June 21, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
A Dubious Milestone
By BOB HERBERT
Some years ago, I wrote about a teenager named Kendra Newkirk, who was raised by her mom and had only seen her dad once in her life. Because of an emergency, Kendra and her mom had to meet the father at a particularly busy public location in Brooklyn.
Kendra had no idea what he looked like. “It was hard,” she told me. “He could have been any one of those men walking on the street. I kept asking my mother: ‘Is that him? Is that him?’ ”
I’ve been thinking about Kendra ever since Barack Obama spoke on Father’s Day about the tragic flight of so many American fathers, especially black fathers, from their children’s lives.
His comments came as the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University in Boston was compiling data that revealed a dubious milestone. In 2006, for the first time in U.S. history, a majority of all births to women under 30 — 50.4 percent — were out of wedlock. Nearly 80 percent of births among black women were out of wedlock.
By comparison, when John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960, just 6 percent of all births were to unmarried women under 30.
Since then, the percentages have risen across the ethnic spectrum. One-third of white, non-Hispanic women under 30 who gave birth in 2006 were unmarried. For Hispanics, it was 51 percent.
“Of all the rocks upon which we build our lives, we are reminded today that family is the most important,” said Senator Obama, in remarks he delivered at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago. “And we are called to recognize and honor how critical every father is to that foundation ...
“But if we are honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that too many fathers are missing — missing from too many lives and too many homes. They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”
This is not a simple matter. Obviously, fathers should care for their children. But just wagging a finger and telling them sternly to step up to their responsibilities is about as effective as hollering at the wind.
Senator Obama touched on this when he talked about the need for certain policy changes to make it easier for young men to fulfill their parental obligations — for example, offering tax incentives and job training to those making a sincere effort.
“We should be making it easier for fathers who make responsible choices and harder for those who avoid them,” he said.
But a lot more is needed. One of the main reasons out-of-wedlock births have skyrocketed in recent decades is because it has become so difficult for poor and poorly educated young men to earn enough to support a family.
There is no doubt that a lot of clowns have fathered babies when they shouldn’t have, and too many have irresponsibly taken a walk. But it’s also incredibly difficult for many of these young people to find the kind of employment that makes raising a family feasible.
The U.S. economy does not come close to providing decent employment — enough jobs — for everyone who wants to work. At the lowest end of the economic ladder the crisis in employment is reminiscent of the Great Depression in its intensity.
It is in this group of poor and educationally deprived young people that out-of-wedlock births are highest.
Andrew Sum, director of the Center for Labor Market Studies, put it this way in a research paper:
“The marriage rates of all native-born young males and young black males (22-32 years old) in the U.S. are strongly correlated with the annual earnings of these young men. The higher their annual earnings, the more likely they are to be married. Among native-born black males, those men with earnings over $60,000 were four times more likely to be married than their peers with annual earnings under $20,000.
“Unfortunately, the mean annual earnings of young men without four-year college degrees have plummeted substantially over the past 30 years, and declined again over the 2000-2007 period. Declining economic fortunes of young men without college degrees underlie the rise in out-of-wedlock child-bearing, and they are creating a new demographic nightmare for the nation.”
His words of warning echoed those I heard a few weeks ago from Walter Fields of the Community Service Society in New York. “These are the kids everyone forgets about,” he said. “It’s a huge population, and I think of it as the hidden crisis of America.”
Employment is the master key to the thriving families that Senator Obama talked about and that are supposed to be the American ideal. If we can’t achieve something close to full employment for the wider society, there is very little hope for those mired at the bottom.
Marriages
August 13, 2008
Health Benefits Inspire Rush to Marry, or Divorce
By KEVIN SACK
LAKE CHARLES, La. — It was only last February that Brandy Brady met Ricky Huggins at a Mardi Gras ball here. By April, they had decided to marry.
Ms. Brady says she loves Mr. Huggins, but she worries they are moving too fast. She questions how well they really know each other, and wants to better understand his mood swings.
But Ms. Brady, 38, also finds much to admire in Mr. Huggins, who is three years older. He strikes her as trustworthy and caring. He has a stable job as a plumber and a two-bedroom house. And perhaps above all, said Ms. Brady, who received a kidney transplant last year, “He’s got great insurance.”
More than romance, the couple readily acknowledge, it is Mr. Huggins’s Blue Cross/Blue Shield HMO policy that is driving their rush to the altar.
In a country where insurance is out of reach for many, it is not uncommon for couples to marry, or even to divorce, at least partly so one spouse can obtain or maintain health coverage.
There is no way to know how often it happens, but lawyers and patient advocacy groups say they see cases regularly.
In a poll conducted this spring by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy research group, 7 percent of adults said someone in their household had married in the past year to gain access to insurance. The foundation cautions that the number should not be taken literally, but rather as an intriguing indicator that some Americans “are making major life decisions on the basis of health care concerns.”
Stephen L. J. Hoffman, an officiant at a wedding chapel in Covington, Ky., said he was no longer shocked that one of 10 couples cite health insurance as the reason they stand before him.
“They come in and say, ‘We were going to get married anyway, but right now we really need the insurance,’ ” said Mr. Hoffman. “There may be an unplanned pregnancy, or there is an illness, or they’ve lost their job and can’t get insurance.”
Though money and matrimony have been linked since Genesis, marrying for health coverage is a more modern convention. For today’s couples, “in sickness and in health” may seem less a lover’s troth than an actuarial contract. They marry for better or worse, for richer or poorer, for co-pays and deductibles.
Bo and Dena McLain of Milford, Ohio, eloped in March so he could add her to his group policy because her nursing school required proof of insurance. Corey Marshall and Kim Wetzel, who had dated in San Francisco for four years, moved up their wedding plans by a year so she could switch to his policy after her employer raised premiums
Ms. Brady and Mr. Huggins concede that their discussions about marriage have been freighted with cost-benefit analysis.
Ms. Brady learned three years ago that she had end-stage renal disease and after two years of dialysis received the transplant in May 2007. Her medical costs remain substantial and unpredictable. The demands of dialysis forced her to give up a much-loved job as a store manager for the Body Shop, and she eventually lost her insurance.
She now receives a Social Security disability check of $1,181 a month, and spends $95 of that on premiums for Medicare, the federal health insurance program for the elderly and disabled, which insures kidney transplant patients for up to three years.
With Medicare covering only 80 percent of most charges, however, Ms. Brady still has been left with thousands of dollars in bills.
Until this spring, Ms. Brady filled the gaps with a supplemental policy bought from State Farm. In April, she received notice that the premium was more than doubling, to $2,621 a quarter, from $1,180.
“ ‘I’ve got to cancel it,’ ” Ms. Brady said she told her agent. “I’m running out of family members to pay for it.”
That is when Ms. Brady and Mr. Huggins started talking about marriage. They reasoned that if they wed, Mr. Huggins could add her at modest cost to the group policy he buys through his union. That policy, combined with Medicare, would provide full coverage.
“I told him, ‘Let’s just do it. Can we do it without family?’ ” Ms. Brady recalled. “I felt the only way I could get around this was to marry him.”
As Ms. Brady has weighed her marital doubts against her medical needs, the couple has shifted wedding dates four times, most recently to Oct. 11. Her instincts tell her to delay. But each time the bills mount, she feels pressure to act sooner rather than later.
“I love him a lot, and I want to marry him,” Ms. Brady said. “I just don’t want to be forced to marry him early for insurance purposes.”
Mr. Huggins asks only that he have enough time to invite a few family members to the ceremony.
“I know I love her,” he said, “and I know I want to spend the rest of my life with her. The reasons and how fast we do it, that’s just secondary.”
In some instances, the need for insurance may prolong unhappy marriages.
When a mammogram confirmed in April 2007 that Sherri Parish had a lump in her breast, she panicked not only because of the devastating health news, but also because she was two weeks from a court date to finalize her divorce. Across the ups and downs of a 20-year marriage, her husband, Jonathan, had insured her through his job as a construction foreman in Noblesville, Ind.
“It was a devastating time for me,” Ms. Parish said. “I wasn’t sure what was going to happen with either the prognosis or the financial side of it.”
A nurse and mother of three, Ms. Parish, 47, had had little contact with her husband since they separated a year earlier. Through lawyers, she asked Mr. Parish, 49, if he would consider a delay so she could pursue treatment. He agreed.
“He didn’t want me to be without health care coverage because I’d never had it without him,” Ms. Parish said. “He’d always been the breadwinner, and I always worked two or three days a week and raised the children.”
Other couples, like Michelle and Marion Moulton, are forced to consider divorce so that an ailing spouse can qualify for affordable insurance.
Ms. Moulton, 46, a homemaker who lives near Seattle with her husband and two children, learned three years ago that she had serious liver damage, a side effect, she believes, of drugs she was once prescribed. She is trying to get on a transplant list, but the clock is ticking; her once slender body has ballooned, and her doctors say her liver could give out at any time.
Mr. Moulton, a self-employed painting contractor, maintains a catastrophic coverage plan for his family, but its high deductibles and unpredictable reimbursements have left them $50,000 in debt. Without better coverage, a transplant could add unthinkable sums.
Two years ago, Ms. Moulton looked into buying more comprehensive coverage through the Washington State Health Insurance Pool, a state-financed program for high-risk patients. She found the premiums unaffordable, but noticed that the state offered subsidies to those with low incomes. As their debts and desperation multiplied, it occurred to Ms. Moulton that divorcing her husband of 17 years would make her eligible for the subsidized coverage.
“I felt like I had done this to us,” she said. “We had worked hard our entire lives, and if this was all the insurance we had, we could become homeless. I just said, ‘You know, we really need to sit down and talk about divorce.’ ”
Mr. Moulton would not consider it — at first. “From a male point of view, you want to be able to fix things, you want to be able to provide,” he said.
“Then you start looking at what things cost and what someone with no assets can get in terms of funding, and you have to start thinking about it.”
The conversations ebbed and flowed with the family’s financial pressures. They talked about the effect on their children and where they might live. They weighed the legal and financial risks against the prospects of bankruptcy.
The debate continued until this summer, when Mr. Moulton’s father offered financial help. “I know we don’t take charity from anyone,” Mr. Moulton told his wife, “but I’m not going to divorce you and I’m not going to let you die.”
Though grateful for the lifeline, the couple remains unsettled by how close they came.
“Nobody should have to make a choice like that,” Ms. Moulton said. “What happened to our country? I don’t remember growing up like this.”
Health Benefits Inspire Rush to Marry, or Divorce
By KEVIN SACK
LAKE CHARLES, La. — It was only last February that Brandy Brady met Ricky Huggins at a Mardi Gras ball here. By April, they had decided to marry.
Ms. Brady says she loves Mr. Huggins, but she worries they are moving too fast. She questions how well they really know each other, and wants to better understand his mood swings.
But Ms. Brady, 38, also finds much to admire in Mr. Huggins, who is three years older. He strikes her as trustworthy and caring. He has a stable job as a plumber and a two-bedroom house. And perhaps above all, said Ms. Brady, who received a kidney transplant last year, “He’s got great insurance.”
More than romance, the couple readily acknowledge, it is Mr. Huggins’s Blue Cross/Blue Shield HMO policy that is driving their rush to the altar.
In a country where insurance is out of reach for many, it is not uncommon for couples to marry, or even to divorce, at least partly so one spouse can obtain or maintain health coverage.
There is no way to know how often it happens, but lawyers and patient advocacy groups say they see cases regularly.
In a poll conducted this spring by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a health policy research group, 7 percent of adults said someone in their household had married in the past year to gain access to insurance. The foundation cautions that the number should not be taken literally, but rather as an intriguing indicator that some Americans “are making major life decisions on the basis of health care concerns.”
Stephen L. J. Hoffman, an officiant at a wedding chapel in Covington, Ky., said he was no longer shocked that one of 10 couples cite health insurance as the reason they stand before him.
“They come in and say, ‘We were going to get married anyway, but right now we really need the insurance,’ ” said Mr. Hoffman. “There may be an unplanned pregnancy, or there is an illness, or they’ve lost their job and can’t get insurance.”
Though money and matrimony have been linked since Genesis, marrying for health coverage is a more modern convention. For today’s couples, “in sickness and in health” may seem less a lover’s troth than an actuarial contract. They marry for better or worse, for richer or poorer, for co-pays and deductibles.
Bo and Dena McLain of Milford, Ohio, eloped in March so he could add her to his group policy because her nursing school required proof of insurance. Corey Marshall and Kim Wetzel, who had dated in San Francisco for four years, moved up their wedding plans by a year so she could switch to his policy after her employer raised premiums
Ms. Brady and Mr. Huggins concede that their discussions about marriage have been freighted with cost-benefit analysis.
Ms. Brady learned three years ago that she had end-stage renal disease and after two years of dialysis received the transplant in May 2007. Her medical costs remain substantial and unpredictable. The demands of dialysis forced her to give up a much-loved job as a store manager for the Body Shop, and she eventually lost her insurance.
She now receives a Social Security disability check of $1,181 a month, and spends $95 of that on premiums for Medicare, the federal health insurance program for the elderly and disabled, which insures kidney transplant patients for up to three years.
With Medicare covering only 80 percent of most charges, however, Ms. Brady still has been left with thousands of dollars in bills.
Until this spring, Ms. Brady filled the gaps with a supplemental policy bought from State Farm. In April, she received notice that the premium was more than doubling, to $2,621 a quarter, from $1,180.
