Tag Archives: Marriage

My husband was no match for the fantasy hunk in my erotic novels… so I’ve ditched him

The single author..

The single author..

DailyMail: Her steamy, bestselling novels and strong male characters have seduced hundreds of thousands of female readers worldwide. But Jodi Ellen Malpas has revealed she has split from her own Mr. Right – because he no longer lives up to the fantasy she created. The 34-year-old, whose This Man trilogy has sold more than 500,000 copies, has left her husband of ten years after ‘falling in love’ with one of her characters.

Ms. Malpas, from Northampton, says: ‘All my fictional men are strong, successful, sophisticated and enigmatic. I guess it’s hard for any living, breathing man to live up to such a fantasy. ‘In This Man I created Jesse Ward, whose forceful personality was appealing to me. There is no denying I fell in love with him. After all, I created him and I made him the way he is for a reason. Every woman needs some fantasy lover to spice up the dull reality of her real life. I wanted to create my perfect love story.’

But the success of my books and the popularity of my male character led to the breakdown of my marriage. Sadly it was not solid enough to withstand the changes success has brought to my life.’

The mother of two, whom many believe is the new E. L. James, the housewife who wrote the Fifty Shades Of Grey trilogy, became a self-publishing sensation last year, swiftly rising to the top of the New York Times Best Seller List.

The This Man trilogy explores the love affair between young interior designer Ava O’Shea and playboy Jesse Ward. The second part of her new trilogy, One Night, has just been published by Orion.

‘I was 23 when Aaron and I got married, so we were both very young,’ she says. ‘I didn’t really know who I was. I got on with being a wife and mother.’

But over time I started to feel that something was missing – my normal everyday life had become a routine. I was bored. I guess that is what couples mean when they say they’ve grown apart. Aaron couldn’t understand why I wanted to write my fiction and I couldn’t understand why he didn’t understand.’

The couple have two children, Alfie, 14, and Patrick, ten. But although they divorced in August last year, Ms. Malpas says their relationship remains amicable. She is currently single and insists that she has no time to get involved in a relationship.

‘My children and my writing are enough for the moment,’ she adds. ‘In any case, I suspect some men might be a little intimidated by my independence and my success.’

And she insists she has no regrets. ‘It’s been crazy, but I’m loving the stronger more liberated me,’ she says.

grass

DCG

Wife abandons her husband and 12 children to run off with young lover

The good mum, doing what's best for her, um the children...

The good mum, doing what’s best for her, um the children…

DailyMail: When a mother of 12 did the unthinkable and abandoned her brood of 12 children to start a new life with her toyboy lover she was branded “despicable” by her ex husband.

Tabitha Nimes, 39, from Rhyl, North Wales, only sees her children once every six weeks since leaving them for a new life, having moved hundreds of miles away to Southampton to live with Colt Nimes, 32, who she has since married.

Her ex husband Peter Saunders, 47, was devastated by the breakdown of the marriage and left to care for the family alone but Tabitha insists that her children, the youngest of which is just 19 months, are better off without her and in a new interview has hit back at her critics.

In this week’s Closer magazine, Tabitha opens up for the first time about her shocking decision.

“I know everybody thinks I’m an awful mum but I walked out because Pete and I were arguing all the time; it wasn’t good for the children and it made them upset. Pete’s a good dad, they’re better off without me.”

“I was suffering from post-natal depression and had to get away. I know the little ones sometimes want their mum, but they seem to be getting on well. I want to see them more, but I don’t want to cause any more family arguments.”

“I wanted to lock myself away, but when I tried to tell Peter I wasn’t coping, he didn’t understand. I felt he was controlling. The relationship gradually broke down, and we started arguing about everything.”

I’m trying to do what’s best for them, while living my own life, too. I’m with Colt now and I love him.”

2

Tabitha walked out on her children: Rhiannon, 18, Ben, 16, Jack, 14, Josh 13, Adam, 12, Blake 10, Rhys, nine, Lillie, seven, Peter Jnr, six, Aston, three, and Beth, 19 months and her son Matthew, 22, from a previous relationship, when Beth was just 12 weeks old.

“I didn’t want to go through a custody battle. I decided I needed a clean break and felt it was best for them too.

