Wedded Miss

June 4, 2009

By Dan Savage

My boyfriend and I have been together eight months. We love each other, and I see us spending our lives together. At least I did, until something he said a few days ago.

Long story short, for the last five months he's brought up marriage. Then a few days ago he informed me that he doesn't want a wedding. When I offered a small ceremony for immediate family and friends, he balked and said he's not even interested in a courthouse wedding. I asked if everything he'd said before was empty talk, and he said yes. He won't give me any better explanation. Oh, and this was two days after we decided I'd be moving in with him, and he still wants me to live with him even after dropping this bomb! Everyone I've talked to, including my therapist, said the equivalent of WTF?!?

Dan, can you decipher this male-ese for me?

Lady In A Relationship

You were discussing marriage at three months?

The fact that he would bring up marriage so early, and the fact that you didn't laugh in his face, disqualifies you both from obtaining a marriage license. (Okay, it doesn't—but it should.) Three months—eight months, sixteen months—is way too soon to be discussing marriage. Sure, you can allow yourself to be swept away by new love, you can crush out on each other, you can sheepishly admit that you've allowed yourself to daydream about marriage—so long as that admission is immediately followed by this statement: "But I realize it's way too soon to even think about it seriously..." But you absolutely, positively should NOT be making plans to marry, small ceremonies or large, courthouse or St. Paul's Cathedral, at eight fucking months; nor should you attempt to hold him—or anyone else—to a premature "commitment" to wed.

Your boyfriend doesn't have a bad case of "male-ese," LIAR, he has a good case of came-to-his-senses-ese. If you're lucky, the strain is contagious, perhaps sexually transmitted, and you'll soon be showing symptoms yourself.

And a bit of bonus advice: Get a therapist who doesn't believe that cashing your checks obligates him to tell you whatever idiot thing you want to hear.

In a recent column you wrote, "If you're not having sex with your boyfriend, or anyone else, and there's no sex in your foreseeable future, ANB, that's not monogamy—that's celibacy." I have been with my girlfriend for nine years, living together for seven. We have never had sex. At the beginning we fooled around a lot, but never went far. Now, like many couples who have been together for a while, the frequency has decreased. We go beyond kissing a few times a year, and never all that far. I am mostly okay with this: I take care of myself as necessary. We never talk about sex at all. We've moved back and forth across the country together and are otherwise committed. Is it ridiculous to leave sex out of the relationship?

Sexless And Seemingly Content

If you're happy and your girlfriend's happy, SASC, then I'm happy. Two people in a bad relationship can have plenty of great sex; two people in a great relationship can have little sex or no sex. Sex is a metric for assessing the health of a relationship, but it's not the only one. When two people come together who love each other and are compatible sexually—which can mean a shared interest in sex or a shared disinterest in sex—the angels sing, SASC. All that matters, again, is that you're both happy.

But are you happy, SASC? You say that you are, and I'll take your word for it, but there's a lot of wiggle room in the "mostly" in this sentence: "I am mostly okay with this." You owe it to yourself to determine if you are really and truly okay with living without sex—and if the girlfriend is too.

I'll add this to the debate over the threat that gay people pose to marriage: A fag saved my "opposite marriage."

My wife and I had a huge argument about sex after she rebuffed me one night. She was shouting that she couldn't stand the idea of me inside her because she felt like I was just masturbating in her. I shouted that we could stop having vaginal intercourse altogether for all I care because it was boring me, too, and besides, there was lots of other stuff we could do. She screamed, "Like what?!?" And I screamed, "Like oral! Masturbation! Role-playing! Whatever kinky shit you want!" There was a pause, and we both started laughing.

We took vaginal intercourse "off the menu" that night. After three weeks of amazing, mind-blowing sex, she called me at work and asked if I missed vaginal intercourse. I told her that I did but that putting it back on the menu was entirely her call. She got in the car and drove to my office, and we fucked in the stairwell. Sometimes you help people you don't even realize you've helped.

Married O And Newly Surging

You're welcome, MOANS, and thanks for sharing.

And speaking of marriage: Last week's decision by the California Supreme Court upholding Proposition 8 was expected but, in the wake of so many recent victories, still saddening, and I'm getting mail from lots of unhappy people. I'm unhappy about it, too. But we have to remember that this is a long game, folks, and despite this setback, we are winning. We've heard a lot about Prop 8 over the last week, and we're going to hear a lot about the fight to overturn it over the coming months, but let's not forget about Proposition 22.

In 2000, California voters approved a law banning same-sex marriage. It was a ballot initiative, like Prop 8, but just a law, not a constitutional amendment. And it was that law, Prop 22, that the California Supremes struck down in 2008, in their historic ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. And voters in 2000 approved Prop 22 by a 22-point margin. Eight years later, the same voters approved Prop 8 by just four points. That's an 18-point shift in favor of marriage equality in just eight years. That's extraordinary progress. A loss is still a loss, and a loss sucks, but the trend is so strongly in our favor that we cannot lose hope. The anti-gay bigots know that they're losing this debate, and it's why they're so hot to amend state constitutions now, while they still can, while they can still count on the votes of the old, the bigoted, and the easily manipulated.

But they are losing and they know it.

Gay marriage will be back to the ballot box in California in 2010 or 2012, and voters are going to repeal Prop 8. Fundamental civil rights should not be subject to a popular vote, of course, and the California Supremes had an opportunity to reaffirm that ideal. They chose not to, they buckled, and so gays and lesbians, unlike other minority groups, face the challenge of securing our rights at the ballot box. That seems like a daunting prospect until you recall Prop 22 and compare its margin of victory to that of Prop 8. Again, we witnessed an 18-point shift in favor of gay marriage in California in just eight years. We can gain another two points in two. We just have to stay in the fight and constantly remind ourselves and each other—and Maggie Gallagher—that we are winning.

mail@savagelove.net

 

Comments (143) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
no way! am I first?? Great column - as usual. I loved the "way to soon to talk marriage" advice. For some people, ANY age is too soon.
Posted by merryd on June 2, 2009 at 6:48 PM · Report
2
Dan: Please...please...don't contribute to the further corruption of the language.

You wrote "When two people come together who love each other and are compatible sexually—which can mean a shared interest in sex or a shared disinterest in sex—the angels sing, SASC"

"Disinterest" is not the opposite of "interest". It means "unbiased" or "impartial". It is the opposite of "having a vested interest". The opposite of "interested" is "uninterested."

I don't mean to sound like a grammar nazi (although I know that I do), but this one really bugs me. We already have a perfectly good word in "uninterest" and don't need to steal a different word and change its meaning.

Sorry for the tangent.
Posted by C_in_VA on June 2, 2009 at 7:08 PM · Report
3
uhh...'A fag saved my "opposite marriage."'? Is there a big part of the last story that got cut out or something? I don't get it.
Posted by nvk on June 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM · Report
4
nvk, MOANS is referring to Dan. He's the fag that saved his "opposite marriage."
Posted by mh on June 2, 2009 at 7:38 PM · Report
5
@C_in_VA

Here's what dictionary.com says:

disinterest = absence of interest; indifference.
uninterest = lack of interest; indifference.

Leaving aside the fact that I can only find "uninterest" in online dictionaries, and that none of my spell-checkers recognize the word, "uninterest" is just plain weird sounding. And a good writer picks the word that flows over the one that doesn't every time. Plus, a person who doesn't care one way or the other about sex would seem rather impartial to me. Just saying...

@nvk

I take it that reading Dan's column is what inspired MOANS to consider all that "kinky shit." Otherwise, he would have been a vanilla hetero all his life.
Posted by Zack Dergen on June 2, 2009 at 7:39 PM · Report
6
The fag MOANS is referring to is Dan
Posted by gemstraws on June 2, 2009 at 7:42 PM · Report
7
Eight months probably *is* a bit soon to talk marriage, but that's no excuse for LIAR's boyfriend refusing to speak frankly about his change of heart.
Posted by beast on June 2, 2009 at 7:47 PM · Report
8
Can't believe I got here early enough to address this, but since someone is bound to: NVK, he's talking about Dan saving his marriage.
Posted by Babayaga on June 2, 2009 at 7:55 PM · Report
9
@3

MOANS meant Dan saved his marriage. Dan's always been a big supporter of All That Stuff That Isn't Intercourse Is Still Sex, and a bigger supporter of indulging kinks. MOANS and his wife finally started taking his advice, and now have mind-blowing sex of all kinds.
Posted by blah on June 2, 2009 at 7:58 PM · Report
10
@2

Merriam-Webster defines disinterest as "lack of interest : indifference" as well as the objective/impartial definition you mention. The Oxford dictionary similarly provides both "1 impartiality. 2 lack of interest."

It seems Dan is well justified in using disinterest the way he did. Meanwhile, if you're going to accuse others of corrupting the language (prescriptivist much?), you might want to check your sources first.
Posted by lymerae on June 2, 2009 at 8:01 PM · Report
11
#5

YourDictionary.Com is closer to my understanding of the word:

1. lack of personal or selfish interest
2. lack of interest or concern; indifference

The classic example is "a disinterested 3rd party" such as a judge. A judge (and jury) should be both "interested" and "disinterested" in that they should pay attention and be interested in the proceedings, but also be unbiased.

Personally, I don't think writers can redefine the language just because it sounds better, unless you're James Joyce of course.
Posted by C_in_VA on June 2, 2009 at 8:03 PM · Report
12
The real problem with losing the Prop 8 decision was not so much that gays didn't get to marry (the symptom) but that politics trumped a fundamental right that the court had held up in it's first decision, the right to equal treatment before the law regardless of sexual identity (the real fundamental problem). Since they upheld this position once, then reneged on it given a popular vote to change the constitution, we can determine that sexual orientation in California is equivalent to political choice, protected but not a fundamental right, thus gay people in California will always now be second class citizens unprotected from the mob. I'm glad I moved, California is no longer a progressive state.
Posted by EXLAN8 on June 2, 2009 at 8:08 PM · Report
13
@ C_in_VA

It always cracks me up when people talk about the corruption of a language, simply because languages are not static. If it were, we wouldn't have complex languages at all, let alone modern English. About the only languages that can be "corrupted" are ones that are not in common use, such as Latin.

