Doug Mainwaring says its a mockery of marriage -- what do you think?
Here is what Rep. Frank and his partner vowed:
“Do you promise to love each other and be each other’s best friend,
In sickness and in health,
In Congress or in retirement,
Whether the surf is up or the surf’s flat,
For richer or for poorer,
Under the Democrats or the Republicans,
Whether the slopes are powdery or icy,
Whether the book reviews are good or bad,
For better or for worse,
On MSNBC or on Fox,
For as long as you both shall live?”
21 Comments
Aren't the marriage ceremonies that take place in a hot air balloon, under water with scuba gear, sky diving, with an elivs impersonator, or britney spears's 55 hour wedding real mockeries?
OMG NOM, Take this down right now!!!
This is a complete and utter invasion of privacy- you should not be publishing the intimate vows of any couple!!!!
This is low and im beginning to wonder if NOM have any ethics at all, as day by day, they seem to surrender them in the quest to ban SS"M"
OMG NOM, Take this down right now!!
This is a complete and utter invasion of privacy- you should not be publishing the intimate vows of any couple!!!!
This is low and im beginning to wonder if NOM have any ethics at all, as day by day, they seem to surrender them in the quest to ban SS"M"
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor Thursday urged his party, and the nation, to guard against intolerance on issues ranging from gay marriage to the role of Muslims in the government, arguing the country’s diversity of opinion and acceptance are part of America’s basic fabric.
So am I right to interpret this post as implying that any vows not approved by NOM are a mockery?
Mind your own business. Or be intellectually honest and talk about heterosexism couples who write their own vows.
NOM: we expect your marriage to conform to our gender expectation *and* you must recite NOM approved vows.
So many people are in love with the idea of getting married, but not so much about being married. If they worked as hard on their marriage as they did on making up clever "vows," they might have a chance of staying together.
If you're going to make jokes such as "surfs up, surfs down," then you're also joking about the "for as long as you both shall live" part. It's also self-serving, look-at-me nonsense.
dn -
Marriage is a public pledge; as such, it's society's business. That's why it's done in public. But I don't disagree that this is not merely a homosexual issue.
Overcame, obviously your vows were much better, so much more meaningful, and a lot less clever than theirs. Good for you!
Overcame, "not merely" ?
How about "not all".
There is no problem with these private vows. What a crock of nonsense (this stupid post). For shame that someone should enjoy a moment of levity during their ceramony.
Ohmy -
My vows were "standard" ones; we all know them, and that helps us to remember them and apply them during the marriage. Voes are not about "meaning;" they're about commitment.
But this is the problem that ss"m" perpetuates: it says that marriage is whatever the parties deem it to be; which means it is nothing or anything. And thus, marriage is effectively destroyed, remaining but a mere label that has nothing associated with it.
Their vows could've been said by siblings, a group, or a parent and child. Why does their union get preferential treatment over the other groups/couples I mentioned?
>>House Majority Leader Eric Cantor Thursday urged his party, and the nation, to guard against intolerance on issues ranging from gay marriage to the role of Muslims in the government, arguing the country’s diversity of opinion and acceptance are part of America’s basic fabric.
Anyone "arguing the country’s diversity of opinion and acceptance are part of America’s basic fabric" should have no problem with those who have a differing opinion on ssm. And yet look at how many appear on this board wishing to squelch the contrary opinion. And some even resort to name-calling and worse. Pot...kettle...black.
Dan -
Tolerance of homosexuals is different from tolerance of so-called ss"m," the latter of which has potentially huge ramifications for the survival of society and its children.
We tolerate people who treat their dogs like people. Should we also not tolerate people who want to "marry" their dogs?
It's not a mockery of marriage, for its not a marriage.
Its simply a mockery of gays. The joke's on them.
But nobody's laughing....
Shane Mahaffy:
Mr. Cantor of Virginia does not speak for all Republicans — he certainly does not speak for me. "Big Tent Republicanism" is a foolish tactic that will result in the dilution of authentic Republican principle, causing the Lincoln Chafees of this country to proliferate.
Bawney Fwank makes a mockery of himself everytime he opens that claptrap of his.
As with the Rev. White thread, I have to say I love the picture chosen for this one, lol.
It's a great commitment to two individuals that love each other and are pledging their lives together. It is also a Valid MARRIAGE in the eyes of the State where they live. As valid as any other marriage that occurs.
Denver, hypothetically speaking, couldn't 3 people (or more) make a life-long commitment to each other, or siblings, or a parent and child? Why aren't those loving, committed relationships categorized as marriages? I.E., what defines a marriage relationship as distinct from non-marriage relationships?
Just wondering. If these vows were spoken by a straight couple comparable to this one, would it even have made this blog?
@denver
Barney Frank has both money and power, no young person would marry him unless he had those two.
Its the only reason why hugh heffner has any girlfriends.