Defend the Sanctity of marriage!

[Steerpike_Denver]

Conservatives love to piously insist that their opposition to same-sex marriage is motivated by a desire to "defend the sanctity of marriage". Well, everyone on this board sees this for the transparent canard that it is. If my best friend Stan is ever finally allowed to legally marry his lifelong partner, Darren, there is no way this will have any affect on my marriage to mine, Nancy. To suggest that recognizing the union of two men, or two women, will somehow undermine the stability of traditional marriages is ludicrous.

However, there is a common practice that absolutely does threaten all marriages: prenuptial agreements. When a man (usually) insists on an agreement in advance stipulating the future division of "his" property in the event the marriage doesn't work out, he is effectively putting an asterisk after every line of the wedding vows, and making the failure of the marriage far more likely.

To be honest, the availability of divorce itself is a threat to every marriage. Just knowing that a marriage can be terminated at any time, relatively easily, and that society attaches no stigma to the fact, makes any couple who is facing a rocky patch more likely to bail out, rather than take the more difficult steps to heal their relationship and continue together. O course, no one should advocate for the abolition of divorce. Too many women (usually) would end up trapped in abusive or loveless relationships, and we as liberals should never promote an agenda that punishes youthful mistakes and prevents people from a second chance at happiness, just because they made a mistake in choosing a life-partner.

But prenuptial agreements, by their very nature, make a travesty of the institution of marriage. My version of a true Defense Of Marriage Act would specify that a husband and wife's fortunes will be combined into a single, indivisible whole, period. What the husband owns, the wife owns equally, regardless of what assets either held before the marriage. In the unfortunate event that the marriage ends in divorce, all assets must be split evenly. Obviously there would have to be arrangements for child support, or cases where one spouse would need additional consideration if unable to work, but the presumption would be an even split of all assets owned by either party--no exceptions.

How many of these oh-so-holy homophobes have trophy wives, who will be left with nothing but the clothes on their backs when their hair turns gray, their tits start to sag and they don't look so great on the arms of their successful husbands? Why should we, as a society, be forced to recognize these travesties as true marriages? No, if you're afraid the new bimbo you've got your eye on is just after your money, well then, don't marry her. Standing at the altar saying, "for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, 'til death do us part", with your fingers crossed behind your back is an abomination, and should not be recognized by anyone as a true marriage. When divorce is treated as a foregone conclusion, or even a likely outcome, it cheapens and dilutes the vows the rest of us are expected to take seriously.

[TlalocW]

1. My oldest niece (5 years younger than I)

Is one of the few people I know who gets a disgusted scowl on her face when talking about homosexuals, and I gall her to no end when she starts talking about the sanctity of marriage.

Her argument: Homosexuality is against God
Mine: The laws of the land don't just apply to Christians, and in fact, are strictly prohibited from doing so. Besides, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. are all technically against "your God." Should we stop them from getting married?

Her argument: Homosexual marriages will devalue all "normal" marriages.
Mine: Your marriage must be awfully weak if someone else's actions can have that great of an effect on it.

Her argument: We'd be changing years of tradition.
Mine: If years of tradition hadn't been changed, you wouldn't have been able to marry your first husband (who was Black). In fact, now that I bring him up, divorce in the Bible is the same as being unfaithful, so if you're going to get on other people for devaluing marriage, you should start with yourself first.

Her argument: I'll pray for you.
Mine: Thanks, that means I win.

TlalocW

[Steerpike_Denver]

8. Shorter Niece:

Homos are icky! I don't want to have to accept them!

Shorter you:
Your rationalizations don't make sense.

Shorter Niece (with fingers in ears, singing):
La la la! I'm not listening!

[1awake]

2. oh my....

I sincerely hope that your version of Defense of marriage act gets no where near the books. But it would stop divorces.. because very few would ever get married. I have three kids I raise by myself.. no way in hell I'd get married again and risk taking things from them to give to someone else, sorry.

[Steerpike_Denver]

6. Really? You think few people would get married?

Wow. If your idea of getting married means nothing more than risking what you have now, then you absolutely should not ever get married.

[1awake]

10. no,

but I do tend to think of more than myself, such as my children. Sometimes, your not the most important consideration. You obviously do not have any.

[Steerpike_Denver]

16. I don't have any--what? consideration?

I've been married to the same woman for 13 years, and have no intention of ever divorcing. We have three children, who are, in Michelle Obama's memorable phrase, "the heart of my heart". When my wife and I were married, I was in somewhat better shape financially than she, but it would never have occurred to me to preemptively withhold anything of mine from her "just in case". If the worst happened, and we absolutely could not salvage our relationship, everything we have now would be divided equitably, including making arrangements for the future of our kids.

So please, explain to me: how would the existence of a prenuptial agreement improve this situation?

[1awake]

17. depends on what value you place on yourself,

your.. significant other, and your children. I place the value of my children's future above that of myself and any person I may be with. To each their own.