Great Article Dan. I always enjoy them even when I disagree!
Posted by Wolf on June 2, 2009 at 8:21 PM · Report
14
dude, it doesn't always take forever to know about the marriage thing. I knew I was going to marry my husband less than a month after I met him. Two weeks after I met him, my father had a stroke and the way he responded and helped me through that clinched the deal for me.

27 years later, I've rarely had doubts.
Posted by kate r on June 2, 2009 at 8:31 PM · Report
15
My spouse and I got married in the seventh month after our first date. We're still married, and even then, I would say to anyone else, "Don't get married after only 7 months, dumbass!!" :)
Posted by VZoya on June 2, 2009 at 8:37 PM · Report
16
blah! If you cover something in your podcast, why do we have to beat it to death in the column too?
I love you to death, but I'm starting to skip the Sailor Moon Says section at the end :(
Posted by Caralain on June 2, 2009 at 8:53 PM · Report
17
I guess what's more puzzling here is why the hell would the GUY be the one bringing up the marriage thing so damn early?

I'd be a little weirded out if I was a girl in a new relationship and the guy started bringing up marriage talks after only a couple months.
Posted by Scribbles on June 2, 2009 at 10:21 PM · Report
kim in portland 18
Nice job.
Posted by kim in portland http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPpCxY05dqs on June 2, 2009 at 10:21 PM · Report
19
love the article, been reading since middle school back in 2000. opened my eyes up sexually and love dan savage for it
Posted by mrensamnea on June 3, 2009 at 1:17 AM · Report
emsique 20
The don't jump into marriage advice is great. One of the biggest mistakes of my life was my first marriage. Met, fell in love, moved in immediately, married in a year, kids, miserable marriage for many years, shitty wife, shitty mother. I'm still suffering the after effects nearly 20 years after the divorce of poor decisions made during our dysfunctional 10 years together.
Take your time, before getting hitched. Once the love/lust ether wears off, you will see the person for what they really are, and if you will be compatible life partners.
Posted by emsique http://emsique.blogspot.com on June 3, 2009 at 1:27 AM · Report
21
Savage Love also appears on the AVClub, and there's an interesting difference between the articles. LIAR's letter in the AVClub reads "I asked if everything he'd said was empty *pillow* talk, and he said yes..."

So that might answer just a few questions, and shed some important light on LIAR's bf. Post-orgasmic bliss cuddle conversations are not equal to kitchen-table what our future will look like conversations. Especially if those words function as foreplay for another go-round (which I strongly suspect they were.)

LIAR needs to stop blabbing what her bf tells her in bed to everyone under the sun. I fear the era of TMI has only just begun....
Posted by Sailor Moon on June 3, 2009 at 1:29 AM · Report
22
@C_in_VA

Interestingly enough, the real reason behind the distinction between disinterest and uninterest is likely due to slow changes (or for some here "corruption") to the word interest.

In its earlier use in the 15th century, interest was all about legal, business, and fiscal rights and issues, which echoes in the sense of the example you use of "having a vested interest." Over time it has also accrued the additional meaning of concern, or that which arouses attention (for fairly obvious reasons).

Since disinterest dates back to the 1600s and the early meaning of interest, that is likely the source of this idea behind a very distinct, singular view of the definition of disinterest you hold. When interest started to take on this secondary (really tertiary or lower) meaning is probably about the time people (reasonably) started to use the word disinterest to also mean the opposite of this other sense of the word interest.

In contrast, Merriam-Webster puts uninterest's date at 1890, and it really doesn't seem to have gained a great deal of traction over disinterest in the past 120 years to separate the two senses of "the opposite of interest". My best guess is that it was taken up by academics interested in hyper-correctness and rigidity in the language. (I can sympathize; I'm an English teacher.) I'd have more informed musings if I still had access to OED to pin down when the other senses of the word interest developed.

Either way, looking at the etymological dates, it's difficult to argue that use of disinterest to mean the opposite of interest(attraction) is a redefining of the word uninterest. If anything, uninterest was probably an attempt to redefine disinterest by parsing out that one specific sense of the root word and affixing the other "not" prefix (un- and dis- are essentially the same).

Regardless, most linguists will tell you that languages are living things and attempting to regulate them often fares poorly. Language is used by people, and whatever words and definitions are widely used and understood inevitably become part of that language as it evolves with the populations that use it. There's really no stemming the tide. Just ask the L'Académie française how successful they've been keeping out loanwords like email or look up the word crunk in the most recent edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary.
More...
Posted by Steven on June 3, 2009 at 1:30 AM · Report
23
UGH...I am going to write an I, anonymous about the grammar Nazi's out there. C in VA, (and those who supplied your dictionary comments) you don't come across as intellectually superior; you just sound like neurotic pain-in-the-ass people who (whom? No mama? No life? No friends? No significant other?)no one wants to be around.
I really don't like to hear the slaughter of the English language, but your comments are worse. Nails on a chaulk board. Get a life. And if you can't do that, write a grammar book.
Posted by STLJoy on June 3, 2009 at 1:31 AM · Report
24
16 months is too soon to get hitched? Depends on the age and maturity of the bride and groom to be, I'd say. For a 20 year old it's too quick. But for a 30 year old? Maybe not.
Posted by E on June 3, 2009 at 1:36 AM · Report
25
C in VA,

Dan is right and you are wrong. I am also one of those who is careful in distinguishing between the adjectives "disinterestED" (impartial) and "uninterestED" (indifferent), but as a noun "disinterest" applies to both.

Those who cite the Webster's are off-base, though, because Webster's gave up its standards on this sort of thing long ago and started accepting popular errors as being, shall we say, "not incorrect." (Wait long enough and an error may become correct, once there is no one left who remembers that it used to be wrong, but that's a whole 'nother helpline.)
Posted by C in WA on June 3, 2009 at 3:54 AM · Report
26
Can someone please explain what the big thing about gay marriage is? Isn't marriage fundamentally a religious institution? And doesn't religion say "no way jose" to gayness?

Isn't there a big contradiction in conforming to an institution that doesn't want gay people?

Im an atheist by the by.
Posted by bukboy on June 3, 2009 at 3:56 AM · Report
27
Can someone please explain what the big thing about gay marriage is? Isn't marriage fundamentally a religious institution? And doesn't religion say "no way jose" to gayness?

Isn't there a big contradiction in conforming to an institution that doesn't want gay people?

Im an atheist by the by.
Posted by bukboy on June 3, 2009 at 4:02 AM · Report
28
Religion (I am assuming you mean Christian religion) doesn't necessarily say 'no way' to homosexuality. Here is an interesting book:
http://www.gaychurch.org/Book_store/by_a…

I am a straight Christian who believes in gay marriage (a religious, spiritual and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship) by the way.

Posted by easternblue on June 3, 2009 at 4:47 AM · Report
29
Religion (I am assuming you mean Christian religion) doesn't necessarily say 'no way' to homosexuality. Here is an interesting book:
http://www.gaychurch.org/Book_store/by_a…

I am a straight Christian who believes in gay marriage (a religious, spiritual and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship) by the way.

Posted by easternblue on June 3, 2009 at 4:50 AM · Report
30
Religion (I am assuming you mean Christian religion) doesn't necessarily say 'no way' to homosexuality. Here is an interesting book:
http://www.gaychurch.org/Book_store/by_a…

I am a straight Christian who believes in gay marriage (a religious, spiritual and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship) by the way.

Posted by easternblue on June 3, 2009 at 4:50 AM · Report
31
Religion (I am assuming you mean Christian religion) doesn't necessarily say 'no way' to homosexuality. Here is an interesting book:
http://www.gaychurch.org/Book_store/by_a…

I am a straight Christian who believes in gay marriage (a religious, spiritual and/or legal union of individuals that creates kinship) by the way.

Posted by easternblue on June 3, 2009 at 4:51 AM · Report
The Max 32
@27--"Isn't marriage fundamentally a religious institution?" Simply put, it isn't. There are a whole host of legal rights and responsibilities that a modern civil marriage grants. Off the top of my head: Next of kin benefits, the right of the spouse to be the one to make the crucial medical decisions when one becomes incapacitated. Survivor benefits, when you die, most workplaces have to pay your spouse some bucks. No spouse, no $$. You can't just unilaterally call it quits on your husband or wife and leave him or her out in the cold. When you marry, your spouse's kids more or less automatically become your kids, you have a stake in how they're raised.

And there're a lot more purely legalistic reasons why denying gays the right to marry is fundamentally legally discriminatory, and therefore in clear violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. It's not about religion, it's about justice. Liberty and justice for all.

Furthermore, "religion" itself doesn't unite with one voice to say anything about gay people. Yes, a lot of, perhaps most, discrete Christian sects are well behind the curve in their approach to gay rights, but not all. Unitarians are fully accepting of gays. Some Lutherans and Methodists are getting on board the big gay love bus. My own Episcopal church is busily tearing itself apart over the issue.

And by the by, blessed are the atheists, for they also have their own covenant with God.
Posted by The Max on June 3, 2009 at 5:08 AM · Report
33
There's nothing particularly religious about marriage. Marriage is about social control, and religion is also about social control. Protestantism does not recognize marriage as a sacrament, precisely because it is universal and secular, rather than being specifically related to the faith.
Posted by Smith on June 3, 2009 at 5:23 AM · Report
34
In ages past, religion was the highest legal authority.

In any case, I don't intend to get married with my partner, who is also an atheist and feels the same, that we should stay together for positive reasons, rather than that we have to and are forced to. So religious authority is redundant to us from that point of view.

Being a capitalist myself I don't believe anyone owes you anything that you don't provide for yourself, so all the social rights issues seem like protection for dead weight. So legal authority in relationship matters is redundant to me as well.

