Sad Marriage in America

A post from my ad-free web blog that's referenced by Real Proposal Magazine:

Sad Marriage in America

Sad Marriage in America
A Eulogy

Today we wish to remember a long-time friend to human civilization by the name of Marriage. It has always been a time-honored tradition between a man and a woman, and it's as old as humanity. But a couple of courtroom judges decided to change marriage. They scuttled marriage in the name of “civil rights” even though marriage is allowed in nations that have no civil rights at all. Yet in this nation where civil rights are supposedly venerated, people weren't even allowed to vote on what they believe marriage is. Supposedly every individual is born with certain unalienable rights, but now we are told a marriage license is needed before we can have our civil rights. "Singledom" is a second class status, as it were.

Christians called you a sanctified relationship, and marriage is sanctified for those who want it to be. However, Christianity doesn't hold a monopoly on marriage though we Christians like to think so. Atheistic countries have marriage just like everybody else. Historically marriage transcends both government and religion. Marriage has always been a man and a woman, and that's what got us here today.

It’s true that single people are discriminated against through government set-asides for the “married class.” This wasn't your fault, Marriage, but some state governments decided to place you on the altar of sacrifice to pay for their own discriminatory sins – the discrimination they created by establishing different classes of people for taxation. On a tax return you’ll see the classes as “married”, “head of household”, and “single” with privileges in that order. Marriage, this wasn't your fault, and we are truly sorry you've been made the scapegoat for our personal shortcomings. You were getting along just fine the way you were created to be.

You can’t blame gays for wanting their fair share, but did they have to do it with a marriage license? Is that what it took for equal protection under the law? This is indeed sad, as most of them will remain single, and their discrimination will continue in spite of legalized gay marriage. This discrimination shouldn’t have existed to start with. And when their spouse dies, the window, through no fault of their own, will fall into the lower "single" class the government created to discriminate against many of us.

Then take a look at the reasons for gay marriage. Some of the reasons include a legal protocol for an intestate will, greater access to government pension perks for the privileged few, a more lenient tax code, and hospital visitation rights. A commitment for life is almost unheard of as a reason for gay marriage. Love for another is replaced with convenience and personal needs for oneself. This is a sad kind of marriage indeed. It will probably go down in history as another marriage anomaly like "jumping the broom". Who remembers that anymore? Perhaps marriage itself will become an anomally where it becomes so inclusive that it becomes nothing.

But the stage was already set for this tragedy with divorce rates topping more than 50%, and more than half of all women that are marriage-age remaining single. It seems marriage vows don't mean much anymore. Remember those vows? Mine read something like this: ”I promise to honor her for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, forsaking all others, for as long as we both shall live.”

Marriage, we’re going to miss you. The world was a safer place when children came from you. People were more trusting back then too. Children don’t really matter much anymore. They’re more like something you can pick up at a pet store, and who really wants them? Consider that 40 million children have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. Love lost out.

So what comes next? I’m not looking forward to it, as things seem to be getting worse all around us. I’ll remember the day that a California court judge lowered the bar just one more notch to get us closer to the bottom, wherever that is. I hope I don’t live to see the bottom, and gay marriage is really really sad marriage. Even so come quickly Lord Jesus.

Shalom.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Only if you let it bother you. People get married everyday that really shouldn't for many other reasons besides whatever your feeling is about it. Who should have the right to decide how people feel about each other? I'd think that those getting married should be the ones that have that right not the government. I could care less about anyone getting married because I can't stop love. You might think of gay people as something different but they still are just people like everyone else. So I'm suggesting that instead of seeing a problem look at it as a "change" only, that way you won't get so upset over something you have no business trying to stop.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whining for Jesus?

Then hets should never have made it about love and romance and lifelong commitment. You should have left it at selling your daughters for economic and political benefits.

Which reminds me:

You would actually hear it a lot more if you knew enough gays and treated them with respect as human beings. But in an age when you can kick your kid out of the house for being gay, and then, when he dies of cancer thirty years later, go to court and take his estate away from the monogamous partner he's been with the whole time, those sorts of things become important to the people you're hurting.

