Really. Just a coincidence.

October 6, 2003 2:32 PM

By Presidential Proclamation, October 12 through 18 will be Marriage Protection Week, which "provides an opportunity to focus our efforts on preserving the sanctity of marriage." October 12 is also the anniversary of the murder of Andrew Shepard. Just as President Bush gave a speech condemning Affirmative Action on Martin Luther King Day and declared the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision "National Sanctity of Life Day," this is, of course, a complete coincidence.
posted by XQUZYPHYR (94 comments total)

I hope there's a parade. I'm going to go set my eggs out in the sun now!
posted by velacroix at 2:37 PM on October 6, 2003

Hey, which section of the Constitution ascribes the federal government the power and responsibility to "preserve the sanctity" of religious and cultural institutions? I get confused sometimes.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 2:37 PM on October 6, 2003

...Matthew, that is.
posted by soyjoy at 2:38 PM on October 6, 2003

Some days I wonder whether it's worth crawling out from under my rock to fling feces at this kind of thing...
posted by scarabic at 2:41 PM on October 6, 2003

How about outlawing divorce? Seems like the #1 threat to healthy marriages to me.

[crawls back under rock]
posted by scarabic at 2:43 PM on October 6, 2003

Hey, our first divorce hearing is next week. How timely!
posted by mischief at 2:44 PM on October 6, 2003

A comic on the Defense of Traditional Marriage.
posted by CrunchyFrog at 2:44 PM on October 6, 2003

My marriage doesn't need any protection, thank you very much.
posted by Slothrup at 2:46 PM on October 6, 2003

No bed without a lump
posted by BentPenguin at 2:47 PM on October 6, 2003

What could be more pro-marriage than letting everyone do it? <sigh />
posted by SealWyf at 2:48 PM on October 6, 2003

Bizaro talked about marrage yesterday, too.
posted by jazon at 2:50 PM on October 6, 2003

And today I'll learn how to spell marriage
posted by jazon at 2:51 PM on October 6, 2003

Plus, National Coming Out Day is October 11.

In related news, a new study shows that sexual orientation is hardwired before birth, which reminded me of this study from the 90's linking lesbianism and ring finger length to show that sexuality might be just one more genetic trait.

It's okay, though - GW and friends will help us to see the error of our biological ways with a celebration of marriage. That should change *everything.* I know I'm more attracted to men already!


posted by pomegranate at 2:52 PM on October 6, 2003

Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures.

Is it too much for GWB to cite his sources? He is the president, after all.
posted by PrinceValium at 3:02 PM on October 6, 2003

"Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures."

In light of this statement, given that we're allowing gay couples to adopt, how can we justify not letting them marry? Won't somebody think of the children?
posted by nickmark at 3:04 PM on October 6, 2003

PrinceValium: I think his sources are in Nigeria. Bob Novak's set for a scoop any day now...
posted by PigAlien at 3:04 PM on October 6, 2003

And what part of "compassionate conservatism" does he not understand?
posted by aacheson at 3:06 PM on October 6, 2003

Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures.

Well, if "research" has shown that, why not legalize same-sex unions?

Will they call in Homeland Security to Protect Marriages?

*knock* *knock* *knock*

"Excuse me, ma'am, sir. Special Agent Rush Jones checking in. We have reports of an unmarried couple living in sin."

"Yeah. So?"

"Aren't you ashamed?"

*uncomfortable silence*

"Well, it worked for Jack Tripper."

*click of manacles*

Suddenly, The Handmaid's Tale doesn't seem so implausible.
posted by ed at 3:07 PM on October 6, 2003

I feel a hate crime coming on...
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:07 PM on October 6, 2003

As discussed here, GWB didn't proclaim the the "Sanctity of Human Life" day. Ronald Reagan did it in 1984. It's still absurd that GWB carries on the proud tradition, though.
posted by zsazsa at 3:17 PM on October 6, 2003

Ummm... I'd bet most of us folks who believe in something like "the sanctity of marriage" don't think it's protected by pistol-whipping an innocent young man to death. Just sayin'.

Also, unless Al Sharpton somehow wins the democratic nomination, I will not be voting for Bush. Maybe not even then. Please, please, let it not come to that though.
posted by weston at 3:25 PM on October 6, 2003

October 12 is also the anniversary of the murder of Andrew Shepard.

It's also exactly one month and a day after Sept. 11. Clearly he is making a comment on muslims taking multiple wives. For shame.
posted by insomnyuk at 3:25 PM on October 6, 2003

What was Oliver Stone saying about the thirteenth month?
posted by ed at 3:29 PM on October 6, 2003

insomnyuk, I am pretty sure XQUZYPHR was commenting on the irony of the dates and the tone-deafness of the Bush administration, not suggesting a deliberate effort to schedule the event to snub the memory of Matthew Shepard. Would you like to try again with a more apropos snide remark? Think real hard this time.
posted by stonerose at 3:35 PM on October 6, 2003

The declaration of "national" days, weeks, and months is such a crock. They serve no purpose but to promote one agenda or another, and diminish the dignity of the government. They carry no weight (not that they should), and reek of special dispensations. They should all be abolished post haste. What are we, children, to seek gold stars of recognition and approval from the very authorities we have chosen to represent us? Let the citizenry engage in social engineering and blustering hype—the government should limit itself to its prescribed role, which it has enough trouble fulfilling.
posted by rushmc at 3:35 PM on October 6, 2003

Good gosh, get a grip people. Bush is talking about taking initiatives to protect marriage through education and programs directed at hopefully increasing the longevitey of marriage. No need to start predicting doomsday here.
For a group of people so worried about gay marriage (something I do agree with), y'all appearantly don't give a shit about the actual marriage itself. The divorce rate in America is around 50%. Am I the ONLY one who finds that slightly frightning and maybe something that society ought to work on?
posted by jmd82 at 3:38 PM on October 6, 2003

you are not the ONLY one.
many more are just as wrongly preturbed as you.

so the institution of marriage doesn't work. it's not biological, it's social.
posted by kid_twist at 3:48 PM on October 6, 2003

Am I the ONLY one who finds that slightly frightning and maybe something that society ought to work on?