I think people should really rethink why the hell they need religious or legal recognition... For me it seems like let the sheep zealots go and waste their time in whatever way they like...
Posted by bukboy on June 3, 2009 at 5:55 AM · Report
35
@ bukboy

Marriage wasn't always a religious institution, people have gotten married for many reasons throughout history and the church was not always involved.

In the USA (and many other countries) married people enjoy rights and privileges that unmarried people do not. The "big thing" about gay marriage is a question of inequality. There is no logical excuse for excluding specific members of society from the benefits of marriage. ('Because the bible says so' or 'cause it's icky' doesn't count as logic.)

Some "religions" have said in the past that it would be an abomination for a black man to marry a white woman, but I can't imagine you suggestion that the outlawing of that shouldn't be considered a "big thing".

And even if you were to accept that marriage were purely a religious institution, what business would the state have regulating it? If it's just a church thing, we shouldn't be voting on it in the first place, right?
Posted by ajb on June 3, 2009 at 5:57 AM · Report
36
I don't often disagree with Dan, but I don't think that SASC has a healthy relationship. The reason I say this is because he said that he was mostly ok with it, not that he was actually ok with it and just wanted to know if it was normal. He says he's "mostly ok with it" because he is minimizing the pain of being sexually rejected by the woman he loves. That must be humiliating for him on some level. Trust me, he is anything but ok with it. He wants very much to have sex, yet masturbates alone whenever he has needs. That is just sad.

I don't think there is anything wrong with choosing a sexless relationship if both people involved are truly happy with it. If they've discussed it and both want to be celibate, then more power to them. We know he isn't truly interested in celibacy, because he said he masturbates. I think he's sacrificing his sexual needs so that he won't lose his girlfriend. What I'm hearing is that he is settling for way less than he really wants.

I think the real question is why isn't this guy getting the sex he clearly needs and wants? He's masturbating all alone, when at the very least his girlfriend could jerk him off, even if she doesn't want to have sex with him. He shouldn't be encouraged to give up his own needs, because in the long run it will make him resent his girlfriend. In which case, they will break up anyway.

I think a sex therapist would be a great idea for this couple. They need to at least work out a situation that is not so pathetic. This poor guy probably has years worth of repressed sexual fantasies that will eventually explode if not expressed.

Posted by Sweet Tang on June 3, 2009 at 6:58 AM · Report
37
As for the Prop 8 decision, while it is incredibly saddening that California voters are so bigoted, the hands of the Supreme Court were tied. Were this a law, it could have been overturned, but as an amendment, it is a bit beyond the power of the court. The role of the court is to access constitutionality, not morality, and any amendment, no matter how wrong-headed, must be respected. It is the check we place on the Supreme Court. So while I am upset by the amendment, I understand why the court ruled the way it did.
Posted by Scarlet_Spider on June 3, 2009 at 7:30 AM · Report
38
Why is SASC reading Savage Love? I'm surprised that Dan didn't point out this issue, he has in the past.
Posted by Ian on June 3, 2009 at 7:32 AM · Report
39
The first LW should not move in with that boyfriend. If he talked marriage to get her in bed and moved in, but didn't mean it, then he's guilty of bait and switch and not to be trusted. If she likes him a lot, then it may be worth staying and working on rebuilding trust, otherwise she should leave now.
Posted by SpookyCat on June 3, 2009 at 7:52 AM · Report
40
LIAR shouldn't move in with this boyfriend. He's just talked marriage to get her in bed and moved in, now he's switched goals. If she really likes him a lot otherwise, she should stay in the relationship and monitor his trustworthiness carefully; otherwise she should dump him now.
Posted by SpookyCat on June 3, 2009 at 7:56 AM · Report
41
I agree with E that the age and maturity of the marriage-seekers have a lot to do with the waiting period. A couple of 30-40 year olds are going to have a much better idea of what they're looking for and will have a better sense of the risks of committing too soon.

What bugs me the most about LIAR's story is that the guy won't go into more detail about his desire to have a marriage without a ceremony. Seems like a good opportunity to share a unique philosophy, unless he just REALLY wants the marriage and REALLY doesn't want anyone to know about it. Does the guy need a green card?
Posted by greenfeet on June 3, 2009 at 8:31 AM · Report
42
Another thing to consider regarding SASC is that they "never talk about sex at all." If the relationship was healthy there would be discussion about whether the continued celibacy was still working for both of them.

IMO, sex is not just about getting off, but also about intimacy and connection which may be missing on some level in their relationship.
Posted by NewMoon on June 3, 2009 at 8:32 AM · Report
43
I can't believe it took until comment 39 (after several boring interest vs disinterest posts) for someone to say DONT MOVE IN WITH THIS GUY!!! Seriously. Have you ever heard the saying 'why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free' ?? Sure, its misogynistic, dumb and probably wrong most of the time, but this guy wants a live in girlfriend seemingly forever. DO NOT move in with him thinking you will 'eventually change his mind' because that is a sure way to be newly single at 35 wondering what happened.
Posted by McSarah on June 3, 2009 at 8:35 AM · Report
44
I understand where people like @14 is coming from, but basically, a good rule of thumb is to wait. You don't lose much by NOT marrying, so why rush it?
Posted by Gloria on June 3, 2009 at 8:53 AM · Report
45
I'm the child of a fucked-up marriage between two people who waited a few years after they started dating before they even talked about marriage, and they still screwed up, so I have no reason to say this except that I've seen it to be true: Every now and then, 8 months isn't too soon. I think 3 months always is. You're still in the new-relationship high at that point, but after about 6, a lot of people really start dating their partners, not just dating the idea of them. It's almost always still too early at that point, as the number of fucked up marriages shows, but the number that work start going up at that point. It sounds like it's still too early here, but sometimes around 8 months is when it might begin to be ok.

Also, "gays and lesbians, unlike" SOME "other minority groups, face the challenge of securing our rights at the ballot box." And don't get me started on nominal rights vs. actual ones.
Posted by beb on June 3, 2009 at 9:02 AM · Report
46
I agree with #36, SASC is not happy with his situation.

People who are 100% happy with their situations don't need to write letters to Dan Savage asking if their situations are really OK.
Posted by Tom Winter on June 3, 2009 at 9:08 AM · Report
47
Think about it this way, bukboy: a religious official often says, "By the power vested in me BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK, I now pronounce you man and wife." The state gives a religious official the power to marry people out of recognition of the historical role of religion in marriage, but the power still rests fundamentally in the state. A judge who is marrying two people never says, "By the power vested in me by the Christian God." He is an arm of the state, doing state business.

The state also doesn't recognize baptisms or bar mitzvahs. There are no special tax codes for those, no accounting for them in censuses, no privileges for them in court, no social security benefits for them... all because they ARE fundamentally religious institutions. That's how marriage would look if it were "fundamentally a religious institution."
Posted by beb on June 3, 2009 at 9:24 AM · Report
48
SASC says that he and his girlfriend "never talk about sex at all." I would be more likely to agree that they have a healthy relationship if they occasionnally talked about whether the lack of sex was still working for both of them.

Posted by NewMoon on June 3, 2009 at 9:35 AM · Report
49
While I agree that waiting to ACTUALLY marry at least two years is a good idea, I don't think three months is too soon to know you WANT to marry someone. I was 28, had been through a few crappy relationships, and when I met my husband, I knew after just a few months that we were right for each other. We didn't get engage until 18 months into the relationship, and didn't get married for another year after that, but we KNEW. Nine years and one kid later, we are very happy together.
Posted by Gina CP on June 3, 2009 at 9:56 AM · Report
50
I think one important part that was missed to the girl moving in with her boyfriend was that he changed his tune right after they agreed to move in together. He probably did mean all the things he originally said when talking about marriage, but that next big step of moving in together freaked him out. He back peddled as a way to distance himself and remain somewhat non-commital. They need to back off the marriage talk for a while and just enjoy being together. He will cool out and be ready for marriage someday, if it is meant to be. No need to rush things. Guys get freaked out too easily.
Posted by KAD on June 3, 2009 at 10:39 AM · Report
51
Am I the only one who feels "disinterest" as it's webster meaning is perfectly appropriate and more powerful an expression than "not interested" or disdain.

I mean, the guy showing lack of priority of sex in his life and having it take a second seat to stability. Disinterest seems perfectly appropriate.

And traveling across the country in a sexless, passionless yet stable relationship? Why does hipster and the band Matt and Kim come to mind?
Posted by former tri-state on June 3, 2009 at 10:43 AM · Report
52
Dan, I love your column. However, I think you were a bit rough on LIAR. I actually agree with pretty much everything you said about 3 or 8 months being too soon to seriously talk about marriage. BUT, I don't think that LIAR's boyfriend's sudden change-of-heart qualifies as "came-to-his-senses-ese" so muchs it qualifies as emotional manipulation and assholery, ESPECIALLY since, according to LIAR, HE was the one who was bringing it up to begin with. It's cool that he changed his mind, but I think he had an obligation to explain this to her, rather than just making her look like a fool by balking at her.
As far as LIAR's therapist goes, I think you, Dan, are making an unfair assumption about his or her willingness to be honest with LIAR. The therapist may or may not have indicated to LIAR whether or not it was too early to consider marriage - her letter didn't say. However, the therapist was probably referring to the boyfriend's weird flip-flopping sans communication.
Posted by nyker on June 3, 2009 at 10:50 AM · Report
53
I don't entirely agree with your advice for LIAR. While I agree that 8 months is WAY too soon to be discussing the possibility of marrying EACH OTHER, I do not think it is too early to discuss the concept of marriage. If getting married (to anyone, at some point in the future) is important to someone and they are with someone who does not believe in marriage, that is a recipe for disaster. If they stay together, it is only going to result in either a more difficult & painful breakup later on, or result in somebody compromising on their values and being unhappy and resentful. While there are many things in a relationship that require compromise, I believe this is one of those areas that doesn't apply, and can be a real deal breaker.

