College wedding vows empty without time, patience
KASEY KERBER is a
sophomore news-editorial
major and a Daily
Nebraskan columnist.
Marriage.
It’s an expression of love, a
promise of commitment and a bond
that brings two people together for
a lifetime.
And it shouldn’t occur in col
lege.
Granted, it’s a bold statement to
make, especially since a good deal
of my friends are either married or
engaged. Throw in the fact that I
write for a newspaper which puts
out an annual “wedding issue” and
you’d think I’m committing black
and-white suicide.
Now, I can’t attack marriage
during college without making one
important exemption. When preg
nancy becomes an issue, marriage
is a far greater consideration. A
child’s life and future has entered
the picture and to say this doesn’t
alter my view would be just plain
cold.
For couples in college with no
children, I believe marriage is a
mistake.
Why is far from an easy expla
nation.
To love or npt to love
One of the strongest arguments.
for an early marriage is that the
man and woman involved are “deep
in love” and that everything “feels
right.” But do most college couples
who rush into marriage know what
- love is?
I’m going to swallow some ink
here and try to make a point. Love
is a word. To say you are in love is
initially difficult, but easier to
repeat once it has been said. It
becomes easier and easier to say
you’re in love until you believe
nothing but love is possible. It’s
then that marriage seems to be a
perfect complement to your love.
But are you in love? Do you
know everything about the guy or
girl you’re with? Do you share their
dreams, overlook their faults and
imagine yourself spending a life
time with them without even a sec
ond thought? Maybe you are in love
or maybe you aren’t. Time is the
only true test.
Time goes by so slowly
I always find it hard to accept
that two people who have known
each other for less than six months
are ready to tie the knot and spend
the next 50 years together.
With an uncertain financial
future, academics to concentrate on
and perhaps a lack of knowledge
and understanding of your signifi
cant other, marriage becomes a
question mark with dark letters
forming the next sentence of life.
If you are truly in love and are
willing to spend a lifetime together,
what is one to four years of wait
ing? Is there anything in that small
span of time that the two of you
can’t handle as an unmarried cou
ple? Or a better question: If there IS
anything you can’t handle, don’t
you think it would be better to dis
cover it before making the commit
ment of a lifetime?
Go ahead and get engaged but
wait until the end of college to get
married. Make a commitment to
one another. But don’t make a per
manent promise i|ntil you are sure
in your heart and mind that this is
the person you want to be with until
death.
Is sex involved?
Henry Miller once said: “Sex k
is one of the nine reasons for /
reincarnation. The other eight Vj
are unimportant.” Therefore, no |
discussion on college marriages 1
would be complete without men: '
tioning sex. For some couples that
get married, sex is a way of
life. For others, it is not a
part of their relationship.
Sometimes guilt
(whether for religious or
other reasons) pushes a
sexually active couple to
get married. Once mar
ried, the couple feel that
sex is “permitted” and
guilt is thrown down the
drain. Yet, building a
marriage on sex is like
trying to place anvil on
a Coke can. The can
will be crushed without
support, just as a mar
riage will crumble without
other foundations.
In the case of non-sexu
ally active couples, sex can become
an incentive for marriage.
It might sound harsh, but some
college marriages have occurred
simply because of sex. Then, when
a sexual relationship begins, the
marriage often ends. Why? Maybe
because sex was too abrupt of a
change. Or maybe because it wasn’t
what both people involved thought
it would be.
The divorce factor
Every 13 seconds, someone in
the United States gets divorced.
That means that by the time you’ve
picked up this paper and read this
far into my column, at least five or
six couples have ended a life that
was meant to be spent together.
Let’s be honest. Many college
marriages end with college
divorces. And you.might be saying,
“But isn’t it better to end a mar
riage than stay together and be mis
erable?”
Yes. But the point is not to get
married in the first place if you
aren’t ready.
Divorce shouldn’t be looked at
as a “way out” - a kind of safely net
in which a rash marriage can uc
dissolved.
Divorce is an option. The U.S.
Census Bureau tells us that 15 per
cent of married couples in the 18
24 age bracket will take that option.
It may not seem like a high figure
to a couple who thinks nothing can
dissolve their marriage and the love
they share, but it is a high figure.
And it’s high for a reason.
Couples simply aren’t ready, aren’t
devoted and aren’t patient enough
for a successful marriage.
