The "sanctity of marriage"? What a JOKE!!!

[theHandpuppet]

Frankly, I don't even recognize this actress, but it's okay for straight folks like this to marry FIVE times before they're fifty but my partner and I can't even marry once?

So the fundies want to preserve the "sanctity of marriage"? Then outlaw divorce, you fools, because we gays folks have nothing at all to do with this crap. Sorry, but this just rubbed me the wrong way this morning.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/TV/10/16/people.melharris.ap/index.html

Report: 'thirtysomething' star divorcing
POSTED: 9:42 a.m. EDT, October 16, 2006

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Mel Harris, a co-star on the hit 1980s show "thirtysomething," has filed for divorce from her husband of five years, People magazine reported Saturday.

Harris, 49, cited irreconcilable differences in her petition to divorce investment banker Mike Toomey, filed October 3 in Los Angeles Superior Court, People reported on its Web site. The couple married in 2001.

The couple have no children together, but Harris, who has been married five times, has a 22-year-old son by photographer David Hume Kennerly and a 16-year-old daughter by actor Cotter Smith.

Harris, who played Hope Murdoch Steadman on "thirtysomething," was named one of America's 10 most beautiful women by Harper's Bazaar in 1989.

(snip)

Edited to add link.

[rurallib]

1. Appears not to be homosexual so it's OK

[Hepburn]

2. As a retired Calif attorney...

...who did a TON of divorces, I sure can tell anyone and everyone that there is NO legal sanctity in marriage in Calif. The idea of perserving this supposed status is pure bullshit. Yep, if marriage is soooo important, then someone please explain to me why in the hell the Calif legislature passed "no fault" divorce laws? All someone has to say in Calif as legal grounds to terminate a marriage is basically that he/she does not get along with the other spouse and the two of them cannot fix this disagreement. IMO, all this "sanctity" of marriage bullshit about is hiding blatant discrimination against gay couples and making them second class citizens. Calif has domestic partnership agreements which are open to any couple regardless of sexual orientation. That is a civil contract between two people and sexual orientation does not enter into the validity of this agreement. So what in the hell is the difference with a marriage???? Why should marriage be limited to two people of the opposite sex?

Yep, marriage and sanctity...someone can get married and divorced five times to a person of the opposite sex under the law that supposedly protects the sanctity of such relationships. GMAFB.

[theHandpuppet]

6. Yep, all their excuses are BULLCHIPS!

Such as the one in which they claim the primary reason for marriage is to bear and raise children. Does that mean that infertile couples or the elderly should be forbidden to marry as well? What about gay couples with children? Why don't they qualify?

If the sanctity of marriage is to be preserved between one man and one woman, does adultery negate the marriage? What about the man or woman who decides what that really meant was "one at a time", not just "one," thereby opening the door for them to marry as many times as they like?

So two drunks who met over martinis one night can simply go to the drive-by chapel in Vegas to marry and divorce the next week, but my partner and I, who have been together for over fifteen years, can't even get joint health benefits? How in the fuck does that threaten anyone's marriage?

This is all so much B.S. and hypocrisy it really has me seething this morning.

[Hepburn]

8. Where is the authority...

...for the idea that a "marriage" is one man and one woman besides the Bible? The Bible might say this, but it also says a lot of other things that have not been put into law. So...what is the deal on picking and choosing with this RW pukes? They ONLY seem to hit on the issue that strikes against gays and gay couples. That to me clearly spells HOMOPHOBIA.

There are, for example, the religious food laws ~~ how about these idiots getting on the "Ban the Pork" bandwagon??? They have about as much right to enforce these kind of Biblical laws as they do in trying to enforce who can enter into a marriage. Marriage is a civil contract. PERIOD. As long as people have the requisite ability to contract, sexual preference has NOTHING to do with it. So if the homophobes attack this contract...what is next? Gays cannot purchase cars either???

IMO, opening any civil contracts to being governed by supposedly religious principles is asking for trouble. Once it starts, where in the hell does it stop? That to me is the HARM with this kind of bullshit. It threatens all of us regardless of sexual preference. If religious principles can be enforced against one segment of society, who is the next target???

