alibi online

Free Will AstrologyAlibi's Personals
 V.19 No.48 | December 2 - 8, 2010 


Don Schrader on Marriage

Dear Alibi,

Do I ever know myself or the other person or the future well enough to know for sure we both will do well with only each other romantically until death? I aim to tell the truth and not to make foolish promises.

Many years ago as a preacher I performed marriage ceremonies. I was also a groomsman for some friends’ marriages. I attended many weddings.

I have decided from now on not to attend marriage ceremonies where two persons pledge themselves to only each other romantically until death. A solemn vow that many break or want to break. A solemn vow I refuse to make to anyone.

I have been in love with certain men. I treasure mutually passionate romance with certain men, but I do not want to be caged or to cage any man romantically for life. Like many people, I am able to be openly honestly and deeply in love with more than one person. No one person can fill all our emotional needs. If he and I part, I do not want him to sue me and I do not want to sue him.

Marriage partners often take each for granted and slack off from exercise and staying healthy. They often turn for comfort to booze, junk food or to buying crap no one needs.

Married couples often hold each other back and use each other as an excuse not to change and not to grow. Blaming the other, one says, “I can not stop eating meat or sugar crap, because (s)he has that stuff here and I can not resist eating it.” One says, “I would live simply in a much smaller place and I would stop paying federal income tax for war, but (s)he refused to change.”

Marriage partners often act as if they own each other so they try to control each other and get insanely jealous.

Some people may do best with only one romantic partner for life, but even they would be wise never to pledge themselves to only each other romantically until death. As the days and years pass, they can check if they both are doing well in this monogamous relationship.

Some people have their No. 1 romantic relationship with one person for decades but also enjoy close friendship and pleasurable sex with other persons and do it honestly and openly.

Some people are able to be deeply in love with two or more persons at the same time for years and do it openly and honestly with little or no jealousy.

The rule of no sex for couples outside marriage often breeds lies, cover-ups, heavy frustration, boredom, violent jealousy ...

Marriage often becomes a duel instead of a duet. My parents might have been much better friends had they never married. Marriage destroys many friendships. Many couples become better friends after divorce. My parents were not a good match. If I had been my mother, I do not know how I could have coped being married to my dad. If I had been my dad, I do not know how I could have coped being married to my mother. They were married 48 years until my mother died. Much of the time it was a war of words, hurt feelings and rage. My mother needed, wanted and was capable of much deeper intimacy than my dad gave her or perhaps was able to give her.

I learned from my mother and dad NOT to stay in a rotten marriage making each other miserable. Far worse than having no romantic companion is feeling trapped by a vow to someone I do not want to be with or to someone who does not want to be with me.

I understand people in love wanting to celebrate that with their families and other friends, so if invited I would go to wedding receptions. But I now refuse to witness persons pledging themselves to lifelong romantic commitment to only each other.

Don Schrader

Public Comments (5)
  • Don's more often right than not  [ Thu Dec 2 2010 2:01 PM ]

    I know, it's easy to snicker at Don. He's an easy target: he's visible, different, opinionated and has an exotic hygiene regimen. Maybe listening to him feels threatening. After all, if he can do it, maybe I should do at least some of it, too. He's right, of course, about marriage. It's uncomfortable for me to jump on the marriage equality band wagon, knowing what happens when church, state & the IRS start investigating the bedroom. I appreciate that everybody should have equal rights. I just wish we didn't live in this fairy land delusion of "happily ever after," because it's really not honest, causes a lot of damage and holds us hostage in a system that exploits our love relationships and children to make us comply. If being thoughtful and living ethically make one a crack pot, sign me up.

  • Well said.  [ Thu Dec 2 2010 3:01 PM ]

    And sorry again about the urine joke.

  • Another absurdity  [ Thu Dec 2 2010 5:15 PM ]

    So, is Don against marriage? Well not really, he would go to the reception, which wouldn't occur without a wedding. Is he against cars? Well not really, he loves the flea-market which wouldn't occur without parking lots full of cars. Is he against TV, well not really, he won't watch it, but has his own show, which requires pricey cable subscribers. He "boycotts" America, well except for his monthly government check. etc, etc, etc,

  • He does what he can  [ Fri Dec 3 2010 11:31 AM ]

    to live by his own values in the face of longstanding traditions. It doesn't always work out practically, but neither do those traditions.

  • Fearful of fidelity  [ Wed Dec 8 2010 3:02 PM ]

    Sorry, but even though I'm recently divorced from a leech of a man who cheated on me, this is pathetic. I agree with Miha, that marriage is a traditional behavior, which often causes a lot of problems in the modern era, but those who attack the practice simply might be trapped in the ideological roots of marriage and don't understand how to make it their own.

    After all, it IS a purely human act, so it is what WE make of it.

