The Fundamentalist-In-Chief Speaks
Wednesday night, during the State Of The Union Address, I heard Bush use the word "sacred" in reference to "the institution of marriage."
Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.
Excuse me, but how does a guy get to be president in this country without comprehension of the concept of separation of church and state? There's no reason, in a country with this doctrine, that any two -- or three, or five -- people, of any sexes, shouldn't be allowed to make a state-recognized legal commitment to each other. Unless, of course, their personal, primitive, fundamentalist religion gives it the thumbs down, and they choose to go along with its nixing. Of course, while I don't care if you get married to your goat by your guru, making a lifelong commitment to anyone makes no sense vis a vis how long we live and how much we change. Then again, as I've said before, if straight people are allowed this right to make no sense -- gay people should be allowed it, too.
Don't worry, Amy. If he wants a fight, he'll get his fucking fight. Hell hath no fury like a homo scorned.
Lena at February 3, 2005 5:47 PM
Well, I'd be happy to dress up like the French Marianne and lead the charge. (I may be wrong, but I believe the statue has one naked breast.)
Amy Alkon at February 3, 2005 6:13 PM
"It makes no sense to marry for life" is getting old. It makes no sense for *you*. I like the idea that my wife is going to have to laugh at my stupid jokes for the next fifty years, and I'm looking forward to seeing how she changes during that time. For some people, there's a lot of magic and power and responsibility and joy in making a lifelong commitment to someone.
"The only kind of love is stone blind love." -- Tom Waits
"Stop making sense." -- David Byrne
Frank at February 3, 2005 6:13 PM
It makes no sense for somebody who would like to live as if they're truly alive and not stay in a relationship that has grown stagnant just because they promised they'd stick around. You don't know, going in, if your relationship will grow stagnant. I respect people who split when it does. Why value staying together just for the sake of staying together? I will never merge funds with a man nor expect anybody to pay for my existence. Keeps me honest -- I'm in my relationship not because it's too much of a pain to sell the house and divide the assets, but simply because it's the most fun I can have without taking mushrooms and square dancing with the aliens again. Making a lifelong commitment to somebody is easy. Getting out takes guts.
Amy Alkon at February 3, 2005 6:46 PM
"Making a lifelong commitment to somebody is easy."
Not if you plan to keep it.
Frank at February 3, 2005 7:19 PM
Is it noble to keep that commitment after you and the person you've committed to are no longer enhancing each other's lives, growing together, having an alive relationship? Or is it more noble to, and let me borrow from the fundanutters, commit to life -- as in living as hard as you can. Too many people use relationships as a substitute for paid late-life care and because they are too under-selfed to go it without a partner. Ick.
Amy Alkon at February 3, 2005 7:42 PM
Ahh yes. Well Amy I respect your opinion on life long commitment and other relationship advice. However, I do believe that there are real life long loves that are truely a treat and pleasure. I hope that me and my man make it all the way we are 6 years in and still enjoy each other.
On another note thanks for continueing to remind us of just how scary our governing body is becoming. What happened to the seperation of church and state? Why do we comdemn Muslim Radical goverments and yet encourage our own radical christian government forces?
alex at February 3, 2005 8:29 PM
The thing is, while it's fine to *hope* it lasts for a long time, the expectation that it's not an anomaly when it does is very damaging.
I find the current climate in our country terrifying, and I find it even more terrifying that more people don't feel the same.
Amy Alkon at February 3, 2005 8:48 PM
Agreed again. Yes things may not work out and if they don't then we will part ways. I have parted ways before and know that it is possible and not life threatening.
Also agreed that the current climate is terrifying. My primary source of hope is that there may be a swing the other direction. Much like the 60's followed the 50's and the 90's followed the 80's. Hopefully the 2010's will be more enlightened then the 2000's are.
And lastly thanks for not tearing me to shreds cause of my spelling and grammer.
alex at February 3, 2005 9:11 PM
The Goddess writes:
Well, don't let John Ashcroft see you like that. You know how he feels about bare-breasted statues.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0129-04.htm
I bet if he ever visited Rome, he'd have a raging hardon all the time.