This kind of shit is just wrong for a lot of reasons ~~ it is discrimination and it is the type of discrimination which could threaten all of us. What's next? A big Scarlet Letter "A" for any woman who has committed adultery?

:shrug:

[TahitiNut]

10. I'll be VERY interested to see them reestablish the usury laws ...

... and criminalize charging interest. After all, it's "Biblical." :eyes: Where were these "moral absolutists" during the vote on the Bankruptcy bill? Why aren't the debts written off for people who've paid as much or more in interest as they borrowed? Hypocrites.

[Hepburn]

14. That pretty much sums it up...

... HYPOCRITES.

Guess to those evangels, the Biblical prohibitions only apply to homosexuality, right?

:eyes:

[Vidar]

16. Bravo!

[Selatius]

3. If you divorce 5 times. Maybe you should stop marrying.

Because you've got issues that need to be worked out before you try marriage again.

[Bunny]

4. Heh. Agreed.

At what point do you start to wonder if maybe *you* are the one with the problem?

[Catchawave]

5. Yes indeedy, I'm still on my first

and definitely my last :) After 37 years, I have no desire to raise another one!

[xchrom]

7. if social/religious conservatives don't have enemies

they have no reason to exist.

[Hepburn]

9. Yep...

...how true. ANYTHING that is not within the bounds of THEIR interpretation has to be hated, feared and out-lawed. What a sad way to live. Too bad they seemed to have missed the part of that book about not being judgmental. Most of them need to read AND accept that Biblical principle, IMO.

[xchrom]

17. their universe is literal, isn't it?

it's devoid of metaphor, meaning -- and spirituality{however you want to define that}.

so threats are everywhere -- women, gay folk, the sexual revolution, welfare mothers, lol -- the clintons, pelosi and her san francisco values.

it's almost hard to describe them -- they're so two dimensional and fearful.

but those things also make them deadly.

[ComerPerro]

11. its not just that simple. It has to be enemies they can't beat

and the deck has to be stacked against them, so they can feel persecuted. They thrive on it.

They can't just choose muslims or terrorists as their enemy. The US Army can definately fight back against them. And part of their war rhetoric includes "we're winning", so obviously these enemies can't persecute them.

So they need to look internally.

Homosexuals are the perfect enemy. They "insult" their religion by being gay (which is wrong, apparently), and Christians are powerless to stop them because of the PC crowd and ACLU.

So they remain convinced that Christians are under attack, and the only thing that will protect them is if we make their religion the official national religion, and we allow them to push their views on everyone everywhere.

[xchrom]

18. like the nazis or the catholic church of yore --

the most powerful enemies lie within -- at least in their minds.

[mikeytherat]

12. How do you "sanctify" something that isn't sacred?

Does these people even know what "sanctity" means?

I was married in a church, but I didn't need the Church at all to get married. I DID, however, need the State to get married. We had paperwork, fees, etc. all for the State to grant us the legal and technical aspects of our marriage - the Church performed the ceremony, but a Justice of the Peace would have sufficed just fine.

Remember - you don't need the Church to get married, but you CANNOT get married without the State. The Church can declare you married but, if the paperwork has not been filed and the fees paid to the State, the marriage is not valid. What we need to do is separate the legal and ceremonial aspects of marriage so any two legal adults who want to form a "union" or "partnership" can do so.

mikey_the_rat

[FormerDem06]

13. Amen...

=================================
What we need to do is separate the legal and ceremonial aspects of marriage so any two legal adults who want to form a "union" or "partnership" can do so.
=================================

I believe that a marriage is a biblical covenant between my wife, myself and my god. BUT I have no problem, giving the "secular" benefits of marriage to any two people who want to be in a union together.

I mean Jesus said it is for a man to leave his parents and cleave to his wife; but it does not go forward and say "and receive the power of attorney, tax breaks, etc. etc. etc.".

This argument from some on the far right just makes no sense to me.

[Hepburn]

15. And...

...the church cannot divorce anyone either. What's next to these a-holes??? That the church take over divorce court? That should be rich.