for homosexual marriage is equality, not "the heterosexuals are screwing it up so bad that the homosexuals should have a chance to see if we can do it any better".

 

[Chuck S]

One example of a stupid heterosexual couple does not mean that every heterosexual couple would treat marriage in the same manner. You don't like homosexuals being painted with a broad brush, so please don't do it to heterosexuals either.

I would like to think that most people getting married, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual, aren't standing there thinking "well, if this doesn't work out...whatever..." I would like to think that most marrying couples (again, regardless of sexual orientation) go into it with the intention of it being a sanctified, forever kind of a thing. I know that when I married DH, I married him witht he intention of being married for life. We're going on 18 years, so I guess we're doing OK.

Pointing out the flaws in behavior some heterosexual marriages doesn't make any kind of argument for homosexual marriage because homeosexuals are human beings who might be capable of having the exact same flaws.

The argument for homosexual marriage is equality, not "the heterosexuals are screwing it up so bad that the homosexuals should have a chance to see if we can do it any better".

But it DOES make a point. We keep hearing that hetero marriage has to be "protected", or that same-sex couples would destroy the "sanctity" of marriage. And that hetero marriages are somehow "better" or "more worthy" of recognition because they have a sanctity that gay marriages would somehow lack. These sham hetero marriages demonstrate that such a position is invalid.