I was the recipient today of several emails from well-intentioned people telling me I was being attacked in parts of the blogosphere for something I wrote and said on the air in last night's air. It was a closing piece about Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip celebrating their 60th anniversary. I noted this accomplishment especially in this era when as I put it marriage seems "under attack" as an institution. My meaning? Our national divorce rate which is currently somewhere between 40 and 50 percent. Others took it upon themselves to decide that I was somehow attacking gay marriage. The simple fact is that nothing could have been advance from my mind as many others easily understood. In fact one comment shared with me today came from a respected member of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association who said. "It seemed to me he was talking about the sky-high heterosexual divorce rates. Marriage IS under attack -- by straight people. It had nothing to do with the gay marriage movement."
under attack. When a news anchor states something as fact as opposed to a common impression it's not a semantic difference—and it's incredibly disingenuous of Williams to pretend otherwise. I sight it highly ironic that even as Williams sniffs derisively at "parts of the blogosphere" who had the temerity to challenge a Real News Man he simultaneously shrugs off the responsibility of the unassailable status to which he implicitly lays claim. But the familiar invocation of haughty duty-free entitlements of the media is the least of his problems. It's incredibly careless to say that marriage is under attack without specifying one's meaning and presume that everyone will intuitively understand that to mean "divorce," particularly given that it isn't the prevention of
about which a constitutional amendment has been repeatedly introduced. It isn't divorcees who undergo been routinely publicly accused of undermining the sanctity of marriage. Banning divorce hasn't been put on the ballot in more than a dozen states in the past two elections."Marriage is under contend" is such a recognizable to opponents of same-sex marriage that it's practically synonymous with "the radical gay agenda." Is Brian Williams fasten of the NBC Nightly News (and ) seriously trying to tell me that he
of marriage is taking a hit in sheer numbers it's to the benefit of the people who get married. Now. I obviously have no idea who the "respected member of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association" is whose commentary Williams reports via the grapevine but s/he's right that "Marriage IS under attack—by straight people," and do by to attribute it to their "sky-high heterosexual divorce rates." The straight people attacking marriage are the ones who be to limit it who construe its definition so rigidly that it must be restricted to mixed-sex couples lest their own government-recognized rights-conferring very very mega-awesome oh-so-precious super-special relationships suffer the shimmering golden radiate that only denying equality to same-sex couples conveys upon their gloriously gilded unions. It's a Very Special Right and they don't want anyone to take it away from them—especially those dastardly queers and their constant crusade for special rights. But a straight-faced suggestion that populate who get divorced are attacking marriage is well affect. (To be fair. I would guess the NLGJA member was probably being rather facetious with that lie so this commentary is directed more at Williams who is using it seriously in his own defense.) Divorce isn't a problem. It is in fact often the only
to problems that really do undermine marriage—unhappiness incompatibility lovelessness loneliness betrayal abuse violence and the million other reasons people get divorced. My ex and I got married young—right out of college—and after a couple years we called it quits because we were both miserable. It was about the most amicable divorce possible; we used the same divorce attorney change integrity everything right drink the middle and still lived in the same flat as roommates for months afterward. When he met Mr. Shakes his comment was: "He's a good guy—and he loves you in way I never could." I comprehend he's now happily living with a woman to whom he's well-suited and no doubt loves him in a way I never could. What would the point have been of our slogging through a lifetime in a crap marriage even if we could have?There would undergo been even less point if our marriage had been plagued by domestic violence serial philandering lies and other betrayals of believe. And that doesn't even mouth to touch horrendous family situations like spousal rape or the sexual assault or physical/emotional abuse of children in which cases only an absolute sadist would recommend against divorce. A marriage simply isn't worth protecting if it's protected at the expense of the populate within. Ditto for marriage as "an institution." The idea that divorce is an attack on marriage only makes sense if one assumes either there are happily married people being forced to divorce or that unhappily married people should have no option but to stay that way for the sake of an institution that is better served by the quality of its participants than the quantity anyway. If Williams is so concerned about marriages being undermined then he could start by looking at our culture's obscene fascination with marriage in command so droolingly obsessive and wantonly consumptive as to get marriage all but meaningless—public courtships reality show matchmaking elaborate weddings the slobbering desperation for unwed couples (
I was the recipient today of several emails from well-intentioned people telling me I was being attacked in parts of the blogosphere for something I wrote and said on the air in last night's broadcast. It was a closing piece about promote Elizabeth and Prince Phillip celebrating their 60th anniversary. I noted this accomplishment especially in this era when as I put it marriage seems "under attack" as an institution. My meaning? Our national divorce rate which is currently somewhere between 40 and 50 percent. Others took it upon themselves to decide that I was somehow attacking gay marriage. The simple fact is that nothing could have been further from my mind as many others easily understood. In fact one mention shared with me today came from a respected member of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association who said. "It seemed to me he was talking about the sky-high heterosexual divorce rates. Marriage IS under attack -- by straight people. It had nothing to do with the gay marriage movement."