“ ‘I’ve got to cancel it,’ ” Ms. Brady said she told her agent. “I’m running out of family members to pay for it.”
That is when Ms. Brady and Mr. Huggins started talking about marriage. They reasoned that if they wed, Mr. Huggins could add her at modest cost to the group policy he buys through his union. That policy, combined with Medicare, would provide full coverage.
“I told him, ‘Let’s just do it. Can we do it without family?’ ” Ms. Brady recalled. “I felt the only way I could get around this was to marry him.”
As Ms. Brady has weighed her marital doubts against her medical needs, the couple has shifted wedding dates four times, most recently to Oct. 11. Her instincts tell her to delay. But each time the bills mount, she feels pressure to act sooner rather than later.
“I love him a lot, and I want to marry him,” Ms. Brady said. “I just don’t want to be forced to marry him early for insurance purposes.”
Mr. Huggins asks only that he have enough time to invite a few family members to the ceremony.
“I know I love her,” he said, “and I know I want to spend the rest of my life with her. The reasons and how fast we do it, that’s just secondary.”
In some instances, the need for insurance may prolong unhappy marriages.
When a mammogram confirmed in April 2007 that Sherri Parish had a lump in her breast, she panicked not only because of the devastating health news, but also because she was two weeks from a court date to finalize her divorce. Across the ups and downs of a 20-year marriage, her husband, Jonathan, had insured her through his job as a construction foreman in Noblesville, Ind.
“It was a devastating time for me,” Ms. Parish said. “I wasn’t sure what was going to happen with either the prognosis or the financial side of it.”
A nurse and mother of three, Ms. Parish, 47, had had little contact with her husband since they separated a year earlier. Through lawyers, she asked Mr. Parish, 49, if he would consider a delay so she could pursue treatment. He agreed.
“He didn’t want me to be without health care coverage because I’d never had it without him,” Ms. Parish said. “He’d always been the breadwinner, and I always worked two or three days a week and raised the children.”
Other couples, like Michelle and Marion Moulton, are forced to consider divorce so that an ailing spouse can qualify for affordable insurance.
Ms. Moulton, 46, a homemaker who lives near Seattle with her husband and two children, learned three years ago that she had serious liver damage, a side effect, she believes, of drugs she was once prescribed. She is trying to get on a transplant list, but the clock is ticking; her once slender body has ballooned, and her doctors say her liver could give out at any time.
Mr. Moulton, a self-employed painting contractor, maintains a catastrophic coverage plan for his family, but its high deductibles and unpredictable reimbursements have left them $50,000 in debt. Without better coverage, a transplant could add unthinkable sums.
Two years ago, Ms. Moulton looked into buying more comprehensive coverage through the Washington State Health Insurance Pool, a state-financed program for high-risk patients. She found the premiums unaffordable, but noticed that the state offered subsidies to those with low incomes. As their debts and desperation multiplied, it occurred to Ms. Moulton that divorcing her husband of 17 years would make her eligible for the subsidized coverage.
“I felt like I had done this to us,” she said. “We had worked hard our entire lives, and if this was all the insurance we had, we could become homeless. I just said, ‘You know, we really need to sit down and talk about divorce.’ ”
Mr. Moulton would not consider it — at first. “From a male point of view, you want to be able to fix things, you want to be able to provide,” he said.
“Then you start looking at what things cost and what someone with no assets can get in terms of funding, and you have to start thinking about it.”
The conversations ebbed and flowed with the family’s financial pressures. They talked about the effect on their children and where they might live. They weighed the legal and financial risks against the prospects of bankruptcy.
The debate continued until this summer, when Mr. Moulton’s father offered financial help. “I know we don’t take charity from anyone,” Mr. Moulton told his wife, “but I’m not going to divorce you and I’m not going to let you die.”
Though grateful for the lifeline, the couple remains unsettled by how close they came.
“Nobody should have to make a choice like that,” Ms. Moulton said. “What happened to our country? I don’t remember growing up like this.”
Nigerian looks for wife No. 87
Herald News Services
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
An 84-year-old Nigerian Muslim preacher with 86 wives intends to marry more women despite an order from local Islamic chiefs to immediately divorce all but four of them, his spokesman said Monday.
Nigerian newspapers reported that Mohammed Bello, who lives in Niger state in central Nigeria with his wives, and at least 170 children, was ordered by local religious elders to divorce 82 of his wives by Sunday or leave the area.
Some newspapers said Monday he had agreed at a meeting with local officials to divorce all but four of the women and had asked for time to return them to their families. But his spokesman, Mohammed Tahir, denied there had been any such deal."He is not going to divorce any of his wives. Rather he is going to marry more."
Many Muslim scholars say Islam allows men to have up to four wives who must be treated equally.
© The Calgary Herald 2008
Herald News Services
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
An 84-year-old Nigerian Muslim preacher with 86 wives intends to marry more women despite an order from local Islamic chiefs to immediately divorce all but four of them, his spokesman said Monday.
Nigerian newspapers reported that Mohammed Bello, who lives in Niger state in central Nigeria with his wives, and at least 170 children, was ordered by local religious elders to divorce 82 of his wives by Sunday or leave the area.
Some newspapers said Monday he had agreed at a meeting with local officials to divorce all but four of the women and had asked for time to return them to their families. But his spokesman, Mohammed Tahir, denied there had been any such deal."He is not going to divorce any of his wives. Rather he is going to marry more."
Many Muslim scholars say Islam allows men to have up to four wives who must be treated equally.
© The Calgary Herald 2008
Pakistani police stop children's marriage
Reuters
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Pakistani police raided a child marriage ceremony in the city of Karachi and arrested a cleric who was presiding over the wedding of a four-year-old girl and a seven-year-old boy, police and residents said on Friday.
Pakistani law says people must be 18 to marry but some Islamic laws allow girls to marry after puberty. Despite the laws, young girls are often given away in marriage to settle disputes or pay off debts.
Police said they raided a house on Thursday evening following complaints from residents, including a former district government official who said the girl was being married off by her father for about 500,000 rupees ($6,138).
© The Calgary Herald 2008
Reuters
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Pakistani police raided a child marriage ceremony in the city of Karachi and arrested a cleric who was presiding over the wedding of a four-year-old girl and a seven-year-old boy, police and residents said on Friday.
Pakistani law says people must be 18 to marry but some Islamic laws allow girls to marry after puberty. Despite the laws, young girls are often given away in marriage to settle disputes or pay off debts.
Police said they raided a house on Thursday evening following complaints from residents, including a former district government official who said the girl was being married off by her father for about 500,000 rupees ($6,138).
© The Calgary Herald 2008
Sperm isn't everything
Calgary HeraldJanuary 18, 2009
In ruling that Pasqualino Cornelio must continue to pay child support for twins who are not his biological children, the Ontario Superior Court has rightly upheld the true meaning of fatherhood.
The case involves twin teenagers whose parentage came into doubt shortly before the Toronto-area man and his wife separated.
In spite of those doubts, Cornelio applied for joint custody. DNA tests proved he was not the twins' father, but in this case the results were rightly deemed not to be a factor in the ruling on child support.
Had Cornelio entertained doubts and gotten a DNA test when the twins were infants, his situation would be different and he should not be expected to pay child support for the next 18 years, if he had no intention of staying in the children's lives.
However, these children were teens. Cornelio treated them as his children all those years, and to them he was their dad. If the defining measure of fatherhood is merely the contribution of sperm, then the relationship between adoptive parent and adopted child is essentially nullified, as is the role a stepfather might also play in a blended family.
A dad is the man who raises the children--he sits up with them when they're feverish in the middle of the night, he goes to their hockey games, he reads them bedtime stories, helps them with their homework and all the million other things that go into being a parent.
Cornelio filled that role for the twins; their biological father was not in the picture and their mother claims she does not remember having an affair.
In a day when fatherhood has become a much-maligned institution, sneered at by those who claim the right to reconfigure the family as they see fit, and denigrated as being a mere expend-able accessory, it is heartening to see a court uphold and reinforce the authentic meaning and value of the word.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Calgary HeraldJanuary 18, 2009
In ruling that Pasqualino Cornelio must continue to pay child support for twins who are not his biological children, the Ontario Superior Court has rightly upheld the true meaning of fatherhood.
The case involves twin teenagers whose parentage came into doubt shortly before the Toronto-area man and his wife separated.
In spite of those doubts, Cornelio applied for joint custody. DNA tests proved he was not the twins' father, but in this case the results were rightly deemed not to be a factor in the ruling on child support.
Had Cornelio entertained doubts and gotten a DNA test when the twins were infants, his situation would be different and he should not be expected to pay child support for the next 18 years, if he had no intention of staying in the children's lives.
However, these children were teens. Cornelio treated them as his children all those years, and to them he was their dad. If the defining measure of fatherhood is merely the contribution of sperm, then the relationship between adoptive parent and adopted child is essentially nullified, as is the role a stepfather might also play in a blended family.
A dad is the man who raises the children--he sits up with them when they're feverish in the middle of the night, he goes to their hockey games, he reads them bedtime stories, helps them with their homework and all the million other things that go into being a parent.
Cornelio filled that role for the twins; their biological father was not in the picture and their mother claims she does not remember having an affair.
In a day when fatherhood has become a much-maligned institution, sneered at by those who claim the right to reconfigure the family as they see fit, and denigrated as being a mere expend-able accessory, it is heartening to see a court uphold and reinforce the authentic meaning and value of the word.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
When women get what they want, more likely men will too
Couples don't get together now, in hope of becoming divorced later
By Nigel Hannaford, Calgary HeraldFebruary 14, 2009
So, here it is, Valentine's Day again.
Love it. I am so a believer, even if the truth about the good saint has been misrepresented by legend and Hallmark cards all these centuries. (See our comment to the left, about praying to the wrong saint.)
Thing is, every year, lots of us on this half of the gender divide stumble around wondering what women want. As in, what they really want, not what they say they want.
Of equal concern however, is to figure out what WE want. (And, it will absolutely not be for women to be able to read men's minds, the way Mel Gibson could read women's minds in the film What Women Want.)
I raise the matter because if half of all marriages recorded end in divorce, and presumably a similar proportion of less formal unions, somebody is not getting what they want. That is, couples don't get together now, in hope of becoming divorced later. So, while a breakup may sometimes be a relief, to the extent it represents a failure between two people it must always be a disappointment.
In other words, at some point in a relationship men want it to succeed just as much as women do. Heaven knows that point can slip away faster than quarters in a Calgary parking meter, but there it is--once entered into, men want a relationship to be successful.
So, if it isn't, what's the problem? Are we trying to do with a hammer what really needs a pair of pliers? As Dr. Phil says, "How's what you're doing working for you?"
I make no pretences to being an expert here, but there are a couple of authors who have always struck me as having something useful to say affirming words, quality time, gifts, acts of service, and physical touch. His advice, find out what she wants, and do it. Life will be better. And your clue is what she herself is doing.
It should be noted of course, that even the most profound change of heart may take time to register. The story goes that a chap who read one of Chapman's books was so afflicted with remorse at the shabby way he'd been treating his wife, that he went out and bought her a huge box of chocolates, a bunch of flowers and made reservations at an expensive restaurant. Pleased as could be with himself, he walked into the house with on the battle of the sexes, and how it doesn't actually have to be quite such a battle. As us guys tend not to read self-help books, here's the 30-second synopsis, courtesy of my wife.
One writer is Gary Chapman, whose basic point is that people tend to express love the way they want to receive it, rather than the way their lover wants to receive it. That is, a man who loves gifts will tend to give great gifts, which is nice except that if what his wife really wants is his time --and she's not getting it-- she will let him know in those ways a woman will. Chapman identifies five of what he calls "love languages," those being the chocolates in one hand and the flowers in the other. His wife took one look at him, and broke down. Through her tears she grumbled, "What a day! The dishwasher's broken down, my car won't start, the twins have chickenpox, and now you come home drunk."
Anyway, the book is called The Five Love Languages.
The other one is His needs, Her needs, by Willard Harley.
The Coles Notes on this is that men and women have a completely different list.
So what does Harley think men want?
Sex. I guess we're like those little birds a York University professor has been studying that are in such a hurry to get back to Canada from the Amazon in the spring, that he's tracked them flying 271 kilometres a day, often making a risky 12-hour flight over water (the Gulf of Mexico) to advance their ETA.
Even commercial aircraft wouldn't do that on one engine: What's their hurry?Why, it's time to breed.
After that, we want a companion for recreation--we want you to watch the game with us--and only then does the matter of appearance crop up. All this based on extensive counselling research, by the way, so while individuals may differ, this is Harley's big picture. Finally, men want domestic support--dinner on the table--and admiration.
Lots of it.
Women, however, apart from wanting us to be mind-readers, want (in this order) affection, conversation, honesty, financial support and what Harley calls "family commitment." (That could mean the price of sex and all the other things may be exposure to in-laws, from time to time. Gentlemen, you will notice sex doesn't even make the top five.)
Put the books together, and a man's strategy for getting what he wants looks a lot like finding out what his girl is aching for most, and seeing to it.
And probably, more frequently than just every Feb. 14.
nhannaford@theherald.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Couples don't get together now, in hope of becoming divorced later
By Nigel Hannaford, Calgary HeraldFebruary 14, 2009
So, here it is, Valentine's Day again.
Love it. I am so a believer, even if the truth about the good saint has been misrepresented by legend and Hallmark cards all these centuries. (See our comment to the left, about praying to the wrong saint.)