He obviously does not want to get married. If they stay together long enough, one of two things will happen. She will eventually pressure him into getting married, which he will never be happy with and always resent her for, or he will stick to his guns and never marry her, in which case SHE will never be happy and will always resent him for.
Posted by Muffy on June 3, 2009 at 11:04 AM · Report
Goldilocks 54
Dan, People do seem to get engaged and married quickly these days - it is pretty disposable (Marriage is sacred, my ass). I, however, think you are missing something in LIAR's story. Her bf is lying and manipulating. And she is so unhappy she has asked for advice from several people who all give her "WTF?" and yet she is staying. I suspect she did not make the long story short for her therapist. She needs to ask herself if this is behaviour she is ok with, so far it looks like she is shopping around for someone to tell her what she wants to hear. Which I suspect is "move in and he will change his mind".

@bukboy I'm a heterosexual atheist and I honestly don't get what the big deal about marriage is whether gay or straight. Since, however, the government has long had its paws in the marriage business it is no longer a religious matter. And everyone should be entitled to it equally.

Hey since I have no interest in my right to get married, can I gift it to one of my gay friends?
Posted by Goldilocks on June 3, 2009 at 11:14 AM · Report
55
@46
people DO write letters to Dan Savage asking if their situations are really okay. They phone in on the podcast too. Sometimes it's more a matter of permission-giving than anything else. They may feel conflicted because of ideas that are popular in mass media, or things they grew up believing....
A lot of good sex advice (and sex therapy) is a matter of giving permission to go ahead and enjoy; that what is happening (or, in this case, not happening) is OKAY.

Whether or not SASC is happy in his relationship is another matter entirely, but Dan addressed the ambiguity ("mostly okay with it")...
Posted by bevy on June 3, 2009 at 11:31 AM · Report
56
I have to disagree with your advice to LIAR.
my spouse of 10 years and I are still happily in love and we knew at three months and got married in vegas two months after that. Bottom line when you know you know time together doesn't mean squat.
Posted by wrapture on June 3, 2009 at 11:33 AM · Report
57
Does anyone know where I might be able to find information about just how much money is spent in a given year on either side of the gay rights battle? I would be very appreciative.
Posted by smutrav on June 3, 2009 at 11:36 AM · Report
58
About prop 8, it is important to understand that in CA, gay couples can get civil unions that have all the same state legal rights and privileges as marriages. They are not being denied the ability to make medical decisions for their partners or receive survivor benefits or any of that. It is just a different label, marriage vs. civil union. That's why the CA Supreme Court did not find that anyone's fundamental civil rights were being violated. All the "rights" are the same as far as the state is concerned. The only difference is the label. The Supreme Court also did not invalidate the gay marriages that took place before Prop 8.
Posted by ease up on the CA Supremes on June 3, 2009 at 11:39 AM · Report
59
Dan, you usually give great advice but you're kinda high when you say 16 months is too soon for marriage. The 2 most successful married couples I know got hitched at 9 months and 4 months, respectively. Both been married over a decade. Compare that to a couple I know that dated for 8 years and got divorced the first year after. Justs like you told the person in the second letter, length of time together is a metric, but it's not THE metric, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Posted by leathertuscadero on June 3, 2009 at 11:45 AM · Report
60
Totally agree with Muffy. It is natural to talk about what you are looking for in life throughout all phases of a relationship. Do you think marriage is important? Do you want kids ever? Do you want kids in the next five years? These are important things to talk about at the beginning of a relationship so that you are not continuing on false assumptions. Of course, our dreams for our lives change as we change - and it is your responsibility to your partner to keep them up to date! I would be curious to know what changed his mind? He was so serious, then did a 180? Either something very dramatic happened (in which case they are probably no longer compatible), or he was putting on an act at some point (in which case he can't be trusted to be honest). Sounds like a deal-breaker to me.
Posted by Val on June 3, 2009 at 11:47 AM · Report
61
on policing grammar:

dis·inter·est·ed·ly (Adverb), dis·inter·est·ed·ness (Noun)
Usage Note:
In traditional usage, disinterested can only mean "having no stake in an outcome," as in Since the judge stands to profit from the sale of the company, she cannot be considered a disinterested party in the dispute. But despite critical disapproval, disinterested has come to be widely used by many educated writers to mean "uninterested" or "having lost interest," as in Since she discovered skiing, she is disinterested in her schoolwork. Oddly enough, "not interested" is the oldest sense of the word, going back to the 17th century. This sense became outmoded in the 18th century but underwent a revival in the first quarter of the early 20th.

Despite its resuscitation, this usage is widely considered an error. In a 1988 survey, 89 percent of the Usage Panel rejected the sentence His unwillingness to give five minutes of his time proves that he is disinterested in finding a solution to the problem. This is not a significantly different proportion from the 93 percent who disapproved of the same usage in 1980.
Posted by jacmandu on June 3, 2009 at 12:05 PM · Report
pointy 62
SASC is so fucking deep in denial, it's heartbreaking. He uses tons of justifications (" like many couples who have been together for a while") as well as language implying that it would be better if there was more ("never all that far" "I am mostly okay with this"). He takes care of himself as needed, because his "otherwise committed" girlfriend doesn't. It's like a silent scream.
Posted by pointy on June 3, 2009 at 1:24 PM · Report
63
I am a professional copyeditor and C in VA has no idea what he/she is talking about.
Posted by Sirus on June 3, 2009 at 1:29 PM · Report
64
I'm frankly uninterested in the language controversy here.
Posted by ...a disinterested observer. on June 3, 2009 at 1:33 PM · Report
pointy 65
SASC is so fucking deep in denial, it's heartbreaking. He uses tons of justifications (" like many couples who have been together for a while") as well as language implying that it would be better if there was more ("never all that far" "I am mostly okay with this"). He takes care of himself as needed, because his "otherwise committed" girlfriend doesn't. It's like a silent scream.
Posted by pointy on June 3, 2009 at 1:33 PM · Report
pointy 66
Oh great, first my post didn't show up, and now it's a double post. Sorry everyone.
Posted by pointy on June 3, 2009 at 1:34 PM · Report
67
Can someone please explain what the big thing about gay marriage is? Isn't marriage fundamentally a religious institution? And doesn't religion say "no way jose" to gayness?

Um, actually, no, it's NOT primarily a religious institution - it's a legal institution which confers significant legal (including preferred tax status) benefits on the folks who can partake of it. If there were no legal preferences for married over single, then your argument would be interesting.

I'm probably responding to a troll anyway.
Posted by cvilletop on June 3, 2009 at 1:50 PM · Report
68
Something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere since the passing of Prop 8. The CSC decision let stand the gay marriages already entered into. Isn't this the same as saying that gay marriage is valid?

I mean, gay marriage is either legal or not. Seems like their validating those marriages negates the legal basis for the amendment.

Somebody want to explain the logic to me and why this isn't an open invitation to an invalidation of the amendment?
Posted by xweetie on June 3, 2009 at 2:48 PM · Report
69
As yet another reminder that we're winning the gay marriage issue, New Hampshire, where I was born and raised, just joined the list of states with marriage equality. The legislature and governor took the lead, not the courts, which is also good news. This is in a state where 20 years ago having a (D) after your name was political suicide, and something like this would never have even made it onto the legislature's schedule.
Posted by Thexalon on June 3, 2009 at 3:30 PM · Report
70
About the California thing: You all need to be constantly registering those young voters, as soon as they turn 18. Don't just bank on the oldies leaving the scene.

Posted by Phoebe on June 3, 2009 at 3:41 PM · Report
71
Good lord. Talking about marriage at 3 months, moving in at eight months. What next? Married at 9 months and divorced at 12 months?

Sounds like your boyfriend came to his senses, took off the fuzzy love goggles, and put on the practical goggles, and decided to put the brakes on this inevitable wedding train you seem to be on.

Don't move in with him. But if he's a good guy, continue to date and see where it goes. But good grief, stop talking about marriage - both of you.
Posted by Cleveland on June 3, 2009 at 4:00 PM · Report
72
Well, Dan, I agree that in this case, waiting a long time would be best, because clearly both are not ready.
I knew that my husband of 35 years was going to be that the instant he walked in the door. He was gracious enough to let me catch him quickly. "Love at first sight" is alive and kicking, just not with these two.
Posted by moleroja on June 3, 2009 at 4:27 PM · Report
73
I read the Wedded Miss question and paused before reading Dan's & other responses, in order to formulate my own.

"I would have believed in the guy a lot more if it hadn't been for the fact that he still wanted to move in w/her. A lot of guys hold out the promise of marriage to draw a woman in... he got her hopes up so that she'd move in with him. Or, maybe he just got carried away in the heat of the moment. It happens. But talk is cheap, and that's all it is.

Now it seems like he wants his space, so let him have all the space he wants. Don't move in together. It may be perfectly fine to keep dating, or not... that's a separate issue."

Something similar happened to me about 8 years ago. A hot new honey started talking about 'long-term partnership' - his words - then dropped out of sight right about when I started taking it seriously. In his case, he was suffering from depression and perhaps he believed that a romance would pull him out of his funk, and when it didn't - he blamed me.
Posted by hazmat on June 3, 2009 at 4:48 PM · Report
74
i haven't even finished reading the rest of the article because i was SO HAPPY to read your response to the first letter that i scrolled straight down to comment on it.

THANK YOU for saying that! marriage is not something to be taken lightly! i think anyone who wants to be married should be married, but that no one should seriously consider it until they've known their partner long enough to know what they DONT like about them... cuz like it or not, once you're married, you're signed up for life! if you don't like it later, sure you can always divorce i guess, but if thats your back up plan then you should NOT be getting married!
Posted by iforgotmypasswordsoimanonymous on June 3, 2009 at 4:48 PM · Report
75
I read the Wedded Miss question and paused before reading Dan's & other responses, in order to formulate my own.

