‘Teen Mom’ Kailyn Lowry Won’t Be Getting Married in a Church

Remember Kailyn Lowry? She was one of the teens featured in MTV’s “16 and Pregnant” and “Teen Mom 2″ — and earlier this year, she told her Twitter followers that she was an atheist:

Well, now she’s getting married and her fiance Javi Marroquin happens to be a Catholic.

Problem? Not at all. In news that’s not-really-news-but-what-the-hell-it’s-still-amusing, Lowry says her wedding won’t be a traditional Catholic one:

[Kailyn], who is an open atheist, says that she and Javi won’t be getting married in a church. However, after Javi posted a tweet asking fans to pray for the couple’s dog, many thought [that] Lowry may have changed her mind on her religious views.

I still don’t believe. But it doesn’t matter to either of us that he is catholic,” Kail revealed to fans.

Here’s how the conversation broke down:




No word yet on how they plan to work out their religious differences, but it’s nice to see a couple not letting one person’s religious beliefs take over what’s supposed to be a meaningful day for both of them. Hopefully, they can compromise on which aspects of the wedding they want to keep and discard the rest — including the church setting.

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Gus Snarp

    Reality television stars’ Twitter feeds are now “news”. I don’t know if I want to live in this world anymore.

    • Matto the Hun

      and if you had your own reality show and tweeted that I might care :P  #sarcasm

    • George Wiman

      Maybe not “news” in the sense of airplane crash or military coup, but points of observation on societal change and public attitudes. It is now possible for an unwed mother to talk openly about her atheism. That is a notable change on several levels.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/RQDKLKNPF2G6FSMJ7G4WNNWJQQ Ted

       I believe that was covered in the post itself….”Problem? Not at all. In news that’s not-really-news-but-what-the-hell-it’s-still-amusing, Lowry says…”

  • jdm8

    If you learn about an atheist on the cast of Honey Boo Boo, can you please spare your dignity and not report it?

    • digibud

       ok…that’s the umpeenth reference to honey boo boo..off to find out what the heck that  is.

      • jdm8

        It’s a really bad reality TV show spun off of a child pageant TV show. Honey Boo Boo is currently the low water mark in my opinion, not that reality TV is a shining beacon in the dark in the first place.

      • Matto the Hun

        Don’t spoil it for him jdm8. I’m waiting for digibud to come back in tears. 

      • TiltedHorizon

         Ugh! I had to google “honey boo boo”. I was happier not knowing.

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      Somebody destroyed my faith in humanity just yesterday by telling me about it. There’s a reason I don’t have cable.

    • Flatlander100

      Yup. Nicely put.

  • The Other Weirdo

    Don’t feed publicity whores, especially those who have no bearing on your life.

    • amycas

      Can we try to not use slut-shaming language? Really, using the term “publicity whore” to describe a teen mom seemed like a good idea?

      This isn’t necessarily about the reality tv show. I don’t watch reality tv, but I do like to hear that a person on one of the shows is able to come out as an atheist and not invite a barrage of hate against them. It’s a sign of societal change.

      • The Other Weirdo

        ” Publicity whore” in no way implies “sexual whore”. Complaining about “slut-shaming language” in this case is like calling somebody a racist for correctly and in correct context using the word “niggardly”. I used to be a corporate whore in my consulting days. The same with the parent(s) of Honey Boo Boo. Yes, she/he/they are publicity whores, and worse yet, they prostitute their child for their own selfish gains. It doesn’t imply anything sexual.

        I don’t really care that she’s a teen mom, except in so far as her boyfriend isn’t too much older than she is because then we enter the icky realm of statutory rape.

