The print. (Oregon City, Oregon) 1977-1989, May 23, 1979, Page 2, Image 2

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    opinion
No draft
We’re being taken to the cleaners and treated like
some politician’s dirty laundry.
The only thing they are not doing is sorting us into
whites and colors. Instead, we’re all heavily soiled, if
we’re between the ages of 18 and 25.
Congressional supporters of the draft are trying to
ram draft registration down our throats, but our
faces are not yet turning purple.
Senate Joint Memorial 8, introduced by the
Senate Juciciary committee at the request of
Senator Jan Wyers, is scheduled to be introduced to
the senate this week and sent to committee.
The memorial, if passed, will put Oregon on record
asking Congress to oppose any reinstatement of the
draft.
I
I
I
Senate Joint Memorial 8 asks that “ ... no citizen
of the United States be required to rehgister for, be
classified for, or be inducted into the Armed Forces
of the United States except following a declaration
of war by the Congress of the United States.”
We need to make sure that the legislative assem­
bly knows that we do not support draft rein­
statement. But, they’re not mind readers. We have to
do our share and tell them, today. Pick up the
telephone or drop a note to Senator Dick Groener
from Milwaukie. Tell him that you support Senate
Joint Memorial 8.
Sure, everything will come out in the wash, but it
all depends on what laundry detergent you use. CB
Now, before we move In together, there are just a
few things I’d like you to agree to........
guest shot-
By Kathy McMahon
For The Print
Today our newspaper
headlines not only inform us of
environmental disasters and
political scandals, but of men
raping their wives and
cohabitation partners, and
suing each other for what they
claim is rightfully theirs—ac­
cording to whom, or by what
standards, no one is quite sure.
Yet this seems to make little dif­
ference, for the number of
cases is steadily increasing,
possibily even becoming the
basis for a new American fad.
A perfect example of this is
the Lee Marvin—Michele
Triola Marvin incident. The two
had lived together for seven
years; they split up and he
remarried. She filed suit against
him, claiming she was due one
half of his income for that time
they spent together—which
amounted to a mere $3.5
million.
Unfortunately, the court
didn’t see things quite her way,
alloting her only $105,000 of
the requested sum. Now her
lawyer is demanding $500,000
for his. services which leaves
poor Michele Triola in quite a
predicament. However, due to
her inability to pay, the state
has graciously taken over her
debt.
As can be seen, Miss Triola
and Lee Marvin had not been
married and had no legal
commitments; they had only
lived together, which obviously
must have been a' joint
gprint
' 19600 S. Mollalla Avenue, Oregon City, Oregon 97045
Offices: Trailer B; telephone: 656*2631, ext. 309 or 310
editor Cyndi Bacon * news editor Mike Koller
arts editor Leanne Lally * sports editor Mark McNeary
photo editor Kelly Laughlin * staff writers Happie Thacker,
Elena Vancil, James Rhoades, Brian Rood, Ramona Isackson
staff photographers Greg Kienzle, Charlie Wagg,
Pat Calson, Eric Holstrom, Doug Fick
cartoonist Mary Cuddy * production manager Janet Vockrodt
business manager Mark Barnhill * advertising salesman Jack Tucker
professional adviser Suzie Boss
The Print, a member of the Oregon Newspaper Publishers
Association, aims to be fair and impartial Journalistic medium
covering the campus community as thoroughly as possible. Opinions
expressed in The Print do not necessarily reflect those the CCC ad-
mihlstration, faculty or the Associated Student Government.
Page 2
decision. But, because Miss
Triola shared an intimate
relationship with Mr. Marvin
and had devoted her precious
time to him, she felt justified in
demanding one half of his in­
come during those seven
years.
In essence this situation is
implying that because two
people share an intimate
relationship and spend time
together,
they
are
automatically entitled to a per­
centage of the other person’s
income,
belongings
or
whatever else the court will
countable instances to which
this pracitice will apply: the
living together situation where
things just don’t work out; the
weekend romance-get away to
the cozy, isolated, intimate
ravine; the businessman’s
frequent out-of-town excur­
sions where he and his
secretary become on more
than “friendly terms”; the bar
pick-up occasion where you
spend the night with your
newly found, short-lived lover
or the Saturday night date
where things get just a little too
hot ‘n heavy in the back seat.
In other words, every in­
timate relationship can poten­
tially cost you if there is a
sexual involvement, and .if you
spend some amount of time
devoted to that person. How,
then, can we protect ourselves
from this infringing injustice?
My proposal to this newly
arisen perplexity is that a con­
tract be formed, that would
protect each individual’s finan­
ces and personal belongings
from all of his or her intimate
acquaintences. It would read
something similar to: “Let it be
understood on this date forth,
that our relationship does not
entitle you to any of my finan­
ces or personal belongings
(with one exception, you are
well aware of), unless I so
desire otherwise. Please sign
your full name on the dotted
line. Thank you!” (And it
would be recommended that
the contract holder explain in
detail the one exception, if by
chance it hasn’t already been
presented.)
This contract would be a
legal document, holding, as
high value and regard as all
other legal documents do. Its
purpose is strictly to protect
oneself from all sticky affairs
such as the Marvin-Triola in­
cident, without having to
restrain from or give up the en­
joyable encounters that lead to
that sticky, undesireable
situation. The old saying, “It’s
better to be safe, than sorry,”
holds more truth now in
relationships, than ever befdre.
However, the benefits of this
new contract don’t stop with
just personal protection for
each individual, but just think
what they can do for the adver­
tising industry. I can see it no!
“protect yourself—get yoil
legal contract,” advertised 1
magazines and newspapel
next to the familiar contracel
five ads; not to mention tH
promising TV commercials a»
billboard attractions this coul
create.
As for sales, these contra!
could be purchased through!
booth similar to Fotomat ■
your favorite community shot
ping center, or behind the dr!
counter in line with “thol
types of things,” and for all i!
know they may become I
familiar sight in dispensors ol
bathroom walls of gas stations!
bars ... the possiblities al
unlimited.
Of course, reviewing th!
problem we see that anothl
solution is possible, but it!
highly unlikely of the America!
people. This solution calls f!
thinking ahead and preventin!
oneself from getting into an!
situatuion that may bl
damaging to one’s well be«
However, this preplanning!
reasoning and use of optimist!
is too much to ask for ana
highly improbable at best. I
Thus, my proposal for leg!
contracts remains the mol
warranted, well thought ol
solution to our modern d!
dilema of how much are we acl
tually losing of ourselves ail
putting up for grabs per il
timate acquaintance?
1
Wednesday, May 23,199