Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (989)	8/28/1998 2:00:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

re: alternative marriage - I must admit to some surprise here. I have been in the long-distance type of relationship before, and although both my partner and I found our professional lives fulfilling, we also enjoyed our personal time together, infrequent though it might have been (weekends only). At no time did we even consider the lifestyle the Clintons are living. We have both a romantic and intellectual bond. I am still with that person, after 25 years, and no longer have to put up with the long-distance aspects of the relationships (that actually only covered about 4 years of the relationship. I am not belittling the Clintons or their choice of lifestyle, but I think that people not wanting to make a commitment should not get married. The problem I'm having here is the concept of alternative marriage. Marriage is marriage - you take the vows, you live the life. Personally, I never took the vows - don't feel the need to swear to something so personal. A business partnership of the sort you describe is just not a marriage, IMHO. Maybe that's the raw nerve that's being struck here - some people feel that the push for gay rights and domestic partner laws (San Francisco being a great example), the increased separation of religion from public affairs (in some people's opinion), the increased ability of the government to take away a parent's ability to raise their own children, availability of abortions, etc, make some people feel that families are being diminished. The Clinton version of marriage is a very large step in that direction, belittling the institution of marriage and commitment. I'm guessing here, but I doubt that most of America would agree with the concept of an open marriage.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (989)	8/28/1998 5:10:00 PM
From: RJC2006	Respond to of 67261

<<<<I have no problem with the Clintons marriage and I have said that. When you have 2 very successful people that are married its difficult to remain in love. One huge problem is that both parties are always travelling. These two probably see each other twice a month. The beat situation in a case like this is to have an intellectual bond vs. a romantic one - I think the Clintons have that, they are business partners. >>> Well, if that's the case then they should have just formed an S corporation and said to hell with it.