But here's the part about the Scientology wedding -- and having it in Italy -- that really gets me:
A spokesman for the Church of Scientology for Rome, Fabrizio D'Agostino, said an exchange of vows with a Scientology rite was not legally recognized in Italy, and would have to be preceded or followed by a civil union.Oh, for the love of... Hubbard! They aren't even getting married!!!
[Bracciano Mayor Patrizia] Riccioni said her office had not received a request to celebrate a civil wedding as of midday Friday.
Can these two characters get off the public stage... perhaps by burrowing under a huge pile of shredded cheese?
UPDATE: According to the last line of this report of the wedding: "the couple had a legal civil ceremony before they left L.A., their publicists said."
पोस्ट्स
२३ टिप्पण्या:
Re: ...the couple takes a vow "never to go to bed without communicating about any differences."
The Scientologists seem to have stolen this from Phyllis Diller, who said it better:
Never go to bed mad. Stay up and fight.
the couple takes a vow "never to go to bed without communicating about any differences
That's a safe bet as one doubts they ever have, or ever are, going to bed together anyway. ;-)
ruth anne, that's what I said when I read that about Brooke Shields! The scientologists must have done some of their voodoo "auditing" on her.
I was expected to attend, too. But a previous commitment (the frig simply had to be cleaned out) prevented me from making the trip (Sorry Tom! Call me!) I even had the perfect wedding gift picked out.
Perhaps they will be tossing prozac capsules, instead of rice, at the newlyweds, and Shields is the bagwoman ;-)
These two are nuts.
I guess the best way to overcome a shaky pre-nup is not to nup at all.
I would like to use this opportunity to announce my support for a constitutional amendment banning celebrity marriages.
L Ron Hubbard, the creator of Scientology. SF writer, etc
I can't help thinking of Hollywood back in the 40s-50s, when the studios controlled their stars and would have them "date" each other to gin up publicity. Even Rock Hudson was married at one point, wasn't he? Now everyone talks about those days as being so naive and ridiculous -- how it all limited the personal power of the stars to live their own lives and shape their own careers.
Funny how stars still pursue these same tactics and the press is still eager (and willing to pay) to cover it all without irony.
The Pope needs to get the Holy Baseball Bat, and crack Tom across the knuckles.
Oh, for the love of... Hubbard! They aren't even getting married!!!
Eh? Pish posh. Sure they are. Says so right there in the article.
Balfegor: No, it doesn't. It says they are going through a ceremony that does not constitute a legal wedding in Italy and that the step they would need to take to make it legal is not being taken (as far as the mayor knows).
Balfegor: No, it doesn't. It says they are going through a ceremony that does not constitute a legal wedding in Italy and that the step they would need to take to make it legal is not being taken (as far as the mayor knows).
I'm making the point I always make -- they consider it a wedding and a true marriage, and their friends apparently do as well (hence the wedding gifts, etc.), and even their respective fans appear to. The legal point is quite irrelevant to the social fact of marriage. After the ceremony, their friends, family, fans, etc. will evidently consider them to be a married couple, and that personal and social recognition is the thing itself.
After all, will people stop getting "married" in the postapocalyptic world where there is no state to give out bits of paper? I think not. Marriage is older than the state, older than the law.
Balfegor stated that "they consider it a wedding and a true marriage, and their friends apparently do as well."
Except all evidence is to the contrary. Most importantly, if someone wants to consider something a "true marriage" they make it legal. That's the entire point.
Beyond that, there is evidence that their relationship at least began as a sham; Holmes was the last in a line of starlets approached by Cruise's people. Now it may be that Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise have fallen in love or at least created a genuine friendship. We have know way of knowing one way or another what the true case may be, all we can do is look at the concrete evidence. Since Cruise is deliberately and clearly conciously having a sham marriage ceremony, one can only conclude that the relationship is largely phoney.
Balfegor: "...in the postapocalyptic world..."
What the...?!? When did that get scheduled? No body told me!
I consider rice pudding to be a main course.
What the...?!? When did that get scheduled? No body told me!
Oh, didn't you hear? Global warming is scheduled to destroy civilisation sometime around 2050. Haha! Although I expect that date is flexible.
Re: joe -- I have no idea whether they intend it as a sham marriage, although I do recall people saying his cult brainwashed her into compliance. And that their 'child' is some kind of abomination. So perhaps you are right. But the other people there seem to be treating it as one, and it appears to have the sanction of their creepy church. That's good enough for me.
What's more, saying that if people intended a marriage to be real, they'd go get the state to hand them a bit of paper makes no sense to me. Indeed, with personal matters, having them become "real" only when the state's poked its nose in seems like a bizarre way of looking at things. Just to take one example, I've been known by and called by one name my entire life (my Korean name). It's not my legal name (my White name), to be sure, but my legal name is just words on a bit of paper. Is my name not really my name because I've not taken steps to make it my legal name? Of course not -- my legal name is the fiction. And I rather think it's that way with matters of deep personal significance, like marriage. I have never noticed that the bit of paper was a particularly essential part of any of the marriages I know well. It becomes so at some points, I suppose -- in divorce or bigamy or adultery proceedings, perhaps. But in the ordinary run of things, I don't see that it is.
otherwise every night becomes a talk fest, and what if you're really tired?
You don't even have to have differences for this to happen. My husband and I have the habit of talking about current events when we go to bed--this can go on for hours, and we entirely agree on most everything.
I have never noticed that the bit of paper was a particularly essential part of any of the marriages I know well.
In my opinion, it is one thing to make a solemn promise, and another to verify commitment to that solemn promise by providing it in writing and making it enforceable by the state.
they consider it a wedding and a true marriage
I'm skeptical of that, personally. I still think the whole thing's a charade. For the amount of money Katie's guaranteed from the prenup, I'd marry Tom Cruise. And I'd be a great wife, too.
I don't understand this idea of "they consider it to be a marriage."
Had a friend (who used to bartend and make a ton of cash) but when asked what he did would respond, "I'm a teacher." Inevitable question that followed: "Oh really, where do you teach?" He would then say, "Well I'm not teaching at the moment, but once I finish the application and apply, I'm hoping to teach at..." etc.
The look on the questioner's face was always "is he is liar or an idiot?"
I just think when people hear "marriage" they are assuming that -- as with the rest of us -- you are legally bound to your partner as you affirmed this before some person authorized by the state to marry you.
Having a party in a castle with Leah Remini in attendance (looking like a stinky, smoking hag) is just extra.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा