Solid Marriage

Truth in Media, or at least classic television? Quite possibly. American television was a lot different in the mid-1960s when ABC created and aired The Addams Family.

The Adams Family - John Astin and Carolyn Jones
Solid Marriage – Sad When The Freaks Can Do It And You Can’t

I ask all those who are against gay marriage because “it will weaken the family” or “destroy traditional marriage” is this what you’re really afraid of? Are you actually just terrified that the queers will manage to do better than our – straights, that is – 50% success rate at having solid marriages – or at least ones that don’t end in divorce?

Come on. There are plenty of valid reasons to fight against the gay marriage laws that they have passed and continue to try to pass in various states. Most were either designed to infringe upon the religious freedoms and freedom of association of various Christian groups or were twisted by queers and the Liberals into doing so. But…it’ll destroy traditional marriage and the sanctity thereof? Please!

Tags: | | | | |

24 Responses to “Solid Marriage”

  1. Personal Failure Says:

    Thank you. I think this is an issue. Divorce rates clearly show that the more fundamentalist one is, the higher the divorce rate*. Of course, we have no data on gay marriage, but I do think that some people are terrified that gays will be like atheists- better than fundamentalists at marriage.

    *I don’t think religion per se causes divorce. I think that fundamentalists marry younger after knowing one another for very short periods of time and have more children sooner, all of which are risk factors for divorce.

  2. Kelly Mahan Jaramillo Says:

    Okay – I read this last night and laughed so hard the laptop nearly slid to the floor. I was too tired to comment, but had to come back just to revel in your hysterical way of saying exactly what I have been saying for years.

    The ‘family values’ hetero-married nonsense argument used to infuriate me, now it just makes me laugh. To have the pictorial above as a visual – priceless.

    An interesting side note- Tomas and I used to live next door to a gay couple, two women, one who had been married and had kids when she was young. This was about seven years ago. When the four of us got into a discussion concerning the right of gay couples to marry, both women felt it was not an issue at the time insofar as their voices in the gay community.

    They felt that many gay couples were not ready for marriage, and had no idea of the real responsibilities, work and compromises that went along with what marriage was (supposed) to be all about. They felt that their divorce rate would be just as high, couples would be bitterly split, and it could be a real mess, especially if children were involved. With that worry, the women felt that until same-sex couples were really ready for everything that a “family values” marriage entailed, the possible fallout from the marriages not working out would ultimately be a setback for the community as a whole.

    The women wanted the equality “marriage for all” to happen someday, but simply felt it was premature at that time.

    We found it a very interesting perspective from a happily ‘living together’ couple, who had been together fifteen years. The legalities of the ‘power of attorney’ issue, they felt, could be handled in other ways besides marriage.

    Always fascinating to get yet another take on it.

    I do not quite understand your point concerning the laws in place being designed to infringe upon religious freedoms of various Christian groups, or being twisted by liberals and the gay community into doing so. From what I understand, if a law is passed that gay couples can marry, it does not require every church to comply. I could be dead wrong on this, and would appreciate your input and clarification.

    I mean, one of the issues that gay people were having was finding a church where they could be “out” and also worship. That problem seems to have lessened, as I have found many churches who welcome everybody.

    If you have the time, I would love that paragraph clarified a bit, as no matter how many times I read it, I cannot seem to quite get what point you are making. Trust me, it is not your writing, by the way, it is definitely my clock trying to re-set itself, and a few of the more simple tasks are still bigger than they would normally be. 🙂

    Great post – thanks for the laugh!

    Kel

  3. Ryan Mason Says:

    I’d also be very curious to hear about how the gay marriage laws were specifically designed to impede upon religious freedom.

  4. jonolan Says:

    Mason,

    You need only look at the fact that the various state legislators refuse to provide exemptions for religious organizations such as Catholic Charities.

    Hellfire, the Governor of – I think – South Dakota even promised to sign such a bill with the exemption into law, but the legislators refused to add the verbiage.