She soon began a relationship with Colt who she had kept in touch with after meeting in 2012 while doing some security work. “We started speaking on the phone,” she says. “He listened to me. We met up in Hastings and, shortly afterwards, shared our first kiss.”

The good mum and her new husband

The good mum and her new husband

Tabitha has now married Cole, who works as a security guard, ending her 18 year marriage to Peter, and rarely sees her children. “I miss the kids so much and felt so sad on Christmas Day, but I couldn’t face seeing Peter because I knew it would be difficult. The older kids were angry with me for leaving, too, and I didn’t want an argument. I sent cards and got the youngest two a new playmat, and sent money for the others. For their birthdays I send cards and money. I used to speak to them every day, but now it’s more like once a week.”

“Sometimes I think I’m a bad mum, but I wouldn’t change what I’ve done. I know my older kids are angry with me, but I love them all to pieces, even though I sometimes struggle to show it. I did this for them as well as for myself. I just hope they understand one day.”

Mrs. Nimes’ ex husband, Peter, a convicted drug dealer, discovered his wife had been cheating on him after finding text messages on her phone.

Initially, Mrs. Nimes took the two youngest children – Beth and Aston – with her, but they were returned to their father after she failed to attend a court hearing.

DCG

Nancy Pelosi Warns SF Bishop Not to March for Traditional Marriage

image

Pelosi Warns SF Bishop Not to March for Traditional Marriage

June 16, 2014 By Stephen Frank 6 Comments

Democrats tell us that religion has no place in the public square, that religious values have no place in discussion of policies. Yet, the San Fran Nan maniacs still claim to believe in the First Amendment which gives us free speech and freedom of religion. The Left thinks IF your policies come from religious origins, you have no right to express them.

“In an astonishing challenge to traditional Catholic doctrine, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, nominally Catholic, has taken to telling San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone that he should not attend the National Organization for Marriage’s June 19 march on the Supreme Court in Washington D.C.

While Pelosi claims to be a Catholic, she has made it clear she openly opposes Catholics theology and Church leaders that publically speak about those values. Maybe Pelosi should stop promoting anti-freedom legislation, like ObamaCare.

Why does the Catholic Church still allow her in the doors?
San Fran Nan appears to be a self-loathing Catholic.

Pelosi Warns SF Bishop Not to March for Traditional Marriage
by William Bigelow, Breitbart CA, 6/15/14

In an astonishing challenge to traditional Catholic doctrine, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, nominally Catholic, has taken to telling San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone that he should not attend the National Organization for Marriage’s June 19 march on the Supreme Court in Washington D.C.

Cordileone is scheduled to be a featured speaker at the event, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, which is consistent with his championing of Proposition 8 in 2008. Cordileone helped raise $1.5 million for the initiative, which intended to ban same-sex marriage in the state. He once said, “The ultimate attack of the evil one is the attack on marriage.”

Pelosi, who called the event “venom masquerading as virtue,” wrote to Cordileone, “We share our love of the Catholic faith and our city of San Francisco,” adding that the event would feature some participants displaying “disdain and hate towards LGBT persons,” and asserting, “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?”

The March for Marriage, which was initiated last year, features thousands of people standing up for “traditional marriage” walking from the U.S Capitol to the Supreme Court. Among the speakers are Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.

Pelosi is not the only Democratic San Francisco politician sending Cordileone a letter decrying his participation in the march. Last week, San Francisco mayor Ed Lee and California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsome issued a joint letter to the bishop protesting his participation. In the letter, cited by the Chronicle‘s Carla Marinucci, they wrote: “We ask that you will reconsider your participation and join us in seeking to promote reconciliation rather than division and hatred …” They said the march was “organized by some of the nation’s most virulently anti-LGBT organizations and leaders.”

The National Organization of Marriage was also targeted by the federal government in the IRS scandal.

An online petition demanding that Cordileone cease and desist in his plans has been signed by roughly 20,000 people.

Cordileone is the head of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage for the U.S. Conference of Bishops. He has already referred to the March as “an important means to promote and defend marriage for the good of our culture, to pray for our federal and state governments, and to stand in solidarity with people of good will,” adding, “This is a critical time for marriage in our country, as marriage amendments are being struck down by federal courts and appeals of these decisions are being made.”