Nope. The divorce rate is precisely why I'm not in favor of gay marriage. We've had the freedom to make and break initimate relationships at the drop of a hat for so long I believe it tends to make many gay people a little cavalier about said relationships. Many (times many squared) are the gay men I know who've had tons of "always and forever" relationships that never make it past the six month anniversary. Should gay people become part of the 'institution', the only real people to profit will be divorce attorneys.
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:49 PM on October 6, 2003

For a group of people so worried about gay marriage (something I do agree with), y'all appearantly don't give a shit about the actual marriage itself. The divorce rate in America is around 50%. Am I the ONLY one who finds that slightly frightning and maybe something that society ought to work on?

I think it's a good thing - or at least a much better thing than the situation we had before, where people spent decades trapped in loveless marriages because the law made it hard to split up. I think it's kind of astonishing that as many as 50% of marriages end only with the death of one spouse.
posted by Mars Saxman at 3:49 PM on October 6, 2003

jmd82: I couldn't agree more. Every day divorced people scare the living bugfuck out of me. Many of them have big teeth and huff, puff, and blow random houses in. Divorces are truly an epidemic rivaling the bubonic plague. Ordinary people get married. The marriage doesn't work out. And suddenly divorcés and divorcees alike turn into flesh-eating zombies running around an urban landscape. Divorce attorneys, inured to the mutation, perform the sacred rite, which involves bifurcating property and small animals. The half cats and almost dogs running around Baltimore, for example, have caused additional fatalities.

To protect myself, I generally shoot divorced people in the head, just to be sure that their zombie brains are thoroughly destroyed. Scientists have been working on a cure to this epidemic for quite some time. Unfortunately, the considerable time that they devote to their studies, causes them to be divorced. Something of a joke in the scientific community. (And you thought irony was dead!) Consequentially, the transformation rate from scientist to zombie is considerable. Yet many noble souls step up to solve the problem.

Thank Mom, my vintage Remington and Apple Pie that the White House is around to protect us against the Vicious Divorce Zombies while Securing Marriage. I really wouldn't know what to do with my time if I wasn't so protected by our Wise & Almighty Republic.
posted by ed at 3:53 PM on October 6, 2003

I think it's a good thing - or at least a much better thing than the situation we had before, where people spent decades trapped in loveless marriages because the law made it hard to split up.

I can agree with that, though I do think longer engagement periods and more pre-marriage counseling would significantly lower the divorce rate to ensure people really are marrying the "right person." On another note, I would ask what about the kids with the high divorce rate? All I hear is that divorces can mess up a kid by dragging them through the process etc etc etc, but I came from a private Catholic school where the divorce rate is somewhere bewteen 2-5% so I never really saw it first-hand...To those who've maybe been through it, do you think divorce is as detrimental to the kids as its made out to be?
posted by jmd82 at 3:56 PM on October 6, 2003

Oops. Apologies for the first name error... I have no idea why I wrote Andrew instead of Matthew. Weird. Again, sorry.

Insomnyuk, I think this being the third case of Bush issuing proclamations supporting a viewpoint directly contrary to an event associated with its exact, and opposed by Bush, opposite, is beyond clear. You need to try harder making a believable case that you actually missed the point.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:02 PM on October 6, 2003

Marriage should be legislated to be a union between a man and a woman, because... "Marriage is a union between a man and a woman."

The most circular argument ever.
posted by scarabic at 4:03 PM on October 6, 2003

I call upon the people of the United States to observe this week with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies.

Please note that these activities should only be performed with the man on top, lights out, and without too much noise. Thank you.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 4:09 PM on October 6, 2003

To those who've maybe been through it, do you think divorce is as detrimental to the kids as its made out to be?

Can't speak to that, but I sure can tell you about the joys of a non-divorce. My mother and father decided to stay together for my sake, ain't that beautiful? Boy was I sure lucky to live in a home seething with passive aggression, unexplained undercurrents of hate, heavy drinking, and depression. God bless their wise decision.
posted by badstone at 4:11 PM on October 6, 2003

To those who've maybe been through it, do you think divorce is as detrimental to the kids as its made out to be?

Well, my brother's been looking for a father figure in all the wrong people (Jack Daniels, Jim Beam, Old Granddad) for nearly 30 years, and the Freudians amongst you might suggest that an absent father and domineering mother might have done something to my own delicate constitution...
posted by WolfDaddy at 4:12 PM on October 6, 2003

If you want to lower the divorce rate, you got to start with Hollywood. When perfect couples like Tom and Nicole give it up, they take thousands more with them. Just wait until Ben and J.Lo divorce, the applications will flood the courts.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 4:14 PM on October 6, 2003

"To those who've maybe been through it, do you think divorce is as detrimental to the kids as its made out to be?"

I don't think it affected me at all when my parents divorced. My younger brother, on the other hand, pretty much became a basket case, and apparently has only really gotten himself straightened out in the last couple of years (20-some-odd years later).
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:16 PM on October 6, 2003

do you think divorce is as detrimental to the kids as its made out to be?

Better to come from a broken home than a breaking one. I think that many of the really bad experiences kids have with divorce are often in those cases where the parents stayed together for too long, and as such they find it very difficult to maintain a civil relationship with each other. Often it's the personalities involved which cause problems anyway - not the divorce itself, but the parents.

I find all this handwringing about divorce bizarre - people are not static entities, they change, sometimes that change means that their marriage doesn't work anymore, sometimes people grow apart, sometimes people realise that marriage just isn't right for them (or that this marriage isn't). It happens, the divorce rate isn't a sign of the end times, it's a sign that maybe lifelong marriage just isn't right for a lot of people. Why should anyone care except the people involved? It doesn't mean YOUR marriage will fail. I just don't understand all this "defense of marriage" stuff - those who believe in it (as either a lifelong commitment or otherwise) will continue to do so, and those who don't, don't, and no amount of selling or protecting or "defending" (against what, exactly?) is going to change that. It all sounds like if we pretend that "traditional" marriage is right, that will somehow make it so, which doesn't work any more than sticking your head in the sand makes whatever you're scared of go away. Why does anyone care, really? It's a personal thing, not a national thing.

