The sanctity of marriage? Good question.

[Torch]

Seems to me like the only folks making a mockery of the sanctity of marriage these days are heterosexuals. (i.e the Kardashian trainwreck, the SisterWives debacle). This article in www.buzzfeed.com lists 20 couples, all of whom are respectful, devoted and loving partners to each other, and contributing member of the communities in which they live..... but none of them can legally marry because they are of the same sex.

20 couples that put Kim Kardashian's marriage to shame

[Jacqueline]

Wiki says that the two earnt (I'm copy-pasting) "$17.9 million from the nuptials,[46] and that they paid nothing of the $20 million costs associated with it. Three $20,000 Vera Wang gowns and $400,000 worth of Perrier-Jouët champagne were given free, as were invitations from Lehr & Black estimated at $10,000 and $750,000 for catering for the 500 guests at the reception."

It ends that section with "Kardashian gained notoriety after several news outlets surmised that the marriage was a publicity stunt to promote the Kardashian brand and television ventures"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Kardashian#Relationships

[Oniya]

The only good thing that came out of Kardashian collision (or did they even go bump in the night?) was seeing George Takei make commentary about it on Issues with JVM.

Edit:  I just shared that link on Facebook.  Love and devotion need to go viral.

[Torch]

Edit:  I just shared that link on Facebook.  Love and devotion need to go viral.

Excellent! It's about time FB used its powers for good instead of evil. 

[Callie Del Noire]

Kim Kardashian.. the woman got her start with a SEX TAPE. She is not what I'd call a 'model for my kids' (if I had any). Not that I watch/care about her on TV anyway..she's reality TV and I avoid that like the plague.

[Oniya]

Kim isn't the first celeb to have a marriage that didn't make it to the first anniversary.  I recall that Brittany Spears had one that was measured in hours before getting annulled.  I don't want to call it amusing ('cause it's not funny) or surprising (because it's isn't really), but the notable thing is how absolutely silent the DOMA supporters are regarding these flash-in-the-pan nuptials.  Because obviously, these have no impact on how people see the sanctity of marriage.

[Jacqueline]

I also read that their wedding was very religious and that Kris Humphries’ pastor officiated the ceremony.

[Lilias]

Kim isn't the first celeb to have a marriage that didn't make it to the first anniversary.  I recall that Brittany Spears had one that was measured in hours before getting annulled.

Kim, though, is 30-something and one would think she'd have learned a thing or three from her first marriage (of 4 years).

What it all boils down to is the old chestnut that marriage is not for selfish people.

[Torch]

the notable thing is how absolutely silent the DOMA supporters are regarding these flash-in-the-pan nuptials.  Because obviously, these have no impact on how people see the sanctity of marriage.

Rush Limbaugh: Twice divorced, on his third marriage to a woman who has also been divorced twice.

Newt Gingrich: Twice divorced, on his third marriage.

Rep. Bob Barr, author of the DOMA: Twice divorced, on his third marriage.

Need I go on?

[Oniya]

No, no - preaching to the choir here.  Mr. Oniya even gave an impromptu 'blessing' at my oldest sister's 'commitment ceremony'.    Like I said, it's neither funny nor surprising that they aren't weighing in - but it seems like the silence speaks volumes.

[Torch]

No, no - preaching to the choir here.  Mr. Oniya even gave an impromptu 'blessing' at my oldest sister's 'commitment ceremony'.    Like I said, it's neither funny nor surprising that they aren't weighing in - but it seems like the silence speaks volumes.

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to come off as preaching. 

But yes, it is amazing how those in glass houses can manage to throw all those stones...as long as the stones hit non-heterosexuals, apparently. 

On the other hand, the giant irony wasn't lost on everyone. The running joke on Capitol Hill when Barr introduced the DOMA was "So Bob, exactly which of your marriages are you defending?" 

[HockeyGod]

I love you Torch!

[Torch]

*hugs on Alx and Jsh and wishes she could be at their wedding*

[Oniya]

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to come off as preaching. 

*makes note to install more emoticons in my post next time* 

[elone]

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Obviously some people do not remember that these words were in our founding document. I am so sick of people imposing their morals and beliefs on others who just want to be able to live their lives in the same manner that is afforded to the heterosexual population.

Marriage has no guarantee of success and can certainly be made a mockery by some. However, it should not be denied to anyone who genuinely, or even disingenuously for that matter, wants to partake.

[TheGlyphstone]

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Obviously some people do not remember that these words were in our founding document. I am so sick of people imposing their morals and beliefs on others who just want to be able to live their lives in the same manner that is afforded to the heterosexual population.

Marriage has no guarantee of success and can certainly be made a mockery by some. However, it should not be denied to anyone who genuinely, or even disingenuously for that matter, wants to partake.

Not that the founding fathers were unscathed on that point either - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." was intended only to refer to white men, and educated/wealthy white men at that, with no consideration of women at all.

[Florence]

Marriage is about as sacred as life. Which is to say, no one treats it as sacred, but everyone is willing to say it is, if that claim is being used to take away the rights of someone else.

