Laying out my winter clothes and wishin' I was home,
going home . . .
Just A Link
1 week ago
Buckle your seat belt, grab a life-jacket and say your prayers as John Wayne and an all-star cast take an ill-fated flight across the Pacific in William Wellman's The High and the Mighty. Based on the bestselling novel by Ernest K. Gann, this was one of the first airplane disaster movies and set the standard for years to come.BTW - Steve's friend Johnny, who opens each episode, has always been a cute fella, and a decent, normal-looking guy is what does it for me. But now with the beard . . . wooof.
A trans-Pacific flight from Hawaii to San Francisco runs into trouble past "the point of no return" and pilot (Robert Stack) along with his salty and veteran co-pilot (John Wayne), must decide if they can make their destination or down the damaged plane in the drink, risking the survival of everyone on board.
And what a passenger list! There's Oscar winner Claire Trevor as a good-time -gal whose time may be up; Phil Harris as a slob always looking on the bright side; and Jan Sterling as a woman trying to cover her tracks. Then there's the crew - Robert Stack, fighting both a fear of flying and of failure at the worst possible time; Doe Avedon as the stewardess who must keep the faith despite the circumstances; William Campbell as the smarmy assistant who sees too much and talks too often; and John Wayne fighting the ghosts of his dead family by returning to the cock-pit in an effort to regain and retain his dignity.
It's big screen adventure at it's best and believe me, when you fly, you won't forget The High and the Mighty!
|The Creation of the Sun and Moon, Sistine Chapel, by Michelangelo.|
But who's that guy who lost his pants? Seems kinda strange, don't it. Click to enlarge.
For even though the purpose of Genesis 1—11 is other than scientific, these texts are still talking about the real world and its history in their own way. After all, the creation of the world is the beginning of God's purposeful temporal activity in relation to history and the event of the world's coming into being. My point is more modest, that we should be guided in a general way by the macro-purpose of the Bible and the Book of Genesis and not unduly influenced by debates which have their meaning largely in the context of modern society.
This impression about the function of the Bible is reinforced by specific signals in the text itself which should alert us to it in other ways as well. The fact that God made the sun, moon, and stars on the fourth day, not on the first, ought to tell us that this is not a scientific statement (Gen. 1:14—19). This one detail in the narrative suggests that concordism is not going to work well and that the agenda of the writer must have been something other than one of describing actual physical processes.
Happiness is the only good.Is Divorce Wrong?
The time to be happy is now.
The place to be happy is here.
The way to be happy is to help make others so.
Reason is the highest attribute of man.
The truth is, our government is not founded upon the rights of gods, but upon the rights of men. . . . It is the only nation with which the gods have had nothing to do.
Argument cannot be answered with insults. Kindness is strength; anger blows out the lamp of the mind.
Happiness is the only good, reason the only torch, justice the only worship, humanity the only religion, and love the only priest.
Things get hot on the old plantation when Bette Davis squares off with everything and everybody to get to what she wants in William Wyler's adaptation of Lillian Hellman's drama of greed in the turn-of-the-century South, The Little Foxes. Shot in full period splendor at Samuel Goldwyn studios during one of the hottest heat waves to hit California in decades, The Little Foxes was a troubled shoot from the get-go. Bette Davis and William Wyler fought incessantly over her interpretation of Regina, the lead character, which had been immortalized on stage by Davis' rival Tallulah Bankhead. The heat, along with the frayed nerves, the heavy costumes and the long waits for Cinematographer Gregg Toland to set up intricate shots drove Davis to walk off the set, the production into delays and the tempers into high gear.
Wyler vowed he'd never work with Davis again. Yet, despite the problems, the film proved to be a spectacular achievement. Most of the Broadway cast was brought out for the production and all had lucrative film careers after the picture's release. For her part, Davis received her fifth nomination for Best Actress and should have won over eventual winner Joan Fontaine. But the troubles on the "Foxes" set combined with her resignation as president of the Academy had made her too unpopular and although the production itself received numerous nominations, it took home nothing.
She was also one of the most successful motion-picture scenarists, and the three volumes of her memoirs were both critical and popular successes - and even more controversial than her plays.