  5. Elric66 Says:

    Opens the door to polygamy and Sharia Law

  6. jonolan Says:

    I find it doubtful that gay marriage will lead to legalized polygamy in America; both the Right and Left hate it too much for that to happen. That’s a shame for and my family since we’re polygamous.

    You’ll also have to explain how gay marriage would “open the door” for Shari’a; I can’t even begin to follow that particular logic , Elric66, and I’m nearly always watching for Muslim encroachments.

  7. Elric66 Says:

    Its very simple. If the definition of marriage can be redefined from a marriage between a man and a woman to any 2 people, it can certainly can be defined to any number of people. Give it time. CAIR and its ilk will push for it in a few years and cry ‘islamophobia” and discrimination when its resisted. Trust me. This is one area where I am rarely if ever wrong.

  8. jonolan Says:

    Elric66,

    That’s a far cry from Sharia – especially since the Mormons and other very much non-Muslim / anti-Muslim groups would be more interested in legalizing polygamy than the Muslims would.

    It’s not like a lot of those Muslim men want to beheld legally responsible for their wives…

    Now, if you’re against polygamy that’s one thing. I think, however, that it’s far fetched to say that legalizing gay marriage will lead to Sharia even if it does lead to polygamy – something that would be decades away, even if it could happen.

  9. Ryan Mason Says:

    Jonolan – there’s a difference between not providing special provisions already protected in the Constitution with respect to freedom of religion and writing a law specifically to encroach upon those freedoms. Just because the laws didn’t go above and beyond to comfort the Church doesn’t mean that they set out to infringe upon those beliefs. I think it’s rather misleading of you to say otherwise.

    That said, being a proponent of marriage equality, I have no problem with a line in the law that reiterates that the law would only affect civil marriages and wouldn’t require churches to perform marriages that go against their religion. It’s just redundant as that’s already the case. If I’m not Catholic, I can’t go in and get married in a Catholic church unless I convert. Hell, even if I’m Catholic but divorced I can’t get remarried in the Church. Nothing will change in the religious realm.

    Elric66 – the err of your slippery slope argument is that you take the “any two people” to mean any number of people. The issue at stake isn’t the number of people, it’s the fact that the government tells us which two people they can be. More precisely, which genders those two people must be in order to be allowed into a secularly-recognized marriage. While we’re at it, “any two people” could be changed to “any two living organisms,” but that’s only arguing for sake of arguing and loses any and all substance. You can’t just interchange random elements into the argument and say that legalizing gay marriage will lead to fill-in-the-blank.

  10. jonolan Says:

    Mason,

    I was not in any way being misleading; you’re just apparently mono-focused on the marriage ceremony itself and are unaware of or ignoring the other issues pertaining to religious freedoms and gay marriage laws.

    Catholic Charities, wholly “owned” by the Catholic church, asked for and was denied exemptions from being forced to provide spousal privileges (health benefits, etc…) to homosexual partners who are employed by them.

    Catholic Adoption Services, again wholly “owned” by the Catholic church, asked for and was denied exemptions from being forced to place children into gay households.

    When the government knowingly enacts legislation that interferes the operations of religious organizations by forcing them to either close or support what they that is feel is sinful, in point of fact, crafting laws “designed to infringe upon the religious freedoms and freedom of association of various Christian groups.”

    Now I’m not saying I agree with these faiths’ beliefs. I’m saying that their rights are equally important as anyone else’s’ and should not be trampled upon for the sake of the gays wanting to be legally married.

  11. Elric66 Says:

    “Thats a far cry from Sharia especially since the Mormons and other very much non-Muslim / anti-Muslim groups would be more interested in legalizing polygamy than the Muslims would.”

    Really? The Mormoms are more interested in polygamy than muslims? You serious? Just watch and learn. You really have no understanding how muslims work.

    “the err of your slippery slope argument is that you take the any two people to mean any number of people.”

    Uh huh. Watch and learn. Or if you are impatient, look at the UK for that will be a blueprint on what happens here.