Thing is, every year, lots of us on this half of the gender divide stumble around wondering what women want. As in, what they really want, not what they say they want.
Of equal concern however, is to figure out what WE want. (And, it will absolutely not be for women to be able to read men's minds, the way Mel Gibson could read women's minds in the film What Women Want.)
I raise the matter because if half of all marriages recorded end in divorce, and presumably a similar proportion of less formal unions, somebody is not getting what they want. That is, couples don't get together now, in hope of becoming divorced later. So, while a breakup may sometimes be a relief, to the extent it represents a failure between two people it must always be a disappointment.
In other words, at some point in a relationship men want it to succeed just as much as women do. Heaven knows that point can slip away faster than quarters in a Calgary parking meter, but there it is--once entered into, men want a relationship to be successful.
So, if it isn't, what's the problem? Are we trying to do with a hammer what really needs a pair of pliers? As Dr. Phil says, "How's what you're doing working for you?"
I make no pretences to being an expert here, but there are a couple of authors who have always struck me as having something useful to say affirming words, quality time, gifts, acts of service, and physical touch. His advice, find out what she wants, and do it. Life will be better. And your clue is what she herself is doing.
It should be noted of course, that even the most profound change of heart may take time to register. The story goes that a chap who read one of Chapman's books was so afflicted with remorse at the shabby way he'd been treating his wife, that he went out and bought her a huge box of chocolates, a bunch of flowers and made reservations at an expensive restaurant. Pleased as could be with himself, he walked into the house with on the battle of the sexes, and how it doesn't actually have to be quite such a battle. As us guys tend not to read self-help books, here's the 30-second synopsis, courtesy of my wife.
One writer is Gary Chapman, whose basic point is that people tend to express love the way they want to receive it, rather than the way their lover wants to receive it. That is, a man who loves gifts will tend to give great gifts, which is nice except that if what his wife really wants is his time --and she's not getting it-- she will let him know in those ways a woman will. Chapman identifies five of what he calls "love languages," those being the chocolates in one hand and the flowers in the other. His wife took one look at him, and broke down. Through her tears she grumbled, "What a day! The dishwasher's broken down, my car won't start, the twins have chickenpox, and now you come home drunk."
Anyway, the book is called The Five Love Languages.
The other one is His needs, Her needs, by Willard Harley.
The Coles Notes on this is that men and women have a completely different list.
So what does Harley think men want?
Sex. I guess we're like those little birds a York University professor has been studying that are in such a hurry to get back to Canada from the Amazon in the spring, that he's tracked them flying 271 kilometres a day, often making a risky 12-hour flight over water (the Gulf of Mexico) to advance their ETA.
Even commercial aircraft wouldn't do that on one engine: What's their hurry?Why, it's time to breed.
After that, we want a companion for recreation--we want you to watch the game with us--and only then does the matter of appearance crop up. All this based on extensive counselling research, by the way, so while individuals may differ, this is Harley's big picture. Finally, men want domestic support--dinner on the table--and admiration.
Lots of it.
Women, however, apart from wanting us to be mind-readers, want (in this order) affection, conversation, honesty, financial support and what Harley calls "family commitment." (That could mean the price of sex and all the other things may be exposure to in-laws, from time to time. Gentlemen, you will notice sex doesn't even make the top five.)
Put the books together, and a man's strategy for getting what he wants looks a lot like finding out what his girl is aching for most, and seeing to it.
And probably, more frequently than just every Feb. 14.
nhannaford@theherald.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
Marriage much more than stars in eyes
By Graeme Morton, Calgary HeraldFebruary 15, 2009
After almost 50 years, Jennifer Pendergast still thinks of her marriage to husband Barry as a work in progress.
"It's been a blessing, a wonderful experience, but we still work on it every day. We are different people than we were when we got married all those years ago," says Jennifer.
Yesterday being St. Valentine's Day, love lay thick in the air in Calgary. Longtime couples wined and dined amid sentimental cards and bouquets of roses while scores of marriage proposals were stammered out by nervous men on bended knees.
For those 24 hours, love seemed so elementary, my dear Watson.
But today, and for all the other days of the year, this love and marriage stuff can be amazingly complex, bewildering, frustrating and all too often end in stony silence, shared stagnation or even separation.
That's where the Pendergasts come in. They are Calgary-area advisers for The Marriage Course and its counterpart, The Marriage Preparation Course, and lead the programs at their home church, Richmond Hill Baptist, 7251 Sierra Morena Blvd. S. W.
A number of Calgary congregations have hosted the courses this winter. New sessions of both programs start next Sunday, Feb. 22, at Richmond Hill Baptist.
These marriage courses were developed at Holy Trinity Church in London, which spawned the popular Alpha program that offers an introduction to Christian beliefs and practices.
"We start each session with the participants sharing dinner together and then, like Alpha, there is a video presentation on the night's particular topic," says Jennifer.
Couples are supplied with a workbook and adjourn to individual tables to talk candidly about their own experiences and feelings. There are no "public sharing" moments which Jennifer says can become an uncomfortable ordeal.
Jennifer notes that while there is an unabashed, non-denominational, spiritual grounding to both courses--an understanding that God is at the centre of each marriage--the content is not meant to act as a religious conversion tool.
"During one session, couples are asked to pray for each other, but there is an option just to talk if you feel more comfortable that way," says Jennifer. "In our exit surveys, we have never had anyone say they felt there was too much religious content."
Barry notes that some couples are initially reluctant to take the course because they view it as an admission that their relationship isn't ideal.
"But there is no perfect marriage," he says. "We take our cars in for regular maintenance. We get regular checkups on our teeth. So why would we think our marriage wouldn't benefit from working together on it?"
Topics covered by both courses include the foundations of marriage, conflict resolution, the variety of "love languages," good sex, dealing with parents and in-laws and those two cornerstones to any successful marriage--communicating well and embracing the power to forgive.
"That ability, or lack of it, to really talk with each other is the main reason that marriages succeed or collapse. I'm married to a man who talks, and that's pretty rare. Communications skills are not stressed often enough, especially for males," says Jennifer.
"The session dealing with forgiveness is invariably one of the most powerful in the course," she adds.
"If you can deal effectively with issues and problems that come up, and then move on instead of letting them fester, that's a valuable tool to have. And forgiveness is a pillar of the Christian message."
The Marriage Course runs seven Sundays while the Marriage Preparation Course covers five weeks. At Richmond Hill Baptist, participants in both courses share meals, then divide into separate units.
"We've found the marriage preparation course is useful not just for young couples starting out, but for people marrying for a second time or who've been living together for an extended period," says Jennifer.
With the Canadian divorce rate stubbornly running in the 40 per cent range, people of faith seem no more immune to marital difficulties than those in the strictly secular world.
Both Barry and Jennifer think more Calgary churches need to offer marriage ministries in their programming. They have acted as resource people for a number of local congregations.
"Issues and problems with marriage are certainly out there in our city. We ignore them at our collective peril. We want people in churches to be proactive and do the preventive work to help their couples before they reach a point of crisis," says Jennifer.
Jennifer says The Marriage Course format is flexible enough that it can be held in private homes or other venues for smaller congregations. While the meals aren't mandatory, they are a superb opportunity for fellowship.
The Pendergasts will celebrate their 50th anniversary on Oct. 31. It seems only fair they share the secret to their marital happiness.
"If you have a healthy, happy relationship with your spouse, everything else--the kids, the career--can fall into place," says Jennifer. "And we've both got a good Monty Python/English sense of humour. We can be arguing about something and then we'll burst into laughter and say, 'This is ridiculous.' "
Barry stresses that no matter how busy couples are, they need to set aside regular times that are just for them.
"Jennifer and I still have fun together," he says. "We enjoy each other's company, which is pretty special."
Information on the course content is available at www.themarriagecourse.ca. Details and registration for the Richmond Hill Baptist courses are available by calling 403-281-4876 or at barrypendergast@shaw.ca.
gmorton@theherald.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
By Graeme Morton, Calgary HeraldFebruary 15, 2009
After almost 50 years, Jennifer Pendergast still thinks of her marriage to husband Barry as a work in progress.
"It's been a blessing, a wonderful experience, but we still work on it every day. We are different people than we were when we got married all those years ago," says Jennifer.
Yesterday being St. Valentine's Day, love lay thick in the air in Calgary. Longtime couples wined and dined amid sentimental cards and bouquets of roses while scores of marriage proposals were stammered out by nervous men on bended knees.
For those 24 hours, love seemed so elementary, my dear Watson.
But today, and for all the other days of the year, this love and marriage stuff can be amazingly complex, bewildering, frustrating and all too often end in stony silence, shared stagnation or even separation.
That's where the Pendergasts come in. They are Calgary-area advisers for The Marriage Course and its counterpart, The Marriage Preparation Course, and lead the programs at their home church, Richmond Hill Baptist, 7251 Sierra Morena Blvd. S. W.
A number of Calgary congregations have hosted the courses this winter. New sessions of both programs start next Sunday, Feb. 22, at Richmond Hill Baptist.
These marriage courses were developed at Holy Trinity Church in London, which spawned the popular Alpha program that offers an introduction to Christian beliefs and practices.
"We start each session with the participants sharing dinner together and then, like Alpha, there is a video presentation on the night's particular topic," says Jennifer.
Couples are supplied with a workbook and adjourn to individual tables to talk candidly about their own experiences and feelings. There are no "public sharing" moments which Jennifer says can become an uncomfortable ordeal.
Jennifer notes that while there is an unabashed, non-denominational, spiritual grounding to both courses--an understanding that God is at the centre of each marriage--the content is not meant to act as a religious conversion tool.
"During one session, couples are asked to pray for each other, but there is an option just to talk if you feel more comfortable that way," says Jennifer. "In our exit surveys, we have never had anyone say they felt there was too much religious content."
Barry notes that some couples are initially reluctant to take the course because they view it as an admission that their relationship isn't ideal.
"But there is no perfect marriage," he says. "We take our cars in for regular maintenance. We get regular checkups on our teeth. So why would we think our marriage wouldn't benefit from working together on it?"
Topics covered by both courses include the foundations of marriage, conflict resolution, the variety of "love languages," good sex, dealing with parents and in-laws and those two cornerstones to any successful marriage--communicating well and embracing the power to forgive.
"That ability, or lack of it, to really talk with each other is the main reason that marriages succeed or collapse. I'm married to a man who talks, and that's pretty rare. Communications skills are not stressed often enough, especially for males," says Jennifer.
"The session dealing with forgiveness is invariably one of the most powerful in the course," she adds.
"If you can deal effectively with issues and problems that come up, and then move on instead of letting them fester, that's a valuable tool to have. And forgiveness is a pillar of the Christian message."
The Marriage Course runs seven Sundays while the Marriage Preparation Course covers five weeks. At Richmond Hill Baptist, participants in both courses share meals, then divide into separate units.
"We've found the marriage preparation course is useful not just for young couples starting out, but for people marrying for a second time or who've been living together for an extended period," says Jennifer.
With the Canadian divorce rate stubbornly running in the 40 per cent range, people of faith seem no more immune to marital difficulties than those in the strictly secular world.
Both Barry and Jennifer think more Calgary churches need to offer marriage ministries in their programming. They have acted as resource people for a number of local congregations.
"Issues and problems with marriage are certainly out there in our city. We ignore them at our collective peril. We want people in churches to be proactive and do the preventive work to help their couples before they reach a point of crisis," says Jennifer.
Jennifer says The Marriage Course format is flexible enough that it can be held in private homes or other venues for smaller congregations. While the meals aren't mandatory, they are a superb opportunity for fellowship.
The Pendergasts will celebrate their 50th anniversary on Oct. 31. It seems only fair they share the secret to their marital happiness.
"If you have a healthy, happy relationship with your spouse, everything else--the kids, the career--can fall into place," says Jennifer. "And we've both got a good Monty Python/English sense of humour. We can be arguing about something and then we'll burst into laughter and say, 'This is ridiculous.' "
Barry stresses that no matter how busy couples are, they need to set aside regular times that are just for them.
"Jennifer and I still have fun together," he says. "We enjoy each other's company, which is pretty special."
Information on the course content is available at www.themarriagecourse.ca. Details and registration for the Richmond Hill Baptist courses are available by calling 403-281-4876 or at barrypendergast@shaw.ca.
gmorton@theherald.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
-
Anion.Xenon
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:46 am
I Em In Love With A Girl Likeas See Also Is.
But The Prob Preceding Is That SHe Is Ismaili And I Aint.
And According To Her We Cant Marry.. Rather Her Father Wont Allow Us Both To, AS A Matter Of Respect For Her Family In Society.
But AS Far As I Have ..Searched...!! Have Got Up To This..!!
In Ismailism, marriage is a civil contract. Of course there are blessings given but it still remain a contract.
There is no religious requirement, therefore a marriage is allowed between an Ismaili and a non-ismaili.
This has been confirmed in the Memoirs of Mowlana Sultan Muhammad Shah as well in several interview of Hazar Imam.
LBC: And is that why you have two weddings: The civil wedding and the religious wedding?
AK: No, no, no. That is a form, but in fact marriage is not sacred in Islam. It is a contract between a man and a woman.
..Agha..Khan..Said In Alppo, Syria..8 November 2001
Marrying a non-muslim is in no way going against your faith.. Now that religion is out of the question, Different faiths no barrier to marriage...