Yet the Hellman line that is probably most quoted came from none of these, but from a letter she wrote in 1952 to the House Committee on Un-American Activities when it was investigating links between American leftists and the Communist Party in this country and abroad.
''I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions,'' Miss Hellman wrote.
She offered to testify about her own opinions and actions, but not about those of others, because ''to hurt innocent people whom I knew many years ago in order to save myself is, to me, inhuman and dishonorable.''
For this, she risked imprisonment for contempt of Congress, was blacklisted and saw her income drop from $150,000 a year to virtually nothing.
Although she had participated with Communists in many causes, she was not a Communist. ''Rebels seldom make good revolutionaries,'' she explained.
|Celebrating the proclamation of the 19th Amendment, 1920|
More scientists have come forward to criticize a US government report on the fate of the oil leaked into the Gulf of Mexico during the recent Deepwater Horizon debacle.The UGA report is available here.
Earlier this month the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stated that only 26% of the 4.9 million barrels that spewed from the BP well was “residual” in the Gulf. A number of scientists interviewed by Nature (see: Upbeat oil report questioned) and Science questioned the positive spin put on this report .
Now researchers from the respected Georgia Sea Grant programme have joined the fray. In their report they say that up to 79% of the oil from the spill remains.
“One major misconception is that oil that has dissolved into water is gone and, therefore, harmless,” says Charles Hopkinson, director of Georgia Sea Grant a researcher at thee University of Georgia Franklin College of Arts and Sciences (press release).
“The oil is still out there, and it will likely take years to completely degrade.”
First, and drastically most importantly, the Court granted the stay. Consequently the thousands of couples who were waiting for the day of equality will have to wait at least a few more months until December.And:
Second, the Court wants this case to be resolved quickly. Appellants’ opening brief is due in just a month and the hearing will happen on December 6th. This is lightning quick for a Federal Court of Appeals, and it’s a very good sign. The Court understands that this case is important, and it doesn’t want it to linger.
Third, the Court specifically orders the Prop 8 proponents to show why this case should not be dismissed for lack of standing. Here’s a discussion of the standing issue. This is very good news for us. It shows that the Court has serious doubts about whether the Appellants have standing. . . . a very good sign . . . .
A victory in this appeal on the jurisdiction/standing issue would be phenomenal. Although the principles established in Judge Walker’s ruling would only result in the striking down of Proposition 8, rather than the establishment of marriage equality nationwide, dismissal of the appeal would eliminate the risk associated with bringing these claims before the Supreme Court of the United States — the most conservative Court that we have had in the last fifty years, in many respects — and Judge Walker’s devastating analysis of the factual record and the utter lack of evidence supporting any reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage would remain on the books and be available for us to cite in all our future efforts at litigation and legislative reform.So, unless somebody in the judiciary throws a curve ball, it seems that patience will be rewarded with success in the end, and not so very long from now, perhaps.
It is frustrating that California couples will need to wait yet longer to have their rights vindicated, but this order holds much promise for the successful elimination of Proposition 8 once and for all.
On Wednesday, unless there is an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, gay and lesbian couples in California once again will be able to marry. Like other couples around the world, they will be able to pledge to support each other, buy some dishes, raise families, argue about the bills, maybe sit on a park bench years from now and chuckle at the hysterical old claims that their lives together would destroy the institution of marriage. . . .Well, there you go. The New York Times says gays should be able to marry anywhere in the country. Another breathtaking development for this old coot, who remembers that for many years, this very paper refused to use the word "gay" in its pages, clinging to "homosexual" instead, well into the 1990's, I think.
Because of Judge Walker’s firmly reasoned and occasionally soaring decision earlier this month, there was no reason to continue the prohibition. After a full-blown trial that gave opponents every opportunity to prove the harm caused by same-sex marriage, the court found that it caused no harm whatsoever to the state or society. But substantial harm was caused to gay and lesbian couples by depriving them of their constitutional rights.
There already are 18,000 same-sex couples in the state who were married before Proposition 8 was passed, and their presence does not seem to have damaged relationships between men and women. The State of California filed a brief with the court urging that marriages be allowed to resume immediately, making it clear that it would impose no burden and would, in fact, serve the public interest. . . .
