walrus, opine, editorials, homophobia, homosexual, gay, marriage, traditional, neutering, license, stupid, asshat
Sometimes, people miss the point so entirely, it's hard to say if they're morons, or just living in some sort of tangentially related alternate reality and only visit on weekends. Personally, I'm voting for morons, but I'll let you decide.
The Playful Walrus, writing for the Opine Editorials, writes Part 2 of Dear Abby on Weddings that aren't Legally Sanctioned. (Apparently, someone was both shocked and dismayed to unwittingly witness a- gasp!- a wedding that wasn't legally sanctioned.) Many readers of Dear Abby wrote in response, and this is one of those responses:
In this day and age, especially with jobs so scarce, a lot of young couples are finding that by becoming legally married they disqualify themselves from things like prenatal care, health care for their children and government assistance programs. This is true. It is far easier to get Medicaid, WIC, food stamps, etc. if you are single. Government assistance programs really punish you for being married, apparently under the unsupported belief that married people are never poor.
I see. Make your commitment public and stand up for your faith – unless it costs you a government hand-out. Did it ever occur to these people that married people are supposed to take care of each other, instead of relying on the state to take care of them as individuals? First of all, nobody gets married to "stand up for their faith". Mostly it's about love, romance, societal expectations, and that really great party you get afterwards. Secondly, asshat, being married does not cure poverty. Plenty of married people are poor. I'm glad you're not, but that doesn't mean other people aren't. Apparently, Walrus is from the Bill Cunningham school of class warfare.
Keep in mind, the Opiners are violently opposed to birth control and abortion, as well as premarital sex. So, poor people shouldn't use birth control to prevent pregnancies they can't afford, they certainly shouldn't get abortions, they shouldn't be having sex if they aren't married, so what the fuck are they supposed to do? Oh, I get it. Walrus has his own solution to the Demographic Winter- make sure the poor, brown folk don't breed. Ever.
In order to survive, many couples now opt to have the ceremony without the paperwork.
And what happens to the assets if there is a split? What assets are a couple too poor to afford marriage likely to have, asshat? What about support for the spouse who agreed to spend more time taking care of the home instead of earning income? IF YOU'RE TOO POOR TO GET MARRIED, YOU'RE BOTH WORKING. FUCKING MORON.
What happens if the woman gets pregnant by someone she barely knows and her "husband" wisely insists on a DNA test before he supports the pregnancy or the child, thus leaving the child without a financial father? This is so offensive, I'm not sure where to begin. "Wisely insists"? "Barely knows"? Oh, I see, poor women are immoral sluts. They'll fuck anything that moves and then try to pass of the baby as someone else's. Someone, please help me out. Does anyone know a phrase crude and offensive enough to describe Walrus?
If they refuse to get legally married or are too poor to protect their access to my tax money it's their tax money, too, asshat, then I should know so that I do not do the redundant thing and buy a gift for them. i doubt anyone is inviting you to this particular ceremony you ignorant fucker.
Another idea gaining in popularity is that unless everyone in this country has equal rights for marriage, no one should be getting married. I can see that. I doubt my not getting married would help anything, but I can see that. I bet Walrus can't.
Again, everyone already has equal access. If these people REALLY meant what they were saying, they'd sponsor constitutional amendments letting any person get a marriage license with any other person, regardless of the marital status of either party, and regardless of how closely they are related. the old "homosexuality is exactly the same as pedophilia" argument. it's ridiculous, stupid and offensive, but haven't we come to expect that from Walrus by now?
Several couples I know have married without the paperwork because they regard the alternative the same as sitting at a segregated lunch counter, and they are unwilling to support segregation. Again, I can see that. Do these people have driver’s licenses? What about people who "can't" get one of those? what the fuck is walrus talking about? solidarity with illegal aliens? the civil rights being denied the blind? if you're going to make an analogy, Walrus, make sure it actually applies first, okay? there was no reason to make me stop and think about that mess.
Many people feel there is a blatant disregard for separation of church and state and that "legal" marriages are not at all legal, but an example of government recognizing those with faith while disregarding those who have a different point of view on what family is. I totally agree with this one, both as an atheist, and as a gay rights supporter. There are countries in Europe where all legally recognized marriages are performed as civil ceremonies in front of a civil servant. If you want a religious ceremony as well, that's done separately, and is not recognized one way or the other by the state. That is exactly how we should do it here. That way, gays are equal to everyone else in the legal sense, and churches remain free to do what they want.
Walrus has this take on it: The government can't avoid getting involved in what family is or is not, considering child custody, child support, child guardianship, and inheritance issues If all marriages were civil, this wouldn't be a problem. beyond that, not allowing gays to marry is causing problems in the courts with child custody and support and inheritance issues that allowing them to marry would instantly solve. so do you really want to solve those problems, Walrus, or just throw up irrelevant arguments to shore up your hatred of Teh Gayz?
My husband and I were married by a minister, but without a marriage license because his financial problems could have adversely affected me. "For richer or poorer - well, not really." You shouldn't marry a financial disaster – whether you are male or female. You shouldn't shack up with one, either. "shacking up", huh? i guess it depends on what her situation was and his situation was. if she had lots of money that she earned herself, and his financial situation was resulting in legal judgments right and left, why should she lose all her money just to avoid "shacking up"? moron.
Because we did want to commit to each other, we called it a "Ceremony of Commitment." And how much weight does that commitment have? Will the church enforce this commitment? does every commitment need to be "enforced"? do you only stay with your wife because you have to?
We view ourselves as being married, and I have a ring. When the ceremony was held, everyone knew what was going on. That is all fine, as long as your guests are aware of this. wait, that was my line.
GOD IS OUR WITNESS IN COLORADO wrote:
Nowhere in the Bible does a servant of God ask permission from the government to marry. The Father is more than good enough. And while there are references to "what God has joined together," there is no similar praise for what Caesar has blessed.
again, making my point about separating the religious and civil components of marriage.
These are good points. The state did not create marriage. The state merely has recognized and licensed marriage. However, if that state licensing does not go against God’s teachings, I do not see a good reason to not register a marriage with the state. oh, I see. so a representative democracy should be in the business of supporting theological teachings? since when? the state has no business in considering god's teachings at all. that's for churches. That's a big "if" these days, not only with marriage neutering (gay marriage) but with no-fault divorce and other issues. those damn feminists, acting like they have the right to live their own lives! It would make a little more sense if there was some consistency to "keeping the state out of it", such as somehow being able to avoid having birth certificates issued for any resulting children so the children of unmarried couples shouldn't get birth certificates? really? that would prevent them from entering school, getting a social security number or driver's license. basically, it would create an underclass of invisible people. nice to see your real agenda, Walrus, and not using government currency in their acquiring of "community property". again. we see his real agenda. unmarried couples aren't allowed money. Certainly anyone avoiding licensing the marriage so as to keep getting government welfare isn't keeping the Caesar out of it. again, i'm glad you're not poor, Walrus, but lots of people are. I do believe that churches should be putting more teeth into marriage. i'm not sure what marriage needs is teeth. The state may not hold someone accountable for breaking their marital vows, stone the adulterers! but churches certainly can – if that person cares to be a member of that fellowship. *sigh*