And ed - howling with laughter.
posted by biscotti at 4:18 PM on October 6, 2003

What bothers me about this is the blurring of that oh-so-carefully laid line separating church and state. I have strong religious beliefs, but I don't need or want Dubbya and his cronies trying to legislate (regulate?) marriage. What keeps my marriage together is my husband and I working together, and (radical personal belief coming up) our connection with God. The only thing the government had to do with it was the $50 we had to pay for the license, plus the IRS marriage penalty we now get hit with every year. Maybe I've been reading too much Orwell lately, but this seems like the beginning of something that could get very nasty very quickly.
posted by Watsonne at 4:19 PM on October 6, 2003

The divorce rate is precisely why I'm not in favor of gay marriage.

Wolfdaddy, I'm sure you don't think that we shouldn't have the right to screw up just as much as the breeders, right? If it makes you feel any better, my relationship/civil-union/pair-bond/whatever has lasted fifteen years, and we're so codependent now, we're stuck with each other!
posted by me & my monkey at 4:20 PM on October 6, 2003

"To encourage marriage and promote the well-being of children"

When I see that nonsense, I just cringe and know it has absolutely nothing to do with the well-being of children. Pithy indeed.

"Research has shown that, on average, children raised in households headed by married parents fare better than children who grow up in other family structures."

I call bullshit on that sentence. Selective reasearch to prop up a stinking mess. What is missing is research on the effects of children whose parents are in a horrible marriage and should not be together, for the well-being of the children, you understand.

"where all people are treated with dignity and respect."

If that is true, then same sex marriages should also count. Whom is the government dictating what people should or shouldn't be doing in their bedrooms [or wherever].

What a joke. Those buying into this declaration from the whitehouse, there's a telemarketer calling you soon. Buy. Buy. Buy!
posted by alicesshoe at 4:36 PM on October 6, 2003

There was a great article in an August New Yorker, "The Marriage Cure" by Katherine Boo, a gripping look at the lives of two Oklahoma City women who sit in the audience of one of the Bush-inspired marriage-promotion seminars targeted at them. On the New Yorker site, there is an online only Q&A and, in the archive, a related 2001 Boo article, "After Welfare."
posted by Zurishaddai at 4:50 PM on October 6, 2003

From a teacher's anecdotal perspective - I've seen lots of kids whose families divorced. Some kids went to pieces. Some kids seemed fine (or at least, they seemed fine in school). Having both parents remain active in your life seems to help, as does having the parents remain amicable. But I think there are no guarantees, and as some have pointed out, two siblings can react in wildly different ways to the same situation.

That being said, there's a world of difference between saying "The divorce rate is too high" and saying "The government should try to lower the divorce rate." It seems to me bizarre that we should be using the power of government for that purpose. Isn't the right of people to make decisions for themselves the more basic issue? If people want to get married, or remain unmarried, or get divorced, or try to hold their marriage together, fine. The institutions that can try to influence these decisions are more properly the family or the church/temple/mosque. The government shouldn't be involved in privileging some situations over others, and that includes privileging straight unions over gay ones.

On preview, what Watsonne said.
posted by Chanther at 4:54 PM on October 6, 2003

it's a good thing these declarations mean nothing, except to show selected electoral groups that our president is really with them, in thought if not in deed.

Wolfdaddy, I'm sure you don't think that we shouldn't have the right to screw up just as much as the breeders, right?
Exactly--we should have the same rights straight people have in messing up their lives. And instead of thinking of divorce lawyers, why not think of the job creation in wedding planning, catering, flowers, etc...

ed: hysterical! : >
posted by amberglow at 4:58 PM on October 6, 2003

Well, speaking from my own experience about the whole thing... by the time my parents were my age (I'm 22), they were already married. They got divorced 27 years in. Man, I'm waiting at LEAST another ten years before I commit to something for the rest of my life.

They divorced when I was thirteen. I was pretty excited about that, because it meant one person who was pissed off all the time was out of the house. It got even better as my siblings left, because more pissed off people were gone. Then I went off to college, and nobody was pissed off all the time for no good reason anymore. It was good.

I didn't find having them gone affected me very much, especially in terms of being active in my life, because none of them were very active anyway, unless they were taking out their own neuroses or anger on me.

I don't mean to turn this into TherapyFilter or anything, so I'll just make my basic conclusion: Getting married young is stupid, and sticking it out when it clearly isn't working and is detrimental to all involved, including the children, is even stupider.
posted by nath at 5:03 PM on October 6, 2003

Wolfdaddy, I'm sure you don't think that we shouldn't have the right to screw up just as much as the breeders, right?

Are you--and you, too, amberglow--seriously suggesting this is a reason to advocate gay marriage? So we can contribute to the official marriage screw-up rate of the country?

I find all this handwringing about divorce bizarre - people are not static entities, they change, sometimes that change means that their marriage doesn't work anymore, sometimes people grow apart, sometimes people realise that marriage just isn't right for them (or that this marriage isn't).

While all this is very true, most wedding vows, even today, belie that truth and a lifetime commitment is presumed. Many marriages begin right then and there with a foundation of deception, which is often perpetrated and propagated onto offspring.
posted by WolfDaddy at 5:25 PM on October 6, 2003

Bush seems to be proclamation happy, check out Whitehouse.gov Presidential Proclamation page, I lost count after 47.

Of special note...


NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim October 24, 2002, as United Nations Day. I call upon the people of the United States to observe this day with appropriate programs and activities.
posted by CrazyJub at 5:38 PM on October 6, 2003

Are you--and you, too, amberglow--seriously suggesting this is a reason to advocate gay marriage? So we can contribute to the official marriage screw-up rate of the country?

I think you see it very negatively, wolf. I advocate gay marriage because I deserve equal rights, and choices and options equal to those of straight citizens. What the success or failure rates of gay marriage will be no one knows yet. Let's give it a try and see, no? Just because 1/2 of all marriages end in divorce is no reason not to let us get married too. We may even strengthen the institution (and make it more fab, too) : >
posted by amberglow at 5:50 PM on October 6, 2003

I understand why religionists would want their church involved in their statement of commitment.

