By Marcy Kennedy (@MarcyKennedy)
The biggest fight my husband and I ever had was over Battlestar Galactica.
I know. We’ve now jumped to the very top of the nerd list because most couples argue over the really important things like money or children or whether the in-laws should be allowed to dictate what color they paint their guest room.
But the truth is, we weren’t really arguing about Battlestar Galactica. We were arguing about a theme in it.
When things go wrong, do you stick to the traditional way of doing things, the traditional rules, or do you innovate and rewrite the rules?
The premise of Battlestar Galactica is that humans created Cylons to serve them, but the Cylons rebelled. Years later, the Cylons returned to the human planets and destroyed all 12 colonies. Less than 50,000 human beings survived. Now they’re running from the Cylons, living on a convoy of ships, protected entirely by one battlestar—Galactica.
In other words, life as they know it will never be the same.
Which raised an understandable dilemma for the leaders of the survivors about what was the best way to preserve the species. And that’s where things in my house went sideways.
An episode came on where an officer and an enlisted man whose relationship had been overlooked previously were ordered to stop seeing each other. I thought it was stupid to maintain rules and regulations against fraternization because, as President Roslin said, the only way the human race was going to survive was if people started having babies. My husband thought it was more important than ever in that situation to maintain rules and regulations against fraternization.
And while the issue of fraternization was what kicked the argument off, what we were really arguing about was if rules should ever be changed, and if so, when.
My husband is a former Marine. He’s also a traditionalist. So when he received an order to jump, he didn’t ask how high. He just jumped. And if things are going wrong, he believes that’s the moment when you should stick even more closely to the ways that have worked in the past.
And I could see his point. In a combat situation, you can’t hesitate to follow an order or you and everyone with you might die.
But I didn’t agree that the old rules and old ways of doing things are necessarily the best way. Someone has to earn my respect before I follow them, and I need to understand the logic behind a rule before I obey it. When something stops working, I look for a new way.
You can see how this fundamentally put us at odds. We’ve had to agree to disagree and can even joke about it now, but the question remains.
Is there ever a time when we need to change the rules? If so, when?
(And if you disagree with me that sometimes the rules should be changed, don’t be afraid to say so. I welcome disagreement here as long as it’s respectful.)
I’d love to have you sign up to receive my posts by email. All you need to do is enter your email address below and hit the “Follow” button. You can also join me on my Facebook page.
And don’t forget that you can receive a copy of my suspense short story “Purple” by signing up for my newsletter. <–Click right there. You know you want to 
