Quoting Quiverfull: Did Marriage Die in 2013?

Quoting Quiverfull: Did Marriage Die in 2013? December 28, 2014
Image original NLQ

by Michael Pearl of No Greater Joy – Marriage Died in 2013 

This was written last year when gay marriage started to be legislated in many states.  Michael Pearl, among others, said that this would prove to be the end of marriage altogether. Here we are a year later and it looks like marriage is still going strong. Did legalizing gay marriage have any effect on marriage in general?

Mike has said that if one group is allowed to redefine marriage, then there is nothing to prevent others from demanding and doing the same. And why is government (state or federal) in the marriage business? Mike highly recommends Dr. Keith Ablow’s article, Marriage Died in 2013. Dr. Ablow is a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team and articulates many of same things that Michael has said for years. We hope you find the article informative.

Read the article, Marriage Died in 2013 by Dr. Keith Ablow.

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders, influential bloggers and cultural enforcers and ask our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull and Spiritual Abuse honestly and thoughtfully.

If this is your first time visiting NLQ please read our Welcome page and our Comment Policy!

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

13:24 – A Story of Faith and Obsession by M Dolon Hickmon

"This reminds me of my home school days when my mother would always tell me, ..."

Smile or Else?
"Yes. Men still have to register at age 18. But there is no law to ..."

Create a Better Brain Through Neuroplasticity ..."
"The draft was dropped, but selective service is still active and mandatory."

Create a Better Brain Through Neuroplasticity ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Nea

    And why is government (state or federal) in the marriage business?

    Taxes, inheritance law, and right of attorney, among other government-controlled rights and tariffs.

    I’m perfectly serious. The argument for gay marriage isn’t actually about sex. People have had sex with who they want to have sex with, legal or not, from the dawn of time. That would be why both the Code of Hammurabi and the Bible (to name two) discuss rape, plural marriages, wife stealing, etc.

    The legal argument being made is that by blocking group B of adults from the government-granted rights, privileges, and even marriage/inheritance tax breaks, group B is not being given the full LEGAL rights the government grants group A. And because there are So. Many. legal rights attached to marriage and because granting group A’s rights to former slaves, women, and interracial couples (which tells you right there who group A has been all along) didn’t wreck the country, federal judge after federal judge has been forced to admit that the same Constitutional amendments granting 5/5ths of personhood, sufferage, and marriage equally applies to this case.

    I was very disappointed that SCOTUS didn’t do the gay equivalent of Loving v Virginia last year. Soon, possibly as soon as this year, their collective hands will be forced no matter how icky Kennedy personally finds it.

  • Trollface McGee

    Keith A-Blow… the “psychiatrist” that diagnosed the Obamas by watching them on TV. The fact that he can call himself a psychiatrist is ridiculous.
    And he’s wrong. Marriage died in the 1850s when married women were allowed rights over their property. Marriage died in the 1970s when interracial couples were allowed to marry. Marriage died in the 1980s when we started paying attention to domestic violence and marital rape.
    The idea of “traditional marriage” has been dying for a while and the world’s better off.

  • Astrin Ymris

    Against my better judgement, I followed the link to Ablow’s “article”. I found it petulant, irrational, and so full of strawman arguments that it should carry a warning for people with hay fever. His “then marriage can have no meaning” close is classic circular reasoning.

    Ablow doesn’t say, but I somehow suspect that he assumes the government will grant all the benefits and entitlements of legal marriage to people with church-granted marriage certificates under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. But since he wants justice of the peace marriages ended, this will neatly cut off these benefits to everyone NOT in a church. I conjecture a rationalization is waiting in the wings for arguing that the marriage certificates of those pesky gay-friendly churches and non-Christian religions don’t qualify for legal recognition under RFRA.

  • Gypsy Rose B

    Dr. Keith is Ablowhard.

    Marriage died in the 20’s when people started marrying for love and companionship too!

    Is marriage a cat? It sure has an awful lot of lives.

  • Suzy’s Mamma

    Well, I don’t know about the Pearls, but my marriage is still alive and well.

  • Leigh Andrews

    It’s all about control. If you don’t get married in the “right” way, you lose the privileges attached, whether it is tax reductions or eternity in paradise. I disagree with the hammeriing that I take in taxes as a single woman as well as the difficulty that I experience in accessing public benefits despite many years of paying taxes.
    Suppose that you have a low enough income to qualify for the earned income tax credit. Someone with three children can get up to $6000 per year from this benefit, which has an additional benefit: it does not count as an asset for the determination of eligibility for welfare for a year after the EITC is received.

  • Nightshade

    If marriage is that easily destroyed then maybe it deserves to die, at least Mr. Pearl’s concept of marriage.

  • Trollface McGee

    “Dr. Keith is Ablowhard.”
    Agree with the rest completely.

  • Allison the Great

    Keith Ablow is a fucking quack. He’s also a fucking asshole.

    And if we look at history, marriage has been redefined many times in human history. When these idiots talk about marriage, they talk about their Leave it to Beaver understanding of marriage.

    And why is government (state or federal) in the marriage business?

    Uh, because the state and federal government runs this country, and not the Protestant Fundamentalist Church, that’s why. This is how it should be. No church or religion should ever have any say in how this country is run. They need to stay out of politics.

  • Allison the Great

    He was dangerously close to saying that only those who marry in a Christian church can “married”.