    Or, perhaps, Mr. Scrader is just too much of a sissy to realize relationships with others typically ALL have painful elements. That's the thing about intense love, "ehh" love and even just "likes." He honestly sounds like a 19-year-old frat boy trying to justify sticking it in anything that moves. Here's where I get pissed though:

    "Marriage partners often act as if they own each other so they try to control each other and get insanely jealous. (This should have an italicized "Some" inserted at the beginning of this sentence as well)

    Some people may do best with only one romantic partner for life, but even they would be wise never to pledge themselves to only each other romantically until death. (WHY? Because of the possibility of getting your feelings hurt?)

    "Some people have their No. 1 romantic relationship with one person for decades but also enjoy close friendship and pleasurable sex with other persons and do it honestly and openly."

    "The rule of no sex for couples outside marriage often breeds lies, cover-ups, heavy frustration, boredom, violent jealousy ...

    And guess what? SOME people PREFER to only have sex with one person at a time. They DO exist. I was with the same person for nearly a decade and not ONCE did I ever even touch my flesh to another. I didn't WANT to. So does that make me a sap caged by an empty vow?

    The writer's line of argumentation in this letter degenerates from "yeah marriage isn't great all the time," to "you will both screw other people and either lie about it or tell the truth." No matter what though, it WILL end in catastrophe-about as mentally disgusting as watching two miserable people stay together unnecessarily.

    Perhaps Mr. Schrader should fill his writing with more "some"s and "a few"s when addressing such a complex activity as entering into a mutual agreement to be faithful to another. It makes biological sense and psychological sense, just as much as NOT choosing to do so. It sucks he's encountered nothing but, in his opinion, bad marriages throughout existence, but an acknowledgment that good ones are out there might improve his credibility a tad. Plus, if he ever changes his mind and wants to tie the knot (who knows??) he may regret the words that left all the guest's seats empty.


A Letter About Letters (Received Via E-Mail)

Dear Alibi,

[News, “Not Just Net Neutral,” Nov. 25-Dec. 1] Michaela Cadena, coordinator of Young Women United, bemoans having to pay $68 per month for Internet service. She says she has to have it because it's the only way her daughter has to connect with distant relatives.

Really? Have Michaela and her daughter ever heard of a "letter"? You write sentences on a piece of paper, fold the paper, put it in an envelope, address the envelope, put a stamp on it and drop it into a "mailbox." In a few days, the distant relative receives the "letter" and is very happy to have it. The stamp costs a mere 44 cents—much less than $68 per month.

Try it. You'll like it.

Steven Dapra

Public Comments

    Felons Need Direction and Opportunity

    I've cut and pasted a letter that I wrote to our state senators and congressman. It is my goal to bring attention to the mistreatment of the less fortunate. This is not a request for pity; I accept responsibility for my actions and have "paid my debt to society." I just realize how much more difficult life is with a permanent blemish on my record, and I think some changes need to be made for those of us who are not hardened criminals.

    As an "ex-con," I can live with losing my second amendment RIGHT, but being rendered unemployable seems like "cruel and unusual punishment." At what point is a felon's debt to society paid?

    Excerpt from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: "The EEOC and courts have concluded that a policy or practice of excluding individuals from employment on the basis of their conviction records may have an adverse impact on certain minority groups in light of statistics showing that they are convicted at a rate disproportionately greater than their representation in the population."

    Extreme circumstances aside, felony convictions should never trump a job applicant's qualifications. Surely, you do not expect anything positive to be gained by staying the course.

    My thoughts on liberty are eerily similar to those of Patrick Henry. I am an American, and a patriot, and you don't have the RIGHT to take my "life" from me, or anyone else.

    Please review what constitutes a felony conviction and consider making necessary changes to help those of us who have never committed serious crimes. There are many ex-cons who learned the "lesson" and have walked back from the brink of becoming a hardened criminal.

    We need your help!

    Derick Cannon

    Public Comments

      Tax Talk

      Dear Alibi,

      As one with actual knowledge of business, having owned one and being self-employed and working in tax accounting, the sheer ignorance about taxes by the masses, fueled by propaganda and politicization, is just mind boggling.

      Republicans and their tea party auxiliaries argue that letting the Bush tax cuts expire will kill jobs. First of all, under the vaunted Bush tax cuts with rate reductions for top earners, only 3 million net jobs were created. Under Clinton, with a 39 percent top marginal tax rate, 23 million net jobs were created; more than under Reagan or Bush II.

      Historically, the greatest middle class growth and opportunities for upward mobility took place after WWII with top marginal tax rates at 90 percent or higher.

      The claim that letting the cuts expire will hurt small businesses is also a farce upon its face.

      First of all, most small businesses are organized as nontaxable pass through business entities—partnerships, LLCs and S corporations. Only C corporations pay taxes at the business level. Less than 3 percent of self-claimed small business filers would pay any higher taxes under Obama's plan, according to Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center.

      Second, the Republican definition of small business / small businessperson is very broad; includes filers whose primary income sources are royalties, trust income, dividends, and investments in partnerships and joint ventures, not necessarily actual trade or job creation related income.

      On Nov. 18, 40 millionaires urged President Obama to let the cuts expire for the top earners. As usual, on Yahoo blogs, the great unwashed did not miss an opportunity to demonstrate why they are the great unwashed. They all argued if those people wanted to pay high taxes, go ahead and donate to the treasury but do not pick their pocket.