Couple Has An Open Marriage So Complicated, It’s Hard To Keep Track

wedding vows2

HuffPo: Michael loves his wife, Kamala. Michael also likes his 27-year-old girlfriend, Rachel. So six months ago, Kamala decided to do what most wives would never even consider: she invited Rachel to come live with them and their six year-old son.

Monogamy just doesn’t work for the couple, whose relationship is featured on Showtime’s “Polyamory: Married & Dating.”  What does work for them is a polyamorous lifestyle, Kamala and Michael tell Nightline reporter Nick Watt in the report above. (Rachel is not the first person they’ve invited into their relationship during the course of their 12-year marriage; the couple previously shared their home with another couple, and Kamala has been in a relationship with another woman for two years.)

“Monogamy can be a really beautiful agreement between people when they’re deeply in love and they don’t have desire for another,” Kamala says. “But most people in our society are just monogamous because their vows said ‘I will forsake all others.'”

wedding vows

The trio’s seemingly blissful relationship — they do yoga together, love tantric sex and collectively raise the couple’s son — leaves the Nightline reporter wondering if maybe they’re on to something. With so many marriages ending in divorce — oftentimes because of infidelity — is polyamory the answer to all our divorce woes?

Jenny Block, author of Open: Love, Sex, and Life in an Open Marriage, thinks so. “It’s becoming clear that heterosexual monogamous marriage simply doesn’t work for most people. And I think people are tired of being unhappy and dissatisfied,” she told the Daily Beast earlier this month.

We cannot control our own desires and we certainly cannot control the desires of others,” said Block, who has been in an open marriage for the past 10 years. “You cannot tell someone, ‘Don’t be attracted to anyone else. Don’t desire anyone else.’ You can say, ‘If we’re going to be together, I want it to be monogamous.’ But you cannot control the other person’s heart and mind. The heart wants what it wants.”

Conversations about polyamorous relationship may be increasingly common, but that doesn’t necessarily mean American couples are adopting the lifestyle in large numbers. Pamela Haag, whose 2011 book, Marriage Confidential, included discussions with couples in open marriages, says that by her estimates, only about 5 percent of all marriages meet the definition of “open.”

insulting

How insulting to assume that “most people in our society are just monogamous because their vows said ‘I will forsake all others’ and ‘we cannot control our own desires.'”

Yet for some I guess it’s easier to preach moral relativism than actually try and work on a committed relationship or control their zippers.

DCG

‘We’ve made it beautiful': Couple celebrates 80 years of marriage

couple2

KVAL.com: (ALBANY, Ore.) — After 80 years of marriage, Ermin Johnston remembers the first night he met his wife, Erma, at a Sunday-school party. Ermin said he knew she was “the one” from their first time they talked.

“I took two girls home afterwards. I took the other one home first, and we went home last,” laughed the 101-year-old Ermin.

They married on Aug. 23, 1933.

“We were married during the depression,” said Erma. “My folks couldn’t afford a lot of flowers so we had fern, and it was beautiful.”

couple

Now fast approaching their 80th wedding anniversary, the Albany couple is the longest-living married couple in Oregon. “We’ve made it beautiful … and I’ve had an enjoyable life with her,” said Ermin.

Both being born in Albany, they consider themselves true natives. Ermin worked in the railroad industry for 40 years.

Ermin and Erma Johnston have 3 children, 9 grandchildren, 19 great-grandchildren, and 5 great-great-grandchildren.

When asked what their secret to a successful marriage and family was, Ermin joked, “There’s no secret … just keep living!”

I’d say communicate,” Erma chimed in. “We did, didn’t we? And we still do.” “We still do,” Ermin said.

If he could, Ermin said he would spend another 80 years with the love of his life, adding that most couples nowadays can’t even do 80 days together.

“She was a sweetie, and I was a farm boy who didn’t know anything,” said Ermin. “Oh yes you did!” answered Erma. “He knew enough to pick me!”

couple3

Just what we need these days, a happy love story!

DCG

And I Love My Dog Too.

dog_011

 
“Next.”
 
“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
 
“Names?”
 
“Tim and Jim Jones.”
 
“Jones?? Are you related?? I see a resemblance.”
 