But Still...!! WHY :@!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accoring to Quran a Muslim Can marry any in ahl-e-kitab [Cristians, Jews, Muslims.etc] Then If Ismailis are muslims, Why cant they marry a ahl-e-kitab.
and even if Hazrat Ali was appointed by Hazrat Muhammad (p.b.u.h), it was only to guide the people by giving reference from the Quran...! not to change it! no one had the authority to change Quran not even Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h).....
****From Memoirs of Aga Khan
"As a good muslim I have never asked a christian to change her religion in order to marry Me, for the Islamic belief is that christians and jews and according to some tenets, zoroastrians and reformed hindu unitarians may marry muslims and retain their own religion"****
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can marry an Ismaili regardless of what religion you are from. You can keep your faith and marry and Ismaili, but of course if you believe in your heart that you want to become Ismaili you can convert.
In Islam marriage is not a religious act as fr example in Christianity, it is a social contract. Therefore an Ismaili can marry outside his religion, even to non-Muslim.
Hope this clears the misunderstanding.
The Administrator of ISMAILI.NET
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marrying out of Ismaili community is considered as disgrace to the community.... ppl rebel against the person who has any interest outside the community in some other comunity.... such people are not considered true followers of Agha Khan but in fact if u realize being a true follower of Agha Khan's teachings is not really a big issue but yeah if ur true to the teachings of Allah, i.e. Quran... then u wont be having any problems....
if Princess Zahrah (pRince Karim's daighter) can get married to a practicing christian, then y not an 'ordinary' Ismaili? no Ismaili has got the guts to raise this issue... Y? becoz ur not allowed to talk against the heritage, but follow the excuses that are laid down in case of any failure on part of ur leader.... he is a human being like all of us, nuthing special, he fails too...
Ismailism does not prohibit intercast marriages
On the contrary, the decision to marry, whether within the Ismaili community or outside it, is in fact a matter of personal choic( or cultural or family preference). What is important however, is for both the Ismaili and Non-Ismaili spouse to decide as to which or whose relegion should their children owe allegiance to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is marrying in another place instead of Jamat-Khana is nafarmani? What does Hazar Imam say in his farmans?
And if we do fall in love with a non-Ismaili, which is not even that unlikely if you are living in a country with very few Ismaili's, if you cannot marry in Jamatkhana? You can even better marry for instance in church. At least then you are married in the eyes of God.
_________________________________________________________
Still Cannot We Marry, I Live In Pakistan Here Societies ARE Undeveloped She Says... And They Are Unaware..!! Thus Her Father Wont Allow.
We HAve Been In Love Since Long 3 Years...Now It Seems To Us Both Impossible Survive...
We Cannot Run Away We Both Love Our Parents More... Than Eachother...
If We Dont We Should.. Its A Child's Responsibility..!!
Also Neither Of Us Intends To Change Our Religions, Cause I Love My Lord More Than Her And She Does Hers Prehaps Its The Same One. But Still Comes The Family Respect In Society If We Change Our Religions.
I Respect Ismailiism, I Respect Every Of Their Aspects.. Infact I Spend Most Of My Time In Her Society.. I Have Many Of My Friends Who ARe Ismaili...!! And She Does Respect My Islam Beliefs.
And One More Thing I Agreed To Change My Sect.. When I Am Something On My Own Self, [A GENETIC ENGINEER] And Dont HAve To Look Forward To My Parents To Feed Me Up. But I Then Came To Know That Its Only Allowed When Whole Family Of Marrying Person Coverts.. Thats So Hurting... I Mean How Could! Huh.. When Imam Agha Khan Does Not Makes Any One Convert While Marrying [****2nd Section This Post] How Could His Followers Do, Not The Person But Whole Family.
Still More, Well Childs' Faith Questions... !
AnSwer Goes It Depends On To Them What To Choose. No Enforcements.
Still Her Father Wont Allow Huh..!! And She Says She Will marry Where Her Father Wud Want Her To..!!
guyx I LoVe Her AloT.. PLease Could 'Ne One Let Me Outa Despair..!!
I Cant Even Think For Spending My Whole LyF.. WidOut Her..!! Please...!! Help..!! Itx Ben A Month We Meet.. We Cry... Silent.. And Leave..! :@ We Have Broken Up Now... As There Aint Ne Future To This Relation..!!
I Wish That This desperation Wudnt End With A Suicide. Or Maybe Another Following.
Thanks!
But The Prob Preceding Is That SHe Is Ismaili And I Aint.
And According To Her We Cant Marry.. Rather Her Father Wont Allow Us Both To, AS A Matter Of Respect For Her Family In Society.
But AS Far As I Have ..Searched...!! Have Got Up To This..!!
In Ismailism, marriage is a civil contract. Of course there are blessings given but it still remain a contract.
There is no religious requirement, therefore a marriage is allowed between an Ismaili and a non-ismaili.
This has been confirmed in the Memoirs of Mowlana Sultan Muhammad Shah as well in several interview of Hazar Imam.
LBC: And is that why you have two weddings: The civil wedding and the religious wedding?
AK: No, no, no. That is a form, but in fact marriage is not sacred in Islam. It is a contract between a man and a woman.
..Agha..Khan..Said In Alppo, Syria..8 November 2001
Marrying a non-muslim is in no way going against your faith.. Now that religion is out of the question, Different faiths no barrier to marriage...
But Still...!! WHY :@!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accoring to Quran a Muslim Can marry any in ahl-e-kitab [Cristians, Jews, Muslims.etc] Then If Ismailis are muslims, Why cant they marry a ahl-e-kitab.
and even if Hazrat Ali was appointed by Hazrat Muhammad (p.b.u.h), it was only to guide the people by giving reference from the Quran...! not to change it! no one had the authority to change Quran not even Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h).....
****From Memoirs of Aga Khan
"As a good muslim I have never asked a christian to change her religion in order to marry Me, for the Islamic belief is that christians and jews and according to some tenets, zoroastrians and reformed hindu unitarians may marry muslims and retain their own religion"****
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can marry an Ismaili regardless of what religion you are from. You can keep your faith and marry and Ismaili, but of course if you believe in your heart that you want to become Ismaili you can convert.
In Islam marriage is not a religious act as fr example in Christianity, it is a social contract. Therefore an Ismaili can marry outside his religion, even to non-Muslim.
Hope this clears the misunderstanding.
The Administrator of ISMAILI.NET
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marrying out of Ismaili community is considered as disgrace to the community.... ppl rebel against the person who has any interest outside the community in some other comunity.... such people are not considered true followers of Agha Khan but in fact if u realize being a true follower of Agha Khan's teachings is not really a big issue but yeah if ur true to the teachings of Allah, i.e. Quran... then u wont be having any problems....
if Princess Zahrah (pRince Karim's daighter) can get married to a practicing christian, then y not an 'ordinary' Ismaili? no Ismaili has got the guts to raise this issue... Y? becoz ur not allowed to talk against the heritage, but follow the excuses that are laid down in case of any failure on part of ur leader.... he is a human being like all of us, nuthing special, he fails too...
Ismailism does not prohibit intercast marriages
On the contrary, the decision to marry, whether within the Ismaili community or outside it, is in fact a matter of personal choic( or cultural or family preference). What is important however, is for both the Ismaili and Non-Ismaili spouse to decide as to which or whose relegion should their children owe allegiance to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is marrying in another place instead of Jamat-Khana is nafarmani? What does Hazar Imam say in his farmans?
And if we do fall in love with a non-Ismaili, which is not even that unlikely if you are living in a country with very few Ismaili's, if you cannot marry in Jamatkhana? You can even better marry for instance in church. At least then you are married in the eyes of God.
_________________________________________________________
Still Cannot We Marry, I Live In Pakistan Here Societies ARE Undeveloped She Says... And They Are Unaware..!! Thus Her Father Wont Allow.
We HAve Been In Love Since Long 3 Years...Now It Seems To Us Both Impossible Survive...
We Cannot Run Away We Both Love Our Parents More... Than Eachother...
If We Dont We Should.. Its A Child's Responsibility..!!
Also Neither Of Us Intends To Change Our Religions, Cause I Love My Lord More Than Her And She Does Hers Prehaps Its The Same One. But Still Comes The Family Respect In Society If We Change Our Religions.
I Respect Ismailiism, I Respect Every Of Their Aspects.. Infact I Spend Most Of My Time In Her Society.. I Have Many Of My Friends Who ARe Ismaili...!! And She Does Respect My Islam Beliefs.
And One More Thing I Agreed To Change My Sect.. When I Am Something On My Own Self, [A GENETIC ENGINEER] And Dont HAve To Look Forward To My Parents To Feed Me Up. But I Then Came To Know That Its Only Allowed When Whole Family Of Marrying Person Coverts.. Thats So Hurting... I Mean How Could! Huh.. When Imam Agha Khan Does Not Makes Any One Convert While Marrying [****2nd Section This Post] How Could His Followers Do, Not The Person But Whole Family.
Still More, Well Childs' Faith Questions... !
AnSwer Goes It Depends On To Them What To Choose. No Enforcements.
Still Her Father Wont Allow Huh..!! And She Says She Will marry Where Her Father Wud Want Her To..!!
guyx I LoVe Her AloT.. PLease Could 'Ne One Let Me Outa Despair..!!
I Cant Even Think For Spending My Whole LyF.. WidOut Her..!! Please...!! Help..!! Itx Ben A Month We Meet.. We Cry... Silent.. And Leave..! :@ We Have Broken Up Now... As There Aint Ne Future To This Relation..!!
I Wish That This desperation Wudnt End With A Suicide. Or Maybe Another Following.
Thanks!
For someone that is a genetic engineer, you seem to lack the basics of the english language!Anion.Xenon wrote:I Em In Love With A Girl Likeas See Also Is.
But The Prob Preceding Is That SHe Is Ismaili And I Aint.
And According To Her We Cant Marry.. Rather Her Father Wont Allow Us Both To, AS A Matter Of Respect For Her Family In Society.
But AS Far As I Have ..Searched...!! Have Got Up To This..!!
In Ismailism, marriage is a civil contract. Of course there are blessings given but it still remain a contract.
There is no religious requirement, therefore a marriage is allowed between an Ismaili and a non-ismaili.
This has been confirmed in the Memoirs of Mowlana Sultan Muhammad Shah as well in several interview of Hazar Imam.
LBC: And is that why you have two weddings: The civil wedding and the religious wedding?
AK: No, no, no. That is a form, but in fact marriage is not sacred in Islam. It is a contract between a man and a woman.
..Agha..Khan..Said In Alppo, Syria..8 November 2001
Marrying a non-muslim is in no way going against your faith.. Now that religion is out of the question, Different faiths no barrier to marriage...
But Still...!! WHY :@!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accoring to Quran a Muslim Can marry any in ahl-e-kitab [Cristians, Jews, Muslims.etc] Then If Ismailis are muslims, Why cant they marry a ahl-e-kitab.
and even if Hazrat Ali was appointed by Hazrat Muhammad (p.b.u.h), it was only to guide the people by giving reference from the Quran...! not to change it! no one had the authority to change Quran not even Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h).....
****From Memoirs of Aga Khan
"As a good muslim I have never asked a christian to change her religion in order to marry Me, for the Islamic belief is that christians and jews and according to some tenets, zoroastrians and reformed hindu unitarians may marry muslims and retain their own religion"****
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can marry an Ismaili regardless of what religion you are from. You can keep your faith and marry and Ismaili, but of course if you believe in your heart that you want to become Ismaili you can convert.
In Islam marriage is not a religious act as fr example in Christianity, it is a social contract. Therefore an Ismaili can marry outside his religion, even to non-Muslim.
Hope this clears the misunderstanding.
The Administrator of ISMAILI.NET
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marrying out of Ismaili community is considered as disgrace to the community.... ppl rebel against the person who has any interest outside the community in some other comunity.... such people are not considered true followers of Agha Khan but in fact if u realize being a true follower of Agha Khan's teachings is not really a big issue but yeah if ur true to the teachings of Allah, i.e. Quran... then u wont be having any problems....
if Princess Zahrah (pRince Karim's daighter) can get married to a practicing christian, then y not an 'ordinary' Ismaili? no Ismaili has got the guts to raise this issue... Y? becoz ur not allowed to talk against the heritage, but follow the excuses that are laid down in case of any failure on part of ur leader.... he is a human being like all of us, nuthing special, he fails too...
Ismailism does not prohibit intercast marriages
On the contrary, the decision to marry, whether within the Ismaili community or outside it, is in fact a matter of personal choic( or cultural or family preference). What is important however, is for both the Ismaili and Non-Ismaili spouse to decide as to which or whose relegion should their children owe allegiance to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is marrying in another place instead of Jamat-Khana is nafarmani? What does Hazar Imam say in his farmans?
And if we do fall in love with a non-Ismaili, which is not even that unlikely if you are living in a country with very few Ismaili's, if you cannot marry in Jamatkhana? You can even better marry for instance in church. At least then you are married in the eyes of God.
_________________________________________________________
Still Cannot We Marry, I Live In Pakistan Here Societies ARE Undeveloped She Says... And They Are Unaware..!! Thus Her Father Wont Allow.
We HAve Been In Love Since Long 3 Years...Now It Seems To Us Both Impossible Survive...
We Cannot Run Away We Both Love Our Parents More... Than Eachother...
If We Dont We Should.. Its A Child's Responsibility..!!
Also Neither Of Us Intends To Change Our Religions, Cause I Love My Lord More Than Her And She Does Hers Prehaps Its The Same One. But Still Comes The Family Respect In Society If We Change Our Religions.