        I do care that she is prostituting herself(and technically, so does he) on a show and network that doesn’t give a rat’s ass about her and isn’t even remotely trying to help, but is all about exploiting them. Have we, as atheists, really sunk so low that we won’t speak out about how wrong this is just because we’re glad of a little societal change?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/RQDKLKNPF2G6FSMJ7G4WNNWJQQ Ted

          OK

        • amycas

          The phrase does not imply “sexual whore;” it uses the imagery of a “sexual whore” to insult the person using “publicity.” It is used in order to compare that person who is using “publicity” to the socially unsavory person who has sex for money. That’s why it works as an insult, because our society is still steeped in a culture of slut-shaming. I agree with you about her being exploited on a terrible show, but using words like “whore” and “prostitute” in describing a teen mom (even if you mean it metaphorically) merely serves to bash her with slut-shaming language. Just remember: teen moms get a lot of that. They get a lot of nasty attention from people who only want to shame them. This term utilizes that slut-shaming in order to insult them for other behaviors that have nothing to do with sex. It wouldn’t work as an insult, or a “bad behavior” moniker if it weren’t feeding off the slut-shaming inherent to the usage of the word “whore” in our society.

  • Silver_fox-trot

    I find it amusing how this person interprets the future husbands request for wishful thinking for his beloved dog as an admittance by her that she is now ‘a believer’. Why should his stance on one thing automatically mean she holds the same stance.

    I mean, it’s not like we live in a society where just because a person is ‘the man of the house’ that all who dwell in that household share his belief or else, right?

  • jose

    Slightly off-topic:
    Technically nobody gets married in a church, right? You sign the paper which is what matters legally, and then usually a shaman in a costume shows up for some reason and a woo-woo ritual takes place. Is it like that in America too?

    • Gus Snarp

      Not exactly. Laws in America vary by state, but you usually sign a paper with a bunch of information on it, which is basically an application to get married You’re not legally  married until another official at another date and time “solemnizes” your marriage and signs off on another piece of paper. Some states are pretty lenient about who can sign that paper and make everything official, they allow you to use a notary public, which is just somebody who has an official seal of approval to witness signatures on legal documents and they’re a time a dozen. But in my state you have to find a judge or a mayor an approved religious leader. Since just about any church pastor, priest, or whatever is approved, the bulk of the people available to solemnize marriages are religious leaders and most people get married by them.

      This, BTW, is one of the things I keep bringing up in the marriage equality discussion: religious marriage and civil marriage are still closely entwined in this country, but the best thing for separation of church and state and civil rights is to completely decouple them. The form at the government office should make you legally married, what you and your church do should between you and your church and have nothing to do with the law. But it should still be called marriage.

      • jose

         Thank you!

      • http://www.letreasonreign.wordpress.com/ SteveInCO

         As an additional point of reference in Colorado the only people who have to be at the ceremony are the bride and groom.  I know one couple who got married with no one but the photographer present and the photographer was in no way part of the ceremony.

        • Gus Snarp

          So wait, you’re saying in Colorado there’s no requirement for an officiant at all?  You don’t need any third party to sign the marriage certificate/license/whatever? That’s awesome! That would mean the legal part and the religious part really are completely decoupled there. If I weren’t already married I’d be making a list of states with appropriate marriage laws. Although I did actually enjoy the vows the judge picked out for our wedding. A nice little secular thing. Don’t remember a word of it now though.

  • Sven

    I’ve attended just as many Christian weddings in churches as I have in other locations.  Holding a wedding somewhere other than a church isn’t really a good indicator of what kind of ceremony it will be.

    • Drew M.

      But it does mean that it will not be a Catholic wedding, so they have at least that going for them.

  • oldymoldy

    I don’t foresee this turning out so well.

  • Robster

    It’s funny how something as irrational and completely useless as religious belief can impact on a relationship. It’s not like it’s in any way important.

    • The Other Weirdo

       Oh, how well I know that.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FDGYHBEWVNGUG763L5X4TON3JQ Nazani14

    Of course, she won’t be really married in the eyes of his relatives.  Based on what I’ve observed with several Catholic families, she’s got some hard times ahead.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X