blueeowyn: (Echo lunge)
Over a year ago, I had an email exchange with a friend. In part I wrote "Are you planning to [share your LJ login with your spouse]? ... I am sorry if [my comments] caused you stress. I have deleted all of my comments in your LJ since the first of the month. I am willing to go back [further] if you wish."

status of the friendship )
All comments on this entry will be screened.
blueeowyn: (Duh)
OK, the Maryland Supreme Court is full of gits and the lawyers arguing for idiocy were brilliant in how they framed their argument. I feel that the state (and country) should follow the old USSR method of union of people with some minor modifications. In the old USSR, you got a license (which had a waiting period to get it) and when you got it and signed it at the courthouse, the state recognized the union. You could then go to a church and have the union blessed by the church. 1 state 'marriage', 1 church 'marriage'.

If we had "Legal Bindings" performed by the state (and getting the license would be part of that. There would be a mandatory waiting period (as there already is for the license). Maybe have the signing of the license at the courthouse instead of in front of the clergy. It will slow things down at the courthouse because they would need to have the "Do you want to do this?" portion for each license. This "Legal Binding" would be open to any 2 legal adults who wish to bind themselves together in a legal fashion. The legally bound people would automatically inherit from each other (except when pre-contracts are entered into the court records at the time of the binding), be allowed to make medical decisions (unless a medical power of attorney is filed prior to the illness), etc.. Just as the current spouses have. It could be 1 man, 1 woman; 2 men; or 2 women. They would have to be legal adults (18 years old and not legally declared incompetent).

If they wanted to UnBind themselves, it would be again a process through the courts with certain things standard (any real property is sold and proceeds split 50-50) unless the parties agree otherwise (or have a pre-contract). This would include JOINT custody (and financial responsibility) of children ... if one party wants to have sole custody; they have to demonstrate to the court why they are fit and the other is not ... gender should NOT matter in those fights either.

If the couple wants to have a church wedding (and their church is amenable) they can. If a couple wants to have a church ceremony and NOT be legally bound; they can. If they want to be legally bound and NOT do the church thing; they can. If they want to have an open ceremony celebrating the Binding without clergy; no problems.

This will solve the "our church says a marriage is..." because a Legal Binding isn't a marriage. And if a church wants to marry a couple of 17 year olds; they can but the state won't recognize the Legal Binding until they file the paperwork after they are both 18.
blueeowyn: (Default)
Ayradyss wrote in http://ayradyss.livejournal.com/310614.html about a girl who was convinced it was her fault that her SO put her in the emergency room. One of the commenters mentioned statistics on the % of children who grow up in an abusive home who escape the trap (or who are even capable of recognizing the abuse).

Sad, sad, depressing and infuriating.

I would love to go to all the people out there who 'stay in the marriage for the children' and smack them upside the head with these statistics. The really chilling aspect is the number of people who miss the more 'subtle' abuse. You don't have to send someone to the hospital to be an abuser. Mental/emotional/psychological abuse abound and in some circles are considered 'appropriate' (not merely normal but something to be promoted and praised). Gad, it drives me up the proverbial wall and there is so little I can do. I hope all who read this who have seen the situation can teach their siblings, friends, children, neices, nephews, etc. the evil that this is.

Just because someone is female/younger/single/married/etc. does not mean that they are at someone's beck and call for all things at all times. Being female is natural. Being male is natural. Being a rug takes two people (one to do the walking, one to take it). Being an asshat is YOUR doing; not someone else's. Walking on people is wrong. Expecting it because of their 'status' is more wrong. Teaching your children this is the worst. I'm not talking just the verbal preaching but the walking the proberbial walk. If your SMO is to drop everything to serve your spouse and apologize for everything in the world, that will be taught to your children. If your SMO is to obey everything your spouse says without question (or worse gripe about how stupid it is that s/he wants/expects you to do X but you do it anyway); your children will learn that that spouse is in control.

And that isn't even starting on the people out there who believe to the core of their soul that Their Child is the center of the universe and that everything must take a second place to Their Child and that it is not only perfectly normal but perfectly correct that Their Child be permitted to interrupt everything without even an 'excuse me' or a 'hold on darling, I'm talking to X'. And heaven forfend that anyone expect that Their Child be expected to leave something alone. Feh

These sorts of things lead to the number of rude, pushy, obnoxious people who truely believe that the sun shines from their backside and that all things are due to them and nothing is ever their fault.

I have seen the effects of 'passive' abuse. I have seen the effects of 'active' abuse. I sometimes think that the rules for 'cruel and unusual punishment' should be suspended for the abusers. However, I do know that is a slippery slope and I do NOT want to go there (esp. since I recall that speaking against the Government will have me branded as a terrorist according to the current inhabitant of the White House and said being believes in torture to gain 'information' to use of his own political purposes).
blueeowyn: (Default)
This is a companion piece to the Friendship one I just posted (http://blueeowyn.livejournal.com/237189.html). As I have said repeatedly, your spouse should be one of your best friends if not the best friend. However, your spouse should not be your only friend. This is another one of the posts that has been in progress for some time and I have gotten tired of fiddling with it.
Read more... )

Friendship

Jul. 5th, 2007 05:47 pm
blueeowyn: (Default)
What is friendship? Is it hanging out together? It is laughing together? Is it crying together? Or is it more (or less)? What constitutes a true friendship?

In my book a friend is someone that you like, that likes you. But it is more than simple affection (or at least for a good friend it is). There is a level of woven tapestry of your lives so that when a thread leaves the pattern, the pattern feels incomplete and empty. There is trust, respect, understanding, involvement, and communication. With some friends, they may not see each other frequently but they are comfortable with each other both in talking and in silence. Things will just grow out of the silences. They can be companionably silent or they can talk with ease.

Respect is a large part of it. If you do not respect someone, it is difficult to be a true friend to them. And part of your friendship will be the showing of respect. I don't mean that you have to agree with everything that someone believes in, that isn't respect, that is propaganda. Respect is knowing, deep down in your soul, that the other person has intrinsic value of their own, not just as a generic person but as that specific person. Respect is acknowledging that while you may agree to disagree, that the things you disagree on have merit for each person. If one person is Pro-Life and one person is Pro-Choice; if they respect each other they may debate the merits of each side and present arguments for their beliefs without denigrating each other. They will acknowledge that while they may not agree with the relative merit of the arguments that the arguments have a basis for the other person and that the opinion of the other person is a valid opinion, even if it doesn't match what is 'right'.

Camaraderie is a wonderful thing, but in a true friendship it has depth behind it. A sharing of life and life experiences. A willingness to be open and honest without being cruel. A willingness to accept the honesty of each other without lashing out. A willingness to be there for the other and to be true to the other and to the other's needs.

If you cannot (or will not) share thoughts/ideas with someone unless pushed, calling that a Friendship seems to demean the term Friend. You may be Friendly acquaintances; but not true friends. If you assume the worst about someone without talking to them to get their side of the story, that isn't friendship, that is being a social lemming.

Friends do sometimes drift apart and the pain of the death of what was (and what could have been with honesty, openness, and commitment) is as painful in its own way as the death of a loving relationship. Love, TRUE LOVE, is based on friendship (and should grow from it) so it stands to reason that a friendship will feel like a little love.

A marriage should be based on a solid Friendship as I write here

Profile

blueeowyn: (Default)
blueeowyn

June 2017

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Active Entries

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 28th, 2017 04:42 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios