With apologies to The King, having my baby is not a lovely way of saying how much you love me—it’s just a bad idea unless we’re married.
I don’t mean this personally or nothing, but it does occur to me that many thousands of persons across the fruited plain have decided to have their baby and then figure out the pluses and minuses of Holy Matrimony at a future date. I’ve seen this over and over her in the Roaring Fork Valley of Colorado and in other parts of this nation herein. What you end up with every time is a baby with none of the bounds of matrimony that keep the happy couple together at their unhappiest.
I saw one such instance not long ago where they had said baby and the father nearly had a cow right up to the penultimate moment before he strapped on the white tie a year later and said “I do” after he already did. Another one I know is right down the street where they like the no-marriage rule so much they did it twice—two lovely angels were produced upon demand lickety-split—but all that did was to double the heartache and pain of the heretofore lovely and longstanding couple.
I’ll give you another for instance, a young and beautiful girl of our recent acquaintance who is factually engaged to her former boyfriend now dubbed fiancé. He has dibs on beautiful in other words, and they had plans for the big day, but then there was double money trouble, of course, and the date slipped right along with the whole idea aisle-walking.
“But I don’t need to be married to have a baby with you,” said said fiancé.
Now hold on to your horses, Jethro! You’re saying you’re not ready to marry this young and beautiful girl—because why not?—but you are ready to knock her up and bring a new life into this life without knowing what in the name of all that’s sacred is going to happen to this kid.
Call me old-fashioned, but that’s a load of Mountain Dew without the mountain.
Here’s my advice: get married if you want to get married and don’t if you don’t. But don’t have a baby until after you get married.
Do you need a picture? A cartoon of little precious with googly eyes upturned?
I’ll grant you the love-child exception only if you can say with a straight face that you were using contraception religiously and did everything humanly possible to avoid having a baby out of wedlock. You get that exception from me and my kind only if you then (a) get married; or (b) make a permanent contractual and financial commitment for the welfare of that poor misbegotten child.
Are we on the same page, here? Having a baby is not exactly the same as moving in with your cute boyfriend.
I’m not talking about living in sin. I’m all for that and have done a fair amount of it in my time my very own self, including at the present time as I perch on the very verge of matrimony. But that doesn’t mean the intended is having my goddamn baby, though at this point it would a physical impossibility to do same.
I’ve got to blame somebody so I am actually blaming Hollywood for this. Not the movies but the movie stars—they know who they are—for having their unwed babies willy-nilly and then living like it’s just like being married, which it is not. You have your exceptions and I’ll give you Kurt and Goldie. But they are exceptions, and the rule is if you are going to go to the trouble of having a baby on purpose, then you should got to the trouble of signing a contract, i.e., marriage, that says both of you damn well plan on taking care of that baby to the age of maturity.
Now that would be a lovely way of saying how much you love him/her.
OK I’ll bite. First, in the interest of full disclosure, I had a baby out of wedlock and as you put it, “figured it out later” (there goes my political career). I got a ton of grief about “living in sin” from the pastor of my church. Despite that it was a mutual decision between the baby’s father and I who were committed to each other for the long haul, the pastor insisted that in the interest of my immortal soul, I should leave him unless he agreed to marry me. I was pretty sure God wouldn’t have wanted me to take our son away from his father, so instead of leaving him I left the church. We did eventually marry, when our son was seven, and we’re still together today.
I take it your reason is not religious, but financial; it guarantees the child(ren) will be taken care of financially if the father decides to split. The problem with this blanket policy is that it doesn’t take into account the financial independence of the modern liberated woman.
Marriage is a legal contract that is meant to protect the rights of women and children of little means. When the Kentucky Wal-Mart employee’s husband leaves or dies, her children are entitled to support or benefits supplied by the marriage contract. But I don’t think Angelina Jolie will have a problem supporting their seven children if Brad goes back to Jen. So the imperative to marry is directly related to the financial status of the mother. It’s a class thing.
Now if Hollywood stars are influencing poor women to have babies out of wedlock, presumably because it’s cool, then we’ve got bigger problems as a society.