But 15 percent? That’s low. Any
couple would be willing to take
those chances. Fine, but let me try
emphasizing this another way.
Would you get on a plane with 99
other passengers if you knew 15 of
you weren’t going to survive the
trip? Or would you get onto a plane
with 99 other couples if you knew
t ■
that 30 of you would be divorced by
the time it landed? Think about it.
Marriage is a promise to be with
someone for the rest of your life - a
promise that must be true “in sick
ness and in health, for richer, for
poorer, until de$th do you part.”
But many college marriages are
sick before they reach death.
It’s only with patience, consid
eration and true love that such
heartaches can be avoided.
A long life is open before each
of us. A life that includes someone
special in whose hands our own
ftiture lies. If he or she can respect
that this future is further ahead,
then perhaps a beautiful marriage
will be in the works. But if it’s now
or never, ask why it’s now.
Otherwise it could become never.
Matt Haney/DN
Sti imunity fear
t ....iiiini_i
ALEXIA SCOTT is a senior
biological sciences major
and a Daily Nebraskan
columnist.
The flesh of a naked man flashes
across the screen, hazed over by the
static created as an English teacher
fast forwards through the scene.
What movies are being viewed by
freshmen in the public school sys
tem? “Romeo and Juliet,” the
Zefferelli version, of course.
Students in many classrooms
have never watched this scene. In
these classrooms, the voices of such
revolutionaries as Maya Angelou,
John Steinbeck, J.D. Salinger, Marie
Twain and William Shakespeare are
not heard. The words of these literary
greats are deleted from libraries and
classrooms because parents, school
board members and community
leaders fear the influence those
words might have on our youth.
The rape of young Maya in “I
Know Why the Caged Bird Sings”
has catapulted the novel to the top of
the most banned books of 1995-96.
Protecting students from the horror
encountered by this young child also
excludes them from the learning and
growing process that ensues. With
the willful silencing of her voice, the
young heroine broadcasts her per
sonal power.
The anger-filled speeches of
Holden Caufield are also censored
material. The reason: The language
used by Caufield has been deemed
unacceptable in many high schools.
The reality is that students are sur
rounded by such language everyday,
on television, at schools and often in
their homes.
At the end of Salinger’s “A
Catcher in the Rye,” the reader
becomes so immune to the words
that one barely hears them anymore.
The banning of books and plays
from the public schools is not a
recent phenomenon. Ever since the
publication of the written word, some
people have tried to suppress it. The
rationales vary among different
groups, but the underlying motive is
ignorance. People tend to fear what
they do not know. They fear their
children may be exposed to what
they do not understand.
Historical^, three major reasons
for banning material from public -
schools have existed: race, sex and
violence.
The use of racial slang in works
such as “Huckleberry Finn” more
often results in its removal from
assigned reading lists than in having
useful and educational discussions
about student reactions to the novel.
The denial of this work prevents stu
dents from understanding the strug
gle&that many people, especially
minorities, faced in the days of Mark
Twain. The language presented
forces a reader to confront what prej
udices existed in that period of
American history.
“Forever” by Judy Blume has
been lifted from shelves after being
characterized as a sexual how-to
book for young people The assump
tion is that the only exposure that
students will have to sex will come
from a book in the school library.
This pretense allows communities to
make a scapegoat out of literature
and forget about the influences of
television, advertising and peer
groups.
The inhumanity characterized in
“Slaughterhouse Five” has made it a
perennial favorite of the top banned
books list. The amazing literary tech
niques exhibited in Vonnegut’s tale
are discarded in place of softer, less
truthfiil texts that will not expose our
students to the thought-provoking -
realities exposed by Vonnegut.
In the admirable attempt to shel
ter children from die harsh realities
they wiltface while growing into
adulthood, society has in turn left
them to develop without the benefit
of the expertise of those who have
gone before.
The banning of books also short
changes youth by not giving them
quality material with which to
expand their outlooks. The creation
of barriers has never been an effec
tive learning tool and will not
become one anytime in the near
future. To exclude literature from the
education of youth allows them to be
increasingly vulnerable to the propa
ganda of the powerful,
v' The better approach would be to
discuss with these students what it is
that they are reading and why. If
allowed to contemplate the meaning
of the sexual and racial relationships
in “Their Eyes were Watching God,” a
teen-ager may come to realizations
that will surprise and impress their
parents and teachers. And having read
this material, that student will become
a better-educated adult - something
for which we all should aim.