I do not understand why anyone would want the government involved in their selection of a partner.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:18 PM on October 6, 2003

From GLAAD: "Among the anti-gay industry groups listed as co-sponsors of the weeklong attack on civil rights protections for same-sex couples and families are:  the American Family Association, the Traditional Values Coalition, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, the Christian Coalition, Citizens for Community Values, Concerned Women for America, Coral Ridge Ministries, the Free Congress Foundation, Eagle Forum and others (a complete list is available at http://www.marriageprotectionweek.com). Such groups employ paid staff to defame and dehumanize LGBT people and families while working to deny them fundamental civil rights protections locally and nationally."
posted by stonerose at 6:30 PM on October 6, 2003

stonerose: tone-deaf, yes
xquwhatever: intentional and malicious, I highly doubt it. They have much bigger fish to fry. I'd be surprised if Bush even knows who Matthew Shepard is. Perhaps the interest group behind the push for this week did that on purpose, but again, I'm highly doubtful that Bush knew.

Anyway, the lovefest in this thread is yawn-inducing. Of course most of the President's proclamations are bullshit, but making proclamations is part of the job. Better that than have him invade some more third world countries.
posted by insomnyuk at 6:35 PM on October 6, 2003

great post! thanks XQUZYPHYR!
posted by poopy at 6:37 PM on October 6, 2003

To those who've maybe been through it, do you think divorce is as detrimental to the kids as its made out to be?

My parents' divorce was one of the best things that happened to me. When my father left, all of a sudden there was peace and quiet around the house. Also, my relationships with both of my parents improved, because they were not constantly pissed off, like they used to be when they lived together. Both of them actually started showering me with more attention than they did before splitting up. Thank you God for divorces!
posted by epimorph at 6:49 PM on October 6, 2003

The president tells me that marriage is a sacred institution, and who am I to disagree? Nobody, that's who. Therefore, I suggest that the easiest and most productive means we have at our disposal to protect the sanctity of this most holy of institutions is to remove its administration and oversight from the incompetent hands of our corrupt government. Eliminate it as a state institution, and there are no longer any hang-ups about Constitutionality or questions of equal rights, and the churches may once again protect their elect from the ungodly influence of those heathen gays. As Bush illumes, " Marriage is a union between a man and a woman," and I would but add to that the qualification "sanctioned by God" - therefore let not the incompetent state meddle in His affairs.

As for the irrelevant (to the question of gay marriage) research purporting to show that children of divorces fare worse than those from healthy marriages: if not for the frequency of divorce, we'd never have the statistics to show that. Of course children who grow up surrounded by angry adults, in environments of hostility, aggresiveness and conflict will be less well adjusted, by the surveyor's keen measurement, than the child in whose household these traits were absent. Divorce rates are a statistical proxy for bad marriages - not all bad marriages end in divorce, unfortunately, because people in general are not just abusive and intemperate but stupid as well, but thankfully a good portion of them now are able to do so.
posted by dilettanti at 6:55 PM on October 6, 2003

From GLAAD: "Among the anti-gay industry groups listed as co-sponsors of the weeklong attack on civil rights protections for same-sex couples and families are:

They forgot this anti-gay group. Who cares if right-wing asshats sitting in their thinktanks have something ignorant to say about gay rights. The asshat in the White House is the real problem. LGBT advocates, and anyone else whose interests are being assaulted by the administration, need to stop complaining about outside idealogues, get out onto the street and work together to elect the Democrat in '04.
posted by PrinceValium at 6:59 PM on October 6, 2003

Sad to say... but it's very possible that I can point to more enduring gay relationships than straight, whether they're actually called "marriages" or not. For one thing, "marriage" imposes a bunch of societal expectations on the relationship. I know lots of gay folks who make it up more as they go along, with a wide range of results.

Their relationships generally survive affairs better, for one thing.
posted by scarabic at 7:00 PM on October 6, 2003

I agree with dilettanti that as a conservative Christian, the best thing the government could do, in my view, is to get out of marriages. If they want to codify civil unions between ANY two people, for the purposes of taxation, inheritance, next of kin, power of attorney, etc., then that's fine. But I find it offensive for the government to license marriages. Marriage was originally a religious sacrament long before the government figured out how to regulate it. I don't see the government regulating other sacraments. My marriage is ordained by God, not the state. If that means that homosexuals can live in civil union, then that's fine with me. All we're doing now is playing word games.
posted by marcusb at 7:26 PM on October 6, 2003

Not only did the marriage is between a man and a woman piss me off, but the marriage is for children shit, as well.

Uh, no. Married five years on the 24th of this month, no kids here. By not having kids is our marriage less than those that do? Ah, fuck it, get the government out of marraige, allow any people who love one another to marry (or hell, marry if you don't love one another, not my business.)

As for the divorce rate? Blame it on the individual couples who didn't look towards the marriage and focused more on the wedding. Lord knows I know plenty of people like that.
posted by SuzySmith at 7:31 PM on October 6, 2003

That's okay, cuz the entire rest of the year? Fifty-one weeks of divorce encouragement. It all evens out. Marriage doesn't need protection. Marriage needs abolishment. A relationship is between the two (or more) individuals in said relationship, and if they choose to include their church that's their choice. The government should get out of it, and marriage needs to stop being a destination. It's not a place people eventually go when they are in love. It's a beginning, only for those who can't bear being apart.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:49 PM on October 6, 2003

Of course most of the President's proclamations are bullshit, but making proclamations is part of the job.

Nonsense. He's not a king (yet). And the making-bullshit part of the job should be actively and aggressively discouraged.
posted by rushmc at 8:08 PM on October 6, 2003

I find myself in the strange position of being in agreement with the likes of marcusb and ZachsMind. Marriage should be a commitment/sacrament in one's religion, and civil unions of all flavors should be offered to those wanting some official sanction of their relationship by the government. It should be a contract, like any other, between any combination or number of men and/or women, for any desired duration, up to and including "forever". This seems like the only reasonable course of action, and, as such, will never ever happen. Bah!
posted by majcher at 8:29 PM on October 6, 2003

We are gathered here this hour to unite these three men, and these five women, and these two goats, and this maple credenza in the bonds of holy matrimony which once was an honorable estate but is now a formality of little import. Into this, these several now come to be joined.

If anyone present can show just and legal cause why they may not be joined, let them speak now, and they shall be rightly ignored as interfering busybodies.

These beings, and their credenza, do give of themselves willing, though the goats do appear nervous.

Men, women, goats, and credenza, will you have these men, women, goats, and credenza as your lawful wedded partners, food, and household furniture, to live together in the estate of matrimony? Will you love them, honor them, feed them whole oats, polish them with lemon oil, and keep them in sickness and in health; forsaking most others, be true to them as long as as you want to?