      This is the result of sheer laziness and stupidity.

      Ron McPhee

      Public Comments

        Musings on Martinez

        Dear Alibi,

        [Opinion, “Hard Lessons,” Nov. 25-Dec. 1] In the day-to-day workings of the Governor's Office, especially vis-à-vis the Legislature, it is hard to tell what all this change might mean. I do believe it is for the best and does represent the will of the people.

        Will there be a retrenching of the Legislature, especially if the House leadership changes, which I do believe will happen, with the new numbers and coalition? You will definitely see a more recalcitrant Legislature, which incidentally, as Sen. Ortiz y Pino knows, has never been a fertile place for any NEW IDEAS.

        The new governor's legislative picks, Gardner and Moore, show there will be a rather conservative direction in her legislative priorities right from the start. Both are nice guys but from ideological realms far removed from the Alibi's and Sen. Ortiz y Pino's!


        Comment from

        Public Comments

          The Ol’ Ball Gamer

          Dear Alibi,

          I couldn't agree with you more, Dr. Baker [Letters, “Political Indigestion,” Nov. 25-Dec. 1]. Concerning politics, dialectical discourse in this country is incredibly hard to find at any level—federal, state or local. This is certainly not a new problem; it is a problem as old as democracy.

          I often wonder how those of us who are disinterested in taking a particular side—by which I mean we do not have a vested interest in believing a particular side, financial or otherwise, but rather want to get to the bottom of the issues—could hope to raise the bar in political discourse. I invite you to disagree with me on this, because I would love to be wrong in this case, but I believe the problem lies with the masses of voters. They are not sufficiently educated, nor are they trained to recognize the non-arguments employed by political propagandists each election season. Like Willie Stark in Warren's All the King's Men, politicians who overestimate the intelligence of the voters by discussing the nuts and bolts of their policies will soon lose their followers to their demagogical opponents.

          Sadly, this danger is all too real for journalists, as well. Journalism is a business like any other, and as such relies upon the bulk of its consumers, in this case the readers. Unfortunately, conflict and colorful rhetoric sells as well as sex, while facts and data are soporific. Our world is steadily becoming a Bradburyian nightmare in which words exceeding three syllables are useful for nothing other than ostentation, information of substance can only be delivered if it is a concomitant of entertainment, and anyone who aspires to escape the mold cast for him will contend with brutal normative forces.

          My theory is that if this trend can be reversed, one crucial device toward this end will be the reintroduction of the study of philosophy into public education. After all, so much of a person's political beliefs are merely an outgrowth of his philosophical views. How can we be in accord over what would be for the greater good of our society if we cannot be in agreement over the basic philosophical question "what is good?" What immunity to propaganda can people be said to have if they cannot differentiate a valid, logical argument from an empty non-argument? If the voters' political beliefs are based entirely on unchallenged assumptions transmitted to them by the media, religion, teachers, their families and their peers, the future would appear very dim, at least insofar as it depends upon democratic processes.

          In essence, for far too long American children have been taught what to think rather than how to think, and the course to correction will not occur overnight. The way I see it, the relatively perspicacious among us can either brainstorm the solutions to this problem, or choose a side, buy an air horn and a foam finger, and scream our heads off at one another at the "ol' ball game" of American politics. If it can rightly be said that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, we will almost certainly opt for the latter.


          Comment from

          Letters should be sent with the writer’s name, address and daytime phone number via e-mail to They can also be faxed to (505) 256-9651. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published in any medium; we regret that owing to the volume of correspondence we cannot reply to every letter. Word count limit for letters is 300 words.
          Public Comments
            Join our mailing list for exclusive info, the week's events and free stuff!

            • Select sidebar boxes to add below. You can also click and drag to rearrange the boxes; close using the little X icons on each box. To re-add a box you closed, return to this menu.
            • Because you are not logged in, any changes you make to these boxes will vanish as soon as you click to another page. If you log in, the boxes will stick.
            • Latest Posts
            • Web Exclusives
            • Recent Rocksquawk Discussions
            • Recent Classifieds
            • Latest User Posts
            • Most Active Stories
            • Most Active Users
            • Latest Chowtown Reviews
            • Highest-Rated Posts
            • Latest User Blogs
            • Calendar Comments
            • This Week's Alibi Picks
            • Albuquerque
            • Duke City Fix
            • Albuquerque Beer Scene
            • What's Wrong With This Picture?
            • Reddit Albuquerque
            • ABQ Journal Metro
            • ABQrising
            • ABQ Journal Latest News
            • Albuquerque
            • NM and the West
            • New Mexico FBIHOP
            • Democracy for New Mexico
            • Only in New Mexico
            • Mario Burgos
            • Democracy for New Mexico
            • High Country News
            • El Grito
            • NM Politics with Joe Monahan
            • Stephen W. Terrell's Web Log
            • The Net Is Vast and Infinite
            • Slashdot
            • Freedom to Tinker
            • Is there a feed that should be on this list? Tell us about it.
              Saint Vitus
              Saint Vitus5.8.2014