Skip to main content

View Diary: Pennsylvania judge halts same-sex marriage licenses (62 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the law? (0+ / 0-)

    The law is often applied in very sporadic ways and what we are seeing is an extremely narrow view applied to gay marriage that has not been applied to gay marriage for a very long time

    For instance in the mid 40's Ronald Reagan was accused of what was essentially psychological battery by his then wife. It has been reported that she felt that his new found focus on community organizing lead to him changing.  He was essentially found guilty of such in the divorce, and was ordered to pay child support.  

    A few years later in the early 50's he married another women.  Now, from a christian point of view, at the time, most mainstream churches were ok with marrying the victim in a divorce, but no the culprit, and it is a fact that divorce at the time required a victim and a culprit.  But he did find a church to marry him to his mistress, and I believe that church now perform same sex ceremonies.

    The up and down, from the christian and community point of view when they got married, she continued to be his mistress, because, of course, marriage is between one man and one women, and divorce may only be granted for adultery.  If we take the view that some want to take with gay marriage, then the taxpayers funded Reagan to support his mistress in the white house, carry her on international jaunts, and pay for over 15 years of protection after he left office.  Makes the Clinton situation seem kind of harmless.

    As we all know in 1970 Reagan basically destroyed the sacrament of marriage by allowing no fault divorce.  Now marriage was no longer between one man and one woman, but as many as one wanted.  You could marry one person for a few days, then another, and then another.  Who cares, divorce is easy!  Like Reagan and his two wive, we have two women married.  From a christian point of view what is the difference?

    So when someone starts quoting laws or standards, I say WTF.  The law, or common standards, did not stop Reagan or the people who elected him.  It did not stop his mistress from enjoying the taxpayer largess.

    •  I don't see the failure of the law (0+ / 0-)

      to be impartially applied in one case justifying continued failure to do so. That way lies madness.

      "Much of movement conservatism is a con and the base is the marks." -- Chris Hayes

      by raptavio on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 03:13:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  few things: (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      marina

      1. Nancy Reagan was his wife, not his mistress. they were legally married. let's grow up.
      2. the "christian" view (and this version is narrow and not even close to universal) is irrelevant here in what should and should not be legal.
      3. divorce destroyed nothing. people who marry and then end up hating each other should not torture each other and stay that way.

      lastly

      As we all know in 1970 Reagan basically destroyed the sacrament of marriage by allowing no fault divorce.  Now marriage was no longer between one man and one woman, but as many as one wanted.  You could marry one person for a few days, then another, and then another.  Who cares, divorce is easy!  Like Reagan and his two wive, we have two women married.  From a christian point of view what is the difference?
      was this paragraph snark?

      Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex.

      by terrypinder on Thu Sep 12, 2013 at 04:20:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  what? (0+ / 0-)

        Yes, the Reagans were legally married, just like so many gay couples are legally married.  Yet so many want to deny the benifits of legally married couples to gays.  Why should I not call her his mistress?  Being legally married doesn't seem to mean anything.

        You say that the christian point of view does not mean anything, but you criticize me for calling her his mistress because they were legally married.  Again, there are a lot of couples out there that are legally married that are being denied the full benefits of being legally married.  The only reason that this is happening is the christian point of view, a point of view that not so long ago would characterize here as a mistress, not a wife.  In some countries that take Christianity a bit more seriously than we do this is still the case.

        And these people think that gay marriage is going to destroy marriage, but voted for Reagan.  When is marriage going to be destroyed.  It has, or it will, or it won't.  There is no snark, just the hypocrisy and self serving relative morality that is the basis of most modern christian thought.

        •  being legally married means almost (0+ / 0-)

          1200 things, actually. it's not just a couple of words.

          I know of not one single Christian of any age who would refer to a man's second wife as his mistress. I even looked in some history books, considering that throughout history, men frequently have remarried for lots of reasons. The next wife is always called wife, even in the prudish Victorian age.

          now people in my grandparents' generation might have clucked their tongues but that would have been about it.

          Perhaps this was something unique to your community?

          Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility- mperiousRex.

          by terrypinder on Fri Sep 13, 2013 at 10:59:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site