BEHOLD the symbol of wedlock. The perfect circle of love, the unbroken union of everyone united here today. May you all remain faithful to this symbol of true love.

Please join hands, hooves, and handles, and repeat after me:

We take as our wedded partners, livestock, and furniture, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in the barn and in the dining room, and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part.

For as much as you have consented together in wedlock, and have witnessed the same before this company of friends, family, farmhands, and carpenters, and have given and pledged your promises to each other, and have declared the same by giving and receiving a whole bunch of rings, and by joining hands, hooves, and handles,

By the authority vested in me by the State,
I pronounce these people to have a vested interest in each other for an indeterminate period of time.

You may now open the credenza.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:02 PM on October 6, 2003

The divorce rate in America is around 50%. Am I the ONLY one who finds that slightly frightning and maybe something that society ought to work on?

What is it your business? Do you sit around worrying about the ratio of those who prefer Diet Coke to Diet Pepsi? Marriage and divorce are personal issues; it's participants don't give a crap about the statistics, and they need not.

You never hear these people argue that because the divorce rate is around 50% we need to allow fewer marriages. The idea that society needs to work to prevent divorce is equally as stupid.
posted by troybob at 9:58 PM on October 6, 2003

Privatize Marriage! Great article, ZachsMind. I'll let K-Mart sanction my marriage, should I choose to get married.

I'll hire fresh fish five to write up the ceremony [make sure you add something about needing a mop in aisle #9 and the obligatory Attention K-Mart shoppers].
what's that they said? Sale or ceremony in aisle #9?
posted by alicesshoe at 10:45 PM on October 6, 2003

I wonder if Dick can get his daughter a nice autographed copy of the proclamation for her wedding anniversary.

"In case you haven't heard, Mary Cheney is openly gay. She lives with her "life partner," Heather Poe, in Colorado, and she wears a gold band on her left ring finger to symbolize her commitment."
posted by laptop_lizard at 10:58 PM on October 6, 2003

If the President's announcement doesn't scare you, just head over to Marriage Preservation Week (dot com, not dot org) and look at their "purpose":

The sacred institution of marriage is under attack. There are those who want to redefine marriage to include two men, or two women, or a group of any size or mix of sexes: One man and four women, one woman and two men, etc. If they fail to secure legal protection classifying these arrangements as 'marriage,' they want to include all these mixtures under the definition of 'civil union,' giving them identical standing with the marriage of one man and one woman.

They have gained the support of the national media and many politicians. Their efforts are intended to force, by law, 97% of Americans to bow down to the desires of the approximately 3% who are homosexuals.

To call attention to this most critical issue, Oct. 12-18 has been declared MARRIAGE PROTECTION WEEK. You, your church or group is encouraged to help protect the sacred institution of marriage

Now tell me this is actually about divorce rate again?
posted by bclark at 4:41 AM on October 7, 2003

What ed said! Best comment ever!
posted by nofundy at 5:08 AM on October 7, 2003

To those who've maybe been through it, do you think divorce is as detrimental to the kids as its made out to be?

I'm getting the idea that those on this thread who have said no, my parents' divorce was actually a good thing, were teenagers when the event happened, to the point that they were either able to choose sides or perceive that life was calmer when everyone wasn't screaming at each other.

At that stage, I might see how divorce could be construed even as a good thing for the sanity of the family involved. But I wonder about younger kids, kids who don't get it, who are prone to thinking, regardless of the assurances to the contrary, that they are somehow to blame, that the divorce is an editorial comment on the parents' love of them.

Even in those cases, I can see where divorce might be warranted by extreme circumstances. But my problem with divorce is that I perceive that there are a lot of people who split up, kids or whatever be damned, because they're seeking this mythical "happiness," because the grass is greener elsewhere, because the responsibilities they have taken upon themselves in terms of children are less weighty than this "happiness."

Flame away with the stories of divorced people who are immensely better off, and I don't doubt that they are true. But my own personal belief is that in the long run, responsibility has to trump happiness. And when it doesn't, I think that society ultimately suffers.

And I say that as someone in favor of gay marriage - because I think gays who marry are in fact seeking to be responsible - to each other and their communities. In a lot of ways, I think, heterosexuals could learn from that attitude.
posted by kgasmart at 7:04 AM on October 7, 2003

Are you--and you, too, amberglow--seriously suggesting this is a reason to advocate gay marriage? So we can contribute to the official marriage screw-up rate of the country?

Yes, Wolfdaddy, I want the same rights as straight people. It's irrelevant to me whether I'm personally able to exercise those rights better than they are. Either everyone should have the right, or no one should.

I think that lots of people are lousy drivers, but I wouldn't generalize from that that I don't deserve a driver's license.
posted by me & my monkey at 7:09 AM on October 7, 2003

"Marriage Protection." As countless of people have said before me, protection against what, exactly? It's laughable.

So is the notion that the commitment I have made with my partner is not as valid as the commitment a man and a woman has made.

If your version of God tells you that a marriage is between a man and a woman, then don't marry us in your church. No hard feelings. However, don't tell me that in a country that has supposedly adopted a separation between church and state, my partner and I can't have the same legal (non-religious) rights as a married couple based on religious reasons.

My partner and I have committed to each other and are raising a family together. If you don't think we deserve your God's blessing, then so be it. But give me one non-religious reason why we cannot own property and file taxes jointly and qualify for the appropriate tax breaks, why she cannot be covered under my insurance, why she should not have visitation rights if I'm in the hospital. These are not church-ordained rights, they are created and legislated by the state. I don't care about the terminology (marriage vs. civil union), but I do care about the effects on my life.
posted by widdershins at 7:30 AM on October 7, 2003

Dan Quayle was Right

try to get past the title.

not as exciting as flesh-eating zombies, but full of other crazy-kooky stuff like studies and research.

the author: Barbara Dafoe Whitehead writes on family and social issues for many publications. Her Atlantic Monthly article "Dan Quayle Was Right" was nominated for a National Magazine Award and won an EMMA (Exceptional Merit in Media Award) from the National Women's Political Caucus and Radcliffe College. She is also the recipient of an editorial award for Magazine Awareness of Global Issues and Concerns from Folio magazine and the Cowles Foundation for her Atlantic Monthly article "The Failure of Sex Education." THE DIVORCE CULTURE is her first book. Her second, WHY THERE ARE NO GOOD MEN LEFT is forthcoming from Broadway Books.

and she's got some credentials too: Whitehead earned a B.A. from the University of Wisconsin, studied at Columbia University as a Woodrow Wilson Fellow, and earned an M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Chicago.
posted by probablysteve at 7:32 AM on October 7, 2003

ps, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's achievements don't make her right.
posted by Summer at 7:45 AM on October 7, 2003

I've got some credentials, too...and I say you're full of shit.