Patrick, fan of the Advice Goddess at February 3, 2005 9:22 PM
I always suspect that those most intent on prohibiting sex are the perviest of all.
Amy Alkon at February 3, 2005 9:33 PM
France is a very sophisticated European country where the government is not controlled by fundamentalist Christians or Muslims, and they have essentially the same marriage laws as the US, but a lower divorce rate. So using fundamentalism as the whipping-boy for marriage laws is a non-starter.
The lower divorce rate might mean that French people, especially women, have less "guts" than Americans, or it might mean that their divorce laws don't coddle women as much as America's do. It's not gutsy to walk away from a relationship with most of the property, all the kids, and a lifetime allowance.
But the biggest problem I have with these adolescent complaints about marriage is the way the Godless Goddess wants to impose her personal religion on the rest of us. Apparently everybody wants to play God these days, even the putative atheists among us.
They're also boring.
Richard Bennett at February 3, 2005 10:01 PM
Richard, France has the PACs, which allows gays and straights to register their partnerships and get the same rights as married people. Yet, it's highly progressive in terms of not forcing people into the religious mold of forever. To dissolve a PACs one of the partners simply goes to the city government (sorry, maybe it's the national government office in a city) and declares it dissolved.
The French are much more realistic about life. There's something called the cinq å sept (five to seven) -- the slang for the time you supposedly see your lover before going home to your family. We live a lie in this country -- that one person will remain sexually interesting to another for a lifetime.
How is calling for an end to marriage privileging and for equal rights for all "playing god"? You are free to set up your relationship in whatever primitive, irrational you wish to. I don't see to legislate intelligent behavior. I merely suggest it. But what I protest is religion's continuing creep into the secular venue. If not for religion, why would all the fundanutters be denying two gay people the right to have their union recognized in a way that will grant them the same rights as heteros?
Equal treatment for all is "boring"? It should be. Just as it should be as boring to be homosexual as it is to be heterosexual. Unfortunately, the primitives make a topic for continuing discussion -- and a continuing fight.
Amy Alkon at February 3, 2005 10:23 PM
Richard Bennett writes:
If this is intended to mean that you believe that Amy is imposing her religious beliefs (or lack thereof), I'm not sure how you think she's doing this. Before I make too many wrong assumptions, could you clarify the quoted statement for me?
Patrick, fan of the Advice Goddess at February 3, 2005 10:30 PM
I'm 42 years old and still dating. I don't think I'm capable of (or interested in) a lifelong commitment like marriage. But I do think that I'm capable of learning to love and respect and encourage the goodness in the people who are in my life for whatever amount of time, whether or not we fuck.
I believe that Rilke had something to say about this in his first Duino Elegy. I'm at work right now and remembering the quote off the top of my head. I think it went something like this:
"Isn't it time that, in love, we freed ourselves from the loved one and, trembling, endured, as the arrow endures the string, collecting itself to be more than itself as it shoots? For there is no remaining, no place to stay."
Sad but true, yes?
Lena Cuisina, a pimply fat 16-year-old homo with a penchant for libraries at February 3, 2005 10:53 PM
I have to agree with Amy on her points, but most especially this one:
*We live a lie in this country -- that one person will remain sexually interesting to another for a lifetime.*
My attention span is appallingly short, much to the chagrin of my partners.
Having been married for seven years (1987-1994), and miserable for that time (while my husband was extremely content and oblivious to my unhappiness), then promptly moving in with my boyfriend (1995-2002) I can't see myself EVER giving myself away like that again. To what end? After 15 years of serial monogamy, leaving those relationships preserved my sanity and now, being alone, I am happier than I have ever been in my life.
I think that some people don't just want but need partners/relationships in their lives. And while to me the concept is archaic, I have spoken to a lot of men who want a woman to take care of them (clean their house; have their children; do their dishes; cook for them).... EW EW EW! To borrow a phrase from Weird Al: I'd rather have my intestines removed with a shrimp fork.
Wow, this entire diatribe was one big digression. Sorry about that, folks.
