No Marriage For You!

I know that when two people fall in love, it is so easy to get caught up and carried away. When you feel that connection, that love and that intimate bond that you’ve never felt before with any other person, you just know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you’ve found the one. You get engaged and, sure, your family and friends are all really happy and you’re looking forward to committing your lives to one another in front of all of them and blah, blah, blah, but none of that can compare to how it feels to break the exciting news of your nuptials to the government!  When I reflect on my marriage and what it means to me, it’s the tax benefits and inheritance rights that make me feel nostalgic and gushy. I’m just a hopeless romantic, I guess. I really value the sanctity of marriage and I know that if we, as a society, have any hope of preserving that, we are gonna need some more fucking laws. I can’t believe that people would think the government should just be issuing sanctification certificates (aka marriage licenses) to any pair of adults that holds out their hand. I’m tired of hearing all the whining about “equal rights”. This has nothing to do with rights! Marriage is between a man and a woman and GOD, end of story! Well, I mean, pending government approval, and proper government licensing and filing, and, also, correctly recorded on all of my income tax documents and filings, and some other shit, but other than that, MARRIAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS!

You want more reasons? FINE! I’ll give you reasons:

The Bible says it is an abomination.

We have to defend traditional marriage.

It’s unnatural.

The majority of Americans don’t support it.

It’s a slippery slope. If we allow this, brothers and sisters are going to want to get married next.

Good enough? You can save all the arguments. It’s just gross to even think about. I don’t care what they said in the Loving v Virginia case; you will never be able to convince me that interracial marriage is acceptable! Wait, what? Oh, you were talking about gay marriage? Oh, my bad. Okay, HA, I got confused on the part where you were saying something about civil rights and then I saw that cute, little puppy go by and wasn’t paying attention for a second and that was when–anyways, that’s hilarious. You’re talking about gay marriage and I’m talking about interracial marriage…LOLerskates. Anyways, so you were saying about gay marriage? Oh—-well, NO! They don’t need to get married!  God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve! Of course, I have reasons!

The Bible says it is an abomination.

We have to defend traditional marriage.

It’s unnatural.

The majority of Americans don’t support it.

It’s a slippery slope. If we allow this, brothers and sisters are going to want to get married next.

The government needs to make laws, NAY, a constitutional amendment, as protection from any union that threatens to defile the institution of traditional marriage.

4-37

29e0b_TheLovingStoryPoster

Presumably, if I asked most people that now espouse these same reasons to oppose gay marriage, if they think it would be okay to ban interracial marriage again, they would say no. I’m sure it would be answered as if it were a ridiculous  question, then they’d tell me that this is apples and oranges but it isn’t. It is the same thing. When even the arguments against it are the  same, the best you could argue is that I’m comparing Galas to McIntosh. One of the main arguments made to oppose both scenarios regards the claim that marriage was established for the benefit of procreation. It is frequently invoked that, since same-sex couples can’t produce a biological child, it negates claims of any right to marriage. Should we apply this logic to heterosexual couples as well and make issuance of the marriage license contingent on medical documentation proving fertility? Persons found to be infertile or women beyond menopause are ineligible for consideration. Sorry.

Most opponents of gay marriage get up in arms about “redefining marriage” and espousing its merits, and importance of the government’s responsibility to uphold the principles of “traditional marriage”. Some are willing to compromise and  are willing to allow gay couples to have “civil unions” but just refuse to share the word “marriage”. I think this is fair and reasonable because “separate but equal” has never let us down. Oxymoron, shmoxymoron! AMIRITE? So, like I was saying, one major hang up people have is the designation of “marriage” to be used in reference to an abominable union. This position is typically predicated on an implied trademark of divinity, contained in the part(s) of the Bible that provide the framework for traditional marriage.

I know this will surprise many of you but, believe it or not, I want to help, which is good because you need my help. You’re going about this all wrong, you see. I am, honestly, moved by your passion, respect and desire for traditional marriage. On the basis of religious freedom, if you feel that the word “marriage” should be reserved for those that subscribe to and emulate traditional marriage, as ordained in the Bible, your fight is justified. If you want to silence dissent, if you want to dominate the debate, if you believe the biblical tradition of marriage to be a protected institution and want irrefutable proprietorship of the term “marriage”, to be used only to refer to a relationship that meets the strict criteria outlined in the Bible, we have some work to do. I don’t know if you know this but we have gone so far away from the gold standard of traditional marriage, it is practically unrecognizable. Don’t worry, though! We’re going to write our congressmen, stage protests and write petitions and we won’t rest until TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE is the only kind of marriage.