I Respect Ismailiism, I Respect Every Of Their Aspects.. Infact I Spend Most Of My Time In Her Society.. I Have Many Of My Friends Who ARe Ismaili...!! And She Does Respect My Islam Beliefs.
And One More Thing I Agreed To Change My Sect.. When I Am Something On My Own Self, [A GENETIC ENGINEER] And Dont HAve To Look Forward To My Parents To Feed Me Up. But I Then Came To Know That Its Only Allowed When Whole Family Of Marrying Person Coverts.. Thats So Hurting... I Mean How Could! Huh.. When Imam Agha Khan Does Not Makes Any One Convert While Marrying [****2nd Section This Post] How Could His Followers Do, Not The Person But Whole Family.
Still More, Well Childs' Faith Questions... !
AnSwer Goes It Depends On To Them What To Choose. No Enforcements.
Still Her Father Wont Allow Huh..!! And She Says She Will marry Where Her Father Wud Want Her To..!!
guyx I LoVe Her AloT.. PLease Could 'Ne One Let Me Outa Despair..!!
I Cant Even Think For Spending My Whole LyF.. WidOut Her..!! Please...!! Help..!! Itx Ben A Month We Meet.. We Cry... Silent.. And Leave..! :@ We Have Broken Up Now... As There Aint Ne Future To This Relation..!!
I Wish That This desperation Wudnt End With A Suicide. Or Maybe Another Following.
Thanks!
Shams
-
Anion.Xenon
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:46 am
Hmm
Maybe None Ov Yew Have Eva BeeN In Love..!!
N' Shams.. It Seems To Me Lyk.. Yew Lack A Bit Maybe Much Of Eng Comprehension Skills... Ive Stated Tht I WOULD Be A Genetist.. , Instead Ov What Yew Have Made To Yewr EyeBalls That "I AM"...!
Sorry Sis-PEACE!-
Da Other Chum..
There Are Many Fishes But Maybe Em In Love With Just Single Whox Ma Whole Pond, And When Yewr Pond Iz No More Could You Survive? And Dear It Aint Necessary Tht The Person Yew Decide To Be With Shud Be Perfect In All Aspects Yew Want Him/Her To, All It Depends On Is How Much Yewr Love Iz Perfect.
If Any Would Be Way Of LiL Help That'd Be Much Appreciable..!!
Anyway Thanks!
N' Shams.. It Seems To Me Lyk.. Yew Lack A Bit Maybe Much Of Eng Comprehension Skills... Ive Stated Tht I WOULD Be A Genetist.. , Instead Ov What Yew Have Made To Yewr EyeBalls That "I AM"...!
Sorry Sis-PEACE!-
Da Other Chum..
There Are Many Fishes But Maybe Em In Love With Just Single Whox Ma Whole Pond, And When Yewr Pond Iz No More Could You Survive? And Dear It Aint Necessary Tht The Person Yew Decide To Be With Shud Be Perfect In All Aspects Yew Want Him/Her To, All It Depends On Is How Much Yewr Love Iz Perfect.
If Any Would Be Way Of LiL Help That'd Be Much Appreciable..!!
Anyway Thanks!
Re: Hmm
Your essential problem is that you have terrible e-Handwriting and no one can understand your question.Anion.Xenon wrote:(a lot of illegible things
Try again. Use spellchecker. Don't capitalise all words. Use standard English, because some of us are not whatever (apparently some kind of British?) you are and don't understand your often phonetic spellings and highly idiosyncratic use of metaphor.
-
Anion.Xenon
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:46 am
Then I Am Much Sorry.. Well here is an standard english one.
I and ismaili girl both are in love.. we are of same ages.
and according to her and my other ismaili friends we cannot marry, as it is not allowed, also her father will not allow us both to marry, as it is a matter of respect in society.
but as far i have searched i have got this.
1)In Ismailism, marriage is a civil contract. Of course there are blessings given but it still remain a contract.
There is no religious requirement, therefore a marriage is allowed between an Ismaili and a non-ismaili.
This has been confirmed in the Memoirs of Mowlana Sultan Muhammad Shah as well in several interview of Hazar Imam.
2)
LBC: And is that why you have two weddings: The civil wedding and the religious wedding?
AK: No, no, no. That is a form, but in fact marriage is not sacred in Islam. It is a contract between a man and a woman.
...........Agha..Khan..Said In Alppo, Syria..8 November 2001..........
Marrying a non-muslim is in no way going against your faith.. Now that religion is out of the question, Different faiths no barrier to marriage...
But Still...!! why ismaili fathers dont allow their daughters especially to marry a non-ismaili...?
4)Accoring to Quran a Muslim Can marry any in ahl-e-kitab [Cristians, Jews, Muslims.etc] Then If Ismailis are muslims, Why cant they marry a ahl-e-kitab.
and even if Hazrat Ali was appointed by Hazrat Muhammad (p.b.u.h), it was only to guide the people by giving reference from the Quran...! not to change it! no one had the authority to change Quran not even Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h).....
****From Memoirs of Aga Khan
"As a good muslim I have never asked a christian to change her religion in order to marry Me, for the Islamic belief is that christians and jews and according to some tenets, zoroastrians and reformed hindu unitarians may marry muslims and retain their own religion"****
5)You can marry an Ismaili regardless of what religion you are from. You can keep your faith and marry and Ismaili, but of course if you believe in your heart that you want to become Ismaili you can convert.
In Islam marriage is not a religious act as fr example in Christianity, it is a social contract. Therefore an Ismaili can marry outside his religion, even to non-Muslim.
The Administrator of ISMAILI.NET
.......!!............................................!
6)Marrying out of Ismaili community is considered as disgrace to the community.... ppl rebel against the person who has any interest outside the community in some other comunity..... Why It Is So..!!?
Princess Zahrah (pRince Karim's daighter) can get married to a practicing christian, then why not an 'ordinary' Ismaili? no Ismaili has got the guts to raise this issue... Y? becoz ur not allowed to talk against the heritage, but follow the excuses that are laid down in case of any failure on part of ur leader.... he is a human being like all of us, nuthing special, he fails too...
Ismailism does not prohibit intercast marriages
On the contrary, the decision to marry, whether within the Ismaili community or outside it, is in fact a matter of personal choic( or cultural or family preference). What is important however, is for both the Ismaili and Non-Ismaili spouse to decide as to which or whose relegion should their children owe allegiance to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Why is marrying in another place instead of Jamat-Khana is nafarmani? What does Hazar Imam say in his farmans?
And if we do fall in love with a non-Ismaili, which is not even that unlikely if you are living in a country with very few Ismaili's, if you cannot marry in Jamatkhana? You can even better marry for instance in church. At least then you are married in the eyes of God.
....!! Still all of this above yew ismaili father dont allow.. huh!
we have been in love since long 3 years. [time doesnt even matter but intensity does]
We both dont want to run away from our society and relations and marry, because we love our parents more [if even not..we should]
and cannot change our religions. but i do respect ismailism and their beliefs, and she also does respect my traditional sunni islamic beliefs.
and one thing more at last i agreed to change my sect.. when i get into a profession, and dont have to look forward to my parents for money.
But then i came to know that the person who wants to marry an ismaili has to get his/her whole family converted ... i mean thats so sick.. when even your imam disallows that.
and the last remaining are offsprings faith questions.. so here i answer that they may choose waht they like to... no enforcements, but still if my girl wants.. they would be ismaili.. still cannot i.. huh!
please guys could any one tell me why these fathers dont allow.. and any way could i be able marrying her..?
i love her alot.. please could anyone let me out of this deperation.
all we have got are tears and nothing else, please help, i have got much less time, please, i love her soo soo much more.
and according to her and my other ismaili friends we cannot marry, as it is not allowed, also her father will not allow us both to marry, as it is a matter of respect in society.
but as far i have searched i have got this.
1)In Ismailism, marriage is a civil contract. Of course there are blessings given but it still remain a contract.
There is no religious requirement, therefore a marriage is allowed between an Ismaili and a non-ismaili.
This has been confirmed in the Memoirs of Mowlana Sultan Muhammad Shah as well in several interview of Hazar Imam.
2)
LBC: And is that why you have two weddings: The civil wedding and the religious wedding?
AK: No, no, no. That is a form, but in fact marriage is not sacred in Islam. It is a contract between a man and a woman.
...........Agha..Khan..Said In Alppo, Syria..8 November 2001..........
Marrying a non-muslim is in no way going against your faith.. Now that religion is out of the question, Different faiths no barrier to marriage...
But Still...!! why ismaili fathers dont allow their daughters especially to marry a non-ismaili...?
4)Accoring to Quran a Muslim Can marry any in ahl-e-kitab [Cristians, Jews, Muslims.etc] Then If Ismailis are muslims, Why cant they marry a ahl-e-kitab.
and even if Hazrat Ali was appointed by Hazrat Muhammad (p.b.u.h), it was only to guide the people by giving reference from the Quran...! not to change it! no one had the authority to change Quran not even Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h).....
****From Memoirs of Aga Khan
"As a good muslim I have never asked a christian to change her religion in order to marry Me, for the Islamic belief is that christians and jews and according to some tenets, zoroastrians and reformed hindu unitarians may marry muslims and retain their own religion"****
5)You can marry an Ismaili regardless of what religion you are from. You can keep your faith and marry and Ismaili, but of course if you believe in your heart that you want to become Ismaili you can convert.
In Islam marriage is not a religious act as fr example in Christianity, it is a social contract. Therefore an Ismaili can marry outside his religion, even to non-Muslim.
The Administrator of ISMAILI.NET
.......!!............................................!
6)Marrying out of Ismaili community is considered as disgrace to the community.... ppl rebel against the person who has any interest outside the community in some other comunity..... Why It Is So..!!?
Princess Zahrah (pRince Karim's daighter) can get married to a practicing christian, then why not an 'ordinary' Ismaili? no Ismaili has got the guts to raise this issue... Y? becoz ur not allowed to talk against the heritage, but follow the excuses that are laid down in case of any failure on part of ur leader.... he is a human being like all of us, nuthing special, he fails too...
Ismailism does not prohibit intercast marriages
On the contrary, the decision to marry, whether within the Ismaili community or outside it, is in fact a matter of personal choic( or cultural or family preference). What is important however, is for both the Ismaili and Non-Ismaili spouse to decide as to which or whose relegion should their children owe allegiance to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7)Why is marrying in another place instead of Jamat-Khana is nafarmani? What does Hazar Imam say in his farmans?
And if we do fall in love with a non-Ismaili, which is not even that unlikely if you are living in a country with very few Ismaili's, if you cannot marry in Jamatkhana? You can even better marry for instance in church. At least then you are married in the eyes of God.
....!! Still all of this above yew ismaili father dont allow.. huh!
we have been in love since long 3 years. [time doesnt even matter but intensity does]
We both dont want to run away from our society and relations and marry, because we love our parents more [if even not..we should]
and cannot change our religions. but i do respect ismailism and their beliefs, and she also does respect my traditional sunni islamic beliefs.
and one thing more at last i agreed to change my sect.. when i get into a profession, and dont have to look forward to my parents for money.
But then i came to know that the person who wants to marry an ismaili has to get his/her whole family converted ... i mean thats so sick.. when even your imam disallows that.
and the last remaining are offsprings faith questions.. so here i answer that they may choose waht they like to... no enforcements, but still if my girl wants.. they would be ismaili.. still cannot i.. huh!
please guys could any one tell me why these fathers dont allow.. and any way could i be able marrying her..?
i love her alot.. please could anyone let me out of this deperation.
all we have got are tears and nothing else, please help, i have got much less time, please, i love her soo soo much more.
-
Anion.Xenon
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 6:46 am
Thanks Guys I Now Need No Replies, Everything is Over, She is Happy With Her New Boyfriend..And I Too Am Happy If She Is...
But Cant Live This Way :@ Maybe This Is My Last Msg So Let Me Tell You Guys.. She Told Me To Live Happily And She Wont Now Ever Be With Me Nor Will Ever Talk.. And Its All Over.
I Have Not Eaten Anything Or Drunk A Drop, Its 4th day, I Feel So Week And Like At Death's Door, Closing My Eyes Forever And Wasted Away.
P.S: Never Love.
Byez
But Cant Live This Way :@ Maybe This Is My Last Msg So Let Me Tell You Guys.. She Told Me To Live Happily And She Wont Now Ever Be With Me Nor Will Ever Talk.. And Its All Over.
I Have Not Eaten Anything Or Drunk A Drop, Its 4th day, I Feel So Week And Like At Death's Door, Closing My Eyes Forever And Wasted Away.
P.S: Never Love.
Byez
-
From_Alamut
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:22 am
The Love of Lovers makes their bodiesAnion.Xenon wrote:Thanks Guys I Now Need No Replies, Everything is Over, She is Happy With Her New Boyfriend..And I Too Am Happy If She Is...
But Cant Live This Way :@ Maybe This Is My Last Msg So Let Me Tell You Guys.. She Told Me To Live Happily And She Wont Now Ever Be With Me Nor Will Ever Talk.. And Its All Over.
I Have Not Eaten Anything Or Drunk A Drop, Its 4th day, I Feel So Week And Like At Death's Door, Closing My Eyes Forever And Wasted Away.
P.S: Never Love.
Byez
thin as bowstrings.
But the Love of Beloveds makes
them happy and plump.
~Mataovi~
The truth love is the love of the Beloved.
