divorce

Caution: No Pun Intended

Sat, 22 Nov 2008 08:11:48 PST

What? Yeah. Virginity issue! Oh man, are you thinking backwards?

Unintentionally, I blurted out in laughter. Well, that was my first or initial reaction. I thought it was a joke, sort of--like I was reading it on the joke section. But, no! It was on the front section. So, heck? For goodness sake---2008 is nearly over and 2009 is approaching, what the heck people are thinking? Backwards? The case raised a furor over religion and women rights.

A man's request to annul his marriage, in which his lawyer described him as a victim of a deception, who was led to believe his wife was "chaste", wanted an annulment instead rather than divorce. The reason: to "erase" his marriage. The husband discovered on their wedding night that his bride was not a virgin. Take note, the lower court had agreed to the annulment, which for me- it's entirely ridiculous. However the appeals court ruled that neither the wife's virginity nor her past love life represented an essential part of her character. Even if she was untruthful with her husband, the court added, the lie did not justify an annulment.

I'm not an activist or a female version of MCP (Male Chauvinistic Pig) I'm speaking of: Rights- Women's rights. Clear?

The fact that religion is the number one reason that a woman's virginity is a precondition for marriage, it means that it is religions that violate the rights of the women. Can you imagine that the husband publicly rejected the woman and denounced his bride to their families while the wedding party was still going on? What a shame? It's like saying in front of the family--"Shame on your daughter". Is it right? What about her feelings? What about her rights? The right to have a private life and her past life. Women has a right of her body, she controls it. She has her own mind, own life and choices. Her body is hers. She owns it. She masters it. She will flourish it. She has a right if she will give her body to someone she loved, cherished and treasured. Are we going back again to the same issue, which should be erased and blotted out a long time ago? Freedom from anything: free from slavery, freedom to choose her husband, financial freedom or anything pertaining to life and choices of women are entirely women's rights. (Well, yeah--rights to have abortion is a woman's choices as well--but to admit--I'm really not so cool about it coz'--you know, its life that we're talking about, the life of the baby inside the tummy. She or he has also the rights to live) but it is one of the list, officially listed right that the women should be aware of.

We are not thinking backwards, aren't we? Mostly, women are afraid to speak up for their rights or still ignorant that they have the rights to speak for themselves (can't blame them for it). It was their upbringing, society, culture and the way their parents treat, educate and shape them that women are inferior human beings. And that, should act as subordinate

member of the family or any institution, agency and especially in religious forms. But, that was before, before the era when men were too prideful to admit that women were more practical than men, when men were too hard to push that women can do what men can, and the era where women were remained in the house and waited for their husbands. When was that? It was during 18th and 19th centuries. The 21st century is different, it is for change. Change for progress. Women are not robots nor should a remote control, that whenever men want them to do this or do that- it be done in favour for them. I am not against men (in fact-- i admire all the men in the world); I just want to justify about the rights of women. We should be respected and heard; that we are not for pleasure purposes or men's harem or whatever.

To add up:

Women's suffrage:

* Brunei and United Arab Emirates, women are not allowed to vote due to lack of an electoral system. Bhutan and Lebanon only get partial suffrage. Women are not allowed to vote by convention, rather than law. Traditional values are one main reason why women in Bhutan are permitted only one vote per household. Again, it's the male who do the voting. In Lebanon, women cannot vote unless she has a proof of education, elementary education at least but men have no education requirements. In Saudi Arabia and Vatican City, women are not allowed to vote by law. Women in Saudi Arabia are severely restricted. No women are allowed to stand in the house.

It's unfair, really- really unfair.

I Read the News Today, Oh Boy: Great McCartney/Mills Headlines

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:15:33 PST

It must be great being a headline writer in this day and age. What with poor old Britney and Amy cascading and cavorting to their own not so private oblivions and Madonna thinking she is Michelangelo, headline writers never had it so good. Here we present a few rip roaring headlines generated by the divorce case you will only not have heard of if you have been in a coma for the last few years. In which case, how on earth are you reading this?

We Have Worked It Out

(Daily Mail, 16 February)

Supposedly, Mucca and exxy have come to some sort of agreement over how the Sir Pauly's money (much of it made before Heather could walk) is to be split. Like a lot in The Mail, not necessarily to be believed.

Hate Days A Week

(Daily Mirror, 14 February)

An encouraging article for those anticipating matrimony from “The Mirror”. No wonder there are more people in the UK living together unwed than wed! Not that the British people have ever needed role models. Katy Price for Prime Minister now!

