I like to make fun of Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the religious right as much as the next guy, but this cartoon sends the wrong message. Would the religious right’s position be any stronger if they never got divorces? Of course not.
I think it’s more about the hypocrisy of the religious right, not whether their message is on point. If you believe marriage is sacred, how can you justify repeatedly divorcing to try a new flavour of spouse for a while?
Sure, and I get that. I just don’t want the argument for gay marriage to be along the lines of “well since traditional marriage is dead anyway…”
I never took the argument that way. I read it as ‘Who the hell are you idiots to define what marriage is and isn’t when you can’t even follow your own definitions of it?!?’ Which I happen to agree with. I’ve never been a fan of the ‘Do as I say not as I do’ camp.
Sure it would. Iif the religious actually treated it as a scared institution at least it would give them some credibility. But they can’t even claim that. It becomes even more obvious that it is just about denying privileges to others you don’t like and less about moral behavior.
All four of his ex-wives.
But that’s totally different, you see. Because they say so…and it involves opposite genitals and stuff.
I guess we need to update the definitions:
Marriage: the state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
Traditional Marriage: The state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law and by god only to take a huge dump on it and start over; repeatedly.
Synonyms and Idioms: Revolving Door, Hypocrite, Serial proposer, The Limbaugh Shuffle.
I just had this conversation with a Catholic. Apparently, a purely secular definition of marriage will lead to complete societal collapse because of something about absolute truth. I honestly have no idea what logic he was using, but apparently the solution is not as simple has having two definitions… And that made divorce ok. Dunno.
There are definitions and perceptual definitions, its these perceptual variants which cannot be defined. Case in point, I am married, I am a Man, since I married a Woman I meet most accepted definitions of ‘traditional’. Yet there are some Christians who consider me unmarried because I was not married by a church. (City Hall) I can’t explain their mindset since each use different floor routines in their mental gymnastics. I can though, express it mathematically as:
(((Number of ChurchesBranches of Christianity) – Opinions) * True Christians) * 31,536,000 = “The Truth”
I’m going to put this out there, FWIW. When I was in my very early 20’s, I promised my grandfather, who I loved dearly, that I would be married by a priest. It was his view of what was right. Only problem was I’m gay (grandpa did not know this). Nonetheless, when I was 25, shortly after Grandpa’s death, I found the love of my life. I was, somehow – and without much difficulty, able to find a priest who was willing to marry my husband and me, just not in a church. It was keeping a promise and made it feel alright to me. My agnosticism/atheism took years to come to fruition, but the vow was still what was right.
The years passed, and I kept the vow of “’til death do us part.” I took that part of the vow very seriously. As those of you who’ve been married for many year know, it’s not always or every easy. You have to put up with a lot of crap and deal a lot of crap. As far as I’m concerned though, it was well worth it. I can live with myself and have no regrets.
Do Limbaugh, Gingrich, et. al. have the moral integrity to say the same thing. I doubt it – they follow the philosophy of “until it becomes inconvenient.” And it is to their shame.
Unrelated to this particular bit of humor; some people do have legitimate criticisms about the timing of his endorsement. Dan Savage is annoyed he brought it up now, instead of bringing it up earlier and telling people to vote No on NC ammendment 1.
Yes and I find the all the expressions of gratitude from the left and democrats a little over the top just because Obama finally shows a little compassion and supports ‘a’ human right.
“Personally I believe slavery is wrong, but it is up to the individual states to decide whether one person can own another.”
Your President has been showing compassion for gays since his election as theis post I spotted on One Million Pissed Of Women makes clear.
” He signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which was the first federal legislation to really fight for gay rights. He also signed the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act. He extended benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees in 2009 and 2010. He removed the HIV Entry Ban. He made a commitment to ensuring that federal housing programs are open to all, regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation. He ended Don’t Ask Don’t tell. He made the best legal argument ever given by our government for the rights of LGBT people when he presented an unprecedented brief that detailed the history of discrimination against LGBT people. He nullified a court order keeping a gay American from having his Venezuelan partner being deported. He authorized military Chaplains to conduct gay marriages on or off bases. He reversed Bush’s policy once again when he signed on to a UN declaration decriminalizing homosexuality. He issued diplomatic passports and gave other benefits to partners of same-sex foreign service employees. He banned job discrimination based on gender identity throughout the Federal government, which just happens to be the largest employer in our country. He eliminated discriminatory policies in the Census Bureau that were not counting gay couples. President Obama also made it so that no hospital in this country that accepts medicare or medicaid can refuse to let someone see their loved one, just because that loved one is of the “wrong” gender.”
Wouldn’t have made any difference, it’s not as though N.Carolina does what Obama says.
I personally am not all warm & fuzzy about the president’s support on this. It all just reeks of people’s rights being a card to hold in your back pocket until the opportune moment. And to hear him state that he reserved the “marriage” word for those that were sensitive about it due to their faith or tradition (all pretty crappy reasons to do anything in my opinion ESPECIALLY when it comes to individual rights, equality, freedom, etc) just made my skin crawl. While it may be nice that the leader of the “free” world gets on board with true equality, I just don’t feel a big urge to pat him on the back for it. More like, “it’s about damn time, Mr. President.”
I’m cutting Obama a break here, because this really is a big step in contemporary America. It should have happened back in the 70s, but society just wasn’t there yet. And from the girlie screaming of the fundies, a big part of the country isn’t ready now, either, any more than they were for the civil rights movement. I live in the South now, and I see and hear racist, sexist crap every day that would be cause for riots in New Jersey, but it simply is the way this part of the US still thinks. For Obama to tackle this issue head on is a big risk in a re-election. Sometimes doing the right thing at the wrong time is not so much brave as self-destructive, so I think he needs support for this move. Maybe it’s just baby steps to some people, but it’s still a move in the right direction.
When are we going to simply get to the point here? Marriage is about sanctioning sex. That’s all. Do we really need a law for this, or permission from some mythical sky deity? The rest is legalisms concerning insurance beneficiaries, which really has nothing to do with government or religion. It’s about getting insurance companies to do the right thing, which has a snowball’s chance in the Sahara. The rest is just a lot of pointless blather that relies on personal integrity and commitment. And even commitment is no excuse to stay in any relationship that becomes abusive or dangerous, no matter what God suckers say.
I just wish that he hadn’t invoked his religion as a reason to support gay marriage.