11/18/2004: "Divorce, Democracy and the personal demons."

I think about love and commitment and those sorts of things a lot these days. Can't really help it. The model I had for growing up included my parents who have been married 42 years and faught through the rough bits and then everyone else. My parents remain in love despite the tough times and after only knowing each other a few weeks before my father proposed. They are of course the exception to the usual reality as all my friends parents growing up were either divorced, single, remarried, mostly disfunctional or percieved as having very unequal relationships.

When given the choice it's obvious where I would lean, when faced with reality, I was in for a bit of a shock. Not everyone wants to be loved. Not everyone is capable. And that, though sad, and difficult to deal with, is perhaps why those that give are often coupled and dissappointed with those that can't give back, at least not unconditionally. And quitting is the next best, and seemingly less painful way to proceed when the difference between giving and taking is too steep. Despite expamples from how they grew up, most of my friends now have been in long term relationships, married or otherwise. Laurina and Erin (newly engaged) are going on 8 and 9 years with their sweethearts, Leslie and Brian are already married, as are Anu and Adrienne. My sisters are married , one after an 8 year relationship (now 10) and one after just 3 years (now 4). Lots of people I know understand loyalty even when they could have inherited a trait preventing them from succeeding in finding and keeping a partner. Many of them had doubts on more than one occasion and all of them are happy and comforted in ways I'm still not sure I will get to experience, and never been certain I need to.

The funny thing is, I never dreamed, nor ever felt that a ceremony, and a piece of paper was the way to go. Who needs a party when you have a soul mate. It's an out dated thought in some ways, though I love attending them. Celebrating love, no mater how deep or potentially brief is as good as any other reason to drink champagne. But every day is a party (some better than others of course=]) when you have someone you trust and are connected to in ways that friends and family can not compete. Certainly today, paper and a ceremony don't mean all that much. An annulment or a divorce is the way to deal with material belongings, not an emotional betrayal, or a fundamental change and growth apart. Marriage doesn't seem a lack of commitment to me, it seems often times a waste of money, and a way of convincing others (and sometimes yourself) that what you are doing is right. That making yourself vulnerable and commiting to someone else, one person, is okay, and worth the risk. And to some the risk is worth it, and to some, the leap to high. Admittedly, more of my experience is intuitive and based on observation ( and maybe past lives) than living it directly, but I don't think this discounts it though.

I have never been one to want to be on a pedestal despite the titel of princess...I search out equality, and stimulation intellectually, which I think is even harder to find than someone who will kneel at your feet or conversely treat you like crap and make you beg for attention. People make mistakes, people change to a certain extent, living situations weigh heavily and only the strongest and excuse the term, most faithful (non religious) can overcome these external tests.

All this to say, I came across a mind boggling article today on divorce in Chile... read to feel better about our govenment (though perhpas not for long) and to realize that we are not the only country that wants politics/religion left out of our personal choices, but ultimately resign to having the laws be in their favor rather than keeping it out completely. Religion and politics make for rude bedfellows. We have enough to deal with in the bedroom and in our personal lives that we don't need others telling us how to deal. And yet democracy is slow everywhere and ultimately in this case was the right direction for the people of Chile. Read and think...


SANTIAGO, Chile - A 48-year-old woman became the first person in Chilean history to file for divorce Thursday, ushering in a new era for this heavily Roman Catholic country that had been the last in South America with no divorce law.

The justice minister called the new law a historic step, but Maria Victoria Torres said it was far more personal — "a window that opens to look at a new life with dignity, without fear."


As the Santiago Court of Appeals opened its doors Thursday, Torres, who said her husband abused her, was first in line.

Torres, a beauty parlor assistant who has been married for 25 years, based her request for divorce on what she called "years of continued violence" by her husband, from whom she has been separated for months. The couple have two grown children.

"This law will allow me to recover my dignity and my freedom in a legitimate manner," Torres told The Associated Press.

Others filed for divorce at courts around the country, although the avalanche of petitions many predicted did not occur.

Chile's Congress passed the law six months ago, defying the fierce opposition of the Catholic Church, which waged a strong campaign against it that included television ads.

About 87 percent of Chileans consider themselves Catholic.

The country was among the last in the world without a divorce law, and the last in South America after Paraguay allowed divorce in the 1980s.

Other countries that still do not allow divorce include Malta and the Philippines.

"This is a historic day for our nation," Justice Minister Luis Bates said, while also urging Chileans to be cautious before seeking a divorce.

Until now, Chilean couples with failing marriages were forced to obtain annulments, often resorting to subterfuge to meet the criteria.

It was common, for example, for one of the partners to declare before a court that their marriage was illegal because one spouse reported a false address at the time of the wedding. Some 6,000 annulments were approved every year in the country of 15.5 million.


An annulment under the old system cost $670 — steep in a nation where the minimum wage is about $190 a month. A divorce will cost roughly half as much, attorneys say, and will offer better legal resolution of property disputes.

The new law allows couples to get a divorce only after living apart for at least one year, if both spouses agree, and three years if only one party agrees.

The waiting period can be avoided if one spouse proves there has been violations of marital duties by a partner, such as domestic violence, homosexuality, prostitution, drug addiction or a criminal conviction.

The law also requires couples seeking a divorce to undergo counseling for at least 60 days.

The law took nine years to make its way through Congress. The final text replaced a law on marriage that had been in effect since 1884 and had no provision for divorce.



Off to see a dark play tonight on the trials and tribulations of relationships...should be nice punctuation to my frame of mind.