"I would have believed in the guy a lot more if it hadn't been for the fact that he still wanted to move in w/her. A lot of guys hold out the promise of marriage to draw a woman in... he got her hopes up so that she'd move in with him. Or, maybe he just got carried away in the heat of the moment. It happens. But talk is cheap, and that's all it is.

Now it seems like he wants his space, so let him have all the space he wants. Don't move in together. It may be perfectly fine to keep dating, or not... that's a separate issue."

Something similar happened to me about 8 years ago. A hot new honey started talking about 'long-term partnership' - his words - then dropped out of sight right about when I started taking it seriously. In his case, he was suffering from depression and perhaps he believed that a romance would pull him out of his funk, and when it didn't - he blamed me.

(apologies if this is a double post)
Posted by hazmat on June 3, 2009 at 4:54 PM · Report
76
@68- They're saying that it's illegal for gays to marry each other, not for gays to BE married to each other. Since some couples got married while they were perfectly legally able to do so, they are married now. Habeus corpus or something. But from now on, getting married if you're gay remains illegal, unless it's a sham wedding. They love the sham marriages because when they break down it validates the belief that gay people are bad for families.
Posted by charlie on June 3, 2009 at 5:06 PM · Report
77
I met my wife in October, proposed at New Years', married her in July, less than a year after our first date. Thirteen years later we're still going strong.

Every couple's different. It felt right for me to start thinking about spending the rest of my life with the woman I married pretty darn quick. But you do have to be careful--don't ignore misgivings and don't try to bury your doubts with false bravado. That way lies disaster.
Posted by AustinCynic on June 3, 2009 at 5:14 PM · Report
78
Rare miss on your advice to LIAR, Dan. LIAR never said that she and her boyfriend were planning a wedding, or even talking seriously about marriage at 3 months or at 8 months. She did say that her boyfriend had been holding himself out as a marriage-minded male (ie, one who is open to the idea of marriage, and perhaps even expects to be married to someone someday) for 5 months. Relying on this (LIAR implies), she agreed to take their relationship to the next level and moved in with him. Now he tells her that he was lying for 5 months, and he is not and never has been marriage-minded.

In the past you've merrily advised people to dump partners who, say, started a relationship as a fit person and then got fat. After all, the fatty misrepresented herself as someone interested in fitness, so she's got a breakup coming. Same logic here. LIAR's boyfriend is an admitted liar who maintained and advanced their relationship on lies. She should DTMFA.
Posted by Welkin on June 3, 2009 at 5:18 PM · Report
79
"Um, actually, no, it's NOT primarily a religious institution - it's a legal institution which confers significant legal (including preferred tax status) benefits on the folks who can partake of it."

Actually, unless married partner makes a LOT more than the other, marriage confers a tax penalty. No reason why gays shouldn't pay that penalty, too, if they want, though.
Posted by Welkin on June 3, 2009 at 5:24 PM · Report
80
C_in_VA, you are a tool. no one cares about grammar.

Posted by jackie on June 3, 2009 at 5:46 PM · Report
81
What? Only one shout-out to New Hampshire? Sure, we got lapped by a few states, but we finally did it! Here's to another win for equality!

Interestingly, I think the entrenched old-school Republicanism---the kind with a streak of libertarianism---is part of what got us there. When out-of-staters ask how New Hampshire could get so blue, I tell them that NH is not really blue or red, but mostly belongs to the "mind your own god damned business" party. Every once in a while, it comes in handy!
Posted by Megan Strickland on June 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM · Report
82
Dan, my parents got married after 5 months of knowing each other (engaged after 2.) After 26 years, they remain one of the healthiest, happiest couples I know. It's true that it's GENERALLY unwise to discuss marriage so early in a relationship but that's only a guide line, not a hard and fast law of nature. A couple discussing marriage so early isn't necessarily doomed. (and 16 months seems like plenty of time to me...). This woman's boyfriend seeming categorically opposed to EVER getting marriage seems to me to be quite a different issue that doesn't even have a whole lot to do with the length of time they've been together.
Posted by Laya on June 3, 2009 at 8:01 PM · Report
83
dis⋅in⋅ter⋅est
  /dɪsˈɪntərɪst, -trɪst/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [dis-in-ter-ist, -trist] Show IPA
–noun
1. absence of interest; indifference.
–verb (used with object)
2. to divest of interest or concern.

just sayin'...
Posted by sad;klhsfgu on June 3, 2009 at 8:11 PM · Report
84
LIAR, your man isn't being honest. Why would you still want to be with someone who told you everything he said about marriage wasn't true? Is that someone you want to move in with? You deserve respect. You're not getting it. It works for him: he can sleep with you, you live with him..how does this work for you? Early behavior like that probably isn't going to get any better. If you two don't have trust and understanding don't move in with him!
If you really think he's scared or going through something..see him but don't move in with him. Give it some time. If you ask me though he's pulling the oldest trick in the book. Listen to your family and friends.
Posted by peony1 on June 3, 2009 at 10:46 PM · Report
85
I agree that LIAR never said she and her boyfriend were doing anything like actually planning a wedding or "discussing marriage" at 3 months or 8 months. She said that he had brought up marriage, period. It was most likely hypotheticals. I agree with Welkin--it wasn't that he was ever promising to marry her, he probably just talked casually of marriage sometimes, like "when I get married, I want to have 2 kids..." or "If we got married, I'd want x or Y or Z" etc, and thus led LIAR to believe that he would consider marriage SOMEDAY. And now he tells her he doesn't ever want a wedding at all.
Posted by Teri B on June 4, 2009 at 1:37 AM · Report
86
Guys - please can someone tell me what the benefits that marriage bestows that everyone is so hyped about?
Posted by bukboy on June 4, 2009 at 1:46 AM · Report
87
I find it rather surprising that so many people are jumping on the "too soon" bandwagon; shouldn't that be subjective, as in "it's different for everyone"? I agree when Dan says 3 or 5 or 8 months is too soon, but 16? That's well over a year; is it really unreasonable to start talking about marriage by then? How long were Dan & Terry together before they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with each other? I have a feeling it wasn't as long as 16 months.
Posted by Wayne on June 4, 2009 at 6:17 AM · Report
88
"I agree when Dan says 3 or 5 or 8 months is too soon, but 16?"

Well, you agree it's subjective, and then you say 3 or 8 months is too soon. I guess it's only subjective in certain cases ;)
Posted by Gloria on June 4, 2009 at 7:52 AM · Report
89
Great column...I just want to add my two cents as a DV lawyer to Dan's advice to LIAR.

Frequently, a man being too eager to jump ahead to marriage, living together, etc can be a red flag for later domestic violence in a relationship. Abusive and controlling men often want to get women in as compromised a position as possible as soon as possible. These women then interpret this as flattering and romantic and jump into marriage and even kids. It's a recipe for disaster, trust me - I help these women divorce ten years and three kids later.

I don't have any insight into the actual question, LIAR, but perhaps you should count your blessings that this guy changed his mind.
Posted by Anonymous Lawyer on June 4, 2009 at 8:24 AM · Report
90
my husband and I got engaged at 6 months and now have been together 3 years, are happily married, and expecting a baby. Granted we were both in our 30s when we met, but knowing you want to get married at 8 months is not necessarily a red flag.

changing your mind, however, is a different story.
Posted by wondergirl on June 4, 2009 at 8:49 AM · Report
91
Long time reader, first time commenter. Dan, you helped me a lot, especially dealing with the aftermath of my mixed orientation marriage (truly opposite, not vanilla hetero as per MOANS). I'm attending my ex's civil partnership next month. Here in the UK, CPs are better than nothing, but given that politics as we know it is crumbling fast, I think the issue of true marriage equality won't be raised any time soon :(

33 - some Protestants do not. The Church of England recognises marriage as a sacrament.

From http://www.cofe.anglican.org/info/interf…, I quote: "Although marriage is indeed common to human life and not exclusive to Christians, Anglicans think it better to speak of 'the Christian doctrine of marriage' rather than 'Christian marriage'....For Christians marriage is part not only of the order of Creation but also of Redemption, 'signifying unto us the mystical union that is betwixt Christ and his Church'.".

Sure, the 39 Articles may categorise five of the sacraments as "not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel", but Pope Leo X thought Henry VIII's book "Defence of the Seven Sacraments" (pre the whole wanting to divorce Cat of Aragon, natch) so good that he awarded him the title Fidei Defensor, which is still part of the UK monarch's titles to date.

Sorry for switching from grammar fascism to religious nitpicking, but I couldn't let such a sweeping generalism stand. Mea culpa, I'll try and remember this should I ever again avail myself of the sacrament of reconciliation.
Posted by SSPK on June 4, 2009 at 9:05 AM · Report
92
My best friends got engaged at only 5 months and have been together and happily married for several years now. All of us (their friends) were skeptical at first wondering if it was too soon. They are a model couple and an inspiration to me. Sometimes i think you just know no matter how long you've been together...but in LIAR's case it sounds like your bf changed his mind after the honeymoon phase ended...sorry, he sounds like a douche and I'd dump him asap!
Posted by kashmiri.apple on June 4, 2009 at 9:13 AM · Report
93
This is my first post, because it's the first time I've really disagreed with something you said. Making an absolute judgment on how long you should be in a relationship before considering marriage is just as wrong and saying that all relationships should be hetero. I knew my fiance for 8 months before we started dating, and the thought of marrying him occurred to me even before that first date (that was actually the reason I decided to try dating him). We started talking about marriage after 3 months of being a couple, moved in together after 4 months, and got engaged after 11 months. No one who knows us, family or friends, thinks any of this is crazy. In fact several are surprised how long it took. We're both around 30, had lots of relationship experience, and know what works for us and what doesn't. Every relationship is different, as you've always advised. I hope you reconsider your statement.
Posted by mathgoddess on June 4, 2009 at 11:22 AM · Report
94
Women are so stupid, geez. Moving in as soon as a man shows interest, excitedly talking about spending the REST of their life with someone after 90 days of knowing them. Idiots.
Posted by SaraJean on June 4, 2009 at 11:34 AM · Report
95
My husband started hinting at marriage after 3 months, proposed after 6 months, and we got married on one year anniversary of our first date. We have been married for close to 2 years, and we have never been happier.
If it takes you or your partner over a year to decide on the marriage, you are not right for each other - move on!
Posted by Tyavzik on June 4, 2009 at 12:03 PM · Report
96
You know, bukboy, it's fuckwads like you that make America suck. Not because you're ignorant, or bigoted, but because you're a lazy thinker. "Can someone please tell me..." pretty much says it all. Do you try to find out for yourself? No! Are you aware of a thing called "google" which is found on the "internet"? No! Do you even bother reading the other posts in this thread, which ACTUALLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? No! You sit there on your fat behind, demanding other people do the work. I'm thinking in a previous life you were one of those French geese that aren't allowed to exercise & force-fed fatty foods to make their liver nice 'n tasty. Because you haven't changed your approach to life.