But even if Judge Walker’s ruling stands in California, it would be a shame if the case stopped there. Only through appeals, first at the Ninth Circuit and, ultimately, the Supreme Court, is there a chance that the principles set down by Judge Walker will apply to the entire country. Yes, there is the possibility that the judgment could be struck down, but it is sometimes necessary to take big risks to get important results, as the lawyers behind this lawsuit have demonstrated. If same-sex couples in California have the constitutional right to be part of the mainstream of society, then so should every couple in America.
Judge Vaughn Walker did a thorough job of making the case that same-sex marriage would advance the same purposes the state has in sanctioning heterosexual marriage, such as "creating stable households," "legitimizing children" and "assigning individuals to care for one another." He cited plenty of evidence to indicate that fears of unwanted effects, such as undermining heterosexual marriage, are unfounded.So the Trib says A) judges should not strike down any laws that discriminate against a class of people, because they are judges, not legislators - and B) every state has the right to discriminate against any group in its territory if the majority feels like it - and C) give the homos "civil unions" to shut them up, but don't you dare use the M-word. (But if it's merely a symbolic difference, why the hell not, exactly? Answer: because homos are different from straights, meaning not as good as.)
What he didn't do was refute the argument of a California Supreme Court justice, who in 2008 said no court has "the right to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality and justice."
This federal judge insists that "the withholding of the designation 'marriage' significantly disadvantages" same-sex couples. In fact, the disadvantage is symbolic — and the nation has not had enough experience with civil unions to establish whether they will someday acquire the same cultural status as marriage.
This ruling, of course, will stand only if it is upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which would be a drastic and highly controversial step. But the justices might seize on the same middle option used by several states — civil unions. The court could rule that equal protection requires giving gay couples the same prerogatives granted heterosexual couples, but not by the same name.
That course offers a compromise that, while satisfying neither side entirely, accommodates each in its central concern. It would show a respect for democracy and a humility about the role of the judiciary.
It would accord with prevailing opinion: In a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, two out of every three Americans favored providing civil unions for same-sex couples. It also would preserve the right of states to enact same-sex marriage if they choose.
The choice between this kind of affirmation of spirituality and love and a politics of control and fear was what the church faced under John Paul II, as modernity pressed. . . . The pursuit of control is really a fear of scrutiny and transparency which, when added to the unspeakable crimes of the past, ineluctably led to the current meltdown in the West. The homosexual question is not in any way marginal to this; in fact, you could see it as a central challenge for a church caught between truth and power. . . .What I Say: As a gay man, and an Episcopalian-on-hold, I understand the point Sullivan is making about being attracted to a spirituality supported by liturgy, ritual, and finery; in fact, as I've blogged in the past, I do think that the love of beauty - creating, revealing, sharing it in any of a myriad possible ways - is a defining element of the gay personality, which of course also comes in many shapes and sizes from silly twink to gruff leatherman. But when you get past whatever the exterior may be, I think you find the same motive animating all of us at heart.
It seems pretty obvious to me - as it does to Angelo Quattrochi, whose book is reviewed by Toibin - that the current Pope is a gay man (just as it was blindingly clear that John Paul II was straight). I am not claiming that Benedict is someone who has explored his sexuality, or has violated his own strictures on the matter. There is absolutely no evidence of that, or of hypocrisy of any sort. But that does not mean that he isn't gay. In fact, Ratzinger's command that gay priests should actively lie about their orientation makes any public statement about this on its face lacking in credibility. But when you look at the Pope's mental architecture (I've read a great deal of his writing over the last two decades) you do see that strong internal repression does make sense of his life and beliefs. At times, it seems to me, his gayness is almost wince-inducing. The prissy fastidiousness, the effeminate voice, the fixation on liturgy and ritual, and the over-the-top clothing accessories are one thing. But what resonates with me the most is a theology that seems crafted from solitary introspection into a perfect, abstract unity of belief. It is so perfect it reflects a life of withdrawal from the world of human relationship, rather than an interaction with it. Of course, this kind of work is not inherently homosexual; but I have known so many repressed gay men who can only live without severe pain in the world if they create a perfect abstraction of what it is, and what their role is in it. Toibin brilliantly explains this syndrome, why the church of old was so often such a siren call for gay men who could not handle their own nature. In Benedict, one sees a near-apotheosis of this type, what Quattrocchi describes as "simply the most repressed, imploded gay in the world." . . .