Also, I don’t see any allowance here for gay couples who adopt or otherwise produce a child, but don’t have the option to get legally married.
[Marriage is a legal contract that is meant to protect the rights of women and children of little means.]
Perhaps to some. There are other definitions.
Cheers!
As far as I know, there are only two types of marriage in America; civil union – sanctioned by the state in the form of a marriage license and religious union – sanctioned by God and church.
I don’t care how marriage is defined by religious institutions or leaders (as evidenced by my reaction to my pastor’s opinion), and I don’t think Michael does either. The financial obligations and benefits that the civil marriage contract guarantees I believe, is the basis for Michael’s exception to parents eschewing legal matrimony.
Sue,
I find specious your premise that a civil marriage contract offers legal guarantees a religious union does not. I’m pretty sure that where the law is concerned, the manner in which a marriage is solemnized is irrelevant.
Cheers!
I’m pretty sure a church marriage without a state license carries no legal guarantees whatsoever. That’s why gay couples can have a church ceremony but still not be legally married. Same with polygamous marriages. The polygamist’s church may sanction the marriage, but the spouses do not have any legal rights whatsoever.
Specious huh? Can you prove your assertion that the law will protect the spouses in each of these instances, or for that matter in the case of a heterosexual couple who is married in a church, but lacking the proper state license?
Sue,
You singled out civil union as the only form of matrimony that guarantees spousal rights. For marriage, the law requires a license, a ceremony, vows, and witnesses. To suggest that a union solemnized by a judge guarantees greater spousal and child protections than a union solemnized by clergy of any ilk is not only specious, it’s disingenuous.
Cheers!
What kind of a twisted notion would move me to interrupt an otherwise cogent thread with this?
That’s not The King, that’s Paul Anka…
Cheers!
I was wondering if anyone besides me was going to catch that attributive error.
So now I’m specious AND disingenuous! Mitch, you’re misunderstanding me. I’m not saying church marriages don’t count, I’m saying that a church marriage alone doesn’t guarantee legal rights, and I provided examples of gay marriage and polygamy to back that up. As you noted yourself; “the law requires a license.” It’s the license that guarantees “spousal rights and child protections,” no matter if the ceremony was solemnized by a judge, priest, rabbi, or talking mouse.
It’s the lack of obtaining that marriage license by folks who choose to procreate, that Michael takes exception to. I doubt it matters to him in which manner or by whom the ceremony was performed, what matters is that the mother and child are protected by law, i.e. the marriage license. So for the purposes of this post I have defined marriage as “a legal contract that is meant to protect the rights of women and children of little means.” However you, or the Christian church, or Mormons, or gay rights activists choose to define it is irrelevant to the original premise.
Michael – your views are so “retro.” Geeesh. OUT OF WEDLOCK? My kids wouldn’t even know what that means.
The truth is that the institution of marriage is in jeopardy because it isn’t working well in the modern day and age. Up to 60 percent of marriages end in divorce. In Argentina and in many places in Europe (like France) committed couples live together for years without any paperwork and do just fine. In fact, there is an old joke that “there is only one foodstuff that is medically proven to reduce the libido of the American female…..”Wedding Cake!”
I had a discussion recently about gay marriage. I favor gay marriage. Why shouldn’t they be able to get married? My opponent in the friendly debate said “Why can’t they just have civil unions?” “Why do they have to get married at all?” My retort was “Why should anyone get married?” Why don’t we just go for Civil Unions for anyone who wants one and leave the entire religious concept of marriage to the Church where it belongs.
Jerry Bovino
[I was wondering if anyone besides me was going to catch that attributive error.]
Before clicking Submit, I seriously considered whether I wanted anyone to know I caught that attributive error.
[So now I’m specious AND disingenuous!]
Not you, Sue, just your argument.
[...church marriage alone doesn’t guarantee legal rights...] (emphasis mine)
Neither does a civil union.
[So for the purposes of this post I have defined marriage as “a legal contract that is meant to protect the rights of women and children of little means.”]
