During my senior year in high school, I took a mini-course in marriage. (I also took one in bowling, but I’m not yet sure that will be relevant either.) Ironically, we were expected to bring our faux spouse to the first class, which was a mock mass wedding. So, obviously, how to pick a mate was not to be a part of the curriculum. Actually, the only part of the curriculum that returns to mind is the concept of fair fighting.

Fair fighting, as I understood it, sets the parameters of what could be said in the course of an argument—meaning, any retorted criticism had to be on the same point. For instance, if the missus says, “You don’t help enough around the house,” an inappropriate response would be, “ . . .

Heck, an inappropriate response would be pretty much anything the man could think to say—which is why I can’t think of an appropriate response, other than the clichéd humor of “ . . . Yes, dear.”

If it seems odd that fighting was the only part of the curriculum that made an impression, especially given the fact that I attended a Catholic high school, consider the curriculum to be a compromise in the ongoing clash between celibate priests and lesbian social studies teachers. But I digress.

One of the more useful observations of marriage I’ve heard came years later from a friend, a priest who half-jokingly professes that celibacy saved him from marriage. “Men marry women hoping they will never change. But women marry men hoping to change them.”

I will admit to a gratitude for female friends willing to help me with my wardrobe. I will further admit to living in a house that is sorely in need of a woman’s touch. But the thought of devoting myself to a women intent on changing me is phobically repugnant.

Recently, David Letterman received Renée Zellweger as a guest on his show. For me, her highpoint was in the film Jerry Maguire where she delivered one of my favorite movie lines. While telling (I believe) her cynical sister about her ebullient affection for Jerry, Dorothy effused, “I love him! I love him for the man he wants to be. And I love him for the man he almost is.”

The line was brilliantly funny and revealing. Though as alluring as Dorothy was (and I ought not emphasize “was”), I couldn’t help but recoil.

To the extent one sees the humor, one sees the truth. Dorothy didn’t love Jerry at all. She was excited that he was willing to change, moreover, that he was willing to cede her the power to change him.

By way of reality check, I’d like to ask who thinks Jerry and Dorothy went on to live happily ever after? Before you answer, keep in mind, did they even make it 90 minutes without at least one breakup? And what of her first husband? Doubtful that movie was ever going to have a sequel.

True enough, the opposite of love is not hate. Nor do I think it is indifference. Rather, the opposite of love may well be the desire to change the one you profess to love without regard for their essence.

This is why a liberal’s love of country is always questionable.

America’s essence has been hard wrought, not only physically, but also intellectually. It is our rigorous understanding of the individual’s rights, our dedication to liberty, the sanctity of life, and the timeless knowledge of human character that preceded our founding and defines America. It is our history of achievement, our mastery over the insurmountable, and (as de Tocqueville saw it) the goodness of America that defines all who love America.

It is, therefore, only logical to conclude that those who wish to dismiss or deny (worse yet, to change) these essential aspects of America do not love America.

One of the great fruits of the goings-on within the Democrat party is the revelation to many once-Clinton, now-Obama supporters that Clintons did not love America. Rather, they (Bill and Hillary) saw a country not nobly defined, but a country weak and susceptible to take-over. While Bill convinced the electorate that he felt our pain and genuinely wanted to help (to be fair, there was perhaps a modicum of sincerity within the man), Hillary’s ambitions appear more nefarious and, pardon my word choice, naked.

For those who love power, how much more loveable is the country that can be won through slickness and deception than the country that has to be won with blood and sacrifice?

As for Obama, I do not think a lust for power drives him, though power is certainly a tempting lure, as it would be for anyone. It is his desire to fundamentally change America that is no less dangerous.

It is the forfeiture of personal responsibility in exchange for government proffered comfort that undermines America, an America that knows better.

It is the calls from Mrs. Obama (among others around Barack) that urge blacks to disavow their pursuit of middleclassness that I find so chilling. Disavow middleclassness!? And replace it with what? That is not a rhetorical question. I wish someone would ask them with, what would they replace “middleclassness”?

When Michelle Obama encourages their followers to avoid corporate America and go into the service professions, what middleclassless professions might she mean? Clinton’s AmeriCorp comes to mind, an ostensibly volunteer organization that doled out paychecks to its volunteers.

Note how slick Clinton was. Any cause for which people are willing to donate their time must be true and noble. But “true” and “noble” are not words that generally accompany government expenditures. And when did volunteering become a paid profession.

No matter how great a nation America is, it is clear that we are deeply in need of change. Whether it be education, gas prices, air travel, health care costs (a litany could follow), I have every confidence that a free people with unfettered access to its own ingenuity and drive can solve these problems.

It was the likes of Henry Ford, the Wright Brothers, Jonas Salk (a litany could follow) that made America great. And to my knowledge, none of these people sought jobs in government or blamed lack of government involvement for failure. This is the essence of America. These are the lessons we ought to have learned. These are the lessons Barack Obama must learn.

Those who would consider voting for Obama (or Hillary, for that matter) have to ask themselves a simple question: Do I love my country? Or do I love the country that Barack Obama wants it to be?