An Example Of The Inanity Of Those Dripping With Marriage Privilege

I say...

...add your name to the list along with the comment "I would love to participate, but I'm not allowed to get married."

---

by: DavidinPS @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 15:16:15 PM CST

But there's the thing...

I AM married.

Legally recognized worldwide- even though the ceremony was conducted in a restaurant by a phonebook JOP and both the bride and groom are atheists.

And the groom was previously married, for a matter of weeks.

My best friend has been married FOUR TIMES. Her collective exes have been married TEN times.

Gah.

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 15:32:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sorry

That'll teach me to make assumptions.  

---

by: DavidinPS @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:07:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

The opening statement shows just how "sacred" marriage is

We are sending this to all of our friends who have managed to stay married to date. Since fewer and fewer couples remain married for a long time, we think we should congratulate ourselves.

Shouldn't the fact that so many marriages end in divorce enter in to the same sex marriage conversation much more prominently?  If marriage is so damn sacred, why is divorce allowed, let alone second, third, fourth, etc. marriages.  Just how do the mighty faithful reconcile divorce.  How can they recognize a civil divorce from the religious viewpoint?

---

by: bkmn @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 16:03:24 PM CST

The thing is...

even a single divorce back in the day was, culturally, a horrible, shameful thing - for both parties involved - these days, though, Christians have no qualms about divorcing two, three, four times or more.  It all falls into that 'well, I don't think they really meant STONE your children, did they?  no, of course not LOL - and this stuff about not eating shrimp is just silly so yeah, let's ignore that, too...' category.  They just don't realize that that can also apply to the whole 'let's hayte teh gheyz' thing, too - because everybody always likes having at least one group to hate and disagree with.  Stupid, but true.

"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." - Dorothy Parker

---

by: RubyDynamite @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:06:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oooh - Can I join in?

And put Helen and Philippa (born Brendan)? Twenty-three years legally married and still rolling...

---

by: eawen_penallion @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 18:47:15 PM CST

I love that!

We could start a similar one of how many years couples have been together, who SHOULD be able to have been married all of those years...  

"It goes on one at a time, it starts when you care to act, it starts when you do it again after they said no, it starts when you say We and know who you mean, and each day you mean one more."

---

by: Louise @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 19:30:07 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Forward it to someone in a civilized country.

Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, South Africa (yes, even South Africa is ahead of us on this one), Spain, and Sweden perhaps?

My America includes LGBT families.

---

by: Mena @ Sat Nov 07, 2009 at 20:37:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There are several more in the pipe-line:

Luxembourg, Argentina, Nepal, Portugal, the Czech Republic, Albania...

____________________________________
Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum.

---

by: tavdy79 @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 09:08:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

We lost Maine because we played too nice.

Instead of being on the offensive, the NO on ONE campaign was a defensive campaign, struggling to respond to one inanity after another.  It permitted the opposition to dictate the context.  It was not an effective way to run a serious campaign.

The Catholics declared that marraige is only a reserved holy union, and the moderates in Maine were content to acquiesce to this idea.  The No on ONE camp did not challenge this effectively.  They did not show how dedicated and how unrecognized gay couples in Maine can be.  They didn't argue enough that same-sex couples take marriage seriously, even more so, than straight couples.  

And they certainly didn't make enough of the fact that churches that want to marry same-sex couples are prevented from doing so, and that this is essentially forcing one persons religion on another - something that would have resonated in Maine a lot more than people seem to have realized.

There were BIG mistakes made, Maine is not even remotely like California.  I hope the next time around some of the harder-hitting issues are covered.

Like, for instance, the fact that not being allowed to marry the one you love, and the contention around it, IS related to child suicides in Maine.  How many gay kids have to hang from a rope before we talk about what the oppressive and contentious atmosphere the religious folks have perpetuated results in ?

We needed an add showing why little Billy hanged himself.

It's time we played the issues seriously, unless marriage is just a little cake decoration to us.

Third-class citizenship kills.

And allowing us to wed doesn't hurt ANYBODY.

= equality isn't free =

---

by: NVTodd @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 03:58:41 AM CST

Bomb this list.

All legally married same sex couples should add their names.  Cite when you became a committed couple, not necessarily when you were legally married.  And yes, follow DavidinPS' advice.

---

by: PSzymeczek @ Sun Nov 08, 2009 at 19:08:04 PM CST