This myopic definition certainly attenuates other views on marriage. How inclusive.
Cheers!
Look at you throwing those big provocative words around! Each time you comment you add another scathing remark; first specious, then disingenuous, now myopic – narrow-minded, bigoted, intolerant. And a sarcastic remark questioning my inclusiveness to boot!
Just what are you trying to tell me Mitch? You have a different definition of marriage than the one I have given, notably: FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS POST?
Well do tell.
And do try to keep it relevant to the original topic, which is, in case you missed it; the ramifications of choosing to have children out of wedlock.
Michael posits the notion that matrimony is a kind of bonding agent that keeps a “couple together at their unhappiest.”
Let’s stipulate that it is a good thing to protect the woman and offspring of a marital union, presumably upon the dissolution of the marriage. This, as the essence of your definition of marriage, seems to me an agent grossly ill-equipped to function as the bond Michael mentions. As a definition of marriage, yours is on a par with “fear of alimony.” If you can accept Michael’s premise about marriage’s bonding power, there is much more to it than your definition allows.
Cheers!
So if emotional bonding is the issue, I see your point. My definition of marriage in the context of what’s good for mother and child, as simply a legal contract that binds the father to financial responsibility in case of dissolution, doesn’t take into account the commitment of the wedding vows that Michael and apparently you, believe helps glue the couple together, thus in your estimation, providing a stable environment for the children’s upbringing.
But the fact is that despite vowing “till death do us part,” these days the marriage contract doesn’t keep “a couple together at their unhappiest.” That’s why as Jerry Bovino notes, there are so many divorces. Used to be a woman with an abusive husband had to stay married, a man with a psycho-neurotic wife was stuck with her. That wasn’t good for the spouses or their kids now was it?
Statistics show that if the emotional bond doesn’t happen with their wedded spouse at some point in the marriage, most people will seek it outside of marriage, even and maybe especially; Christians who ironically believe it’s a sin to do so. If the person tries to honor their vows to their spouse, but is seeing someone else, there’s all that mess of sneaking around, lying, the fear of being found out, and the pain for both spouses and children if they are. No marriage vows = no broken promises. But a marriage license at least guarantees that the leavee will be fairly treated by the leaver.
On the contrary, people who aren’t married, but have formed that emotional bond through commitment, patience, forgiveness and love will have it forever, piece of goddamned government sanctioned paper or not. But without that license, there are no marital rights, no hospital visitation, insurance compensation, or child support. I think there might be some kind of civil rights battle going on around that issue in California right now.
Point is, it’s a toss up whether ‘tis better to wed or not to wed.
Just my myopic opinion.
Apologies… shameless video retread that’s nevertheless applicable:
Cheers!
Traditional marriage, Bible-style
by kos
Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 10:50:03 AM PST
…In short, if we are to let the Bible define what “traditional marriage” should look like, then our marriage laws should be amended as such:
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
B. Marriage shall not impede a man’s right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother’s widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)
Sudan Man Marries Goat
BBC, 24 February, 2006–A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his “wife”, after he was caught having sex with the animal.
The goat’s owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.
They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.
“We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together,” Mr Alifi said.
Mr Alifi, of Hai Malakal in Upper Nile State, told the Juba Post newspaper that he heard a loud noise around midnight on 13 February and immediately rushed outside to find Mr Tombe with his goat.
“When I asked him: ‘What are you doing there?’, he fell off the back of the goat, so I captured and tied him up.”
Mr Alifi then called elders to decide how to deal with the case.
“They said I should not take him to the police, but rather let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife,” Mr Alifi told the newspaper.
This is what comes to mind when you think of marriage definitions? Or were you inspired by the depiction of the Midsummer Night’s Dream wedding on the Homepage?
Hey you’re right Mitch, turns out there IS more than one way to define marriage!
[Is this what comes to mind when you think of marriage definitions?]
Nah. Just thought I’d balance your kos-inspired Biblical interpretation of marriage with evidence that, left to human devices, marriage can be made to mean anything.
Cheers!
Point taken!