This quote is really rich--
"Being a capitalist myself I don't believe anyone owes you anything that you don't provide for yourself"

Except, of course, filling your ignorant noggin with facts because you're too damn lazy to find out for yourself. Everyone owes you that.
Posted by Antler on June 4, 2009 at 12:21 PM · Report
jeffsd 97
i'm not sure how to go about it, but it seems like california has left open the possibility of using the popular vote to affect almost anything in that state. we need to come up with a proposition that is distasteful to the christian right, limits their power (cash flow) and bring it to vote.

how about mandating that churches need to pay property tax on their land holdings; or maybe banning out of state money from being used in campaigns. either of these would limit the amount of money available to fight a gay marriage proposition.

dan has been successful in taking down some powerful politicians with this column (mr santorum) how about using it to expose/exploit the weakness in our largest states constitution?
Posted by jeffsd on June 4, 2009 at 12:28 PM · Report
98
Am I the only one who thinks David Carradine died of Erotic Asphyxiation?

Naked in the closet with the rope? I think so Col. Mustard.
Posted by Gou on June 4, 2009 at 1:21 PM · Report
99
@76
Here's what Wikipedia says of Prop 8:
"Proposition 8 was a California ballot proposition passed in the November 4, 2008 general election and took effect on November 5, the day after the election. It changed the California Constitution to add a new section (7.5) to Article I, which reads: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." This change restricted the definition of marriage to opposite-sex couples, and eliminated same-sex couples' right to marry, thereby overriding portions of the ruling of In re Marriage Cases by "carving out an exception to the preexisting scope of the privacy and due process clauses" of the state constitution. The proposition did not affect the existing domestic partnerships in California."

So, again, how does recognizing the validity of the marriages between gays that took place before May 26 not invalidate this amendment? If the CSC had revoked those marriages and changed them to DPs, it would have made more sense within the law.

I certainly am no legal scholar and I know that law often doesn't equate with logical or fair. Still it makes no legal sense to me, unless there is some precedent in the area of being "grandfathered in"? Just seems to me like a big, wide door for overturning the amendment. Either the marriages are recognized or not, a date shouldn't be the difference. Especially since there is that much older precedent where States have always recognized marriages entered into in other states. What about gays who got married in another state before May 26th??
Posted by xweetie on June 4, 2009 at 1:50 PM · Report
100
Dan, The problem with ballot initiatives here in California is that we have become a state the governs by ballot initiatives. Why do we go through the trouble to elect someone if we constantly use ballot initiatives? If, in 2010 or 2012 voters do over turn Prop 8 then how long do we wait for someone from the far right get an initiative on the ballot to go back the other way? I never sign petitions no matter what the cause.
Posted by michael_weho on June 4, 2009 at 1:53 PM · Report
101
If, and this is a big IF, I have not read through the tombs of legalese: if the civil union gives the same benefits as a marriage, then, I think the movement should be let's take the term 'marriage' out of the legal, civic, books. Make everyone get a civil union and go to your religious preference to get a 'marriage'.

All ya'll get civil unions, the government doesn't hand out marriages anymore.
Posted by the Burning Bush's Bush on June 4, 2009 at 3:37 PM · Report
sissoucat 102
@98
I thought about erotic asphyxiation too for Carradine. Sad.

@89
My life exactly : a guy very intent in getting hitched, psychological abuse, ten years, 3 kids. May I suggest to add a depression for the wife, or is it just my luck ?
Posted by sissoucat on June 4, 2009 at 3:59 PM · Report
103
self-important, entitlement-based, passive-agressive, opressive-hypocrisy.

why not:
selflessly promotiing, underpriviledged, eager to interact, inclusive-care.
Posted by altruistcookie on June 4, 2009 at 4:18 PM · Report
104
bukboy, seriously, if you don't want a marriage, don't have one. But please just let everyone else have the freedom to do what they want. Quit trying to justify your denial of their rights. Thanks.
Posted by Karey on June 4, 2009 at 5:40 PM · Report
105
Hey, I love your column....One thing though....

I think 8 months is good enough to talk about marriage if you're mature enough and ready to make the decision. However, the problem is people concept of love and relationships is screwed up. I believe that people are to quick to say I love you or talk about moving in together. Once couples make the decicion to move-in together they find things about the person that make them change their mind about the relationship all together such as.....toliet seat left up, tooth paste on the sink, dirty dishes....etc. People need to start spending their time getting to know each other first of all instead of being stuck in the honeymoon phase of the relationship.

And as far as the guy who hasn't had sex in a decade it's sound like his not happy and not mature to discuss his concerns with his girlfriend......Have they been naked together? Fooling around is very vague...Maybe the girl is a transgender.....or possibly rape, sexually molested as a child if he love this girl maybe a heart to heart to get down to the problem so he can get down with some sex.
Posted by Yo-yo on June 4, 2009 at 6:23 PM · Report
106
Why are you so fucking surprised LIAR? This only means your boyfriend is both sane and honest. It's a good thing. I've been dating my girlfriend for a year and I haven't dropped that bomb on her.
I wonder why? Oh, yeah, haven't needed to, because we're not that crazy.
Posted by lqtm http://thenerdarium.wordpress.com/ on June 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM · Report
107
Dan is quite correct on his advice to not get married too soon. My advice is to the other hetero men out there. Wait. If the woman you are dating is showing troubles with affection/sex/desire wait, wait, wait. Same thing goes for women who have a man who is showing troubles. Because if you rush, the problems will be ten fold, and you will have to get a costly and messy divorce. If you wait, and the problems persist, you can end things with a lot less emotional, social, family and physical withdrawal problems. Any ending brings problems, but a rushed marriage carries a huge risk. Some quick unions end up happy, just like some people have sexual play with a power tool and get happy rather than injured. But talk to the folks who've been a visitor or staff in an ER.

Dan, If you have been giving this advice for years, I somehow missed it.

Posted by what was I thinking on June 4, 2009 at 11:17 PM · Report
108
Right ON, what was I thinking!!

If I had been thinking, I wouldn't have had to flee from a murder-enraged anger-obsessed psychotic eight years ago.

Marriage---to a loving, supportive person who equally shares one's goals, dreams, and accepts one's family, friends, religious denominations, etc., etc.,---can be wonderful.
But it's not something to be rushed into by either party.
Posted by wileEcoyote on June 5, 2009 at 12:17 AM · Report
109
You told SASC:

Two people in a bad relationship can have plenty of great sex; two people in a great relationship can have little sex or no sex. Sex is a metric for assessing the health of a relationship, but it's not the only one.


My partner and I used to ball like rabid stoats for many years. Two horny guys, going at it three or four times a week, and with lots of jacking off in between, at least on my part. OK, on his part too, but it's fun to at least pretend you're keeping it secret from each other.

We have almost no sex at all these days, but that's OK too. We met when I was 19 and he was 42. I'm now 52 and he's 76. That's 33 years together, and he is now disabled from crippling lower back pain.

That we don't have sex much anymore -- though we do, occasionally -- doesn't matter. That I don't even want to jack off that much (something that would horrify my younger self), also doesn't matter. He cared for me, supported me, for many years, and that is my focus. Now that he desperately needs me to repay that debt, there is great satisfaction in doing so. That satisfaction comes from love. Not sex. Love.
Posted by gumbopie on June 5, 2009 at 1:22 AM · Report
110
Thankyou :91 SSPK

If I have understood you correctly, then it seems that marriage is after all a religious institution, that is soooo sacred that one man (king Henry 8th, who gets some younger pussy that refuses to give it up unless she's queen, waved in his face ) can just turn the whole institution into a secular one at whim.

I love that....

So then its back again to marriage being originally religious after all. Id like to ask the people here if the reason they want to get married is because they are so brainwashed about the evils of fornicating in sin, and a consequent eternity in damnation that they absolutely have to live up to the afterlife standard that's defacto assumed?

Id like to bring up a very basic point.
There is no real knowledge (where knowledge is something that can be demonstrated true and justified) of the afterlife...
And if there is no knowledge of the afterlife, then there can be none in the scriptures.... anyones sacred books...
Unless you count secondhand testimony that cannot be verified from peoples dreams, containing personal and unverifiable messages from god.

To demonstrate, If i had to see a object moving unexplaineably in front of me, I would say, "hey that's a completely unexplained phenomenon. lets figure it out"
whereas someone that was brainwashed by their cultures' religion would automatically and without hesitation come up with a ghost or spirit or even Jesus sending a message. This is pretty much the state of our afterlife knowledge.

Even though I am not hostile to the possibility that there is a god, Im a completely against anyone claiming that they know anything about it without any backing evidence. And every spiritualist is full of these assumptions.

I want you dudes, so desperate for marriage, to consider that you are living in a social framework, that's based on a whole lot of assumptions and made up religious inspired gobbledygook. Please have some objectivity and stop supporting this ridiculous institution.

