Thursday, January 17, 2008
MARRIAGE vs. Cvil Unions vs. friendship unions vs. ... (Friendship Union of Eddie Murphy and Tracey Edmonds)
It should not be surprising when once the door of re-defining relationships has been opened there's no telling what will come through next. It appears Eddie Murphy and Tracey Edmonds traded vows with one another but their's was not a marriage, nor a civil union, but a celebration of "friendship". What's next? ... And here's another question for down the road: In the future, should "friend-spouses" be entitled to benefits, etc., though they admit their vows and their relationship were not "legally binding"? (Do they not have rights, entitlements, etc., and if so, what rights, entitlements, to what degree, etc., etc., etc., etc.?)
Murphy's publicist revealed a statement on the “friends joined in symbolic union”’s behalf saying: "After much consideration and discussion, we have jointly decided that we will forego having a legal ceremony as it is not necessary to define our relationship further..." If that doesn't elate unbelievers as well as to cause believers in America to shake our heads, I don't what will.... things have progressed so that we now have EDDIE MURPHY (and his "friend", note the plural pronoun) to look to as the authority, definer and judge when it comes to marital relationships. No kidding! You can just visualize Eddie acting out this role and keeping a straight face … but this time it’s not on the screen but in the news and regarding real life!
The relationship has been described as a "symbolic" union. Is a "symbolic" union a real union or not (or, is it just symbolic?) Note, even their publicist could not state if the two remained a couple!
The statement on behalf of the friends represents their thoughts and actions saying "While the recent symbolic union in Bora Bora was representative of our deep love, friendship and respect that we have for one another on a spiritual level, we have decided to remain friends." Here’s the question: Does such deep love manifest itself in little commitment? Not only that, isn't there some lack of logic or something missing in symbolism when in stating that since the love, friendship and respect are on such a "spiritual" level (... assume "deeper - more significant" level) they would only signify that by deciding to remain "friends" (less significant on the scale of relationships)?
Not only that but what does Murphy mean by a "spiritual" level? Not only would it be interesting to hear this defined and substantiated by Murphy, but if the love is on a spiritual level, should it only be recognized on the surface, and who is it and by what authority is Murphy authorized to determine how "spiritual" matters are handled, not to mention to establish and define the law and ordering of human relationships?
:) ... Really Eddie??? .....You're such a great actor, that I think ONLY YOU could make the smirk that would best fit, when I say: "Really, Eddie?? You've got to be kidding me!"
at 7:40 AM