“Marriage is a wonderful institution…but who wants to live in an institution?” ~Groucho Marx
Picasso
If you follow these things, you know that sensible people are pretty angry about Proposition 8 being passed in California. It’s a same-sex marriage ban that was pushed into the books by some Mormons. Yep, we’re blaming the Mormons, especially the polygamists. Forget the people who voted for it. They’re just a buncha Mormon lovers.
Actually, the blame finger points to money, lots of money, from Mormons. So, follow the logic … the people who voted to ban same-sex marriage are just monkeys who vote for things because some flashy commercial told them to. That sounds about right.
I honestly don’t understand why anyone cares who marries whom. I try to understand. I do. I’m especially galled that the people who funded the push against same-sex marriage support polygamy. This is some sort of extreme homophobia.
I’m not saying that I judge, or would restrict the rights, of people who want to be in poly relationships. I’m all for it, in fact. To each his own. I’m just saying that if you’re asking for consideration outside of the norm for your own clan, it stands to reason that you’d have a little compassion for another group of people who are breaking the mold.
While I think Prop. 8 is a shame, I live in a state that has a de facto ban on same sex marriage insomuch as we’ve never legalized it nor do we recognize domestic partnerships, civil unions, or reciprocal beneficiaries. (Although, as far as I know, we haven’t joined the states that have constitutional amendments to ban it). I’m not blaming the Mormons here in PeeYay.
Nevertheless, Prop 8 got me thinking about the possible religion-logic that says marriage is between a man and a woman (or a man and women if you’re Mormon). If it’s true that religion is tool for social control, then what’s the motivation for disallowing same-sex marriage? Tongue firmly in cheek, I’m going to take some guesses:
- If gay women marry each other, there will be fewer women for Mormon men to marry.
- Gay people “can’t / won’t / shouldn’t” have kids, and kids are the future of the church.
- Allowing same-sex couples to marry would encourage people to come out, which means there will be fewer gay-people-in-denial who need the church for support.
- Fewer gay-people-in-denial means fewer kids born of loveless traditional marriages who will join the church.
- If gays are out of the closet, they won’t join the church because the church won’t have them because they’re sinners and churches shun unrepentant sinners (haha).
- Also, if same-sex couples do have kids, those kids probably won’t join a church that hates their two mommies / two daddies.
Ow. My head hurts. This is completely silly, right? I mean, I was half-seriously trying to figure the religion-logic, but I’ve steered off course, haven’t I? I’m missing some fundamental (focus on “mental”) piece of the religion-logic pie. It might be that they think that being gay is a choice.
I don’t know why the Mormons don’t just change their crazy bigoted minds about this. They’ve done it before. Mormons used to be racists. Really racist. Like “dark skinned people are the devil” racists. Until they saw the light at the end of the wallet.
Maybe these Mormons with money to throw around think that gay people are too smart to fall for an about-face of their beliefs. So, instead they tried to bend the world to their wacky perspective . . . because non-gays aren’t that smart and they’ll fall for flashy commercials that tell them what to do. Looks like they were right.
Gary said,
November 17, 2008 at 10:55 am
Like I’ve said before, you’re far too reasonable Julie.
No post about Mormons is complete without this picture:
http://aliceverheij.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mormon-underwear.jpg
Gary said,
November 17, 2008 at 11:01 am
Oh and for those who haven’t seen it, I think anyone interested in this topic should watch Olbermann’s terrific “Special Comment” on Prop 8.
julieluongo said,
November 17, 2008 at 11:01 am
The heads cut off in the picture is creepier than the underwear. Actually, I sort-of like the underwear.
messiestobjects said,
November 17, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Why do Mormons have their own underwear?
Christy said,
November 17, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I’m going to start a movement to ban marriage in general.
Christy said,
November 17, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Michael: Mormons have special underwear because they believe it makes them sexier in the eyes of Jesus. They’re just following the path they believe will likely lead them to a holy boinking.
messiestobjects said,
November 17, 2008 at 4:07 pm
That’s hot.
Christy said,
November 17, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Michael: Mormons making fucky with Jesus or a movement to ban all forms of marriage? Personally when I think of telling everyone to shove marriage up their collective assholes I get a little wet.
messiestobjects said,
November 17, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Sorry, what did you say? I was busy Jerking off for Jesus.
Christy said,
November 17, 2008 at 6:10 pm
That’s OK – my mouth was filled with holycumshake – I probably didn’t enunciate clearly.
julieluongo said,
November 17, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Why don’t we go back to the ancient Greek way of marriage? If you and your partner – same or opposite sex – say you’re married, then you’re married.
Bah, I actually don’t care. Although, I do want my imaginary wedding factory business* to flourish, so I’m advocating marriage for all!
(*Imaginary Wedding Factory Business Patent Pending.)
Jennifer said,
November 18, 2008 at 9:51 am
I could not agree more with Keith Olberman’s comment, and I think the situation really touched a nerve with him. His speech was quite impassioned and well thought out.
messiestobjects said,
November 18, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I love Keith too, but to be completely honest he is very shrill and quite frequently impassioned… Don’t believe me? You’ll love this…
julieluongo said,
November 18, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Oh, thanks for posting that link. I’ve been wanting Jenn to see it.
Jennifer said,
November 18, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Is that the video from one of the websites, maybe 23/6? Keith played it on his show. Very funny.
I don’t find him all that shrill, and I like people with a little passion for what they do. Keith wasn’t on last night – David somebody was filling in for him. He SUCKED. The show was incredibly boring, so much so we turned it off and went to bed. That’s not typical for us.
Also, Arianna Huffington filled in for Rachel Maddow. Now I’ll admit that sometimes Rachel gets on my nerves, but if I had to watch Arianna every day, I’d shoot myself. The 2 or so minutes of her we caught were way more than enough. Who thought it was a good idea to put this woman on tv? So we put the Bills / Browns game back on. It’s a sad, sad day when I’d rather listen to Tony Kornheiser.
Jennifer said,
November 18, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Also, my husband says Keith Olberman’s rants sound a lot like mine when I get worked up about something, so maybe that’s why I find him so entertaining.
julieluongo said,
November 18, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Oh, yeah, totally. You and Keith rant similarly.
Gary said,
November 18, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Don’t talk smack about Rachel Maddow.
Jennifer said,
November 19, 2008 at 12:28 am
Rachel is okay. She’s usually entertaining, but she’s just a hair too far to the left for me sometimes.