Help! I Need Some Money

(The Sun, 13 February)

What will Heather do unless she gets about £100m? Poor lass, forced to defend herself in court because of those grasping, money grabbing lawyers! Hypocrisy? Surely not! Maybe Heather consoles herself with a few large whiskies in the evening. One wonders how many it would take to get her completely legless.

Mucca: Let it be a £100m

(The Star, 12 February)

Will someone rid me of this unruly woman? Apparently Paul is so desperate to get Heather off his back he is willing to give her £100m. Mucca the Mug? Or the future target of a multitude of ex-soft-porn models come Johnny come lately vegan and anti-line mine activist. How he must wish she had put another foot wrong.

A Hard Day's Fight

(The Sun, 12 February)

Will The Sun ever get fed up of writing headlines to make the nation titter? I doubt it. However, they have a way to go with this one before it beats “Freddy Starr ate my hamster”.

With Legal Help From My Friends

(The Sun, 12 February)

Sir Paul gets tough with his lawyers. Poor bloke - he should never have bought Heather that plane for her birthday. No, not the flying type, the type you used to use in woodwork!

She's in Lexus With Me and … I Feel Fine

(The Sun, 9 February)

Heather's choice of car comes under scrutiny. She should be more careful when crossing the road if you ask me…

Love Me Don't

(Daily Mirror, 5 February)

The countless hours of poring over a list of the Beatle's songs, with a slight air of desperation, finally pays off for The Mirror. Really, chaps, show a little more creativity, please!

Hey Judas

(New Of The World, 13 January)

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Or a newspaper out to sell as many copies as possible. The News of the Screws hits out at poor defenseless Heather (well, she is representing herself…ouch!)

Eddie Van Halen and Valerie Bertinelli Finally Divorce

Tue, 25 Dec 2007 07:27:19 PST

When Eddie Van Halen, 52, and Valerie Bertinelli, 47, first wed, no one thought it would last. After all, due to her starring role on popular TV show One Day at a Time and his rock-in-roll life, they were viewed as the consummate opposites. She was sweet and he was sour. Yet, the two surprised everyone by surviving in holy matrimony for 25 years. However, now the divorce documents are out and signed; the two are officially over. They're now part of the growing lineage of celebrity couples calling it quits.

Over the past couple of years, a few high profile celebrity couples ended their marriages. NBA legend Michael Jordan and his wife of 17 years Juanita Jordan split in 2006. Actor/Comedienne Eddie Murphy and his wife of 12 years Nicole Mitchell Murphy officially split in 2006. Country-music star Sara Evans and her husband of 13 years Craig Schelske officially split in 2007. Now, wrestler Terry Bollea a.k.a. Hulk Hogan is about to join the ranks of these couples as soon as his 23-year marriage to wife Linda Bollea finalizes in the future.

Because the world of Hollywood is riddled with dysfunctional relationships, people are rarely surprised when they end in divorce. Yet, since the average American marriage only lasts 7 years, it's amazing when people exceed it. They are considered to have tapped into a special form of magic that allows them to endure matrimony in a way that far exceeds the average person. So what is the usual culprit behind the split of a long-term marriage?

According to a study conducted by Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), the usual reason most long-term marriages end is due to a loss of companionship. Basically, the friendship that kept the two parties in-love flies out the window and thus, their marriage follows suit. It is why "irreconcilable differences" are often listed on divorce documents. The married parties just can't get along anymore, so why stay married?

This is probably what happened with Eddie Van Halen and Valerie Bertinelli. In the beginning of their marriage, their friendship was strong enough to overcome their differences. However, as time passed and their friendship weakened, they could no longer endure each other. Hopefully, though, they'll walk away from their failed relationship with a more powerful insight on how to go into the next one. It will be an interesting journey to watch and see who jumps into the next marriage first.

King Kennedy Commits

Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:00:28 PST

November 22, 2006 – Today Senator Ted Kennedy, Point Man for the Clinton Administration Agenda of Family Values and Gay and Lesbian Rights, pressed forward with the introduction of Senate Bill 96699, co-written by Senator Hillary Clinton.

The sweeping legislation proposes to change Webster's New World Dictionary definition of “marriage” to read: A voluntary state of union between two or more people.

The Senior Statespersons also propose changing the definition of divorce, intoxication, Whitewater and Chappaquiddick.