I would like to return to the world where this kind of speculation was disgraceful, unnecessary and blasphemous. But when this Pope has already enabled the rape of children, has covered up the crimes of many priests, when he has responded by blaming gay men for the moral failings of his own church, when he has publicly demanded that gay Catholics remain in the closet, i.e. lie about themselves as a sacred duty ... then such deference becomes much more difficult.
|Judith and Samuel Peabody|
There has already been an attempt to discredit Walker, who has never publicly discussed his sexual orientation but has been widely reported to be gay. The notion that a judge’s sexuality, gay or not, might disqualify him from ruling on marriage is as absurd as saying Clarence Thomas can’t rule on cases involving African-Americans. By this standard, the only qualified judge to rule on marital rights would be a eunuch. No less ridiculous has been the attempt to dismiss Walker as a liberal “activist judge.” Walker was another Reagan nominee to the federal bench, recommended by his attorney general, Edwin Meese (an opponent of same-sex marriage and, now, of Walker), in a December 1987 memo residing at the Reagan library. It took nearly two years and a renomination by the first President George Bush for Walker to gain Senate approval over opposition from Teddy Kennedy, the N.A.A.C.P., La Raza, the National Organization for Women and the many gay groups who deemed his record in private practice too conservative.What I Say: The other day a famous gay blogger slimed a less-famous but well-respected conservative gay journalist as a "quisling" - for the mere reason that Maggie Gallagher's National Organization for Marriage used a quote from the latter as part of a statement against same-sex marriage; in the excerpt they quoted he was favoring civil unions as a more winnable achievement.
The attacks on Walker have fizzled fast. With rare exceptions from the hysterical fringe — Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich — most political leaders have either remained silent about the Prop 8 decision (the Republican National Committee) or punted (the Obama White House). Over at Fox News, Ted Olson silenced the states’-rights argument in favor of Prop 8 last weekend by asking Chris Wallace: “Would you like Fox’s right to a free press put up to a vote and say, well, if five states have approved it, let’s wait till the other 45 states do?” (No answer was forthcoming.)
Most of those who do argue for denying marriage equality to gay couples are now careful to say that they really, really like gay people. This, like the states’-rights argument, is a replay of the battle over black civil rights. Eric Foner, the pre-eminent historian of Reconstruction, recalled last week via e-mail how Strom Thurmond would argue in the early 1960s “that segregation benefited blacks and whites and had nothing to do with racism” — as if inequality were O.K. as long as segregationists pushing separate-but-equal “compromises” claimed their motives were pure.
As this breakthrough happened, I realized something deeper about the way we use phones – not just the smart ones: we are their slaves. We jump whenever they call because we never, ever turn them off. They only get turned off if we run out of battery life, and even then we become desperate for a charger and can think of little else until our depleted child has the charging indicator safely blinking and is serenely drinking its electronic milk.What I Say: It's truly astonishing to consider how quickly and vastly the Internet has changed our lives in what seems to me like a rather short time. When I was finishing college at the turn of the 70's/80's, computers were still largely in the commercial-use-only phase. All big companies and most small ones by that time were sending you computerized bills every month, and I do recall that by my senior year the library at my university had supplemented the card catalog - gee, I miss those - with an electronic one. Which actually had, wonder of wonders, not a keyboard but a touch-screen display (black screen and amber characters, no pictures, no Windows). Which of course was promptly covered with every kind of greasy fingerprint imaginable and stayed that way.
We have allowed ourselves to become 24/7 radio beacons. We are always on. Always ready to transmit or receive. There is a nervous habit that the younger generation has of checking their cell phones every 90 seconds or so. Just watch them. They didn’t hear a text message notification, but they are checking their phones just in case. And who knows, one might feel the urge to send a text message because heck, it’s been 30 seconds since one was sent. Watch people in airports, or in the auto repair shop, or on a university campus. There is a constant need to check to see if they are still plugged in. It is a nervous tic that they don’t even know is a tic.
In previous times, when we were more tied to place and limits as a society, people were reached at a specific location. Letters came to homes. Telegrams came to homes. Phone calls were placed…to homes. The cell phone, the harbinger of the always-on internet society, unhooked the anchor of place from communication. And when communication is not limited, is not circumscribed, it becomes unlimited and tyrannous. . . .