First of all, as a legal contract, marriage has no PLACE being sacred. Churches can say and do whatever they want, but the legal institution of marriage is not sacred in any way shape or form, in fact, it's rather secular.

In addition I'm sure I don't need to go through the motions of pointing out the flaws of people who say "we can't change the definition of marriage", do I? That's been said and done before, but it just goes to show that marriage is a very malleable thing. It's shape and form have changed greatly over the centuries, and between culture and culture. As long as marriage no longer involves a man trading some goats and chicken for the ownership of a man's daughter, or two noblemen arranging the marriage of their children to promote a political alliance, I think it's safe to say that marriage is NOT sacred enough as to be beyond human alteration.

[Caela]

I have never understood why folks get so up in arms about this. Let anyone who wants to sign a legally binding contract that gets them certain tax perks (though it can also hose you on the taxes depending on your combined income) as well as rights to make healthcare decisions for their loved one etc. go sign one. It's a legal contract and as such shouldn't be disallowed simply because two people happen to be the same sex.

As for churches they can continue to marry whom they like as they like, they already do. Plenty of churches have all sorts of hoops you have to jump through if you want them to "marry" you or they'll send you packing whether your straight or not. Let them do their thing and leave sex and sexual orientation out of consenting adults being able to sign any contract they want to.

Why is this so darned hard for some people???

[Oniya]

I've heard of some gay couples that have used business law to write contracts that would allow things like insurance payouts on the death of a partner, and transference of things like homes and other valuables.  I agree - it shouldn't be a big deal, at least when you're dealing with groups of two.  (I can see why poly-relationships could get complicated, but that's true with any n > 2 group.)

The 'difficulty' that some people have is that they can't get their heads around the idea that someone can love a member of their own sex as deeply and as completely as (or even more than) the nay-sayer loves their opposite-sex partner.

[sarcasm]I mean really - they can't even have kids together!  How can it be true love?[/sarcasm]

[Torch]

I've heard of some gay couples that have used business law to write contracts that would allow things like insurance payouts on the death of a partner, and transference of things like homes and other valuables. 

Gay couples have to jump through hoops to receive benefits that we (as straight, married folk) receive just because we said "I do." I mean, you can list anyone as a beneficiary on a life insurance policy, but I know for Mr. Torch's retirement accounts (pension and 401K), I'm listed as beneficiary automatically. In fact, he has to have my written permission if he wanted to list anyone else and that includes our children.

[Sabby]

[Christian]Dude, Marriage is serious! Ya don't put two blocks together that don't fit, unless your stupid. And turning them around doesn't count, it's cheating! I don't want my children being taught it's okay to take their blocks and start trying to attach the wrong sides[/Christian]

In all seriousness, Marriage is not inherently sacred :/ that's up to the two tying the knot.

[adeleturner]

It isn't just that same sex couples have to jump through more hoops to get the "same" legal rights as married couples have.  From what I understand, the main legal advantage of marriage is the fact that those legal rights stay with you even when you cross state lines.  Same sex couples don't get that advantage no matter how many contracts they draw up.

On a lighter note, I was at a cigar shop opening once where I got to meet Kinky Friedman.  I'm not sure how well known he is outside of Texas, but he's a Jewish comedian/country singer that has run for office here in the past.  One year he even promised to make Willie Nelson his energy adviser.  Anyway, I don't always agree with his politics, but he has a great sense of humor.  Someone asked him his position on gay marriage.  He smiled, tilted the brim of his cowboy hat back with his cigar hand, and said, "Well, I think they have just as much of a right to be miserable as the rest of us do."  He'd written the same thing before, but it was great to hear him say it.

[LustfulLord2011]

Actually, I saw a YouTube video by a woman on this very topic, and I actually think that her solution bears some consideration, at least. Separate the legal and the spiritual/emotional components of marriage. Make marriage a purely personal thing, to be administered by the various churches and religious sects, in accordance with their customs, but make civil unions a separate proceeding, and more importantly, the part that provides all of the legal protections... and make them available to anybody, and administered by the state. This way, homosexual couples as well have access to all of the same protections and privileges that married couples now enjoy, while those who believe in the sanctity of marriage can rest secure in the fact that marriage has become a spiritual institution again. I am not sure whether I agree with her ideas or not, but they are interesting, and certainly food for thought.

[Lady Kalypso]

What they need to do is outlaw divorce for idiotic reasons. Abuse, adultery and such should be the only reasons (with proof) that a couple should get divorced.

Kim's excuses that she needs to "follow her heart" (how the hell does she follow her heart when she so obviously doesn't have one?!) and do what's best for her is a piss poor reason to divorce.

Marriage is for life. If you can't figure that out before hand, you're stupid enough to be called on it. Can't handle it? There's things called counseling, both marriage and singular to help you figure out your problems.

Torch, thanks for putting this up. I'm very glad to know that not everyone follows the destruction of the human race called reality television these days and can stand up for what's right. :)

[Lady Kalypso]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/05/arts/television/theres-one-big-question-about-the-kardashian-marriage.html

An interesting article on the Kardashian.... whatever you want to call it.