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2008/02/uk-capitulates-to-polygamy-grants-extra-welfare-benefits-to-men-with-multiple-wives.html

  12. Elric66 Says:

    Some Muslims in U.S. Quietly Engage in Polygamy

    by Barbara Bradley Hagerty

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90857818

    Already setting up the groundwork

  13. jonolan Says:

    So some Muslims engage in polygamy. So do I and my family and so do many other non-Muslims, Elric66.

    Polygamy isn’t Sharia – though Sharia allows it – and, if Sharia does make inroads into America, it will be – just as it was in the UK – through the process of 3rd-party arbitration of disputes not through nuptial laws.

    Frankly, Elric66, you’re delusional in the sense that you see something that Muslims would like and take advantage of as an automatic step towards their getting other, unrelated – and frankly disgusting and pernicious – things that they want, e.g., the bulk of Sharia and the Caliphate.

    Get over it, man! You’re diluting your efforts and attention, and that could lead to either missing something actually important or being dismissed as a nutjob Islamaphobe.

  14. Ryan Mason Says:

    As far as the adoption agencies go, it’s murky, but the laws still are not forcing them into anything – if they don’t want to adhere to the rules, they don’t have to be in the adoption business, just like they aren’t in the execution business or the abortion business or whatever. I know it’s a bit exaggerated, but the fact is, the Catholic Church being in the adoption business (non-profit, I understand) isn’t a requirement of their faith, so if they decide that they can’t be a part of it due to the secular laws involved, then so be it.

    Although, I do think there could be a better compromise figured out than the one currently in place in these laws. I’m not sure how without still considering homosexual married couples second-class citizens if there’s a disclaimer that they cannot adopt children through a Catholic organization, but it seems like that would be welcomed if everything else in the law remained in tact.

    Okay, Elric66 – you go ahead and worry about the extreme fringe, but realize that they really aren’t affecting your life in any way, shape, or form.

  15. jonolan Says:

    Mason,

    Why must religious groups and organizations be penalized and damaged instead of the gays? Why, in your opinion, does the gay’s desire to have legally recognized marriages – civil unions don’t seem to satisfy them as Prop 8 showed – trump Constitutionally guaranteed religious freedoms?

  16. Elric66 Says:

    “Frankly, Elric66, youre delusional in the sense that you see something that Muslims would like and take advantage of as an automatic step towards their getting other, unrelated and frankly disgusting and pernicious things that they want, e.g., the bulk of Sharia and the Caliphate.”

    No, you are delusional that you refuse to see it. I’ll go by what their unholy books dictate.

    “Get over it, man! Youre diluting your efforts and attention, and that could lead to either missing something actually important or being dismissed as a nutjob Islamaphobe.”

    Whats an “islamophobe”?

    “Okay, Elric66 you go ahead and worry about the extreme fringe, but realize that they really arent affecting your life in any way, shape, or form.”

    Was islam’s “prophet” part of the “extreme fringe”? I doubt you will answer that.

  17. Ryan Mason Says:

    I’ve written quite a bit on this topic on my blog, but, to respond directly to your question, the idea is that neither group is damaged or penalized. But, the Catholic Church shouldn’t get some huge pass simply because it gets involved in secular activities. Those activities, while done by a religious entity, is still involved in the public realm and should then adhere to those rules just like anyone else. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean that religious organizations are above the law.

    A Catholic organization is limited by their own restrictive beliefs and that’s fine, but it shouldn’t be the law of the land for the rest of society. Not everyone is Catholic and not everyone believes that being homosexual is a sin, is wrong, or is unnatural. To deny gay couples the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts simply because it would mean that Catholic organizations would no longer be in the adoption business seems like that’s letting the Catholic belief system determine secular law, which goes against the freedom of religion.

    Clearly, it’s a delicate balance in order to not infringe upon everyone’s beliefs, but when it comes down to it, the religious world will always be different from the secular laws of America. Gays are people, and they should have the same rights as their fellow citizens regardless of their sexuality. I feel confident that this could be attained in a way that doesn’t infringe upon any religious freedoms – I don’t believe they do – even though those same religious entities that condemn homosexuality will never be on board with this, will fight this endlessly, and that is their right based on their freedom of religion, but should never win based on that same exact freedom.