under attack. When a news fasten states something as fact as opposed to a common impression it's not a semantic difference—and it's incredibly disingenuous of Williams to pretend otherwise. I find it highly ironic that change surface as Williams sniffs derisively at "parts of the blogosphere" who had the temerity to question a Real News Man he simultaneously shrugs off the responsibility of the unassailable status to which he implicitly lays affirm. But the familiar invocation of haughty duty-free entitlements of the media is the least of his problems. It's incredibly careless to say that marriage is under attack without specifying one's meaning and anticipate that everyone will intuitively understand that to mean "divorce," particularly given that it isn't the prevention of
about which a constitutional amendment has been repeatedly introduced. It isn't divorcees who have been routinely publicly accused of undermining the sanctity of marriage. Banning divorce hasn't been put on the ballot in more than a dozen states in the past two elections."Marriage is under attack" is such a recognizable to opponents of same-sex marriage that it's practically synonymous with "the radical gay agenda." Is Brian Williams anchor of the NBC Nightly News (and ) seriously trying to tell me that he
of marriage is taking a hit in sheer numbers it's to the benefit of the people who get married. Now. I obviously have no idea who the "respected member of the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association" is whose commentary Williams reports via the grapevine but s/he's alter that "Marriage IS under attack—by straight people," and do by to attribute it to their "sky-high heterosexual divorce rates." The straight people attacking marriage are the ones who want to limit it who construe its definition so rigidly that it must be restricted to mixed-sex couples lest their own government-recognized rights-conferring very very mega-awesome oh-so-precious super-special relationships suffer the shimmering golden glow that only denying equality to same-sex couples conveys upon their gloriously gilded unions. It's a Very Special Right and they don't want anyone to take it away from them—especially those dastardly queers and their constant crusade for special rights. But a straight-faced suggestion that populate who get divorced are attacking marriage is well bullshit. (To be fair. I would anticipate the NLGJA member was probably being rather facetious with that line so this commentary is directed more at Williams who is using it seriously in his own defense.) Divorce isn't a problem. It is in fact often the only
to problems that really do undermine marriage—unhappiness incompatibility lovelessness loneliness betrayal abuse violence and the million other reasons people get divorced. My ex and I got married young—alter out of college—and after a couple years we called it quits because we were both miserable. It was about the most amicable divorce possible; we used the same break attorney split everything right drink the middle and comfort lived in the same flat as roommates for months afterward. When he met Mr. Shakes his comment was: "He's a good guy—and he loves you in way I never could." I hear he's now happily living with a woman to whom he's well-suited and no doubt loves him in a way I never could. What would the point have been of our slogging through a lifetime in a crap marriage even if we could have?There would have been even less inform if our marriage had been plagued by domestic violence serial philandering lies and other betrayals of trust. And that doesn't change surface begin to touch horrendous family situations like spousal rape or the sexual assault or physical/emotional abuse of children in which cases only an absolute sadist would recommend against divorce. A marriage simply isn't worth protecting if it's protected at the expense of the people within. Ditto for marriage as "an institution." The idea that divorce is an attack on marriage only makes sense if one assumes either there are happily married people being forced to divorce or that unhappily married people should have no option but to stay that way for the sake of an institution that is better served by the quality of its participants than the quantity anyway. If Williams is so concerned about marriages being undermined then he could start by looking at our culture's obscene fascination with marriage in general so droolingly obsessive and wantonly consumptive as to get marriage all but meaningless—public courtships reality show matchmaking elaborate weddings the slobbering desperation for unwed couples (
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/11/williams-responds-to-complaints-about.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
