Wednesday, December 30, 2009

The Sanctity of Marriage: Rove Edition

Just a reminder folks, gays and lesbians are a threat to tradition marriage. Far be it for me to gloat, but the next time some knee-jerk neo-con runs around yelling that the sky is going to fall if "teh gays" are allowed to marry, let them put this in their pipe and smoke it:

Karl Rove granted divorce in Texas

So much for the sanctity of marriage.


lacochran said...

Can I blame you for the failure of my first marriage? You know, even though I didn't know you at the time and I married an asshat?

Seems reasonable.

NG said...

All I can say is: hooray for Karl Rove's wife.

NG said...

In a related story: Darby Rove Gets a Clue

Cele said...

I have yet to figure out how one marriage underminds another - maybe this is another attempt to deflect responsiblity for failed marriages off on someone else?

Anonymous said...

With his usual knack for power over the media, Rove managed to the PR to paint his divorce as a positive; the couple's "strong friendship" was emphasized more than anything else.

Pretty slick for a guy who has made a living orchestrating smear campaigns against anyone who stood in his way.


J.M. Tewkesbury said...

LA: Sure. Everyone else is doing it, you might as well, too.

Angie: Amen for Rove's wife; smart woman! Love the alternate headline. Darn. Wish I'd thought of it for my blog entry.

Cele: I don't know either. Given the track record of heterosexuals, I don't think GLBT'ers can do any worse (or better.)

Phoebe: Wasn't that great? Let's talk about what good friends we're going to be and then it won't be so bad and we can still say The Gays are a threat to traditional marriage.

restaurant refugee said...

As a man who has suffered through a divorce, both as a child and a participant, I am normally disquieted by celebrations of a marriage's dissolution. This occasion is a notable exception.

Janet M Kincaid said...

RR: I concur. Delighting in the demise of a marriage is an ignoble pursuit. Occasionally, however, there are exceptions. This is surely one of them!

Rob said...

As we heterosexuals say, the best way to ruin a sex life is to get married. ;)

But I digress. You know my stance on issues of personal relationships and government meddling. This issue, (and so many other issues), is a state issue; not the federal government's concern. Let the states decide which is best for themselves.

Yet, this business of marriage is of no concern of the state either. It is the business of the church and desiring to be wed couple. Why do we need a license to get married? i never understood this, except for the state to soak the happy newlyweds for yet another tax.

Somehow way back when, in the name of political party fellowship and the desire for big government, we gave up many of our citizenry rights and laid siege to our Constitution.

Janet M Kincaid said...

Rob: Well, I don't know that I agree with you about marriage not being the business of the state. Then again, I'm not sure it's the business of the church, either. Marriage was always about ownership and property rights, so it was a function of the state. The church got involved (and I'm talking about the Holy Roman Catholic Church here), when it realized marriage could be a money maker and a salvation granter.

Here's what I think should happen: The state/government should issue marriage licenses to any two persons--gay or straight,--who wish to marry. The same couple should then be married in a courthouse by a justice of the peace. This allows the couple to then take advantage of civil and tax rights currently only afforded to legally married, heterosexual couples. (In some states, het couples who live together long enough to be considered common law partners aren't allowed benefits because they lack a piece of paper saying "Just Married". Ergo, the laws can wrongfully weigh against straight people, too.)

Then, if a couple--gay or straight--wishes to have their marriage blessed, sanctified, consecrated, sealed, whatever, they can go to their respective place of worship and arrange for a marriage that is recognized and blessed by the church.

This still keeps marriage within the bounds of the "church" and its belief that marriage is a sacrament necessary for salvation, but the church out of transacting the business of the "state".

Two bottom lines here: First, the Europeans do it like this and it makes sense and works. Second, marriage in the U.S. is a violation of the separation clause of the Constitution So, technically speaking, marriage in the U.S. is illegal and should be stricken.

I certainly agree that less government is better, but in this case, as the saying goes, "there oughta be a law."

foundinidaho said...


Pirate Aggro said...

Rove and his ilk are hypocrites. Their power springs from it.