The day you born and die, it is still ON.
The love of THE Beloved is Eternal but permanent.
The love of the Lovers is nothing but pain,
nothing but unhappiness, nothing but fire.
Again, the truth Love is the Love of the Beloved "God".
My Beloved is my Imam of my TIME.
He has become my Laily and I have become his Majnu.
Ahmad
very sad ending, it was very much same with me but i and my girl survived.
i converted to aga khani then i was told that i could only marry my girl if my whole family is aga khani, which was like impossible.
then me and my girl both decided to marry any how, jamat khana people did not allow us to marry in jamat khana, so we married outside of it. but then a moment of great shame was that no single person from her side attended the marriage not even her siblings.
well now it has past 3 years none of her relative have ever tried of contacting her, she is just cut of from community.
maybe thats why the girl of the guy (sadly who is no more alive), may not want her family to face such shame due to her.
this really is a critical matter, it has destoryed many lives.
one of cousins of my wife also suicided, these are some cases that are infront of us, but there are many that we dont know about.
afte reading about this guy, i feel like ...
and all the evidences he gave, it proves that marriage is allowed than why do we ismaili people dont let our children marry.
i think we ourselves should do something to make ismaili people aware that it is not a sin, well i ask every one reading this please email or tell atleast every one you know that it is allowed, also give them the evidence provided by the person (really makes me cry when i say he is dead).
may allah bless all rest couples in this situation.
i converted to aga khani then i was told that i could only marry my girl if my whole family is aga khani, which was like impossible.
then me and my girl both decided to marry any how, jamat khana people did not allow us to marry in jamat khana, so we married outside of it. but then a moment of great shame was that no single person from her side attended the marriage not even her siblings.
well now it has past 3 years none of her relative have ever tried of contacting her, she is just cut of from community.
maybe thats why the girl of the guy (sadly who is no more alive), may not want her family to face such shame due to her.
this really is a critical matter, it has destoryed many lives.
one of cousins of my wife also suicided, these are some cases that are infront of us, but there are many that we dont know about.
afte reading about this guy, i feel like ...
and all the evidences he gave, it proves that marriage is allowed than why do we ismaili people dont let our children marry.
i think we ourselves should do something to make ismaili people aware that it is not a sin, well i ask every one reading this please email or tell atleast every one you know that it is allowed, also give them the evidence provided by the person (really makes me cry when i say he is dead).
may allah bless all rest couples in this situation.
marrage
YAM,<BR><BR>Hey,<BR>Could anyone give some link o­n the internet to Farmans of HH regarding the Marrage, please. I would be very grateful to you.<BR>I have question as previously state by someone; Example. If I am in love with Cristian girl, and we agreed that she will convert into Ismaili befor marrage, is it allowed in Ismaili???????<BR> If you have some information regarding this issue from Imams words, please send me.<BR>Because as I read from some statements within the Forum, I have got an understanding that many of us have some missunderstanding of who we are - Ismailis!!!!<BR>but it is hard to explain in two words .........<BR><BR>Thanks a lot in advance,<BR>
Re: marrage
I cannot give you a Farman, but you can marry a non-Ismaili. We aren't the Druze... the People of the Book are licit to Muslims, which *explicitly* includes Christians and Jews and generally also includes groups like Parsis-Zoroastrians and often explicitly monotheist Hindus.
They don't even have to convert to Islam.
Also, Princess Zahra married an Anglican man in 1997, so I think you are fine.
They don't even have to convert to Islam.
Also, Princess Zahra married an Anglican man in 1997, so I think you are fine.
-
From_Alamut
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:22 am
Re: marrage
Ya Ali Madad and Salam
I just want to share a little though which I was thinking a couple days ago about our Ismaili brothers or sisters before marrying a non Ismaili. The first important thing is before getting "marry" is to think about your "religion". I mean not like first you get marry and then think about religion. Because I think religion is something very important. For example, let say you are married with some Wahhabi Saudi Arabia male or female. So, you keep your faith and Wahhabi person his or her. After a few years, you guys going to have a new first child born. Once, the child grew up, then the Wahhabi person male or female want his or her "Child" to be a "Wahhabi" and the "Ismaili" person want his or her child to be An Ismaili. So, what my point is that in this cast it creates such a big conflict amount the couples. God know, what will happen next. But such a things have already happened. All I want you guys to be aware of everything before getting marry.
"To get marry is to create a new life".
Kindest Regard
I just want to share a little though which I was thinking a couple days ago about our Ismaili brothers or sisters before marrying a non Ismaili. The first important thing is before getting "marry" is to think about your "religion". I mean not like first you get marry and then think about religion. Because I think religion is something very important. For example, let say you are married with some Wahhabi Saudi Arabia male or female. So, you keep your faith and Wahhabi person his or her. After a few years, you guys going to have a new first child born. Once, the child grew up, then the Wahhabi person male or female want his or her "Child" to be a "Wahhabi" and the "Ismaili" person want his or her child to be An Ismaili. So, what my point is that in this cast it creates such a big conflict amount the couples. God know, what will happen next. But such a things have already happened. All I want you guys to be aware of everything before getting marry.
"To get marry is to create a new life".
Kindest Regard
Re: nonismaili marriages
<BR><BR>dear shams bhai<BR>the explanation about haqiqati is correct but bedin doesnt mean verbly by christian or hindu<BR>ALLAH says in QURAN surah 2 ayat 111 and they say none shall enter the garden (or paradise)except he who is jew or christian these are their vain desires say!bring your proof if you are truthful yes whoever submits himself entirely to allah and he is the doer of good (to others)he has his reward from his lord<BR>now regarding about the NOOR thats o­nly for them who are looking for it <BR>our MHI is making bridges among people of different faiths so please becareful<BR>and I beg pardon to you if you felt bad<BR>I married with a girl of o­ne of the shia sect and she is very good girl its 10 years and now she took our religion and (not by heart)I have got 1 boy and insha allah in few days another girl before marriage she agreed to take our religion after marriage she refused still I love her and it is not of physical you can explain ur religion to others but you cannot make him/her believe thats the job of LORD we can o­nly knock the door the men who is attracted with physical body is blind men<BR>the matter of intercast marriages are so complicated that I think from 1000 cases you might find <BR>only 1 case that they agree not to marry<BR>they ask suggestion from everyone but they dont listen to anyone <BR>and they dont even listen to people who had the experienced <BR> you have spent 2 years I have spent 10 years <BR>still no Regret <BR>with patience is the success<BR>best regards<BR>aslam<BR><BR><BR>shamsu wrote:What you are asking is<BR><BR>Should a haqiqati marry a shariati?<BR><BR>If the haqiqati is a true Haqiqati then this question would not arise.<BR><BR>To be a Haqiqati Ismaili o­ne has to follow the Farmans of Imame Mubeen.<BR><BR>Where in the Farmans has our Mowla asked us to marry sunni's.<BR><BR>Please understand that I have personally lived this Hell.<BR><BR>I was married to a christian girl for 10 years and ultimately she fell for another christian man which led to divorce. My son is Ismaili but due to strict court ordered custody arrangements sometimes he misses Mandali Majalises. <BR><BR>Imam Sultam Mohamedshah has made a Farman "Momin potana baccha ne bedin loko thi dur rakhe cche"<BR><BR>Which means that a Momin of Imam keeps his kids away from "bedin" people. <BR><BR>I have already made the mistake of having a child with a bedin woman. what do I do to rectify this. The laws of the land make it extremely unlikely for me to have exclusive custody of my son.<BR><BR>After that marriage I was living in a remote part of Texas where I could o­nly come to Jamatkhana o­nce a week when all my life I had gone to Jamatkhana every single day.<BR><BR>Can you Imagine the torture I subjected my soul to during that time period of almost 2 years.<BR><BR>Then there is the question of dasond. You have no idea how painful giving dasond is for non-ismailies.<BR><BR>They judge the Imam physically and cannot understand why we give dasond to such a wealthy "man".<BR><BR>One thing is for sure, it was the hardest lesson I have learned in my life.<BR><BR>Whatever happens try to learn your lesson as soon as possible and use the words of our beloved Imam to guide you and you will be absolutely safe.<BR><BR>wish you all the best<BR><BR>Ya Aly Madad<BR><BR>Shams
The power of symbolism
By Richard Wagamese, For the Calgary Herald
May 3, 2009
Spring has arrived in the mountains. It came just this week in a blaze of sunshine and the twitter of red-winged blackbirds down by the water. For a while there, my neighbours and I fretted over the length of the winter and wondered if there was ever going to be a break in what seemed to be the first stages of a new Ice Age. But spring, as they say, has sprung.
At our house, we're planning this year's house and home projects. There's exterior painting to be done, a pergola or a roofed porch, perhaps, added to the deck, a wood shed to be built, a garden to put in and our bedroom is the last room in the house to get spruced up and modernized. It sounds like a lot of work, but spring and summer beckon and we actually look forward to it.
See, we're both kids from the street in a way.We're nomads. Both of us spent years wandering, city to city, job to job, looking for the one place we could really call home. Both of us were married twice. Both of us started our lives as displaced kids, taken away from our natural families and plunked down in someone else's living room and life. So the idea of working together on the place we call "ours" is exciting.
We want to get married soon. That's the big news. Despite having had little success in that department before, we've been together going on seven years now and things just feel right. There have already been trials and tough times. We've seen each other through things. We've learned forgiveness. Our life has become stauncher with love smack dab at its middle.
Last week, we went to town and shopped for a ring. Now, we're both in our early 50s and tarnished some, jaded maybe, cautious, but that experience was revelatory for me and things haven't seemed the same since. See, it's the idea of that ring that altered how I look at things.
I've never been what you might call a conventional man. My life has been marked by dubious choices at times, at others, downright unimaginable and crazy. But I always carried a craving for the sort of set-down life like I saw on The Waltons, say, or loyal and staunch like the Cartwrights. I just never thought I'd get it.
But when we picked out that ring, I felt like a different being. Music hasn't been the same since. I hear things in songs that touch a soft place in me I didn't know existed. Scenes in movies and TV shows get me all emotional. I look at the sky with a sense of wild expectation. Quiet times in front of the fire make me think of us instead of problems and issues. And I smile more.
The gold of that ring glitters. It shines a particular kind of light and even without the diamonds it would be a marvellous thing. Gold exudes the promise of riches beyond measure. It always has. For me, that ring offers hope that a downtrodden life like mine might be sanctified some by the hope that resides in it. Given a newer, hardier light to chase away the shadow of all those gypsy years.
When I saw it on her hand, I felt raised up. Elevated. I felt, right then, as though everything I had ever done in my life had led me to that one shining moment and that is actually the truth of it. Life is a crucible. It is the alchemy that transforms us. What we bring to a marriage, what we carry from our individual histories, becomes the inherent value of the gold in a ring.
That's what I saw. I saw the awesome potential in two spirits joined by the strength of a symbol. I saw the fact that our lives and the choices we make along the way are the rough ore of our becoming. I saw the undeniable truth that we find the truest expression of ourselves in the ones we come to love; parts of us spread out suddenly like the shining vistas of new and undiscovered countries.
When we stand and be-come joined by ceremony, it is the bare fact of our living that brings us together. It is the lesson in the journey that makes it sacred. It is the travelling and not the destination that offers us wisdom, and in the end, it is experience that creates the person we become, the gold we extract from the hardscrabble mines of life and living.
That's what we bring to each other. We marry the whole person. Good and bad, weak and strong, strength and weakness. We stand with all of that. Gold on gold.
One Native Life
Richard Wagamese, a former Calgary herald columnist, is the 2007 recipient of the Canadian authors association award for fiction and a former national newspaper award-winning Columnist.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
By Richard Wagamese, For the Calgary Herald
May 3, 2009
Spring has arrived in the mountains. It came just this week in a blaze of sunshine and the twitter of red-winged blackbirds down by the water. For a while there, my neighbours and I fretted over the length of the winter and wondered if there was ever going to be a break in what seemed to be the first stages of a new Ice Age. But spring, as they say, has sprung.
At our house, we're planning this year's house and home projects. There's exterior painting to be done, a pergola or a roofed porch, perhaps, added to the deck, a wood shed to be built, a garden to put in and our bedroom is the last room in the house to get spruced up and modernized. It sounds like a lot of work, but spring and summer beckon and we actually look forward to it.
See, we're both kids from the street in a way.We're nomads. Both of us spent years wandering, city to city, job to job, looking for the one place we could really call home. Both of us were married twice. Both of us started our lives as displaced kids, taken away from our natural families and plunked down in someone else's living room and life. So the idea of working together on the place we call "ours" is exciting.
We want to get married soon. That's the big news. Despite having had little success in that department before, we've been together going on seven years now and things just feel right. There have already been trials and tough times. We've seen each other through things. We've learned forgiveness. Our life has become stauncher with love smack dab at its middle.
Last week, we went to town and shopped for a ring. Now, we're both in our early 50s and tarnished some, jaded maybe, cautious, but that experience was revelatory for me and things haven't seemed the same since. See, it's the idea of that ring that altered how I look at things.
I've never been what you might call a conventional man. My life has been marked by dubious choices at times, at others, downright unimaginable and crazy. But I always carried a craving for the sort of set-down life like I saw on The Waltons, say, or loyal and staunch like the Cartwrights. I just never thought I'd get it.
But when we picked out that ring, I felt like a different being. Music hasn't been the same since. I hear things in songs that touch a soft place in me I didn't know existed. Scenes in movies and TV shows get me all emotional. I look at the sky with a sense of wild expectation. Quiet times in front of the fire make me think of us instead of problems and issues. And I smile more.
