Thousands of years and many civilizations have defined a marriage as the union between one man and one woman. With few exceptions, those civilizations that did not follow that perished.
Especially where financial matters are concerned, when it comes to dissolving a marriage, any dissembling at all is strictly against the law - on penalty of perjury. You need to disclose fully and factually, which is precisely what the discovery process is all about.
'Marley and Me' was a book I was proud of and believed in, but I thought it would just have a modest audience because it is such a personal story about my marriage and my family.
I can't imagine having a real personal thing, like divorce and marriage, all those things, being in the public eye. I try to not talk about anything personal, and then nobody has the fire to throw back at you, like 'You said this back then!'
While I believe in marriage as an institution, I am also petrified of it.
While religious institutions should be able to pick and choose which unions they bless, civil governments should issue marriage licenses to all couples.
It's all kind of a big illusion: the white picket fence and the perfect marriage and the kids. Check that box off, check that box off, and move forward.
I prepared myself for my marriage to Pierre Trudeau, but I didn't prepare myself for marriage to the prime minister.
I don't think Pierre Trudeau knew how to be a husband. I couldn't stay in that marriage.
The hypocrisy and false piety of the deniers aside, the relationships of gays have no effect on heteros. Especially all the heteros who've done such a marvelous job of debasing marriage on their own all these many years.
All that a husband or wife really wants is to be pitied a little, praised a little, and appreciated a little.
Many people spend more time in planning the wedding than they do in planning the marriage.
If a man aspires for a political career, he can start at 18 and go on and on. This is not true about women, who fall back when marriage and children happen, which are equally important. That is not gender bias.
Society may no longer define marriage in the only way marriage has ever been defined in the annals of recorded history. Many societies allowed polygamy, many allowed child marriages, some allowed marriage within families; but none, in thousands of years, defined marriage as the union of people of the same sex.
The principle of plural marriage was revealed to the Mormons amid much secrecy. Dark clouds hovered over the church in the early 1840s, after rumors spread that its founder, Joseph Smith, had taken up the practice of polygamy. While denying the charge in public, by 1843 Smith had shared a revelation with his closest disciples.
Well married a person has wings, poorly married shackles.
To the mass of mankind - meaning also womankind - marriage may be the only possible thing; but to the individual, it may be the one thing impossible.
I suffered from a mild case of postpartum depression after my second child and the physical challenge of maintaining an overnight shift at CBS, a marriage, and two in diapers made the symptoms worse and everyone in the house paid the price.
Woman, or more precisely put, perhaps, marriage, is the representative of life with which you are meant to come to terms.
What sort of job can you hold in America in which it is safe to hold the personal conviction that same-sex marriage is wrong? The answer: there is no such job. Except Democratic presidential candidate in 2008. Then you're fine.