The whole 'think of the children' line is tired and weak. Marriage protection is about the children in the way war in Iraq is about humanitarianism. The truth is that the morally righteous just can't resist telling others how to live their lives, they codify it when they can, and they steep it in emotionally puerile language.
posted by troybob at 8:14 AM on October 7, 2003

I perceive that there are a lot of people who split up, kids or whatever be damned, because they're seeking this mythical "happiness," because the grass is greener elsewhere, because the responsibilities they have taken upon themselves in terms of children are less weighty than this "happiness."

Well, first of all, not all parents who split up go on to ignore their kids (I'd hazard a guess, at least as scientific as yours, that few of them do - parenting from different houses is still parenting), second, unhappy parents simply aren't as good as happy parents, third, divorcing doesn't intrinsically entail abdicating responsibility for your kids. I'm sorry you think happiness is a myth, I certainly haven't found it to be so in my life.
posted by biscotti at 8:18 AM on October 7, 2003

For the "how did the divorce affect you" poll:

I was seven when my parents were divorced and at the time I had episodes of sleep walking, and I became pretty withdrawn and gained quite a bit of weight (thus developing a pattern of nurturing emotional hurt with food that, lucky me, lucky me, continued into adulthood). I don't blame all of this on their divorce, per se, but rather some of what happened as a result (poor subsequent relationship choices on the part of one parent and a total shirking of all parental duties on the part of the other) however, by the time of the divorce, the animosity between my parents had escalated to physical violence so while I think their divorce definitely affected me in some negative ways, and without a doubt caused me to grow up faster than I might have liked, I think that remaining in the marriage would have had eventually more disastrous consequences.

And I'm A-OK now!!! *grins maniacally*

I think someone's comment above about too many people looking toward the wedding rather than the marriage was spot on. When all my friends started getting married I felt that same urge to have a big party with a pretty dress and lots of presents, which really isn't a very good reason to get married. I've also read stats that say that people who marry in their early 20s are more likely to divorce than those who wait until their late 20s or early 30s. This makes sense to me because waiting allows you to gain some life experience, potentially increasing your dating pool, and develop your own identity before throwing your lot in with some one else for the rest of your life.

But... that's not for the government to say, or try to regulate.
posted by jennyb at 8:21 AM on October 7, 2003

Well, first of all, not all parents who split up go on to ignore their kids (I'd hazard a guess, at least as scientific as yours, that few of them do - parenting from different houses is still parenting), second, unhappy parents simply aren't as good as happy parents, third, divorcing doesn't intrinsically entail abdicating responsibility for your kids. I'm sorry you think happiness is a myth, I certainly haven't found it to be so in my life.

I am generally saying that I think it's a poor idea when your own happiness becomes more important than that of your children, and spin it any way that you want, but anecdotally I know quite a few people for whom this was the case.

Permit me to cite on anecodal example, with the caveat that is it merely an anecodote, perhaps not reflective of the overall whole - though I'd argue that it is more reflective than many would admit.

I know this woman, two young teenage kids, who at age 38 or some such decided that she wasn't "emotionally fulfilled" in her marriage. No violence, no screaming fights between her and the spouse and the kids in between. She just, you know, had that gnawing feeling. So she decided she didn't want to be married anymore, and filed for divorce. The husband was stunned, but gave her what she wanted.

She immediately took up with a guy some 10 years her junior, true love until he unceremoniously dumped her. She then gained 40 pounds and is wont to have all sorts of Oprah-esque "inspirational" quotes hung around her office cubicle. She plastered her vehicle with all sorts of stickers. She pierced her nose. She is, quite frankly, acting more juvenile than her kids. A mid-life crisis for women, I guess.

And now she's engaged to a guy 15 years her junior, and they of course are going to be married barefoot on some beach somewhere. Smart money is, this one won't last, either.

So here's my question: Who gained what from this divorce?

Has she gained "happiness?" If this latest forever-in-love like an adolescent pans out, perhaps. But the grass apparently wasn't as green as she perceived it to be.

Meanwhile, there is a former husband who still wonders why she never mentioned any of this to him while they were still together, and two kids puzzled as to why mom seems to insist on acting more juvenile than they.

Frankly, I think this is pathetic. No one is served by this. Why is it, then, that a better answer would not have been to have tried to talk this out with the husband beforehand, maybe seek some counseling?
posted by kgasmart at 8:50 AM on October 7, 2003

XQUZYPHYR, for my contribution to this thread, I will point out that Andrew Shepherd was The American President (the movie.) Maybe that's where you got it.
posted by callmejay at 9:07 AM on October 7, 2003

nofundy loves the credenza.

Must I "marry" the credenza in order to "own" it? In the fundie sense of marriage, of course.

If I just "buy" the credenza am I guilty of promoting prostitution? Or slavery? Sexual slavery? Ouch! A splinter group!
posted by nofundy at 9:09 AM on October 7, 2003

kgasmart, that has nothing to do with defending the sanctity of marriage and everything to do with a selfish individual. This anecdote speaks to the character of your friend, not to the nature of marriage or divorce.

There is no way that unhappy parents will raise happy children. It just doesn't happen. I don't necessarily think that divorce should be the quick fix it has become, but then again most of the people I see married never should have gotten married in the first place.
posted by archimago at 9:11 AM on October 7, 2003

btw, the "half of all marriages end in divorce" stat that gets thrown around isn't really true, at least not quite yet. Cecil Adams wrote about it a while back.