While people always cite “emergencies,” more often than not the singular reason that a cell phone exists in their lives is to give them a crutch to prevent them from being alone with themselves, their thoughts, and their fellow human beings. Going to the gym? Call a friend. Running an errand? Send a text. Eating something interesting? Take a picture and show the world on Facebook. We are incapable of living outside the virtual cloud that surrounds us. We can only fully live if we are constantly connected.
Or we can turn it off, put ourselves back in control of the machine, and take back the solitude and dreamy quiet of our thoughts: the beginnings of a recollection that lends itself to prayer and conversation.
Coralie Kosiada, 23, has never gone topless on a public beach, and doesn't plan to. "Honestly, I don't really like women who show their breasts," she said, pursing her lips and recoiling slightly. "There are not that many nice-looking breasts, so why display them? And it's a generational question. Mostly 50-year-old women do it. It's kind of passé."Tant pis for the straight boys. But fortunately, French men are still going topless despite the shifting winds of fashion. Voici:
Donald Fair and Warren “Butch” Dollinger were united in marriage on July 23, 2010 at the chapel in the VA Hospital in Iowa City, IA. The ceremony was performed by Pastor John McKinstry of the First Christian Church of Coralville, IA. A World War II veteran stood up for the couple. The couple are both Navy veterans of the Vietnam War. The couple are surrounded and supported by family and friends. They have been together 40 years and wanted to honor their love for each other by pledging to be “together till death do they part.”Well my stars, the times really are a-changing. I hope I live to see this kind of notice in our small-town Texas papers, too. Congrats and all good wishes to the newlyweds.
The couple are proud to be gay and happy to be able to marry and consolidate their love for each other.
"The book that could never be filmed!" In 1957, screenwriter John Michael Hayes faced this kind of stigma over the film version of "Peyton Place," Grace Metalious's scandalous bestseller about the dirty secrets of small town life in America. Hayes, however, beat the odds and turned in an Oscar-nominated screenplay that eventually earned the film the reputation of being "The best film ever made from a bad book!"
In the lead role of Constance, the repressed mother, director Mark Robson cast Lana Turner against type and she received her only nomination as Best Actress. For the teenagers, he cast virtual unknowns, Diane Varsi, Hope Lange and Russ Tamblin, all nominated as well, along with screen veterans Terry Moore, Betty Field, Mildred Dunnock and Arthur Kennedy, who got an Oscar nod as the town drunk. Nominated as Best Picture and shot on location in Technicolor, with a glorious score by Franz Waxman, "Peyton Place" proved to be more than just fodder for soap operas. The end result is a valentine to young love, innocence and life before and after World War II.
“[If interracial couples have a right to marry], all our marriage acts forbidding intermarriage between persons within certain degrees of consanguinity are void.”Note - Perez v. Lippold, aka Perez v. Sharp, is the landmark 1948 decision by the California Supreme Court allowing interracial marriages in that state.
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 40 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case)
“The underlying factors that constitute justification for laws against miscegenation closely parallel those which sustain the validity of prohibitions against incest and incestuous marriages.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case)
“[T]he State's prohibition of interracial marriage . . . stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage, or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry, and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.”
(Source: Excerpted United States Supreme Court oral argument transcripts from Loving v. Virginia, from Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton, eds., May it Please the Court (1993) at 282-283, quoting Virginia Assistant Attorney General R. D. McIlwaine, arguing for Virginia's ban on interracial marriage)
“Each [party seeking to marry a member of a different race] has the right and the privilege of marrying within his or her own group.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 46 (Shenk, J., dissenting, quoting from a prior court case)
“When people of [different races] marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny, . . . and such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages.”
(Source: A judge in a Missouri case, quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, May 19,1996)
Allowing interracial marriages “necessarily involves the degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”
(Source: A U.S. representative from Georgia quoted in Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, May 19, 1996)
“[S]uch laws [banning interracial marriage] have been in effect in this country since before our national independence and in this state since our first legislative session. They have never been declared unconstitutional by any court in the land although frequently they have been under attack. It is difficult to see why such laws, valid when enacted and constitutionally enforceable in this state for nearly one hundred years and elsewhere for a much longer period of time, are now unconstitutional under the same constitution.”