Why not try to live your lives according to your own rules? instead of conforming to someone else's feverish creations?
Especially since there really is no way around the story of sodom and gommorah in the old testament, which teaches that being gay is fundamentally evil.

Thanks all for listening.
More...
Posted by bukboy on June 5, 2009 at 1:47 AM · Report
111
I got married in 5 months 10 years ago. So sometimes the risk is worth taking. I was 39 when that happened, so my experience was the critical factor in making the decision to go ahead: I knew what I was doing by then.
Posted by textthatappearsbelow on June 5, 2009 at 10:27 AM · Report
112
I'm *really* surprised by Dan's "advice" to LIAR. Not only do I disagree with the broad prescriptive note that "no one should be talking about marriage at three months" (clearly, as comments reflect, longterm and happy marriages do occur even when you've *gasp* started talking about marriage at 3 months) but Dan's advice to LIAR is also just extremely unhelpful. What is she supposed to do with, "you were stupid for talking about marriage anyway"? Is that going to help her deal with her lying boyfriend? Is that going to help her be better in this relationship OR the next one, when she has been yelled at for talking about what she hoped for? No.
Posted by kimberkit on June 5, 2009 at 2:14 PM · Report
113
@12: I understand and share your disgust over CA passing Prop 8, but please do not give up on the state just yet. As Dan noted, there has been considerable movement in public opinion on this issue, and as gay marriages continue to take place in other parts of the country more people will stop freaking out over the novelty, come to their senses, and realize that seperate is not equal. It was easy (if, in hindsight, stupid) for us in CA to be overly confident in 2008: we won't make that mistake again. This issue is not over just because of the CA Supreme Court ruling: the legal system is only one way to pursue civil rights. Wasn't it Andre Brink who said that law and justice are distant cousins at best? Back to the ballot box: we will come back and fight, and we will prevail...
Posted by Allyson on June 5, 2009 at 4:35 PM · Report
114
I liked your advice on the too soon to marry letter. For the brief time that I was dating someone (and even when I wasn't) I'd get strange looks from people for saying that I wasn't going to get engaged/married while in college. For some reason people couldn't understand when I told them "I'm not ready for it, I don't have a job or a degree, and I couldn't honestly support someone else with the commitment of marriage." It strikes me as odd that there's this extreme push to get married as soon as possible, instead of waiting. I see too many couples going into terrible relationships that I know will somehow end in hardship. Not that any relationship is perfect.
Also, I'm not in California, but it saddens me to hear about Prop 8 being upheld. But I agree, I think the tides are turning and people are finally realizing that gay marriage isn't hurting anybody. Let's hope we can all keep changing people's minds and opening their eyes.
Posted by Peter on June 5, 2009 at 9:59 PM · Report
mr. herriman 115
first date was in november, we got engaged in february, married in september. 10 months from first date to altar. i was 22, he was 35.

two kids, 9 and 10 ... thirteenth anniversary this september.

maybe we're an anomaly, but it's made me a believer that if it's right, you will know it.
Posted by mr. herriman on June 6, 2009 at 1:31 AM · Report
badger539 116
Great column, as usual, Dan, but concerning LIAR, if boyfriend is seeming intent on marriage until after the naive gf moves in with him, and thereafter isn't interested in marriage and won't talk about it, aren't we talking bait-and-switch here? If it were me I'd be having serious trust issues about then. So why isn't it DMFA?
Posted by badger539 on June 6, 2009 at 5:38 AM · Report
117
Talking about marriage at 8 months is NOT too soon. I think this is something on which sexual orientations/cultural differences matter. If two well educated, 25-30 somethings, have been dating for 8 months, and neither can see staying with the person long term - maybe one should get out. At this age, I'm too old to be wasting my dating life on someone who doesn't want to be with me in the future. I'm not saying book a location and hire a wedding planner, but at least some kind of acknowledgment that you could see yourself marrying the other person. Also, at 16 months, if he ain't put a ring on it... I might leave - especially if he wants to move in together too...
Posted by EvilKitty510 on June 6, 2009 at 6:02 AM · Report
118
Dan, if you think 16 months isn't enough time, then how long would you suggest a couple waits? I'm very curious to hear your opinion.

My fiance bought the ring at 8 months, proposed at 10, and we're getting married in October, 2 1/2 years after our one night stand (yeah, we're one of those one-night-stand-that-stuck couples). I know I don't have the years behind me yet to back up my belief that my marriage will be long and happy, but I have a calm certainty about the depths of the love and committment in this relationship.
Posted by luey on June 6, 2009 at 2:52 PM · Report
119
I disagree with your response to LIAR. The issue isn't how long they were thinking about marriage, but that he completely changed his mind with no explanation. Talking about marriage at 3 months may be a bit crazy, but the fact that he admitted it was all empty talk is insane. It doesn't matter if they were talking about living on Mars after 2 days... if he said it with the understanding that he was fully committed and it was a plan, he needs to give her a better explanation than "it was all empty." He didn't tell her he got a case of rationality. You did. Had he told her that this would be different.
Posted by adarascarlet on June 6, 2009 at 4:00 PM · Report
120
I agree with a lot of the other posters here, Dan. Yes, you are absolutely 100% right about 3 months being WAY too soon to talk about marriage, but maybe as a gay man you're not familiar with the obvious manipulative tactic that LIAR's boyfriend was clearly using here? In het relationships, par for the course is the man wants sex and the woman wants commitment. I realize there are exceptions, myself included, but that is what you can generally expect. And men who are aware of this will lead women on with false promises of commitment and marriage. I've even known men who have said a great way to get a woman's pants off is to say they'll marry her if she puts out. So yes, by all means say 3 months is WAY too early to talk about marriage, but also tell this girl to DTMFA. He's exploiting her, pure and simple. It's a signal any experienced and wise het woman will pick up on in a heartbeat.
Posted by XiaoGui17 on June 6, 2009 at 4:02 PM · Report
121
i can't believe how good i am at masturbating this week.
Posted by herro on June 6, 2009 at 4:23 PM · Report
Goldilocks 122
@94 Just because you are a "stupid""idiot" don't generalize to the rest of us.

@64 LMAO, I concur.
Posted by Goldilocks on June 6, 2009 at 5:16 PM · Report
123
dear dan,

My wife and I talked about marriage after three weeks and then we took the plunge seven weeks later. I can say that I never thought I would find this happiness in life, and if you were to ask her I'm certain she'd say the same. Though I must admit your little column has amused us for years (and certainly given us both the mental framework to expand in ways perhaps once not possible) we have grown tired.

Yawn.

MWM
Posted by thebestpoetever on June 7, 2009 at 2:04 AM · Report
124
This debate over "soon, not too soon" for marriage seems like the perfect forum for me to raise my own existential life dilemma: is there a point at which it's too late to consider marriage?

We have been dating for five years now. The sex is hot and full of variety, as it's always been but since my discovery of Dan, it's gotten even better. We met at 19 in the midst of both of our hard-partying college phases, and as a result of that time and our equally fucked up but circumstantially different childhoods, we came in to all of this with a lot of painful emotional drama. We moved in together and moved apart, broke up and "moved on" multiple times... I slept with the other fish in the sea; he stayed home and played MMORPGS. A truly modern romance.

The thing that has surprised us both is, for lack of a better word, there's an eerie element of destiny to our relationship. I have "gotten over" dozens of men, but getting over him has proved literally impossible; he has been a lifetime commitment-phobe, but can't stand the idea of losing me no matter what the cost. We have stayed communicative through all the ebbs and flows of our journey, and while the graph of closeness has been less than linear, it has been undeniably progressing upward.

Now he's proposed. We've crafted a custom marriage affidavit making clear our disdain for our state's homosexual insularity, and have started talks on compromise: I want the pretty ring and his last name, he wants the small wedding and no pets in our home.

I have never felt so ambivalent in my life. Please help.
Posted by Tulip_Starr on June 7, 2009 at 9:35 AM · Report
125
The red flag with LIAR's boyfriend is he's backpeddling with no explantion just when she agrees to move in. Coincidence? I think not. From the letter it sounds like her boyfriend just said all marriage talk was BS and there's no plans. Maybe he got cold feet or decided it was too fast, maybe he was suckering her into putting out, only he knows and he's not saying.

Another thought- this guy might fit the profile of a potential abuser. They often will say anything they think their partner wants to hear to lure them in (let's get married!), but then the promises evaporate once they think their victim is hooked (I don't need to go to as much effort to keep her). Abusive people also jerk around their partners emotionally (get up her hopes for marriage, then squash it and make her feel stupid.) Maybe he wants her to move in so it's harder for her to leave once he starts acting like a bigger asshole.

I'm thinking DTMFA for false advertising or at least hold off on the move if he doesn't explain himself quickly and convincingly.
Posted by E on June 7, 2009 at 4:09 PM · Report
126
C_in_Va, you are totally off base. Even by your dictionary standard "indifference" is exactly what Dan used it to mean. He didn't mean the opposite of interest, which would be almost a dislike or interest in the absence of sex, but rather two people that show no interest, lack of interest, indifference or disinterest in sex.

What kind of language Nazi would use Yourdictionary.com? Any self-respecting wordsmith would use Merriam-Webster. Dan did not redefine the word. Despite your claim that writers don't define language, they ABSOLUTELY do! English is a living language that is constantly changing and evolving. Hint: this is why the dictionary has a new edition every year or so, words are constantly added or words develop new, broader meanings or changed meaning entirely. For instance, in "wench" used to be a benign reference to a girl. If you used that to refer to a woman today, you'd probably get a slap in the face! If you're going to attack anyone that changes a words meaning, you'd have to attack a large portion of the human race, including yourself for your uninformed understanding of the word "disinterest." (Also, word meanings in the legal context are dramatically different from common usage, your example is legal and WAY off base).
Posted by yeesh99 on June 7, 2009 at 4:38 PM · Report
127
Love is not the same as being in love. Those are two different states of mind and spirit. Marrying someone too early in the relationship is like doing it while under the influence or basically blind. If there's love, real love, the one that happens AFTER being in love, marriage can happen at anytime. My advice: wait, it doesn't hurt. If it's meant to happen, it will happen. If it isn't, the wound will not be as deep. My sister married twice before the end of the first year. The first one was a disgrace; the second one is still a blessing. But she could've saved herself the first pain. By not waiting, she gambled big and lost.
Posted by xjuan on June 7, 2009 at 10:47 PM · Report
128
@20: emsique:

I feel for you. I left a SHITTY marriage myself.
The only thing I did right during that senselessly blindsided 9-year relationship-from-hell (I take equal blame here---I was warned plenty by family and friends!) was not have any children with my now ex-spouse.