Anyone unwilling or unable to live by the standards set forth in the Bible, NO MARRIAGE FOR YOU!

MUST PROVE AND PROFESS A BELIEF IN GOD:

Currently, any couple sporting opposite genitals and no more than a few common alleles, can go get married tomorrow. No one asks them about their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Atheists can get married. Even a Satan worshiper can enter into marriage! I think this is a huge problem and I’m stunned it has never been addressed. People are getting MARRIED in courtrooms and parks by JUDGES! Appalling, I tell ya.

No God? NO MARRIAGE FOR YOU!

SINNERS NEED NOT APPLY:

Obviously, we can’t expect people to be completely infallible, much less completely without sin, so we can allow for some wiggle room. However, if we are going to make the assertion that the sin of homosexuality disqualifies their right to marriage, we should probably consider spreading out the sin restriction. I mean, for fuck’s sake, if you’re a rapist, a pedophile, or a serial killer on death row, marriage is yours for the taking. We will draw the fucking line at a gay serial killer getting married, though? See! Bigger fish, people! Bigger fish!

You break a BIG commandment? NO MARRIAGE FOR YOU!

WHAT’S LOVE GOT TO DO, GOT TO DO WITH IT?:

Traditional marriage wasn’t built on love.  One of the major overhauls to traditional marriage happened when people fought for the right to marry someone of their own choosing, of their own volition. Traditional marriages were arranged marriages, motivated by men wanting to secure social and/or political rank.  Reinstating this aspect of traditional marriage will really hit home the next time someone makes the argument, “homosexuals just want the same right as you, to be able to marry the person they LOVE”, because now you can say, ‘Wrong, bitch” as you tell them all about your TRADITIONAL marriage and how you met your spouse on your wedding day all those years ago and that you’re pretty sure that, one day, you might even learn to love one another. Maybe you won’t. Who cares, though! That’s not what marriage is about. This is business!

You want to marry for love? Too bad! NO MARRIAGE FOR YOU!

WHO NEEDS A SISTER WHEN YOU CAN HAVE A SISTER WIFE!?:

Traditional marriage doesn’t restrict men to just one wife. What kind of life is that? Traditional marriage permits men to marry as many women as they can support. Hey, if they can’t take on any more wives, they have the option to keep an unlimited number of concubines. Abraham had two wives and Solomon had 700, not to mention an impressive army of concubines. Adultery is a sin committed by women. Men have an eternal “hall pass”. Don’t ask questions.

You want a monogamous marriage? Well, you can roll the dice but you don’t have any guarantee, nor any recourse if you end up disappointed. Which brings me to my next point…

YOU GET ONE SHOT AT THE SHOW:

Divorce will be made illegal, immediately. Exceptions may apply but are at the discretion of the court. Any persons granted a divorce will be ineligible for future marriage.

You left your previous marriage because of abuse, infidelity, addiction, or general misery with one another? NO MARRIAGE FOR YOU!

The following items will also render persons ineligible for MARRIAGE:

  • Premarital sex. Virginity, in the form of an intact hymen, is a requirement of women entering into marriage. If, upon consummation of the marriage, there is no physical evidence of hymen rupture, the marriage will be voided and the women will be imprisoned and face the death penalty. Women who’ve engaged in premarital sex can seek companionship via concubine status (*this prohibition does not apply to men*)
  • If you’ve ever put a penis in any other orifice than a vagina, NO MARRIAGE FOR YOU!
  • Incest, though, gets a green light.

Mabon-67284429359

Or, another idea is, maybe we could just live and let live. If Joe and Henry want to get married, how does it threaten the sanctity of your marriage? How does it hurt you? I’ve never heard anyone demanding a law be passed to prohibit celebrities like Britney Spears and Kim Kardashian from being allowed to call their record-setting unions a “marriage”. I’m going to let you in on a little secret: The government CANNOT sanctify your marriage. I’m dead serious. You don’t need a death certificate to get into heaven, either, in case you were wondering. If your moral code makes no allowance for anything other than baby making sex, in the missionary position, why do you think you are obligated, much less allowed to impose those sanctions, religious or otherwise, on others? I don’t know if you’re aware but a man and a woman can achieve great levels of immoral kink that would make some people’s heads spin. A penis and a vagina are not, or rather should not be, how we measure the social value or implications of the family unit. I don’t know about any of you but, when I applied for a marriage license, no one asked me or my husband if he had intentions of putting his dick anywhere other than my vagina. We could use sodomy as birth control and we’d maintain the right to use the term “marriage”. Truth be told, I have no idea why the government is in the marriage business as it is. I’d happily support the argument that “marriage” apply only to the religious institution if, and only if, the government weren’t involved. That means, no government licensing, no tax benefits, no special legal recognition or treatment. If two people want to enter into a legally binding civil union, they don’t need the government to set the terms and make a contract. I’m sure people will read that and think its weird, even though they don’t think it is weird that it is no different from how marriage is currently handled, it just removes the third-party that only serves to tax your relationship, for better or for worse. 599695_351828551595626_80547546_n-300x223