    Elric66 – You don’t need to put quotes around prophet. Just because you don’t believe in Mohammad doesn’t automatically make him illegitimate to all who do.

  18. Elric66 Says:

    “You dont need to put quotes around prophet. Just because you dont believe in Mohammad doesnt automatically make him illegitimate to all who do.”

    I dont give a crap what they think of me dissing their pedophile “prophet”.

  19. Ryan Mason Says:

    Clearly they will be much more interested in what you say about him rather than your use of punctuation, but you miss my point: it says more about you than it does them when you use quotations incorrectly.

  20. Elric66 Says:

    Well since they do tend to get violent when offended you might have a point. 🙂

  21. Elric66 Says:

    “but you miss my point: it says more about you than it does them when you use quotations incorrectly”

    Ohh I use them correctly because Mo-bomb-ed was no prophet. But you know whats more offensive? That muslims say that Jesus will come back, break the cross and make war with non muslims til the planet is islamicfied. Now thats much more offensive than one guy putting quotes around the word “prophet”.

  22. jonolan Says:

    Mason,

    Your beliefs would only work if the carious churches were relegated to being nothing – and I mean nothing at all – but places where their respective faithful gathered to worship together. Such a thing is what the Godless want because it would effectively destroy said churches and their religions.

    Is that what you want? Be honest.

    Churches, especially Christian ones, are involved in “secular” activities because charity – Good Works – is part of their faith. They’ve also been the cornerstone of such services in America throughout its history.

    I don’t see where it’d be wrong to give them a “huge pass” when it comes to recognizing what they consider to be egregiously sinful and unnatural unions.

    And of course, we disagree on whether or not legal sanctioning of a nuptial union is a right in the first place.

    But and lastly, I’d rather see the government get its secular hands off marriage entirely and treat them all as “civil unions” solely bound by contract law.

  23. Ryan Mason Says:

    I don’t want to destroy religion or churches. But, I also don’t think that they should get that free pass. They’re like the stubborn child who wants it only their way and throws a tantrum if it doesn’t go as planned.

    Like I said before, I think the Catholic Church does great things by doing things outside their community and I think it would be a big loss to have them close up their adoption agencies because of this. I’m not Catholic but it seems that doing things for sinners is part of their job so I don’t get why this one is so triumphantly awful so as to stop an entire program that helps out needy children. But, that’s their prerogative and they can do as they wish in that regard. Still, I think some of the things they do are big assets to society, indeed.

    The problem is that they’d be getting a huge pass if we altered secular law because it went against their religious law. That’s why we have a separation of church and state. That’s why we can have civil laws that don’t fall in line directly with those of any religious entity. They don’t need to recognize any unions they don’t consider proper – case in point, remarried Catholics or homosexual marriage. That’s the point. It’s a civil marriage, not a religious marriage. One word can have more than one definition.

    The thing is, within the eyes of the government, a marriage is simply that: a contract. It’s not ordained by any religious entity. It’s not a holy union. It’s a contract. But people want to be married, they don’t want to be united, or civilly contracted together. People want that word. I don’t belong to any religion yet I still see myself getting married at some point. It’s a cultural construct that has grown beyond the religious realm and become part of American society. It doesn’t need religion to exist, even though it still does in its religious form. And even if the government abolished secular marriages and instead changed the terminology to simply “civil union,” that wouldn’t fix the current issue regarding adoption. That’s just coming down to semantics at that point.

    Just as someone married in a Jewish temple isn’t religiously recognized by any church of another faith yet a Catholic couple would have no trouble indeed saying that their Hebrew brethren were indeed married, that’s the same thing here regarding same sex couples.

  24. Elric66 Says:

    Guess you guys surrendered. Prattle on 🙂

Leave a Reply