I like being married; but then, my wife is hot. And it appears that gays and lesbians are getting married whether Shrub likes it or not--and companies that want to stay competitive are offering benefits to same-sex partners. This is a civil rights issue, and civil rights issues don't just go away if you refuse to acknowledge them. Eventually a majority of people will realize that same-sex couples aren't destroying America, and they'll get over it. I just wish it would happen sooner rather than later. As someone else said above, my marriage doesn't need defending from the likes of these yahoos.
posted by vraxoin at 9:12 AM on October 7, 2003

No one is served by this

How are you in a position to judge this? It may seem to you that no one is being served by it, but I don't see how that makes it so, are you in a position to know all the intimate details of the people and the marriage? Or are you judging it as an outsider? Frankly, I find the "shut up and deal, accept your lot, you made your bed" attitude to be insulting and ignorant of the fact that not everyone's needs in life match your own. Just because it seems to you that divorcing to try and make a better life is the wrong thing to do doesn't make it objectively so.

And what archimago said.
posted by biscotti at 9:40 AM on October 7, 2003

ps, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead's achievements don't make her right.

obviously. but the studies and statistics she cites might. if you read the article, you can decide that for yourself. her credentials simply show her as not just a journalist writing on the topic, but a sociologist who often writes for a general audience.

I've got some credentials, too...and I say you're full of shit.

so are you saying i didn't post an article? 'cause all i did was post an article and information about the author. the only "editorial" comment was that it contained stats and research (in contrast to anecdotes and stories about zombies). i stand by that, it does. i never said it was right, just pointed out its existence, which i also stand by. the author info was copied, but i suspect that it's true.

hell, i haven't even read the article since 1993 when it first came out. i just remembered it was interesting and thought-provoking at the time so i thought someone else might like to read it. there is also an interesting historical discussion of Daniel Patrick Moynihan's focus on the subject as far back as the 1960's.
posted by probablysteve at 10:47 AM on October 7, 2003

I find the "shut up and deal, accept your lot, you made your bed" attitude to be insulting and ignorant of the fact that not everyone's needs in life match your own. Just because it seems to you that divorcing to try and make a better life is the wrong thing to do doesn't make it objectively so.

I frankly don't give a fuck about the individual's needs where there are children involved, and I think the individual that prioritizes his or her needs beyond those of their children is a selfish bastard. So there.

And I think there is little wrong with this country that couldn't be fixed if we all weren't such selfish bastards. Here's where I wind up agreeing with the religious right (shudder): When it's all me, my needs, my desires and my wants, what about the others whose lives are necessarily affected by it? Again, spin it any way you like, but it ultimately boils down to: Too bad for them. And that's not a real strong pillar upon which to rest a society.
posted by kgasmart at 10:54 AM on October 7, 2003

kgasmart, it's not that black and white though, and I think you are thinking of this in extremes. Yeah, what the woman in your example did was an extreme, and quite honestly I question her capacity to be a good mother to begin with. Birthing children does not make you a good mother. The best thing you can do for a child's psyche, imho, is to be an example of a healthy psyche. What kind of message are you sending to a child by remaining unhappy, or unfulfilled? That the child should also look forward to an unhappy and unfulfilled life? Do you think that kids don't instinctively know when a parent is hiding something as deep as unhappiness?

What were the circumstances of her marriage? Did she feel pressure to have children? Did she think that is where she would find fullfilment? I think you are trying to blame the concept of divorce for something that is really about the capacity of someone to be a good parent. Kids get over divorce. Kids often cannot get over the fallout of divorce, which is solely the responsibility of the parents to direct. Part of being a parent is to help your child cope with all that life will throw at him/her, and life throws us curveballs, and unexpected happenings, and mistakes and intentional changes. It's the not the divorce that hurts them at the end of the day, it's the role model the parents become as they navigate the divorce.
posted by archimago at 11:36 AM on October 7, 2003

I frankly don't give a fuck about the individual's needs where there are children involved, and I think the individual that prioritizes his or her needs beyond those of their children is a selfish bastard.

But you should give a fuck - unhappy people aren't good parents. We're not talking about people who don't feed their kids because they want to eat everything, we're talking about people who are unhappy taking steps to make themselves happy - happy parents have much more capacity to be better, more involved parents than unhappy parents do. To use your words - you can spin it all you like, but the bottom line is that selflessness to the point of being miserable helps nobody, least of all the children. You're making this out to be an issue of extremes - any parent who looks out for their own happiness must, by definition, be doing it at the expense of their children. This simply isn't the case. Some parents do that, but it's got nothing to do with divorce, and everything to do with how suited they are to being good parents. Taking steps to ensure your own happiness is very important in helping to ensure the happiness of those around you. A miserable parent who never attends to their own emotional needs is a far worse parent than a happy parent who takes the time to make themselves happy - this isn't "spin", it's common sense.

And again what archimago said.
posted by biscotti at 12:27 PM on October 7, 2003

Part of being a parent is to help your child cope with all that life will throw at him/her, and life throws us curveballs, and unexpected happenings, and mistakes and intentional changes

I agree with that, but I'm pretty adamant in my belief that a parent ought not be the one throwing the curveballs.

I think divorce can hurt kids at the end of the day, because I think at a certain age, kids cannot help but see a divorce as an editorial comment on the parents' commitment to the family, and therefore themselves. I know you're saying things aren't so black and white, but for me they simply are.

I mean, I just finished reading Antony Beevor's "The Fall of Berlin 1945," in which there is a passage about German mothers prostituting themselves to Soviet soldiers in order to spare their children's lives or in some cases gain some food for them to eat. I think, look at the sacrifice that parents have made for their children.

And then I think, how is it that we have become a nation where we can't even sacrifice our own emotional fulfilmment for the sake of our children? The mere idea of staying together for the sake of the children is thought to be ludicrious, now. But is it, really?

At some point we as a society stopped thinking about what's best for the kids and started thinking about what's best for ourselves. There's basically an entire industry cranking out books that say, hey, it's OK for both parents to work and stick the kids in daycare 40 hours a week, even when studies have shown this might not be 100 percent truthful. And we like to think that divorce does not hurt kids, we like to think that kids are often better off for it - and, indeed, some are. But we can never honestly assess the impact of it, for to do so might be to suggest that the rush towards self-fulfillment tends to leave casualties alongside the road, and we simply don't want to think of those casualties, so focused are we on this emotional or professional fulfillment.

