Confused in Colorado
Dear Editor:Yesterday (Tuesday) the state defined my marriage as between a man and a woman (conveniently, this was the case in my marriage). Today, the electorate has declared that my marriage is only a union. I am contemplating the implications of this change.The first repercussion I came up with is great for me financially. I’ve decided that since my marriage is now only a union, I no longer need to court my wife. To whit, I will no longer need to buy her gifts, take her out on dates, and, best of all, I will not need to spend money on taking her on vacations. I suppose, to just maintain the union, it will be necessary to buy the staples required for our joint union, but there will be no treats.Perhaps even better, I do not have to waste my time communicating more. It seems my marriage, being only a union, hardly requires the extra effort it has often been suggested (yes, by the other entity in my union) to communicate more. From now on I will speak just enough to maintain this union. Basic phrases such as “I’m going to work,” or “Is there any beer, I want to watch the game,” will be okay. But “I love you,” seems superfluous.The children are a trickier issue. If our marriage is only a union, where do the kids fit in? I’m thinking about putting them up for adoption (I suppose someone in another state could adopt them), but they are just so darn cute (when they are asleep). Actually, when they are awake they are more of a mixed bag. Hey, maybe this adoption thing will not be so bad after all! Really though, I would like to keep them, but I just cannot yet place them into my marriage, which is, in case I haven’t repeated it recently, only a union.I suppose I could go on and on, but as my marriage is only a union, it is hardly deserving of my time or effort.Craig MelvilleAspen
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.