Goddyss at February 3, 2005 11:26 PM
But it wasn't a digression at all. To me, it seems wise to pay somebody to do all that stuff, then just share the fun stuff with the person you love. The idea that love means sharing the crappy times. Well, if you love somebody, you'll stick around, sure. But if you're able to pawn off the crap on somebody you don't love, whom you merely hire...oh, joy. My dream is to rent a mother, a la Mrs. Cleaver, to pick up after me, make me meals, clean the house, then disappear "the clapper"-style, with two claps of my hands. (I guess it would be easier if I just dreamed of a diamond.)
Amy Alkon at February 4, 2005 12:19 AM
Richard, France has the PACs, which allows gays and straights to register their partnerships and get the same rights as married people.
Yup, just like California, where domestic partnerships under the Jackie Goldberg law are indistinguishable from marriage, but gay marriage is nominally banned. Exactly the same situation, but America is overrun with ignorance and France is all enlightened and sophisticated.
Every civilized nation on earth gives marriage a special status over screwing around, for reasons not so much religious as biological: marriage is about children, and children are about the species continuing (and yes, there is no children test for marriage, but they're part of the general idea, duh.)
There's an exciting new field of science called evolutionary psychology that explains such phenomena, you might want to pick up an easy-reading guide on it.
While you obviously enjoy bashing religion, as do your readers, it's a bit of an oversimplification to blame everything you don't like about your human condition on it, esp. while you hold up France as a reasonable pretext for consuming more than your fair share of fossil fuels on your frequent visits; did you know that the French govenment supports religious schools? There's no formal separation of church and state in that paradise, much to your chagrin I'm sure.
What's boring is the day-in, day-out bashing of religion. I'm atheist myself but I find your blog so predictable I've stopped reading more than about once a month.
Richard Bennett at February 4, 2005 12:48 AM
At the risk of being reeeally controversial...I'm afraid I don't approve of a man marrying his goat.
There. I said it.
And yet I'm totally fine with a guy decapitating a goat and eating it. Go figure.
Regarding relationships: My grandparents say they're happier together than they've ever been after 60 years of marriage. Had societal rules been more lax when they were younger, I don't know if they'd have made it to ten years. But they rode out the bad times and made it through to even better ones. I think too many people expect the bliss of initial attraction to last forever, and it doesn't...but something even stronger can grow if you're prepared to work a little at it, and if you both really want it.
Delayed gratification is a concept few people get nowadays, though.
LYT at February 4, 2005 2:01 AM
Well said LYT.
Coming up on 20 years of being married, my theory is the problem with marriage is it demands you to be a certain person 100% of the time.
The hardest part is when everyone else begins to know you better than you know yourself, since they know you based upon what you have been, and you know nothing of yourself, because you know less and less of what you could be.
I don't think anyone should be married or single 100%. A good range is more like 80%-20%, to be determined upon your own personal needs. Of course my wife tends to disagree with me on this theory.
unk at February 4, 2005 2:10 AM
Vomit, vomit. Finger down my throat, no wait, that's not my finger! It's Bush's ideology. He makes me sick; he scares me. Marriage IS a religious concept and therefore government should keeps it's snotty little nose the hell out of it.
Diana Connolly at February 4, 2005 4:45 AM
"no wait, that's not my finger!"
Well, then whose finger is it, Diana? I know, I know. It can be hard to keep track of such things, especially after a few drinks.
Lena "Russian Hands, Roman Fingers" Cuisina at February 4, 2005 7:43 AM
This is in response to Richard's post -- with the reference to the nasty Jackie Goldberg at the top. The names seem to have disappeared from my comments. Sorry -- Gregg is in the middle of fixing this. We should have the problems ironed out in the next few days.
Richard, about everything you say is wrong. I don't know whether the French give some money to religious schools (perhaps for the secular part of their education), but you are not exactly a beacon of accuracy. A number nations in Europe have partnership agreements like the PACs; Denmark and the Netherlands are among them, I believe. What's novel about France is that they have a way for people like me, who do not believe in the religiously based lifelong marriage, to grant each other rights (hospital visitation, inheiritance, etc.) Moreoever, in France there's a principle of Laique -- secularism. That's why there are no headscarves permitted in public schools. They do lots of dumb stuff in France -- but when they do stuff right, why not acknowledge it? There is no official recognition, legally, of gay marriage or any kind of marriage in California. Do they have crews employed by the state to help you pull your head out of your ass? I hope so, because it seems...well...well planted. If you don't like my blog, don't come. Until there's an end to primitivism in this country, I plan to continue grousing about it.
