Brangelina Triangle Tragedy: Marriage Vows Don't Count

One of the things we know for sure in life is that nothing just happens. Science bears out this point with a well-established, immutable law of cause and effect. So, to hear Angelina Jolie play the "it-just-happened” card in a recent interview for the January 2007 issue of Vogue magazine to explain how her relationship with Brad Pitt evolved on the movie set of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, while he was still married to "best friend," Jennifer Aniston, was very disappointing. Ms. Jolie's moral and ethical conscience appears, at times, to be otherwise alive and well, as witnessed by her stance on several global sociopolitical issues. Therefore, as difficult as it might have been for Ms. Jolie to speak truth on this matter, we would have had a lot more respect for her honesty—and thought her interview less disingenuous—to hear her readily admit, without excuses, that she coveted Ms. Aniston's husband, and that they both suffered moral failure in doing the honorable thing, which would have been to walk away from each other—for good—with their integrity in tact. But then again, her later comments during a press junket for her most recent movie, The Good Shepherd, make it obvious that Ms. Jolie is still in denial (or believes we are) with respect to her actions. Moreover, with a “best friend” like Mr. Pitt, who needs enemies?

Indeed, it is one thing for Mr. Pitt to walk out on his marriage to “best friend” Aniston, leaving her for another woman. But it has to be quite another for him to do so, while publicly declaring, “The idea that marriage has to be for all time—that I don’t understand.” One would have reasoned intelligently that this issue was settled at the “till death us do part” portion of their wedding vows. But, why stop there? To add insult to injury, Pitt, whether through his tacit or explicit agreement, effectively enabled his live-in lover, Jolie—who gave birth to their love child before the ink had dried appropriately on his divorce decree from "best friend," Aniston—to grant the interview and photo spread to Vogue to extol the virtues of their domestic bliss, plus throw out a public offer to Aniston for a truce, in such a manner that dared Aniston to look less than magnanimous if she refused. What a guy, sorry, “best friend”!

No one ever rightly promised that our choices in life were going to be easy. But, isn't the real mark of a person's character displayed in the choices made at those times when he or she is most tempted to pursue less-than-honorable acts? Too often, today, in our culture, “it-just-happened” is expected to explain away and justify ill-conceived behaviors, and the oft disastrous consequences of our choices, as if we were impotent bystanders in our own lives, and the consequences of our actions just crept up and overwhelmed us. However, we maintain that part of maturity—and integrity—is learning to accept the fact that we are equally responsible for the good things in life that "happen" to us, as much as we are for the bad, and the truth is we are enticed into action by our own desires.

In this same regard, then, it would be entirely unfair to say that we believe this sorry state of affairs "just happened" to Ms. Aniston. No doubt, there were choices made on both sides that ultimately precipitated the sad sequence of events. But, please, let us not miss the real issue in this unfolding saga…and it’s not about Pitt, Aniston, or Jolie, and whatever demons they did or did not struggle with. Ultimately, this sordid affair—and how the public has responded to the unfolding saga—is symptomatic of how we, as a culture, have come to value or devalue marriage. Betsy Hart’s recent commentary on the Jolie Vogue interview is right on the money, and we are glad this syndicated columnist had the courage to speak up about what’s really at stake. Indeed, Ms. Hart urges us to consider what these players have revealed about our culture's view of marriage: Marriage has largely become an "as long as I'm happy in the moment" idea.

To be sure, couples ought, rightfully, contemplate the point of making the promise "to love and to cherish as long as we both shall live," especially if it is being made without considered regard to its real cost. Marriage is a lifetime commitment. And, this has always been, and will continue to be, the watershed issue within marriage. But more importantly, what is to become of us as a society when we have become so shallow, and so twisted in our belief system, that adultery, cohabitation, and the like are simply par for the course, and we glorify and deem those who indulge in these illicit pursuits among the most beautiful people, and as the most beautiful family in the world?

Ms. Hart is right. What a tragedy.

Can it be any wonder then, why, through sheer organics, there appears to be a changing of the guard within the bastions of the media? Recently, the UK’s Guardian's Observer Magazine published an expose on Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post, entitled Hurricane Arianna, and we urge you to read it. Author Paul Harris describes Ms. Huffington as “the Blackberry-toting, Bush-baiting Queen of the Blogosphere who has made her two-year-old website the most potent force in American politics." But more noteworthy than the awe-struck sycophancy afforded Ms. Huffington in the piece, is the growing recognition being given to the shifting balance of power within the media landscape. To be sure, the cost of setting up digital space now makes it more attainable for just about anyone to have a voice. Setting up The Huffington Post was cited to cost just $2 million, compared to a magazine, which might cost a publishing company like Time Inc. 20 times that to start up, yet reach a mere fraction of the audience currently logging on to the Post. But, there is no doubting its influence. What’s more, until the advent of the Internet, the mainstream media largely represented the "good 'ole boys club," and political cronyism at its worst, and the fact is a mere few—typically, those with money—controlled public opinion. Much worse, however, was the fact that the general public failed to grasp just how much these privileged few influenced their perception of truth. And, without a doubt, Time magazine's choice for Person of the Year: You (Yes, you. You, who control the Information Age) is a sign of the times.

Blogs are really what made this award possible. They may not be as well edited, researched, or even as well written as print journalism, but, ultimately, they could serve democracy—and the pursuit of truth—better...and, to be sure, you don't have to haul them down to the recycling bin when you're done! Sites like The Huffington Post, featuring up-to-the-minute news and blogs from a vast array of world-class writers, are making newspapers and weekly news magazines like Time and Newsweek obsolete. In like manner, celebrity Internet sites like PerezHilton, pushing the limits of decency and what is considered ethical in our society today, are challenging the very existence of their equivalent print rivals. But, we have little sympathy for the old media. Why? Because they created the monster that made ordinary people rise up and demand to speak for themselves. For too long, they have monopolized the airwaves and newsstands, with viewpoints that demonstrate we can be educated beyond our intelligence, yet still fundamentally lacking in wisdom. For too long, they have stalked celebrity "victims" as if they were prey, unwilling to pull in the reins of decency regarding what enquiring minds needed to know. For too long, they have damaged the public perception of truth. And, indeed, much of the old media needs to be challenged with respect to what it now purveys as journalism…or be knocked from its pedestal.

So, congratulations to you too, then, on being Time’s Person of the Year. This is great. Now, even sexual predators can tell the Monsignor in their next job interview that they were Time magazine's Person of the Year.