"It kind of just happened," a source close to the couple told PEOPLE. "I thought they would stick it out. But I think they can work together to raise Tripp."
When Sarah Palin announced the pregnancy of her daughter, she made a point of mentioning in the same breath that they would be married. "Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family." They had Levi Johnston attend the Republican convention to show how they were going to make a real family of it.
In October, Levi declared, "We both want to marry each other. And that's what we are going to do." He talked about a Summer wedding. The McCain campaign apparently was rooting for a pre-election day wedding. "It would be fantastic," a "McCain insider told the Times of London. "You would have every TV camera there. The entire country would be watching. It would shut down the race for a week."
In February, Bristol told Greta Van Sustern they were looking forward to getting married.
And yet here we are just few months later, and they're splitting up.
Levi's sister explained, "Levi tries to visit Tripp every single day, but Bristol makes it nearly impossible for him. She tells him he can't take the baby to our house because she doesn't want him around 'white trash.'"
So many questions. Of course I'm interested to see how religious conservatives who have focused so hard on the sanctity of marriage will handle this.
But I hope this triggers a debate about a few other questions:
1) What is the obligation of a couple to try to make a marriage or a relationship work? I'm dying to know: did Sarah Palin require that they get marriage counseling before breaking up?
2) If a mother chooses to carry a baby to term, under what circumstances should she consider putting him up for adoption?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
==I very much welcome your comments and perspective.==
They come very naturally to me, thank you.
== The sheer number of your posts is disruptive, though.==
As you know, Steve, Free Speech invites dispute. Dispute is not necessarily disruptive, however, though there are those whose "conscience" is overtaxed by posts that are a little too close to the truth for their own comfort would like to characterize those posts as "disruptive" for their own purposes, those purposes being the elimination of opposition that gets it right and correct.
A child is equally a father's as it is a mother's.
If a mother can't handle the child, the first one she should turn to is his father.
This notion that this is the mother's choice alone is non-sense. If the father was not worthy to be a father, then why in this feminized and liberated age did the mother choose to conceive the child with him?
==A child is equally a father's as it is a mother's.==
Half the stuff that goes into making the baby is the father's.
==If a mother can't handle the child, the first one she should turn to is his father.==
Part of what makes a marriage strong.
==This notion that this is the mother's choice alone is non-sense.==
Right on, bro!
== If the father was not worthy to be a father, then why in this feminized and liberated age did the mother choose to conceive the child with him?==
Cuz she was too stupid to put the guy through his paces beforehand.
"So should men only sleep with women that they are ready to marry or are married?"
Well, no, but maybe any man who has ever slept with a woman he wasn't ready to marry should just shut up about abortion. See John 8:7
==...any man who has ever slept with a woman he wasn't ready to marry should just shut up about abortion.==
Half the stuff that goes into making the baby belongs to the man. That is, unless women believe that the man, in all cases, loses his say-so over his property and all responsibility.
== See John 8:7==
Okay.
(Joh 8:7) So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
So, in YOUR world, we oughta, for instance, get rid of the jury system because the jurors have all sinned.
The fact of the matter is that, when Jesus said that, He was talking to the unrighteous, not the Righteous. He tells the Righteous, "judge Righteously" -- that is, according to the Word of God, not according to one's own word. The Righteous are able to do this because of
(Joh 15:3) Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Now, why may the unrighteous NOT judge? Romans 2:1, 3 says that it's cuz the unrighteous inevitably do the things for which they judge others. They do the same things because the unrighteous do not receive Him:
(Joh 1:10) He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
(Joh 1:11) He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
(Joh 1:12) But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
(Joh 1:13) Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.