Amy Alkon at February 4, 2005 8:56 AM
Richard, about everything you say is wrong.
Prove it, starting with the Jackie Goldberg domestic partners law. Since I can't expect you to actually be informed on any of the stuff you whine about, I'll tell you where you can read a summary of the law: http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/7139215.htm
You can also look up the complete text of the law at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/03-04/bill/asm/ab_0201-0250/ab_205_bill_20030922_chaptered.html
It also applies to people like you. OK, now you can't play dumb about this issue any more.
Head scarves are nice symbolism, but if you knew the first thing about Europe you'd be aware that in virtually all EU countries, religious schools are government funded or subsidized, and in some - the UK for one - there's an official church the head of which is chosen from a pool of candidates selected by the Prime Minister. The anti-establishment clause is unique to the United States, apparently another sign of our backwardness.
Your grousing would be a lot more persuasive if you were better read than your dog.
Richard Bennett at February 4, 2005 10:46 AM
Richard posted
"while you hold up France as a reasonable pretext for consuming more than your fair share of fossil fuels on your frequent visits"
This has been said a number of times. I think it's time to add some facts to the mix. On a full 747, the fuel consumed per passenger on a round trip from LA to Paris is about 120 gallons.
Ron at February 4, 2005 4:13 PM
Here's a relevant portion of Goldberg's AB 205, the law of the land in California:
This bill would enact the California Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003. The bill would modify the procedure and the accompanying form for terminating domestic partnerships, and require additional duties of the Secretary of State in relation, as specified. The bill would also revise the requirements for entering into a domestic partnership to require each person to consent to the jurisdiction of the superior courts of this state for the purpose of
a proceeding to obtain a judgment of dissolution or nullity of the domestic partnership. The bill would revise the provision described above making it a misdemeanor to violate the provision specifying the requirements for completing the form necessary to create a domestic partnership. The bill would instead specifically provide that filing an intentionally and materially false Declaration of Domestic Partnership would be punishable as a misdemeanor, thereby creating a
new crime. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would extend the rights and duties of marriage to persons registered as domestic partners on and after January 1, 2005.
According to Amy, this law doesn't exist.
Richard Bennett at February 4, 2005 10:16 PM
"To me, it seems wise to pay somebody to do all that stuff, then just share the fun stuff with the person you love."
Seems wise to me, too, Amy, but these men that I'm talking about seem to be seeking a mother/lover... a literal Oedipal complex. :shudder: Apparently they don't want to pay someone to do something they can get their wife/girlfriend/s.o. to do, which makes them, to put it bluntly, either lazy or cheap: and neither characteristic is particularly attractive. I'm glad to pay my own way, particularly since I supported my ex-husband for the last year and a half of our marriage, and supported my ex-boyfriend on and off for the last three years of our relationship as well. What's up with that? Do I have SUGAR MAMA in neon hanging over my head? Or did the sign at that time simply read: SHIT ON ME!! PLEASE!
Well, no more. I clean up after myself; pay my own bills; and use my own damn battery operated boyfriend. Boys are fun as long as you don't have to pay their way in addition to your own.
:cheeky grin:
Goddyss at February 4, 2005 11:17 PM
Do I have SUGAR MAMA in neon hanging over my head?
It's interesting that most of the people with a strong antipathy for marriage have a history of dating losers. For y'all, your attitude makes sense, but most of us don't have your issues, or your arrogance.
The Freudian term you're looking for is "Compensation Reaction", chickie.
Richard Bennett at February 5, 2005 12:59 AM
Amy, you said it all. He's a man without a concept of much of anything.
Sheryl at February 6, 2005 3:40 AM
"According to Amy, this law doesn't exist."
According to your own link and text, this bill wasn't actually passed when you cited it. Hm?
Radwaste at April 26, 2011 7:38 PM
Leave a comment