The 2006 Weblog Awards Sometimes Free is too Expensive...
Please Donate to My Quest to Raise $5 Billion

« Home | Jane Lake and Returning to Work! » | Jane Lake and Worrying! » | Jane Lake and Scrabble! » | Jane Lake and Recycling! » | Jane Lake and Thanksgiving! » | Jane Lake and Excuses! » | Jane Lake and Election Day! » | Jane Lake and Saddam Hussein! » | Jane Lake and Heroes! » | Jane Lake and The Ocean! »

Jane Lake and Celebrity Divorce!

Jessica and Nick, Jennifer and Brad, Hilary and Chad, Britney and Kevin, Reese and Ryan, Pam and Kid. Lets face it. Celebrities get married so they can have a big party. Their concept of marriage as a lifetime commitment is nonexistent.

It is ironic to me how the entertainment world will fight for gay marriage and rights when they don't even have a clue about traditional marriage. I think these "teen role models" make a mockery of love and marriage and flaunt it in front of teenagers and young adults that are easily influenced by their "turn it on, turn it off" relationships.

I think we need to take a hard look at divorce in this country and consider making it a lot harder to do so. Marriages of convenience, of impetuousness, of lust need to be overhauled.

I think you should be required to take a test about your spouse when you get married. If you get less than 80% correct the marriage is annulled. No prenups allowed!(sorry Donald) Divorce must be voted on by jury and should no longer be rubber stamped.

Maybe if we make it harder to both get married and get divorced, we can return to the true intentions of this institution, love and commitment.

I entered this in the Philosophy Blog War. Pleases vote for my entry here:


Your just looking at one section of the celebs, what about Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson and Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell? Neglected to mention them? They've been "married" for close to 20 years if not more.

Normal people get married and divorced all the time with annulments and such but because they are not a celebrity nobody knows about it. What about those people?

First of all, Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell were never married, and the rumor is that they have split up.

The statistics for divorce in the US is 49% although it varies greatly by state. Celebrities have a 65% divorce rate. Both of these statistics are embarassingly high.

First off, why do you care who is getting married ir divorced? It doesn't affect you.

Second, maybe we are finally starting to realize that perhaps marriage is NOT the right thing for every man and woman in the world. Maybe it is time to stop pushing that ideal on everyone and just let people live as they see fit. Monogamy, polygamy, polygyny, polyamoury, or none of the above... gender, irrelevant, of course.


I just read your article and agree with you . It seems that their agents advise them to stay in the headlines and get free coverage by trying an adult role on for size. Its practice for real adult life and the divorce also gets free headlines.....


If you haven't heard, marriage is a lightning rod topic in politics these days. It affects the morality and direction of our country.

Not every man and woman should get married. That is my point. If they do, they should respect what it is all about.

The poly's that you suggest we allow have been proven by history to do nothing other than bring down the foundation of a society.

I'm sure you will now write a five page college essay proving me wrong, but that is only because you are smarter than I am, not because you are right.

Jane --

Marriage is a lightening rod issue, only because some people want to decide what other people do with thier personal lives. It has nothing to do with the 'morality' or 'direction' of our country, save that it will determine whether we are an 'open and free society.'

You know, I'd really love to see any info you have on all of these mythical societies that have been destroyed by poly* relationships. Anything?

Funny, you are the first person I have run across that was displeased at an article linking back to your site...



Sodom and Gommorah, The Roman Empire, The Oneida Community. That's three to start with.

The Oneida Community preached exactly what you are talking about and failed miserably as unnatural orders tend to do.

I was not displeased at your article. I actually am envious at your abilities to flesh out a subject, even if it may prove me wrong (not that yours did)

Marriage should be treated as a joke and entered into in a spirit of fun. You'd be mad to take it seriously. Respect people, not marriage. Marriage began as a purely economic institution. Nowadays women and men can be economically independent so they don't need it. That's why it doesn't last - and many (not all) that do last are between people too unimaginative or conservative to try anything new.

Sodom and Gomorrah is a myth. Not a good example of anything as we know very little about what may or may not have occurred...

The Roman Empire collapsed in on itself as a result of over extension. I have never seen any argument or merit that sexuality or marriage had any bearing on the death of the empire.

The Onieda Community, on the other hand, seems to have done quite well with thier 'Complex Marriage' up until the point where the leader and founder turned over leadership to his son -- whose personal beliefs were inconsistant with the general beliefs of the community. So yes, it is an example of a failed community with poly* relationships -- but the end of the community seems to have been clearly related to leadership collapse.

Any others?


What kinds of questions would be on the test? And how can a jury decide to force people to stay together?

I just love that song from Fiddler on the Roof - "Do I Love You" (Not sure that's the exact title). I think the problem isn't marriage, the problem is the unrealistic expectations people have regarding romantic love.

It's ironic that celebrities embody all that we wish were true- and we see what happens, and we STILL don't get it.

Blogged on this myself a while back (before I discovered the WAR!)-


A good marriage requires exactly what you say it doesn't have. Imagination, keeping it new, and HARD WORK!

The benefits go far beyond economic gain. The creation of family is at the heart of civilisation.


I think the problem is that the expectations are realistic, but many people are too willing to settle for much less.

Finding the right person can be like searching for a needle in a haystack, but the prize is worth finding.


The FLDS community in Colorado City.

That is a better example, Jane...

But being opposed to hierarchal, 'cultish' and even 'religiously founded' communities as 'unhealthy (IMO), I don't find examples from Mormons or cultish communtiies to be terribly indicative of 'natural' human behavior.

In these sorts of communities, sex is used as a weapon rather than a simple, normal part of life. What I really want to know is how free humans, without a lifetime of built up repression react to these varying stimuli and situations. (of course, there are few examples of this ouside of the Anthropological record -- and there, it is all documented primarily through the eyes of white, christian, 'civilized' people)



One of my families of origin was of polygamous origin, no problems occured as far as I can tell, the other family of origin had some problems.

Form of marriage doesn't seem to have any bearing on the stability of the relationship(s), individual desire and committment have far more to do with that. FLDS is a very poor example and has almost no connection to other Mormon polygamous societies. Coercion is the big problem there and that is mosty possible because of the illegality of polygamous marriages. When you are in
constant treat of punishment and forcible disolution of your family because you live in a society which has laws nulifying your freely chosen personal relationships then that tends to encourage extreme committments to privacy and secrecy as a mean of protecting that privacy..

BTW who made you God, that you have the right to tell me, my family and my friends how we should live?

One comment on the 'natural order' of things. Monogamy is not the natural order. The vast majority of animals are not truly monogamous. Many stick with one partner from 1-5 years and then find a new one. So I'd say the divorce is really the natural order. It is actually beneficial from a purely genetic standpoint not to be monogamous. This ensures a varied gene pool and increases the chances that good traits will be carried on.

And before anyone jumps on me about this, I'm married. I don't really care about the institution of marriage, which really is a fabrication of society. What I DO respect is the commitment my husband I made to each other. Because we don't have children (yet), this whole marriage thing really screws us come tax time.

In some cases, divorce is the answer. Not all couples were meant to be married. But the bottom line? It's none of my business, and if people want to get married, they can get married. If they get divorced later on, well, that's their problem.

Post a Comment

About me

  • I'm L.I.D
  • From
My profile
Varb For Me

Personal Blog Top Sites Blog Soldiers - Advertise Your Blog to Bloggers Blog Review More blogs about Jane Lake Makes a Mistake.

Add to Google

Listed on BlogShares