Monday, May 02, 2005

Left-Behind Ring Not a Clue?

Not to obsess about the whole "Runaway Bride" story of Jennifer Wilbanks, but a brief aside in the latest AP update on the story puzzles me:

"Just because we haven't walked down the aisle, just because we haven't stood in front of 500 people and said our I Do's, my commitment before God to her was the day I bought that ring and put it on her finger, and I'm not backing down from that," John Mason said Monday in an interview with Fox News' Hannity & Colmes show....

Mason said he has given the 32-year-old Wilbanks her ring back - she had left it at the house - and said they still planned to marry.

All right, now I realize that many assumed the worst when she had not called after several days; people assumed that it wouldn't be cold-feet otherwise. However, shouldn't the left-behind wedding ring been a clue that she intended to run away from her commitment? Now, I never wore an engagement ring, but I thought that women usually avoided taking rings off as much as possible. Jogging doesn't seem to need ringless hands, but what do I know.

If someone can explain this, please do so.

| << Home