The sad thing is that Christians are apparently so insecure that gays being treated equally somehow harms their own marriages. Seriously, if heterosexual marriage is weakened by gay marriage, that's the fault of the hets. And they shouldn't make it anybody's problem but their own.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So because it has always been that way means it's suppose to stay that way? Seriously, how does legalizing gay marriage affect your own marriage in any way shape or form?

Are you seriously trying to say that as long as gays can legally get married that it somehow changes the committment and love that you have for your own wife? That your marriage is no longer special to you? If so, then maybe you should rethink why you're married in the first place.

I am in a comitted and very loving relationship (lesbian) with my partner for 6 years now. Are you going to tell me that the "1 day Britney Spears marriages" are some how better than my own 6 year relationship just because she married someone of the opposite sex? Give me a break.

 

Shalom.

 

It's too bad that Marriage is no longer about commitment, the only reason gay people want it is for the benefits, has nothing to do with lifelong partnership, I'm not saying they don't have the same right to marriage as a man and a woman, I'm saying their reasons for it are as selfish as the man and woman. Think about it, if you really love your partner, why do you need a piece of paper and a ring to prove your devotion.

 

Huh..what's that got to do with now?

Well I just came from a gay debate forum, and I was told I'm the only person in the world that thinks monogamy means a lifetime commitment. Maybe you should look into this a little better.

Monagamy means "together until something better comes along". Maybe the government shouldn't create discrimination to start with, just as I said in the OP.

I'm scratching my head and asking, why can't single people recieve equal protection under the law? Why do they have to get married before they can have civil rights? Do you think that is fair?

The government established the discrimination by creating two unequal classes of people "married" and "not married." Marriage isn't at fault -- the governemtn is at fault for turning it into a political issue with their discriminatory laws against single people. Gays just happen to be "single" and think marriage discriminated against them. No --- the GOVERNMENT decided that singles have less rights.

 

Murder in California doesn't affect me either.

I'm asking what marriage means. Gays tell us it means "civil rights" for them. Really? Do you have to be married to enjoy civil rights? I thought people married each other because they really loved each other. Real love lasts a lifetime. I thought we were born with unalienable rights -- but no no no -- we must get married too before we are equally protected against a heavy-handed unjust discriminating federal government.

I suggest you re-read the OP. Gays are discriminated against BY THE GOVERNMENT.

I didn't marry so I could have civil rights. The idea is preposterous.

What is a commitment in a gay relationship? Real love lasts a lifetime -- that's commitment.

Nope, as I've already said in the OP, this is precisely what set the stage for sad marriage. A one day marriage is really really sad.

 

Marriage is for what -- funsies?

Government benefits were irrelevant before the 14th ammendment where the federal government gave itself permission to tax people.

Selfish reasons are not a good foundation for marriage.

The paper carries a contractual obligation, but that wasn't needed in the past. Everybody just understood how it was supposed to work.

I'd like to see the divorce statistics prior to the civil war.

 

(Insert title here)

When marriage was a utility, it made more sense to control its form.

You're probably not the only person in the world, but if the centerpiece of a marriage is sexual intercourse, there is a problem.

That's rather a superficial way of looking at it that reeks of what my mother calls "sour grapes".

True enough, but governments emerge from people, and its bigotry reflects those of its people. That's part of what different groups and political parties wrestle over in democratic arenas.

It seems to me that there will still need to be some sort of record. If one dies without a will, it seems logical and fair that the partner of thirty years should receive the estate. It is bad enough that the family that disowned the deceased should have a claim. In this context, what of the woman you went on a date with last week? Does she have priority over the woman you dated for six months last year? Do either of them have priority over your best friend?

It depends on what civil rights you're talking about. Everyone has civil rights, in theory, and that's the thing about civil rights disputes. What civil rights would you propose for single people? Filing taxes jointly with your roommate?

I mean, "civil rights for singles" sounds well and fine, but I have no idea on the one hand what rights you mean, and, to the other, anything I can speculate about runs into the question of how that would work.

Okay, outline those rights.