(Source: Perez v. Lippold, 198 P.2d at 35 (Shenk, J. dissenting))
Alabama voters quietly removed one piece of arcana from their Jim Crow-era constitution: a 1901 state law banning marriage between a Negro and Caucasian. The Supreme Court struck down such laws in 1967, but until last week, when voters passed a ballot initiative to purge that law from the books, it held on as the last such state law in the nation. The margin by which the measure passed was itself a statement. A clear majority, 60 percent, voted to remove the miscegenation statute from the state constitution, but 40 percent of Alabamans -- nearly 526,000 people -- voted to keep it.Also, FYI: That Texas sodomy statute that the Supremes struck down in 2003? It's still on the books here in God's Country. Old times here are not forgotten, oh hell no.
There was and is something about these words - engaged, married, husband - even though they may contain a mountain of different experiences, that made us a family. I think conservatives should favor the unification and mutual love and support of families. And that means they must by definition favor the mutual love and support of the gay people in them.
This is not about creating something new. It is about making a home for people who have been here all the time for centuries. It is about making the human family whole.
The church - even in its current High Ratzinger phase - opts for inclusion over exclusion. It allows the infertile to marry. It does not remove the Sacrament of Matrimony from those who do not produce kids. It even annuls countless marriages, many of which have been consummated, in enormously large numbers. It marries those past child-bearing age. It treasures adopted kids, even though they violate Ross's parent-procreating "microcosm of civilization" ideal. And that's only the Catholic church. The Protestant churches freely allow divorce and contraception - breaking both the monogamy and the procreative elements of Ross's ideal (which is to say all of it). So in the religious sphere, the Church breaks its own ideal with regularity, and the other churches have long since given almost all of it up. And yet the Catholic church still insists that its ideal be enforced as an act of civil exclusion in the secular sphere, even on people who are atheists.
On what conceivable grounds, if you pardon the expression? Look at how diverse current civil marriages are in the US. The range and diversity runs from Amish families with dozens of kids to yuppie bi-coastal childless couples on career paths; there are open marriages and arranged marriages; there is Rick Santorum and Britney Spears - between all of whom the civil law makes no distinction. The experience of gay couples therefore falls easily within the actual living definition of civil marriage as it is today, and as it has been now for decades. To exclude gays and gays alone is therefore not the upholding of an ideal (Britney Spears and Larry King are fine - but a lesbian couple who have lived together for decades are verboten) so much as making a lone exception to inclusion on the grounds of sexual orientation. It is in effect to assert not the ideal of Catholic Matrimony, but the ideal of heterosexual superiority. It creates one class of people, regardless of their actions, and renders them superior to another.
The modern wedding, with its stupendous cost (£20,000 on average) and duration, is really a celebration of the participants. They really are unique and precious snowflakes, just as they have suspected all along. In fact, they are each and both of them just the unique and precious people they would like to be. Everyone pretends that for the day the couple really are starring in their own film: following the conventions of modern films, that means nothing really bad can happen to them.Of course, it's your privilege to do as you like on your "special day," whether that involves gold lamé or faded denim. But your Head Trucker has never thought much of expensive spectacle at a moment when a sober, solemn vow is the central idea - which partakes of the sacred in some sense, even if exchanged by two atheists in front of a county clerk.
Feeling unique and treasured and valued for yourself is exactly the point of being in love, and it's very nice. But it's not realistic. In particular, it's a disastrous attitude to bring to a wedding. There will be times when you appear – and are – not in the least bit treasured or valued, and when you'll be unlucky to be thought unique: everyone going through a divorce is convinced for a while they were married to the absolutely worst spouse in history.
The great point about completely impersonal ceremonies, whose form is the same for everyone, whether these are religious or entirely civil, is that they remind us that the problems and difficulties of marriage are universal. They come from being human. They can't be dodged just by being our wonderful selves, even all dusted with unicorn sparkle.
In the Name of God, I, N., take you, N., to be my husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow.But as all that is getting to be an entirely moot point at this late age, your Head Trucker will just shut up now and go back to tending his own garden.