I'm not anti-kids. But any we might have had back then would have been really fucked up children with him as their Dad!

@127: Good point, xjuan. Waiting would have saved me from the nightmare I once lived. At least I'm older and a little wiser now.
Posted by livedtotell... on June 8, 2009 at 5:26 AM · Report
129
@125:

Well said, E!
Posted by livedtotell... on June 8, 2009 at 5:30 AM · Report
130
@C_in_VA (and others interested in "uninterested" and "disinterested":

You might enjoy this discussion of the issue on Language Log:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=…
Posted by killer on June 8, 2009 at 2:29 PM · Report
131
Regarding Miss LIAR:

I find it very interesting that there isn't many people advising her not to move in with the boyfriend, asshat or otherwise.

For all intents and purposes, living together is just as good as being married. (without the dress, ceremony and benefits as outlined by the prop 8 discussion) There is shared finances, space, friends & social agendas, children.... And, if and when a break-up happens, the result is similar, if not exactly, like divorce.

Wether or not they should consider/discuss marriage at any stage in their relationship is something that they should determine. Everyone is different, with different needs and desires, the same way that some people like vanilla and others golden showers. It shouldn't be for us to judge and discard that due to our own prejudices.

No-one can say what is going on with her boyfriends fickle head, but everyone is definitely entitled to change their minds and I am sure that we have all excercised that at some point in their lives.

I would suggest that they continue to date, if LIAR is still interested, but check the big stuff, like marriage, cohabitation and children at the door until they are really ready to face it together.
Posted by little birdie on June 8, 2009 at 3:53 PM · Report
132
Dan, why do you think that the gay community is not very open to black men. I go to gay clubs with my friends, well dressed (not thugs here) but we get turned away a lot. Lots of gays are not interested in black men or women. The "beauty" standard for men in the gay community seems to include the Nordic look. I'm chiseled through and through (bodybuilder here) but I get no play from queer folk. What do you think that's all about?

Thanks a million and a half.
Posted by Lewis on June 8, 2009 at 7:24 PM · Report
133
Wow. I didn't even get to the rest of the column before just stopping at that first full paragraph regarding marriage and thinking "HOLY SHIT, I know who needs to read this!!!"

But they won't listen to reason. Oh well.
Posted by Lauren on June 8, 2009 at 9:36 PM · Report
134
@Lewis:

Doubly tough, isn't it? Homophobia from much of the black community (often hardcore Christian) and racism from much of the gay community (overwhelmingly white). You remind me of the documentary Tongues Untied. If you haven't seen it, I really recommend it.
Posted by XiaoGui17 on June 8, 2009 at 9:58 PM · Report
enna 135
Completely love you Dan
Posted by enna http://www.listentothegreen.com on June 9, 2009 at 7:55 AM · Report
136
For those of you who argued that your marriage has been successful despite a short courtship, are you saying that you wouldn't be together now if you hadn't married when you did?

Obviously there are going to be exceptions. People with a long courtship having a bad and short marriage, and those who married after 3 months spending the rest of their lives together.

I can understand if there was a circumstance in your relationship in which marriage would be a reasonable risk, but why rush into marriage otherwise?
Posted by BunnyTime on June 10, 2009 at 4:56 AM · Report
137
I don't think it's the length of time that you wait before talking about marriage that's the issue. It's a question of how you view marriage. Some people know right down to their bones that they're going to build something lifelong. They'll start talking about marriage as soon as they come to believe they're forming a strong bond. It doesn't matter that they're still in the romantic haze at that point; they don't think a marriage is something that should last only as long as the initial overwhelming infatuation. For people like this, early talk isn't crazy, and pre-marital cohabitation isn't even necessary. They'll most likely make it work, and if not, the divorce won't be caused by something they could have discovered in the first 8 months or even two years.

For others, who are not really all that sure that marriage is an institution they're committed to, and who assume that marriages should be dissolved whenever there's a serious issue, even several years of cohabitation may not be enough. They almost need to survive ten or more years of committed relationship before they can begin to know whether marriage is something to risk.

But, more important, I agree with the many commenters who noted that LIAR's boyfriend doesn't know how to communicate and seems to have no sense of the duty of grownups not to make commitments they don't mean to keep. (Or in his case, at least to be honest about revoking the commitment instead of indulging in the crazy-making game of requiring her to guess whether he meant it.) This guy appears to say whatever he thinks will buy a little peace at the moment; he may not mean much harm, but that won't help her. She should steer clear of the guy and definitely not move in with him, not sign a lease with him, and not open a joint checking account with him.
More...
Posted by Texan99 on June 10, 2009 at 2:01 PM · Report
138
I know there are a lot of 'oldies' that are against gay marriage, but there are a lot of 'youngies' that feel the same way. As a percentage it's probably greater for oldies to be anti marriage than youngies, but older supporters of gay marriage do exist. I think it's probably due to knowing gays and gays who have been in long term relationships. So, Dan and Phoebe, drop the oldies comments...I'm 58 and I'm for gay marriage. So's my mom and she's in her 80's. But then again, I'm gay, so I suppose that doesn't count.
Posted by USBear2012 on June 11, 2009 at 8:07 AM · Report
139
@phoebe

I know there are a lot of 'oldies' that are against gay marriage, but there are a lot of 'youngies' that feel the same way. As a percentage it's probably greater for oldies to be anti marriage than youngies, but older supporters of gay marriage do exist. I think it's probably due to knowing gays and gays who have been in long term relationships. So, Dan and Phoebe, drop the oldies comments...I'm 58 and I'm for gay marriage. So's my mom and she's in her 80's. But then again, I'm gay, so I suppose we don't count.

To someone up above in the postings; grammar does count, communication is our lifeblood and if grammar doesn't count, then what holds the language in a form that everyone can understand?
Posted by USBear2012 on June 11, 2009 at 8:11 AM · Report
140
Tulip star. Don't do it. No way. stop. listen to those feelings of ambivalence. i bet those are felt many times of the day. how often do you have the love of sex feelings in a given week. will this person be there for you when the chips are down? how do they treat you when they are having a bad day?
Posted by nobody should marry with doubts on June 15, 2009 at 10:46 PM · Report
141
@nobody should marry with doubts:

Thank you for being the only person to respond so far. I do feel the ambivalence often. What about you, are you married and have you felt it? Perhaps in some relationships and not others? I don't even know anyone who has a good enough relationship that I'd want to emulate, at least not personally, and I've had pretty bad experiences so far... I guess my rationale here is that he's someone I share much in common with, including common life goals and a desire for children, and he's someone I feel very passionate about, both sexually and intellectually. We have had some nasty roadblocks. And your comment rings true, he does not treat me well when he's having a bad day. Nothing abusive, but just general hostility and emotional distance which I strongly dislike. I guess I'm just not sure how much of a mixed pot of these sorts of feelings is to be expected...
Posted by Tulip_Starr on June 16, 2009 at 2:10 PM · Report
142
@bukboy:

I agree with you about the social brainwashing. My thought is that humans are, at their core, social animals. In the past, being different could lead to branding as an outcast, and lessen your chance of survival. But you're right; in this modern era, adhering to social norms isn't entirely necessary.

I don't think marriage is needed in order to share your life with someone. I believe people mainly do it out of tradition, religious or not. (and you get a crapload of presents) I think another big reason is that upon marriage, you are accepted into the social fold of those who are also married.

Marriage is just "what you do". Like going to college, getting a job, buying a house, having kids, etc. I wonder how many people follow this path because they think it will bring happiness, and then find it sorely lacking?
Posted by neverwake24 on June 30, 2009 at 9:23 PM · Report
143
tulipstarr, don't know if you'll be checking back in on this post, but... i agree with the other poster. and it sounds like you know in your heart this marriage isn't right for you, at least not right now.

i had a shitty first marriage that i regret a great deal, largely because i had been so ambivalent about him. in my heart i think i knew before we got hitched that he wasn't right for me. i just couldn't let it go at the time; it was too painful.

i'm now 3 years into a relationship that started out not unlike the one you describe. he and i are both divorced, both have major family issues, we love each other but we've struggled a great deal. his fear of intimacy and commitment left me feeling sad and alone so many times.

about a year ago, i decided that even though i love him very much, i couldn't stay in it unless something changed--i needed to feel good about the relationship a majority of the time (not an unreasonable criteria, i think). i gave it until the end of the calendar year, and told him i'd like to go into counseling to work on our difficulties.

a year later, i'm not going to tell you things are perfect, but they've changed enormously. we've learned how to communicate with each other much better, and he truly stepped up to the plate in confronting his intimacy/abandonment fears so he could stop being such a douchebag every time he got too close for comfort. but we've worked on it--HARD--and it's taken time.

i so hear what you're saying about feeling like there's an element of destiny. but if you're still thinking about getting married, please try to find a good counselor so you can both work through your fears. i can tell you that walking down that aisle with uncertainty in your heart is no joyful experience, and neither is waking up several days a week with that pit in your stomach--you know the one--because something just isn't right.

you don't have to make a decision right away. take good care of yourself, and don't make a huge emotional, financial, and legal commitment to this guy if you don't feel confident you're doing the right thing. whatever happens, i wish you the best.
More...
Posted by katebird on July 10, 2009 at 12:21 AM · Report

Add a comment

Most Commented in Columns