For instance, hospital visits. Some gravely ill patients, for the sake of their health, are only permitted visits from their family. This is one of the arguments about marriage and domestic partnership; without these unions, lifelong gay partners were not considered family.

Okay, now how does that work for single people? Your mother and father and siblings and such could still visit you, but what, do you want to parade all your girlfriends through the room, and your drinking buddies from the bar? At some point, it defeats the purpose of restricting visitation and endangers the patient.

What rights do you want for single people?

And how are you defining civil rights in general? It's not always the same set of rights in question.

 

heart congratulations for 6 years

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

hope you have many more and that the fucking homophobes eventually get forced out of parliment so that you can make it offical

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well I'll give you a clue. Marriage is universally a man and a woman whether a country has civil rights or not.

The same rights married people have.

So when we think of reasons for gay marriage -- hospital visitation is near the top of the list. ok.

That's not a civil right -- it's a hospital policy. Hospital administration should get a little more patient-friendly, don't you think? A lot of them already have.

I think it's odd on the one hand that most gays don't want a lifetime commitment, but on the otherhand they want hospital visitation rights as they lay dieng in a bed. So which is it?

Being that I'm the sick one dieing on the bed, Shouldn't I have a choice who I want to say goodbye to? The hospitals are changing their visitor policies to refelct current realities. And you say two people get married for this.

I don't believe marriage is a civil right. Marriage is a man and a woman, kind of like blue is blue and green is green. That's all it's ever been for many thousands of years. It got us here. On the otherhand I think everyone should be treated equally. Our government just decided to treat us differently. I think a testate will should be required the same as a social security card whether a person is married or not. No will , no s/s card.

 

(Sigh)

So ... civil rights for singles pertains to ... what one thinks marriage should be?

O ... kay. File jointly with a roommate? Sure.

The civil right is not the hospital policy. It is the right to form a family that is recognized by law.

Oh, quit being so obstinate. How many gay people do you actually know? Or are all of your impressions of homosexuals built from political exaggerations and internet discussions?

One of the reasons so many people hold homophobes in contempt is that we're constantly amazed at how ridiculously simplistic your rhetoric is.

And nobody's telling you that you can't believe that. Whether or not your belief should be allowed to interfere in someone else's life is the more important question.

Think of it this way, Woody: Does the fact that other people in the United States get to believe in their own religion, or lack thereof, interfere with your ability to believe what you want?

For instance, does the fact—in and of itself—that I don't believe what you believe about God prevent you from believing in God as you see fit?

Consider also that one other solution allowed by the California court decision is that the state stop recognizing marriages altogether.

That would be a scuttling of marriage.

 

Gay people have relationships that are every bit as significant and monogamous as heterosexual couples, but the state says they can't have the same rights, that's fucked up.

 

agreed -- it's not right. "Monogamy", tells us nothing, because a real commitment lasts a lifetime -- until death do us part, as it were.

On the otherhand, civil rights are for individuals, not couples. We all all born with certain unalienable rights, and none of us are born "married." So I must ask why our government is in the business of creating this discrimination. :shrug:

 

It's based on what we the people think it should be. This requires a vote. Voting is a civil right as well.

Sure, why not. Why does sex define a relationship? People have sex with prostitutes -- does that mean they were married?

Mighty discriminatory of our federal governemnt wouldn't you say? And tell us why a single parent has a lesser "family status" than a married couple. Are they lower?

You know it is true -- a lifetime relationship in the gay community is rare. It happens, but it's rare. Most gay relationships that are called "monogamous" will not last a lifetime.

"Homophobe" is a pejorative that makes you sound hipocritical. On the one hand you lump a group of people into your "phobe" stereotype, and on the otherhand you tell us we shouldn't judge all gays as promiscuous. It's hard to take you seriously. :shrug:

Gays will live together whether they are married or not, so stop turning this into some kind of a personal conspiracy theory when it is not.

It doesn't in the beginning but eventually it affects all of us, and that's why polygamy was banned.

The fact is you beleive in gay marriage and it has never existed before in any civilization that lasted. The fact is the marriage model that stood the test of time is a man and a woman. The fact is that a thousand years from now gay marriage will not survive, unless our civilization becomes the exception to all those that preceded. History tells us this.

indeed if it has become a civil rights political football, maybe the state should just mind its own business.