“Yes, we’re brothers.”
 
“Brothers?? You can’t get married.”
 
“Why not?? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
 
“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That’s incest!”
 
“Incest? No, we are not gay.”
 
“Not gay?? Then why do you want to get married?”
 
“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.”
 
“But we’re issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman.”
 
“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”
 
“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”
 
“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”
 
“Hi. We are here to get married.”
 
“Names?”
 
“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
 
“Who wants to marry whom?”
 
“We all want to marry each other.”
 
“But there are four of you!”
 
“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
 
“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
 
“So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it’s just for couples.”
 
“Since when are you standing on tradition?”
 
“Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
 
“Who says?? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!”
 
“All right, all right. Next.”
 
“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
 
“In what names?”
 
“David Deets.”
 
“And the other man?”
 
“That’s all. I want to marry myself.”
 
“Marry yourself?? What do you mean?”
 
“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return.”
 
“That does it!? I quit!!? You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”
~Steve~                             H/T     hujonwi

Justice Scalia’s Dissent on Same-Sex Marriage

OK, I don’t know Legal from Beagle

but give me a minute to put things in perspective on DOMA. TD did a post on Lucifer’s scandals at link below. There are about 24 I believe.

Now don’t throw things at your ‘puter as you will only have to fix. Bare with me now, but today, tomorrow, DOMA will have very little effect. It’s not that big of deal. OUCH!! I forgot to mention pls don’t curse me.  :lol: What I mean is we have all these other scandals. For now 1% of population will be booking wedding halls and picking out flowers.

On the other hand the SCOTUS ruling has just morally destroyed the future of this country. My poor son. Oh it’s going to do lots of damage, but it will take a while. I’m just trying to rally you guys and gals.

Pls read Scalia’s Scathing Dissent below.

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/did-you-hear-about-the-obama-administration-scandal/

————————————————————————————–

Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy (AP Photos)

Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy (AP Photos)

By Tim Grieve

Updated: June 26, 2013 | 1:33 p.m.
June 26, 2013 | 10:15 a.m.

http://www.nationaljournal.com

Dissenting from this morning’s opinion on the Defense of Marriage Act, Justice Antonin Scalia – as expected – holds nothing back.

In a ripping dissent, Scalia says that Justice Anthony Kennedy and his colleagues in the majority have resorted to calling opponents of gay marriage “enemies of the human race.”

But to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to con- demn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions. To hurl such accusations so casually demeans this institution. In the majority’s judgment, any resistance to its holding is beyond the pale of reasoned disagreement. To question its high-handed invalidation of a presumptively valid statute is to act (the majority is sure) with the purpose to “dis- parage,” “injure,” “degrade,” “demean,” and “humiliate” our fellow human beings, our fellow citizens, who are homo- sexual. All that, simply for supporting an Act that did no more than codify an aspect of marriage that had been unquestioned in our society for most of its existence— indeed, had been unquestioned in virtually all societies for virtually all of human history. It is one thing for a society to elect change; it is another for a court of law to impose change by adjudging those who oppose it hostes humani generis, enemies of the human race.

calia says that the court’s holding – while limited to the Defense of Marriage Act – is a sure sign that the majority is willing to declare gay marriage a constitutional right.

It takes real cheek for today’s majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here—when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority’s moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress’s hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will “confine” the Court’s holding is its sense of what it can get away with.

And, he says, the holding will short circuit the debate over gay marriage that should have been carried out in the states.

In the majority’s telling, this story is black-and-white: Hate your neighbor or come along with us. The truth is more complicated. It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad. A reminder that disagreement over something so fundamental as marriage can still be politically legitimate would have been a fit task for what in earlier times was called the judicial temperament. We might have covered ourselves with honor today, by promising all sides of this debate that it was theirs to settle and that we would respect their resolution. We might have let the People decide.

But that the majority will not do. Some will rejoice in today’s decision, and some will despair at it; that is the nature of a controversy that matters so much to so many. But the Court has cheated both sides, robbing the winners of an honest victory, and the losers of the peace that comes from a fair defeat. We owed both of them better. I dissent.

~Steve~

http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/scalia-high-handed-kennedy-has-declared-us-enemies-of-the-human-race-20130626