  • texcee

    I am straight and have been married for 39-1/2 years. I have a number of friends who are lesbian or gay. Two different same sex couples I know were legally married over the past couple of years. Other couples I know are planning on it. So far, my marriage has been affected — Zero. Zilch. Nada. If there’s any reason my marriage might be going down the tubes, it’s because Hubby sits around in his underwear and farts. So far, my lesbian friends are much better mannered.

  • Astrin Ymris

    It’s possible that he’s forgotten about the existence of Buddhists and Pagans entirely, or that the government is obliged to recognize ALL religions as valid, not just True Christians™.

    Or at least for now, anyway… That’s why I was speculating about some plan in the wings.

  • Anonyme

    “And why is government (state or federal) in the marriage business?”

    Ahem. Something tells me that if the government made it a priority to keep “traditional” marriage and deny rights to LGTB citizens, Michael Pearl would totally be on board.

  • ConcepcionImmaculadaPantalones

    For some reason, there is never any reward for being an individual with no children and low-income. Maybe they assume that since one is childless there’s no reason why a person cannot attain enough higher education to get a high paying job thus why would they need any public benefits to help them? In the state of California where housing is quite expensive as are things like food, the state provides a supplemental amount under $160 with the SSI benefit amount provided by the federal government – a disabled individual living independently somewhere with access to cooking facilities, receiving medicaid health care which is quite limited will only qualify for a maximum cash benefit amount of $889.40 and will not qualify for food stamps. If they are disabled and elderly, or residing in a house with someone else who is not on SSI but low income, that person can apply for and likely will be approved for food stamps but the SSI person will see their benefit amount reduced because they are presumably sharing the expenses of housing and utilities. Now, if an individual is not receiving SSI benefits, ‘working poor’ and has even one child or the child receives SSI, the individual will be the payee for the child and qualifies for tax credits like the EITC, health care subsidies, food stamps, housing assistance, etc. If they are simply ‘working poor’ and single they may get food stamps to a limited amount, and find themselves shut out of many social safety net programs with no hope of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps as so many conservative idiots think they should be doing. If they got married, things would improve financially speaking, but generally quite marginally. This is the concern that I think should be moved to the forefront so that changes that will improve the lot of individuals who are single with no children can be made. This would particularly help single women – single men continue to earn more for the same jobs, they don’t have a time limit in which they can have kids/marry, and even if they never do either they’re still in a better position financially than women who never marry or have kids.

  • Nightshade

    Forgotten? In his world they don’t exist, or at least they don’t have any rights.

  • Astrin Ymris

    The phrase “pulling oneself up by your bootstraps” originated during the 19th century as an idiom for doing the impossible. The Religious Right apparently didn’t pick up on the sarcasm involved in the usage, because it fit perfectly in with their belief that poverty is caused by a moral failing.


  • Jenny Islander

    What should we expect from someone who has demonstrated that in his opinion marriage is the means by which a man physically dominates and spiritually devours a woman? Any hint that two people might voluntarily join their lives together, instead of being driven by instinct or God’s will or whatever* to perform the black widow’s mating dance in reverse, must be anathema.

    *In other words, whatever drives Michael Pearl to want to squash the life out of everyone who isn’t his size or bigger.

  • Baby_Raptor

    But since he wants justice of the peace marriages ended, this will neatly cut off these benefits to everyone NOT in a church.

    One more step towards the theocracy that the Right longs for so badly.

  • Baby_Raptor

    I love it when people whine about something “losing all meaning.” 9 times out of 10 what they’re actually saying is “The only meaning for X is the one I give weight to therefore it shouldn’t have any other meaning.”

  • Independent Thinker

    I guess that means my 13 year marriage is null and void since we got married on a beach by a sea captain who lawfully can perform marriages.

  • Independent Thinker

    Yep, everyone not Christian is either in denial, mislead, angry, doesn’t know God, or a false convert. Anything else is simply not possible. (Sarcasm)

  • Baby_Raptor

    You forgot those of us who totally know god exists but either A) just want to sin or B) hate him and so we pretend to not believe in him.

  • Independent Thinker

    Oh, I forgot about those. Thanks for the reminder.

  • Mermaid Warrior

    The “typical” marriage varies wildly from place to place, from time to time, culture to culture. Gay people aren’t killing marriage any more than interracial marriage did, or banning polygamy, or marrying for love, or whatever. This man must be shockingly ignorant about other cultures if he really thinks his definition of marriage is the only one that counts.

  • “so full of strawman arguments that it should carry a warning for people with hay fever.”

    Great phrase – stealing it.

  • gimpi1

    I just celebrated my 15th anniversary, but we were married by a professional celebrant with no religious bent, we wrote our own vows, and married in the home we had already shared for almost 10 years.
    Apparently my marriage is void, too. My bad.

  • gimpi1

    “And why is government (state or federal) in the marriage business?”

    Well, leaving aside the multiple rights and benefits that are tied to marriage, I don’t remember the outrage when various states, and finally the federal government were passing various ‘defense of marriage’ acts to attempt to prevent marriage-equity from being considered.

    Of course, it’s only governmental overreach when the government is doing something that Fox News doesn’t approve of. How silly of me to forget that.

  • Astrin Ymris

    Yay! I wrote something worth stealing! *preens*


  • Independent Thinker

    I wonder what happens in more complicated situations in which the couple has a secular wedding but converts to Christianity years down the line? Under Ablow’s rules are they supposed to remarry and have a second wedding? Do those other years not count? Or is their some sort of conversion ceremony in which your secular marriage is converted to a non-secular marriage?

  • B.A.

    I guess my parents’ 55-year marriage is null and void,too,since they were married by a rabbi.