Others, though, continue to place the happiness of their children above their own. Does that make them better parents? I believe it does - and I'd also say it makes them more responsible citizens, too.
posted by kgasmart at 12:28 PM on October 7, 2003

I'm not suggesting that divorce doesn't hurt kids. I was 22 when my parents separated, and it hurt then, but it was more hurtful to live in the war zone I grew up in up until age 18 when I left and never went back. I used to beg my mom to divorce my dad, just to make it all stop, but she was way too Catholic for that, and she only finally did because he moved out and she would have been foolish to let his new mistress run up credit card debt that she was legally still responsible for.

That's a really extreme example you are using for an analogy. You're comparing physical survival to emotional survival, though sometimes divorce is a matter of physical survival.

I also think that you are assuming that people enter decisions to divorce lightly. It's an admission of failure, and that cannot be easy to get over.

How can you teach a child emotional fulfillment if you have sacrificed your own? Aren't you just setting the child up to repeat your mistakes? Children mimic behavior. That's how they learn to socialize.

At some point we as a society stopped thinking about what's best for the kids and started thinking about what's best for ourselves.

I agree that we have some really messed up ideas about success in the U.S. One of the reasons I don't have kids is because my partner and I barely survive on 2 salaries, and I would never want my child in daycare, so we choose to not have children. I don't think that is selfish at all. i think that is killer family planning.


Others, though, continue to place the happiness of their children above their own. Does that make them better parents?

I don't know if I am comfortable with instilling the idea in a child that his/her happiness must come at the expense of another's, no matter whose happiness it is that is being sacrificed.
posted by archimago at 1:09 PM on October 7, 2003

And then I think, how is it that we have become a nation where we can't even sacrifice our own emotional fulfilmment for the sake of our children? The mere idea of staying together for the sake of the children is thought to be ludicrious, now. But is it, really?

This is still working under the assumption that "staying together for the kids" is always better for the kids, which it oftentimes isn't.
posted by nath at 1:14 PM on October 7, 2003

This is still working under the assumption that "staying together for the kids" is always better for the kids, which it oftentimes isn't.

But again, I'm not making blanket statments; I'm not saying it's always better for kids when parents stay together. But what I am saying is that we've gotten to the point as a society where we dismiss out of hand the notion that sometimes, it might be better for the kids. And I don't think that's a good assumption to make.

archimago, my parents fought like cats and dogs sometimes when I was a teenager, and my brother and I used to have conversations like, "If mom and dad get divorced, I want to live with dad." But my reaction would have been a lot different had I been five rather than 15; I probably would not have perceived the fighting to be as severe as I did ten years on, and my pristine little suburban world would have been shattered by the idea that my parents didn't love each other any more, and how, then, was it possible that they'd still love me?

And I think a lot of kids have that reaction and we go to all ends to try and tell them no, that's not the way it is, but I think a lot of kids just don't get over that sort of thing. I've seen it in my own friends who came from divorced families. There are scars. Again, not all the time - but enough to say that it's wrong, dangerous even, to dismiss the possibility that divorcing to find your own happiness isn't always beneficial to the well-being of your child.

I will teach my child that he has a right to emotional fulfillment, but not when that comes at the expense of another. You don't have kids? Divorce away, it's not in the same league. But once you have kids, you have a responsibility to those children to be there for them, and if that ultimately means that you aren't able to paint your masterpiece because you're trying to ensure your child will have a chance to paint his or her own, then that is the way of the world. Neither mankind nor mammal would have progressed had it not been this way.
posted by kgasmart at 1:43 PM on October 7, 2003

But how many people actually are divorcing to find "emotional fulfillment?" Do all of them actually not go to marriage counselors and make the decision lightly? Or do people divorce for other reasons, like adultery, abandonment, and one spouse simply being unwilling to continue in the marriage?

Would people approve of people staying in marriages for the sake of the kids if both partners decided to keep up the "domestic partnership" (living together and raising the kids together) while having girlfriends or boyfriends on the side? Currently it's not socially acceptable.
posted by Charmian at 2:13 PM on October 7, 2003

kgasmart - I'm getting the impression that you think that an individual's needs for emotional fulfillment can be suppressed, and they can't. You can choose not to fulfill them, but you can't make them go away. Staying together for the sake of the children, if that's the only reason, is doomed from the start - it's natural to avoid pain, it's natural to feel resentment against the cause of unavoidable pain - if you don't avoid the pain of staying in a bad relationship "for the sake of the children", all you're really doing is setting yourself up to resent those kids, who, through no fault of their own, are the reason you're unfulfilled and unhappy. You can minimize the importance of personal fulfillment all you like, you can subjugate it for the good of the children, but that doesn't make it go away, and it doesn't make its subjugation good for the children in the long run. Happy parents are better parents, you don't become happy by ignoring your own needs - ultimately ignoring your own needs is far worse for your children. I'd hazard a guess that most kids who are capable of understanding it would vote for a happy, divorced mum and dad over a miserable, together mum and dad any day. The "expense" involved here isn't "parents win, kid loses" but "everybody wins to some extent", with parents who stay together for the sake of the kids (again, if that's the only reason), everybody loses, period. You can't pretend to be happy 24/7, it's not possible, and the anger and misery you suppress will come out in some way, at some time, and odds are good the kids will be in the crossfire when it does.

And I certainly challenge your belief that things were better in the olden days when divorce was untenable and people stayed together because that was their only option. A "family" is what you make it, and healthy families come in all manner of configurations - the important factors are things like love, compassion and consideration, not who's married to whom and who lives where. "Being there for" someone doesn't have to entail living in the same house, and there's no reason you can't paint your own masterpiece while you're helping your child with theirs.
posted by biscotti at 2:20 PM on October 7, 2003

Me, I think kgasmart is projecting.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:17 AM on October 8, 2003

I will teach my child that he has a right to emotional fulfillment, but not when that comes at the expense of another.

Everything we do, positive or negative, affects others. If you choose to wait to pursue "emotional fulfillmet" until you exist alone in a vacuum, you are choosing to perpetually delay it and stunt your own growth. Certainly your point that parents should give strong consideration to the needs of their children is a valid one, but I don't think anyone's disputing that. But at the same time, an unhappy parent is a terrible role-model. Children learn largely from example, and they need to see people acting in their best self-interest so that they will do the same in their lives, and that does not imply ignoring the needs of others in order to do so.
posted by rushmc at 3:16 PM on October 8, 2003