It would be scuttling discrimination, as marriage was always here before the state decided to meddle. The state didn't bring us marriage. Maybe the state should go back to where they came from.

 

Woody

You need to start making sense. For instance:

Talk to your fellow traditionalists about that. For the rest of us, the right of the individual is to enter a partnership called marriage.

It is not a civil right of unmarried persons to legally define what marriage is.

That's actually part of my point. To the other, you keep presenting questions and no substantial answers. This makes it sound like you're just complaining.

Um ... Republicans? Or, maybe, your presumption because you think it's convenient for your argument? How about you define what you mean by "lesser 'family status'". That would be a start.

Oh, that's an argument.

The trend you're referring to is symptomatic of the environment in which homosexuality has existed.

I'm just curious, in part because it will help us understand your comprehension of such matters: What parts of your life have you been felt obliged to hide away for fear of legal or criminal reprisal?

Well, here's the thing, Woody: we can only work with what the homophobes give us. The desperation, hypocrisy, and sheer idiocy of the homophobic argument would be stunning were we not so accustomed to it by long and repetitive exposure.

Try it this way: How many _____ does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Do you know that the only reason I came to care about gay politics in the first place was because a bunch of Christians in Oregon asked me to? They put their religion on the ballot, asking people to disenfranchise gays from society. And in the seventeen years since the question was put before me, the homophobes haven't given much in the way of new arguments. It's like they're telling light bulb jokes over and over again, and just filling in the blank with something new each time. And that's fine, except it's not like they're actually telling a new kind of joke. It's just variations on the same old stale theme.

And that's the thing. Tell me as many blonde jokes as you want. Did you know that in all my life I've only ever heard one chicken-road joke that is funny? It's a far cry, in terms of comedy, from the Doonesbury series when B.D. finally came home from Iraq, and his wife was amazed at his hair.

Do you understand? In seventeen years, homophobes have just been telling the same lies, reciting the same fallacious appeals over and over. It's like they're doing the same mad lib a million times and hoping that, at one point, they'll find the adjective and verb that make the rest of us decide they have a point.

There's not much about your argument that strikes me in any particular way, although I do wonder, since we're at that point, what about it you intend to be taken seriously.

Like this:

So will heterosexuals. What need have they of marriage?

Are you advocating polygamy?

Okay, look: Polygamy is a compelling question indeed, and despite the fact that it was the same supremacist ideas that reject gay marriage that rejected polygamy, can you seriously claim that the only question about polygamy is one of religious and social bigotry?

And like I said earlier, if it's supposed to be exclusive, the hets should have kept marriage to a functional utility instead of transforming it into ideas about love and romance.

That works for me.

 

Call it whatever you want to, and I'm sure you will, but nmarriage is and always has been a man and a woman.

So a judge gets to define it instead, kind of like a few judges decided an unborn child has no civil rights and it's ok for a doctor to suck out their brains with a vacuum hose.

less rights.

It's a fact. I don't need to argue it. Take a look at this poll I submitted on a gay forum:

I'm the only person that said the relatioship wasn't monagamous, becasue it did not last a lifetime.

Well as far as I see it you might as well be using the "N" word while debating an african american. Pejoratives serve no useful purpose in a civil conversation. "Homophobe" is a loaded word that implies any kind of a moral objection is symptom of mental illness. I think the word makes its user sound cracked and ignorant.

And marriage is still a man and a woman, just like it's always been, before tthere was even a USA.

show me where marriage is in the US constitution as a civil right.

a lot of them just live together now days since cohab is allowed. Their children are scary too.

nope. Polygamy is for poor uneducated societies.

oh gimme a break.

Polygamy is for primitive uneducated societies. Take a look for yourself at what it has done in america, making the dead-beat father a king and putting children in poverty. The link is from my web-blog which is subscribed by different publications including Real Proposal Magazine.

 

You can't be serious ....

Are you seriously comparing the way in which people are born to the behavior people choose?