So please, explain to me: how would the existence of a prenuptial agreement improve this situation?


Where in any of my posts did I ever say prenuptials improve anything? I have yet to even discuss them at all. All I said was I did not like your version of what a defense of marriage act should look like.

When I said "You obviously don't have any".. I was referring to children, because the things you said sounds like they are coming from someone who has none, no offense was intended.

[Steerpike_Denver]

18. Re-read the OP

My entire point was that prenuptial agreements are an abomination and a travesty of the concept of marriage. I make the point to contrast with the rabid homophobia and religious intolerance that hides behind a mask of "defending the sanctity of marriage".

By the way, I do have children, three of them, thank you very much, and as I stated in my original post, their well-being would be the most important consideration if, FSM forbid, my marriage were to fail. NOT "protecting" my assets from my spouse!

[1awake]

19. ok, whatever you say but your very Naive

I have three children as well. No, I never used a prenup. Not sure I ever would, though, their mother did try and steel their college funds and spend it on her and her new boyfriend right after she left me and the boys for a new life of excitement. I've been a single father of three ever since so yea.. in a perfect world I'm with you.. but our world is far from perfect. I am glad you have been married for so long and seem to be very happy together. I meant no offense above, but you seem to think if someone doesnt agree with you, their out to screw over their spouse or something due to personal greed. Everytime I say I want to protect my children's future, you seem to take out the word "children" and put in it's place the word "my".

[msongs]

3. adulterer = John McCain lol nt

[RB TexLa]

4. I only have to defend my marriage, no one else's is any of my business

Mine is pretty simple, one time for life.

[Poseidan]

5. marriage should not be legal (or illegal)

The fact you even discuss legalized marriage is a victory for Christian traitors. Their entire strategy is to push their religion into government. Abortion and marriage are their two main focal points. The purpose? Breach the separation of church and state. Usurpation, if you're familiar with the word.

[Steerpike_Denver]

7. I disagree.

You have to distinguish religious marriage and civil contract. It is completely irrelevant whether any church "recognizes" my marriage, or Stan's or anyone else's, unless you happen to be a member of that church. Civil marriage, on the other hand, is a very important contract with a long list of legal and financial benefits, which are granted by the state because society recognizes the advantage of stable family relationships. If you are arguing that there should be no such thing as marriage (or the broader term, "civil union"), I think your opinion would be in a distict minority. Abolishing the institution of marriage would be far more radical than extending that benfit to same-sex couples. Every society on Earth, and every one in history, as far I know has recognized the importance of marriages and families. Are you saying there's no such thing as a family? That's what it sounds like.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

9. Count me in with Poseidan! n/t

[Unvanguard]

11. Marriage is not a religious concept.

Religions talk about it, but they talk about everything else, too.

Talking about removing marriage from government, on the other hand, is a victory for the Christian Right, because it suggests that they do in fact own the concept. We should take it back--civil marriage belongs to all of us, and we should use it to affirm our commitment to equality and freedom.

[Liberalatus]

12. Sorry, this is a terrible idea

No one can guarantee a person will never change, even so much that the differences are irreconcilable. That is not doubting a person's character, but recognition of reality. There is no logical sense to asserting that a woman (or man) has any right to any of the assets I worked for and acquired on my own before we met and were wed. Not to mention how emotionally vulnerable a person is when they are "in love". There are men and women who seek to take advantage of people in this vulnerable state, purely for financial gain, and their partner never sees it coming. A prenup is protection. And in my opinion, if a woman, or man, will not sign a prenup, that makes me wonder if they have ulterior motives. It makes me think, "What kind of woman thinks that if the worst happens, she should be entitled to anything I owned before we became a union? And what kind of woman is so far from reality that she is unwilling to concede that no longer wanting to be with each other is a possibility, and we may be helpless to prevent it?"

This coming from a guy who has been married since 18. I've been separated twice from my wife, even left TN and moved to CA for a short while, and has been happily re-united, but still cannot bring myself to say things were bad enough to justify a divorce. No prenuptual, but nothing to lose either.

[Steerpike_Denver]

14. "Ulterior motives?"

And in my opinion, if a woman, or man, will not sign a prenup, that makes me wonder if they have ulterior motives.

I would turn this around and suggest that any man or woman who refuses to get married without a prenup should have his or her motives questioned. If you're not committed to sharing your fortunes as well as misfortunes, there should not be a "safety valve." What you have then is not a marriage; it's a different kind of contractual arrangement, and should not be given the benefits society confers on truly committed partnerships.

[TexasObserver]

13. Notice that they never suggest banning divorce to protect the sanctity of marriage.

[Steerpike_Denver]

15. Exactly my point!

It isn't about protecting marriage, it's about justifying their prejudices.

[1awake]

20. agreed n/t

[pokerfan]

21. I believe that marriage is a sacred institution

that should be imposed on unwilling teenagers