The gold of that ring glitters. It shines a particular kind of light and even without the diamonds it would be a marvellous thing. Gold exudes the promise of riches beyond measure. It always has. For me, that ring offers hope that a downtrodden life like mine might be sanctified some by the hope that resides in it. Given a newer, hardier light to chase away the shadow of all those gypsy years.
When I saw it on her hand, I felt raised up. Elevated. I felt, right then, as though everything I had ever done in my life had led me to that one shining moment and that is actually the truth of it. Life is a crucible. It is the alchemy that transforms us. What we bring to a marriage, what we carry from our individual histories, becomes the inherent value of the gold in a ring.
That's what I saw. I saw the awesome potential in two spirits joined by the strength of a symbol. I saw the fact that our lives and the choices we make along the way are the rough ore of our becoming. I saw the undeniable truth that we find the truest expression of ourselves in the ones we come to love; parts of us spread out suddenly like the shining vistas of new and undiscovered countries.
When we stand and be-come joined by ceremony, it is the bare fact of our living that brings us together. It is the lesson in the journey that makes it sacred. It is the travelling and not the destination that offers us wisdom, and in the end, it is experience that creates the person we become, the gold we extract from the hardscrabble mines of life and living.
That's what we bring to each other. We marry the whole person. Good and bad, weak and strong, strength and weakness. We stand with all of that. Gold on gold.
One Native Life
Richard Wagamese, a former Calgary herald columnist, is the 2007 recipient of the Canadian authors association award for fiction and a former national newspaper award-winning Columnist.
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
-
ChrisMacPherson
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2010 12:53 pm
Hi everyone. <BR><BR>I have been married to an Ismaili lady for almost 8 years. Her family has always been very nice and accepting of me. We have children who are being raised as Ismaili's because I am not religious and it didn't matter to me what religion they are. I was born a Christian but I don't practice. We were married in a religious ceremony but not in Khane. <BR><BR>So interfaith marriages can work!
India to loosen traditional divorce laws
Agence France-PresseJune 11, 2010
Marriage is the central focus of most Indian lives, but the government on Thursday took steps to make divorce easier as nuptial breakdowns become more common.
Traditional Indian marriages are still arranged by parents along lines of caste, religion and wealth -- and the couple are expected to stay together and produce children even if they find themselves unsuited.
However, divorce rates have risen in recent years as the country has undergone rapid economic development, massive migration to cities and an upheaval of established social norms.
Ambika Soni, the minister of information and broadcasting, told reporters the proposed change in the law would help an estranged partner get a divorce "if any party does not come to court or wilfully avoids the court."
Currently divorce in India can be granted for matrimonial fault, mutual consent or if one partner has not been heard of for several years.
The Supreme Court last year said the legal system should try to keep marriages together, but agreed that divorces should not be withheld from couples who had completely split.
The proposed amendment, which was passed by a cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, will include "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as a legal justification for divorce for the first time.
"In today's day and age it may be a welcome step, but it will only really help urban women," Kamini Jaiswal, a Supreme Court advocate, told AFP. "Rural women will still get a raw deal as they are more oppressed by their husbands."
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
http://www.calgaryherald.com/story_prin ... 7&sponsor=
Agence France-PresseJune 11, 2010
Marriage is the central focus of most Indian lives, but the government on Thursday took steps to make divorce easier as nuptial breakdowns become more common.
Traditional Indian marriages are still arranged by parents along lines of caste, religion and wealth -- and the couple are expected to stay together and produce children even if they find themselves unsuited.
However, divorce rates have risen in recent years as the country has undergone rapid economic development, massive migration to cities and an upheaval of established social norms.
Ambika Soni, the minister of information and broadcasting, told reporters the proposed change in the law would help an estranged partner get a divorce "if any party does not come to court or wilfully avoids the court."
Currently divorce in India can be granted for matrimonial fault, mutual consent or if one partner has not been heard of for several years.
The Supreme Court last year said the legal system should try to keep marriages together, but agreed that divorces should not be withheld from couples who had completely split.
The proposed amendment, which was passed by a cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, will include "irretrievable breakdown of marriage" as a legal justification for divorce for the first time.
"In today's day and age it may be a welcome step, but it will only really help urban women," Kamini Jaiswal, a Supreme Court advocate, told AFP. "Rural women will still get a raw deal as they are more oppressed by their husbands."
© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald
http://www.calgaryherald.com/story_prin ... 7&sponsor=
June 14, 2010, 12:27 pm
Do Kids Still Matter to Marriage?
By TARA PARKER-POPE
One of the more surprising trends in marriage during the past 20 years is the fact that most couples no longer view children as essential to a happy relationship.
A few years ago, the Pew Research Center released a survey called “What Makes Marriage Work?” Not surprisingly, fidelity ranked at the top of the nine-item list — 93 percent of respondents said faithfulness was essential to a good marriage.
But what about children? As an ingredient to a happy marriage, kids were far from essential, ranking eighth behind good sex, sharing chores, adequate income and a nice house, among other things. Only 41 percent of respondents said children were important to a happy marriage, down from 65 percent in 1990. The only thing less important to a happy marriage than children, the survey found, was whether a couple agreed on politics.
So why do kids rank so low on the list? The fact is, marriages today are increasingly adult-centered, rather than child-centered, an issue identified in a sweeping 2008 report from Rutgers marriage researcher Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. In the report, called “Life Without Children: The Social Retreat From Children and How It’s Changing America,” Dr. Whitehead notes that the percentage of our lives that we devote to parenting is shrinking. Because married couples are delaying children and having fewer kids, they start parenting later and finish parenting sooner than couples of earlier generations. She writes:
For most of the nation’s history, Americans expected to devote much of their adult lives to the nurture and rearing of children. Life with children has been central to norms of adulthood, marriage and the experience of family life. Today however, this historic pattern is changing. Life without children is becoming the more common social experience for a growing percentage of the adult population.
The decline of the child-centered marriage is particularly relevant this week, as lawyers in California offer closing arguments on Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in the state. In January, a supporter of Proposition 8 argued that children would be hurt by same-sex marriage, an issue reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.
Extending marital rights to couples who cannot conceive children would change marriage from “a child-based public institution to an adult-centered private institution” and “weaken the role of marriage generally in society,” David Blankenhorn, founder of the Institute for American Values, testified at a trial in San Francisco federal court on the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
The ruling on same-sex marriage in California will likely not be the last word on the issue. And as Dr. Whitehead goes on to explain, the changing patterns and timing of marriage and parenting don’t mean that we don’t love or remain committed to our children. It just means that children are less central to our lives than they were in the past.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/1 ... T-0616-L14
Do Kids Still Matter to Marriage?
By TARA PARKER-POPE
One of the more surprising trends in marriage during the past 20 years is the fact that most couples no longer view children as essential to a happy relationship.
A few years ago, the Pew Research Center released a survey called “What Makes Marriage Work?” Not surprisingly, fidelity ranked at the top of the nine-item list — 93 percent of respondents said faithfulness was essential to a good marriage.
But what about children? As an ingredient to a happy marriage, kids were far from essential, ranking eighth behind good sex, sharing chores, adequate income and a nice house, among other things. Only 41 percent of respondents said children were important to a happy marriage, down from 65 percent in 1990. The only thing less important to a happy marriage than children, the survey found, was whether a couple agreed on politics.
So why do kids rank so low on the list? The fact is, marriages today are increasingly adult-centered, rather than child-centered, an issue identified in a sweeping 2008 report from Rutgers marriage researcher Barbara Dafoe Whitehead. In the report, called “Life Without Children: The Social Retreat From Children and How It’s Changing America,” Dr. Whitehead notes that the percentage of our lives that we devote to parenting is shrinking. Because married couples are delaying children and having fewer kids, they start parenting later and finish parenting sooner than couples of earlier generations. She writes:
For most of the nation’s history, Americans expected to devote much of their adult lives to the nurture and rearing of children. Life with children has been central to norms of adulthood, marriage and the experience of family life. Today however, this historic pattern is changing. Life without children is becoming the more common social experience for a growing percentage of the adult population.
The decline of the child-centered marriage is particularly relevant this week, as lawyers in California offer closing arguments on Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage in the state. In January, a supporter of Proposition 8 argued that children would be hurt by same-sex marriage, an issue reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.
Extending marital rights to couples who cannot conceive children would change marriage from “a child-based public institution to an adult-centered private institution” and “weaken the role of marriage generally in society,” David Blankenhorn, founder of the Institute for American Values, testified at a trial in San Francisco federal court on the constitutionality of the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
The ruling on same-sex marriage in California will likely not be the last word on the issue. And as Dr. Whitehead goes on to explain, the changing patterns and timing of marriage and parenting don’t mean that we don’t love or remain committed to our children. It just means that children are less central to our lives than they were in the past.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/1 ... T-0616-L14
The findings come from a new CDC report on U.S. marriage and cohabitation. The data were collected in 2002 in one-on-one interviews with a nationally representative sample of some 7,600 women and 5,000 men.
Which Marriages Last 10 Years?
Get married young, break up young. The odds of a marriage lasting at least 10 years are:
• 54% for women and 47% for men who get married between ages 15 and 19
• 64% for women and 65% for men who get married between ages 20 and 25
• 76% for women and 73% for men who get married at 26 or older
Do children affect marriages? Apparently so. The odds of a marriage lasting at least 10 years are:
• 34% for women and 37% for men who have no children during the marriage
• 55% for women and 65% for men who have a first child by their eventual husband or wife before marriage
• 79% for women and 79% for men whose first child is born at least eight months after marriage
• Having children doesn't mean the marriage lasts a lifetime. 1997 data show that only 57% of marriages last 15 years, and only half last 20 years.
Will your marriage last longer if you first explore living together? Maybe not -- even if you cohabit with your eventual spouse. The odds of a marriage lasting at least 10 years are:
• 60% for women and 62% for men who ever cohabited
• 61% for women and 63% for men who cohabited with their first spouse
• 66% for women and 69% for men who never cohabited
Education makes a difference. But there's at least one surprise here: Just getting a high school diploma doesn't help, but a college degree makes a big difference. The odds of a marriage lasting at least 10 years are:
• 54% for women and 56% for men with a high school diploma or GED
• 63% for women and 61% for men with no high school diploma or GED
• 62% for women and 64% for men with some college but no degree
• 78% for women and 81% for men with a bachelor's degree or higher
Your family structure makes a difference, too, most markedly for women. The odds of a marriage lasting at least 10 years are:
• 67% for women and 66% for men who lived in a two-parent household at age 14
• 48% for women and 63% for men who did not live in a two-parent household at age 14
Marriage success rates differ by race and ethnicity. The odds of a marriage lasting at least 10 years are:
• 51% for black, non-Hispanic men and women
• 64% for white, non-Hispanic men and women
• 68% for Hispanic women and 75% for Hispanic men
Cohabitation Facts
The CDC data offer fascinating glimpses of U.S. cohabitation:
• From 1987 to 2002, the percentage of women who ever cohabited more than doubled, from 30% to 61%.
• For women ages 19 to 44, more than half of marriages from 1990 to 1994 began as cohabitations.
• More than half of births outside marriage occur in cohabitations.
• Over 40% of U.S. children will spend some time in a cohabiting household.
• For women ages 18 to 19, cohabitation is over twice as common as marriage (11% vs. 5%).
• For women ages 25 to 44, marriage is nearly eight times more common than cohabitation (62% vs. 8%).
• More than half of couples in their first cohabitation marry within three years.
Which Marriages Last 10 Years?
Get married young, break up young. The odds of a marriage lasting at least 10 years are:
• 54% for women and 47% for men who get married between ages 15 and 19
• 64% for women and 65% for men who get married between ages 20 and 25
• 76% for women and 73% for men who get married at 26 or older
Do children affect marriages? Apparently so. The odds of a marriage lasting at least 10 years are:
• 34% for women and 37% for men who have no children during the marriage
• 55% for women and 65% for men who have a first child by their eventual husband or wife before marriage
• 79% for women and 79% for men whose first child is born at least eight months after marriage
• Having children doesn't mean the marriage lasts a lifetime. 1997 data show that only 57% of marriages last 15 years, and only half last 20 years.
Will your marriage last longer if you first explore living together? Maybe not -- even if you cohabit with your eventual spouse. The odds of a marriage lasting at least 10 years are:
• 60% for women and 62% for men who ever cohabited
• 61% for women and 63% for men who cohabited with their first spouse
• 66% for women and 69% for men who never cohabited
Education makes a difference. But there's at least one surprise here: Just getting a high school diploma doesn't help, but a college degree makes a big difference. The odds of a marriage lasting at least 10 years are:
• 54% for women and 56% for men with a high school diploma or GED
• 63% for women and 61% for men with no high school diploma or GED
• 62% for women and 64% for men with some college but no degree
• 78% for women and 81% for men with a bachelor's degree or higher
Your family structure makes a difference, too, most markedly for women. The odds of a marriage lasting at least 10 years are:
• 67% for women and 66% for men who lived in a two-parent household at age 14
• 48% for women and 63% for men who did not live in a two-parent household at age 14
Marriage success rates differ by race and ethnicity. The odds of a marriage lasting at least 10 years are:
• 51% for black, non-Hispanic men and women
• 64% for white, non-Hispanic men and women
• 68% for Hispanic women and 75% for Hispanic men
Cohabitation Facts
The CDC data offer fascinating glimpses of U.S. cohabitation:
• From 1987 to 2002, the percentage of women who ever cohabited more than doubled, from 30% to 61%.
