Finding Love Again, This Time With a Man

[catsmate]

Harris Llewellyn Wofford is a former US Senator (Democrat, Pennsylvania, 91-95) is getting married again at the age of 90. His second marriage is to Matthew Charlton a man he met after the death of his wife in 1996.

Here's what he has to say about the relationship.

 

[Giordano]

Whenever I hear of laws, or even social pressures, that seek to limit or marginalize gay relationships (or inter-ethnic or inter-religious relationships) I always find myself amazed. Is there too much love in the world already that we should limit it? If any two people (old enough and mentally together enough to understand it) love one another, then why is it of anyone else's business?

I don't know about all the facts in this individual case- if someone is leading the other on, or if everyone is deeply in "true love." But the realization that one can come to love another individual independent of their gender seems very sweet to me.

 

[plague311]

Whenever I hear of laws, or even social pressures, that seek to limit or marginalize gay relationships (or inter-ethnic or inter-religious relationships) I always find myself amazed. Is there too much love in the world already that we should limit it? If any two people (old enough and mentally together enough to understand it) love one another, then why is it of anyone else's business?

I don't know about all the facts in this individual case- if someone is leading the other on, or if everyone is deeply in "true love." But the realization that one can come to love another individual independent of their gender seems very sweet to me.

Well stated.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Aww, that was just too damn sweet.

Thanks for sharing this. It brightens my Monday.

 

[Magrat]

That's awesome. We need more love. Love is great! Like kittens.

 

[Upchurch]

I'll admit. I'm a little weirded out by their relationship.

A 50 FREAKIN' YEAR AGE DIFFERENCE? One is younger than me and the other is about the age my youngest grandmother would have been, if she were still alive!

Ah, well. All the best to them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Whenever I hear of laws, or even social pressures, that seek to limit or marginalize gay relationships (or inter-ethnic or inter-religious relationships) I always find myself amazed. Is there too much love in the world already that we should limit it? If any two people (old enough and mentally together enough to understand it) love one another, then why is it of anyone else's business?

When you put something into the tax code, you make it everyone's business. I do not say that in opposition to gay marriage, but merely to note that you can't demand to keep things private when the government's hand is in your pocket.

 

[Magrat]

I'll admit. I'm a little weirded out by their relationship.

A 50 FREAKIN' YEAR AGE DIFFERENCE? One is younger than me and the other is about the age my youngest grandmother would have been, if she were still alive!

Ah, well. All the best to them.

And someone thought the 11 years between me and my friend was a lot lol

 

[bytewizard]

And someone thought the 11 years between me and my friend was a lot lol

My late wife was 17 years older than me; age difference meant nothing to us or to family and friends. Screw anyone else who might have thought differently.

 

[GodMark2]

Whenever I hear of laws, or even social pressures, that seek to limit or marginalize gay relationships (or inter-ethnic or inter-religious relationships) I always find myself amazed. Is there too much love in the world already that we should limit it? If any two people (old enough and mentally together enough to understand it) love one another, then why is it of anyone else's business?

I don't know about all the facts in this individual case- if someone is leading the other on, or if everyone is deeply in "true love." But the realization that one can come to love another individual independent of their gender seems very sweet to me.

Remember: the prohibitions are usually insisted on by the same people that believe the only reason everyone (including themselves) isn't raping, stealing, and killing every second of every day is because of Big Sky Daddy™ making rules to specifically not do it, and threatening eternal punishment for the slightest infraction. They also believe that of you're willing to break any one of Big Sky Daddy's™ rules, then you're going to break them all eventually, because you're already getting punished eternally.

My personal belief is that it's a form of projection, wherein they know that they have these urges constantly to rape, steal, and kill: In their minds that means that everyone else must be the same. They know that to protect other people from themselves, they must adhere to this rigid enforcement of Big Sky Daddy's™ rules: In their minds this means that to protect themselves from everyone else, they must force those same rules on the others.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Is there too much love in the world already that we should limit it?

Just quoting my favorite line of your very well stated post.

 

[Magrat]

My late wife was 17 years older than me; age difference meant nothing to us or to family and friends. Screw anyone else who might have thought differently.

When we first met he was convinced no one this much younger could have anything in common with him...but in reality I was just born a decade too late for everything cool.

 

[Brainster]

I'll admit. I'm a little weirded out by their relationship.

A 50 FREAKIN' YEAR AGE DIFFERENCE? One is younger than me and the other is about the age my youngest grandmother would have been, if she were still alive!

Ah, well. All the best to them.

Yeah, that is pretty strange. But since they've been together for 15 years so far, I guess they really are in love, and this is not some gold-digger taking advantage of an old fool.

 

[Giordano]

When you put something into the tax code, you make it everyone's business. I do not say that in opposition to gay marriage, but merely to note that you can't demand to keep things private when the government's hand is in your pocket.

I am not certain as to your point here. If it was that one concern of the anti-SSM people was that it would impact the tax structure, I don't think so. Previously any random male could marry any random female and receive the same tax breaks (such as they are) as for a couple who truly is in love. I never saw an outbreak of a large number of straight marriages just for the tax breaks. Sure some did (or for immigration purposes) but most did not. If that was true, why would anyone stay single? Why didn't gay people marry the opposite gender for the tax breaks and live with their same sex partner for the romance? I think that in most cases the obligations exceed the tax breaks. But even if they did not, relatively few people seem willing to be married just for a few thousand dollars a year.

As to public versus private- different question. I am fully in favor of marriages being public information- particularly if they want the tax break. Did the couple in the OP want to keep their marriage status private?

 

[Information Analyst]

That's awesome. We need more love. Love is great! Like kittens.

Nothing is as great as kittens.

 

[Magrat]

Nothing is as great as kittens.

the rogue kind are best.

 

[angrysoba]

This will get awkward when they're up in Heaven.

 

[Giordano]

This will get awkward when they're up in Heaven.

Jesus already was asked a similar question and clarified the issue in the New Testament.

 

[Ziggurat]

I am not certain as to your point here.

That you can't say "it's none of your business" at the same time you're sticking your hand out for a tax break.

If it was that one concern of the anti-SSM people was that it would impact the tax structure, I don't think so.

I'm not saying it is. I'm saying that the fact that it's in the tax code gives them a justification for being interested in it, even if their interest is something else. That's the way the tax code works: the government uses it to engage in social engineering. It taxes things it wants to discourage, and gives tax breaks to things it wants to encourage.

If you don't think people should be able to promote social agendas through the tax code (and I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint), then we need to fundamentally change how the tax code operates. But until we do, you can't really claim gay marriage is nobody else's business, because government has made it everybody's business. You instead need to argue that it's a good thing for society. And I'm also sympathetic to that viewpoint, although that argument doesn't get made very much.

As to public versus private- different question. I am fully in favor of marriages being public information- particularly if they want the tax break. Did the couple in the OP want to keep their marriage status private?

Don't know, but it doesn't matter: legal marriages are a matter of public record, so what they want in that regard is irrelevant.

 

[Magrat]

SSM is absolutely good for society. Won't all our children grow up gay* if they don't see gay people stuck in miserable marriages just like the rest of us??




*it is a joke don't kill me