You shouldn’t be demanding laws to protect the delicate sensibilities of others. If you’re offended by gay marriage, don’t get gay married. Easy, peasy. I’m not exactly excited about anybody with functioning reproductive organs being allowed to breed but you don’t hear me calling for a government licensing requirement pending a moderate screening process, do you? If Adam and Steve or Ana and Eve  love each other and want that magic government certificate, who the fuck cares? You don’t legislate the personal, intimate, consensual relationships of adults. If you want to get married once, 5 times or never, I have zero fucks to give. It doesn’t hurt me, it doesn’t even affect me. If you’re a pitcher or a catcher or a scissoring expert or celibate, if it doesn’t cost me money or get me pregnant, knock yourselves out or up. Have a fucking blast. Don’t steal my shit, don’t hurt my kids, don’t kill me and I’ll do the same in return.

37 thoughts on “No Marriage For You!

  1. This made me – angry, sad, happy, and relieved. I have friends that I think the world of, I couldn’t deny them their happily ever after for anything. #TipsyLitChick:D

  2. You m’am are a bitch. I’m glad you’ve never had to experience any type of adversity when it comes to who you love, but others have. I mean, I can understand the gay marriage thing even though I disagree but seriously, interracial marraige!? First of all, the Bible does not say anything about interracial marriage being an abomination. Are you still in the 60s with that bullshit? You think you’re dumb fucking opinion is the only thing that matters and you would keep a couple you don’t even know from getting married because of it.. Well I shouldn’t waste anymore time with this, but I hope you’re daughter marries a black guy.

  3. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Love the blog, so funny and well written. I appreciate your positions, and the last post on rape was outstanding.

      • bugger these mammaries, i’m still breastfeading so wine is off the fun-list *sobbing*
        will join you as soon as we’ve got the whole solid-food-intake-in-style-or-an-witch-way thing going on. :D
        oh and what country do you want to rein over? or are we going for world domination straight off the bat?
        // Meg (or madz)

        • As a breastfeeding mom, I’m here to tell you that it doesn’t require you to be a teetotaler! A glass of wine is perfectly acceptable for nursing moms. ;)

          Also, I’m going to start local, get everyone soused on wine and then go for world denomination. Local before global.

          • i’m off to the off-license! :D
            Okey, so the long term plan then? need to know when i should get barricades for parades up and running. *takes notes* will we be handing out free white wine spritzers and snowcones? oh and might I add that baileys milkshakes should also do the trick!
            Jezus, can you tell I havent had a drink for over a year and a half? :P
            okey, mind out of the proverbial bottle!

          • Wine in the water fountains, wine stands on every corner, fire engines blasting wine out of their hoses, UB40 live performance of Red, Red, Wine, Wine-cicles, people in wine costumes handing out wine….

          • We definitely should have some sort of theme. It’s hard to really commit to any concept when the ideas are all over the board, though. I’m going to get some wine and brainstorm.

  4. I completely agree that the ideal would be to get the government out of the marriage business altogether but, what with 1100 or so laws referring to one’s marital state, that’s unfeasible. So, if the government is going to be in the biz, it has got to treat everyone equally and not let the delusions of religious nutbags abridge the rights of their more sane co-citizens.
    Here in Canada we legalized same sex marriage 8 years ago and ya know what? The only effect has been that we have some happier people.

    • I actually don’t think it is unfeasible, at all. We just do away with the government application and license process. We repeal/remove any variation of the word “marriage” from the federal and state tax codes. It really is that simple, when you think about it. They eliminate and add tax codes like it’s going out of style. When a tax obligation is added or a credit is eliminated, they may or may not let you know before tax time but, rest assured, you’ll find out and, even if you could get a hold of someone that would let you air your grievance, they wouldn’t give an ounce of damn. Leave marriage and the contingent dogma to the churches, keep the state out of it. With all that said, the marriage business is just not a power enumerated to the federal government.
      10th amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s