• For women ages 19 to 44, more than half of marriages from 1990 to 1994 began as cohabitations.
• More than half of births outside marriage occur in cohabitations.
• Over 40% of U.S. children will spend some time in a cohabiting household.
• For women ages 18 to 19, cohabitation is over twice as common as marriage (11% vs. 5%).
• For women ages 25 to 44, marriage is nearly eight times more common than cohabitation (62% vs. 8%).
• More than half of couples in their first cohabitation marry within three years.
Grand Mufti wants Emiratis to marry local
Herald News Services
August 25, 2010
The Grand Mufti of Dubai has called for a curb on marriages between locals and foreigners as the price of marrying native brides has risen to more than $490,000.
The number of Emiratis marrying foreigners has risen by 10 per cent in the past four years, according to recent figures.
Officials and religious leaders blame the rising costs of dowries and wedding ceremonies for persuading "ordinary" local men to seek foreign wives, who cost less to marry.
Ahmad al-Haddad, the Grand Mufti, the emirate's most senior Islamic scholar, wants to restrict foreign marriages to allow only Muslim Arab spouses.
For a man, it would have to be his first and only wife.
"In Islam, choosing your life partner is a personal freedom," the Grand Mufti said at a gathering in honour of the holy month of Ramadan, "but personal freedoms can be restricted for the benefit of the public interest."
His proposals are unlikely to be welcomed, and he may have difficulty persuading Dubai's ruler to approve his suggestion.
Sheikh -bin Rashid al-Maktoum took -Jordanian princess as his second wife and would have fallen foul of the rules.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/story_prin ... 4&sponsor=
Herald News Services
August 25, 2010
The Grand Mufti of Dubai has called for a curb on marriages between locals and foreigners as the price of marrying native brides has risen to more than $490,000.
The number of Emiratis marrying foreigners has risen by 10 per cent in the past four years, according to recent figures.
Officials and religious leaders blame the rising costs of dowries and wedding ceremonies for persuading "ordinary" local men to seek foreign wives, who cost less to marry.
Ahmad al-Haddad, the Grand Mufti, the emirate's most senior Islamic scholar, wants to restrict foreign marriages to allow only Muslim Arab spouses.
For a man, it would have to be his first and only wife.
"In Islam, choosing your life partner is a personal freedom," the Grand Mufti said at a gathering in honour of the holy month of Ramadan, "but personal freedoms can be restricted for the benefit of the public interest."
His proposals are unlikely to be welcomed, and he may have difficulty persuading Dubai's ruler to approve his suggestion.
Sheikh -bin Rashid al-Maktoum took -Jordanian princess as his second wife and would have fallen foul of the rules.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/story_prin ... 4&sponsor=
July 3, 2011
More Perfect Unions
By ROSS DOUTHAT
In 44 states, the future of gay marriage still depends on legislatures, governors and voters — and eventually, perhaps, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. But in New York, as in five states before it, gay marriage’s future is in the hands of gay couples themselves.
Over the decades ahead, their choices will gradually transform gay marriage from an idea into a culture: they’ll determine the social expectations associated with gay wedlock, the gay marriage and divorce rates, the differences and similarities between gay and lesbian unions, the way marriage interacts with gay parenting, and much more besides.
They’ll also help determine gay marriage’s impact on the broader culture of matrimony in America.
One possibility is that gay marriage will end up being a force for marital conservatism, among gays and straights alike. In this vision, the norms of heterosexual marriage will be the template for homosexual wedlock. Once equipped with marriage’s “entitlements and entanglements,” Jonathan Rauch predicted in his book “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America,” “same-sex relationships will continue to move toward both durability and exclusivity.” At the same time, the example of gay couples taking vows will strengthen “marriage’s status as the gold standard for committed relationships.”
At the other end of the spectrum from Rauch’s gay conservatism are the liberationists, who hope that gay marriage will help knock marriage off its cultural pedestal altogether. To liberationists, a gay rights movement that ends up reaffirming a “gold standard” for relationships will have failed in its deeper mission — which Columbia law professor Katherine M. Franke recently summarized in a Times Op-Ed article as the quest for “greater freedom than can be found in the one-size-fits-all rules of marriage.”
That’s the kind of argument that makes social conservatives worry about polygamy (and worse). But liberationism has been gradually marginalized in the gay community over the last two decades, and gay conservatism seems to have largely carried the day. The desire to be included in an existing institution has proved stronger than the desire to eliminate every institutional constraint.
Still, there’s a third vision that’s worth pondering — neither conservative nor liberationist, but a little bit of both. This vision embraces the institution of marriage, rather than seeking to overthrow it. But it also hints that the example of same-sex unions might partially transform marriage from within, creating greater institutional flexibility — particularly sexual flexibility — for straight and gay spouses alike.
This idea is most prominently associated with Dan Savage, the prolific author, activist and sex columnist who was profiled in Sunday’s Times Magazine. Savage is strongly pro-marriage, but he thinks the institution is weighed down by unrealistic cultural expectations about monogamy. Better, he suggests, to define marriage simply as a pact of mutual love and care, and leave all the other rules to be negotiated depending on the couple.
In “The Commitment,” his memoir about wedding his longtime boyfriend, Savage described the way his own union has successfully made room for occasional infidelity. “Far from undermining the stable home we’ve built for our child,” he writes, “the controlled way in which we manage our desire for outside sexual contact has made our home more stable.”
The trouble is that straight culture already experimented with exactly this kind of model, with disastrous results.
Forty years ago, Savage’s perspective temporarily took upper-middle-class America by storm. In the mid-1970s, only 51 percent of well-educated Americans agreed that adultery was always wrong. But far from being strengthened by this outbreak of realism, their marriages went on to dissolve in record numbers.
This trend eventually reversed itself. Heterosexual marriage has had a tough few decades, but its one success story is the declining divorce rate among the upper middle class. This decline, tellingly, has gone hand in hand with steadily rising disapproval of adultery.
There’s a lesson here. Institutions tend to be strongest when they make significant moral demands, and weaker when they pre-emptively accommodate themselves to human nature.
Critics of gay marriage see this as one of the great dangers in severing the link between marriage and the two realities — gender difference and procreation — that it originally evolved to address. A successful marital culture depends not only on a general ideal of love and commitment, but on specific promises, exclusions and taboos. And the less specific and more inclusive an institution becomes, the more likely people are to approach it casually, if they enter it at all.
In courts and now legislatures, this has been a losing argument. But as gay New Yorkers ponder what they want their marriages to mean, they should consider one of its implications: The hardest promises to keep are often the ones that keep people together.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/opini ... emc=tha212
More Perfect Unions
By ROSS DOUTHAT
In 44 states, the future of gay marriage still depends on legislatures, governors and voters — and eventually, perhaps, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. But in New York, as in five states before it, gay marriage’s future is in the hands of gay couples themselves.
Over the decades ahead, their choices will gradually transform gay marriage from an idea into a culture: they’ll determine the social expectations associated with gay wedlock, the gay marriage and divorce rates, the differences and similarities between gay and lesbian unions, the way marriage interacts with gay parenting, and much more besides.
They’ll also help determine gay marriage’s impact on the broader culture of matrimony in America.
One possibility is that gay marriage will end up being a force for marital conservatism, among gays and straights alike. In this vision, the norms of heterosexual marriage will be the template for homosexual wedlock. Once equipped with marriage’s “entitlements and entanglements,” Jonathan Rauch predicted in his book “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America,” “same-sex relationships will continue to move toward both durability and exclusivity.” At the same time, the example of gay couples taking vows will strengthen “marriage’s status as the gold standard for committed relationships.”
At the other end of the spectrum from Rauch’s gay conservatism are the liberationists, who hope that gay marriage will help knock marriage off its cultural pedestal altogether. To liberationists, a gay rights movement that ends up reaffirming a “gold standard” for relationships will have failed in its deeper mission — which Columbia law professor Katherine M. Franke recently summarized in a Times Op-Ed article as the quest for “greater freedom than can be found in the one-size-fits-all rules of marriage.”
That’s the kind of argument that makes social conservatives worry about polygamy (and worse). But liberationism has been gradually marginalized in the gay community over the last two decades, and gay conservatism seems to have largely carried the day. The desire to be included in an existing institution has proved stronger than the desire to eliminate every institutional constraint.
Still, there’s a third vision that’s worth pondering — neither conservative nor liberationist, but a little bit of both. This vision embraces the institution of marriage, rather than seeking to overthrow it. But it also hints that the example of same-sex unions might partially transform marriage from within, creating greater institutional flexibility — particularly sexual flexibility — for straight and gay spouses alike.
This idea is most prominently associated with Dan Savage, the prolific author, activist and sex columnist who was profiled in Sunday’s Times Magazine. Savage is strongly pro-marriage, but he thinks the institution is weighed down by unrealistic cultural expectations about monogamy. Better, he suggests, to define marriage simply as a pact of mutual love and care, and leave all the other rules to be negotiated depending on the couple.
In “The Commitment,” his memoir about wedding his longtime boyfriend, Savage described the way his own union has successfully made room for occasional infidelity. “Far from undermining the stable home we’ve built for our child,” he writes, “the controlled way in which we manage our desire for outside sexual contact has made our home more stable.”
The trouble is that straight culture already experimented with exactly this kind of model, with disastrous results.
Forty years ago, Savage’s perspective temporarily took upper-middle-class America by storm. In the mid-1970s, only 51 percent of well-educated Americans agreed that adultery was always wrong. But far from being strengthened by this outbreak of realism, their marriages went on to dissolve in record numbers.
This trend eventually reversed itself. Heterosexual marriage has had a tough few decades, but its one success story is the declining divorce rate among the upper middle class. This decline, tellingly, has gone hand in hand with steadily rising disapproval of adultery.
There’s a lesson here. Institutions tend to be strongest when they make significant moral demands, and weaker when they pre-emptively accommodate themselves to human nature.
Critics of gay marriage see this as one of the great dangers in severing the link between marriage and the two realities — gender difference and procreation — that it originally evolved to address. A successful marital culture depends not only on a general ideal of love and commitment, but on specific promises, exclusions and taboos. And the less specific and more inclusive an institution becomes, the more likely people are to approach it casually, if they enter it at all.
In courts and now legislatures, this has been a losing argument. But as gay New Yorkers ponder what they want their marriages to mean, they should consider one of its implications: The hardest promises to keep are often the ones that keep people together.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/04/opini ... emc=tha212
THE SATURDAY ESSAY
JULY 9, 2011
The Divorce Generation
Having survived their own family splits, Generation X parents are determined to keep their marriages together. It doesn't always work.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj
Excerpt:
"Whatever happens, we're never going to get divorced." Over the course of
16 years, I said that often to my husband, especially after our children
were born. Apparently, much of my generation feels at least roughly the
same way: Divorce rates, which peaked around 1980, are now at their lowest
level since 1970. In fact, the often-cited statistic that half of all
marriages end in divorce was true only in the 1970s—in other words, our
parents' marriages.
Not ours. According to U.S. Census data released this May, 77% of couples
who married since 1990 have reached their 10-year anniversaries. We're
also marrying later in life, if at all. The average marrying age in 1950
was 23 for men and 20 for women; in 2009, it was 28 for men and 26 for
women....
Adultery is far more devastating for us than it was for our parents or
grandparents. A 2003 study by the late psychologist Shirley Glass found
that the mores of sexual infidelity are undergoing a profound change. The
traditional standard for men—love is love and sex is sex—is dying out.
Increasingly, men and women develop serious emotional attachments with
their would-be lovers long before they commit adultery. As a result, she
found, infidelity today is much more likely to lead to divorce.
Call us helicopter parents, call us neurotically attached, but those of us
who survived the wreckage of split families were determined never to
inflict such wounds on our children. We knew better. We were doing
everything differently, and the fundamental premise was simple: "Kids come
first" meant that we would not divorce.
JULY 9, 2011
The Divorce Generation
Having survived their own family splits, Generation X parents are determined to keep their marriages together. It doesn't always work.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj
Excerpt:
"Whatever happens, we're never going to get divorced." Over the course of
16 years, I said that often to my husband, especially after our children
were born. Apparently, much of my generation feels at least roughly the
same way: Divorce rates, which peaked around 1980, are now at their lowest
level since 1970. In fact, the often-cited statistic that half of all
marriages end in divorce was true only in the 1970s—in other words, our
parents' marriages.
Not ours. According to U.S. Census data released this May, 77% of couples
who married since 1990 have reached their 10-year anniversaries. We're
also marrying later in life, if at all. The average marrying age in 1950
was 23 for men and 20 for women; in 2009, it was 28 for men and 26 for
women....
Adultery is far more devastating for us than it was for our parents or
grandparents. A 2003 study by the late psychologist Shirley Glass found
that the mores of sexual infidelity are undergoing a profound change. The
traditional standard for men—love is love and sex is sex—is dying out.
Increasingly, men and women develop serious emotional attachments with
their would-be lovers long before they commit adultery. As a result, she
found, infidelity today is much more likely to lead to divorce.
Call us helicopter parents, call us neurotically attached, but those of us
who survived the wreckage of split families were determined never to
inflict such wounds on our children. We knew better. We were doing
everything differently, and the fundamental premise was simple: "Kids come
first" meant that we would not divorce.