Tag Archives: marriage equality

When You Say “Weakens The Institution of Marriage,” You Sound Like An Idiot


I don’t have a lot of patience for stupidity (perhaps you’ve noticed) so I have no quarter for the phrase “weakens the institution of marriage.” WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? In what specific ways will the INSTITUTION of marriage change when we have marriage equality? What specific weakness do you see in, say, Iowa that you don’t see in Alabama? How is marriage “weaker” in New York (third lowest divorce rate in the nation) than it is in Oklahoma (third highest)? YOU DON’T EVEN KNOW, so stop pretending that that phrase has any meaning whatsoever.

In discussions of marriage equality, “the institution of marriage” is a phrase that specifically refers to the ability of two consenting adults to enter into a legally-binding contract. The law has nothing to do with any church or religion anywhere. You can get “married” in every church, synagogue, mosque, and mandir in the nation, but unless you’ve been issued and then subsequently properly file a marriage license with your county, you are not legally married. “The institution of marriage” is ONLY a civil matter AS COVERED BY THE LAW, and the law is what we’re discussing here, not any religious doctrine.

So “the institution of marriage” is, essentially, two people signing a form and paying $50 to a county clerk who then gives those two people a different form, which those two people fill out later along with two witnesses and any rando licensed specifically for that purpose. The two people are considered “married” when that form is properly filed with the county and entered into the, I don’t know, googledoc or excel spreadsheet or whatever they use now to track these things.

How, specifically, does gender weaken that? Would issuing licenses to two women make the spreadsheet unresponsive? Would issuing licenses to two men make the paper more liable to tear? Are there only so many marriage licenses in the nation, and if TEH GAYS take them all, there will be none left for straight people? Where, specifically, does equality affect this process? SHOW ME WHERE. You can’t, because it’s a bullshit argument, and you KNOW IT. Where, specifically, is the “weakness” created by equality? Nowhere.

Out to destroy the institution of marriage through the twin powers of love and facial hair.

Out to destroy the institution of marriage through the twin powers of love and epic facial hair.

“No, I mean when they’re living married in the world and say they’re married and live together and get to file jointly and drop their kids off at school and we all just have to TAKE IT because they’re CRAMMING THEIR LIFESTYLE DOWN OUR THROATS so when THEY can be married instead of just US, it weakens the institution of marriage.” OK, first of all, no one is shoving anything down your throat just by existing. Secondly, you have no idea who is or is not legally married unless you’ve gone down to the courthouse and checked those records for yourself. The couple last weekend whose wedding you attended aren’t married if they burned the license instead of filing it (so you might want to check before you pay off the crystal decanter you put on the card).

Was this even on the registry?

Was this even on the registry?

Same sex couples exist and have always existed and will continue to exist both inside and outside the “institution of marriage.” Your experience of anyone’s relationship (including your own) is not in the least impacted by the existence of a legal contract, something you take their word for 9999 times out of 10,000 at any rate. When’s the last time you asked to see someone’s marriage license when they told you they were married? Whether that lesbian couple you see at preschool dropoff every morning is legally married or not makes no practical difference to you. You have no way of knowing what their legal status even IS without reviewing their documents. Their legal standing with each other is not visible to you, or experienced by you. Their legal standing with each other, therefore, cannot “weaken” anything for you.

Equality is what America is FOR. The purpose of the “land of the free” and “all men are created equal” is, you know, “freedom” and “equality.” You DON’T have the right to the “freedom” of living without LGBTs. First of all, IMPOSSIBLE (Your brother’s roommate is his boyfriend; your maiden aunt who’s lived with her “dear best friend” for 47 years is a lesbian; your pediatrician, five co-workers on your floor, and your personal trainer are all gay; your boss’s husband is transgender) and secondly, THIS:

The fact that you don’t WANT a certain group to have equal rights, for whatever reason, is not germane to this discussion. Your opinion about what impacts “the strength of the institution of marriage” is not germane to this discussion.

Nor is it Jermaine to this discussion.

Nor is it Jermaine to this discussion.

Nowhere in the constitution does it “define” marriage as “one man, one woman.” Shit, it doesn’t even do that in the BIBLE. Ask Abraham, Jacob, and David about “one man, one woman.”

I'm not even getting into Lot and his daughters. YOU'RE WELCOME. (Painting by Joachim Wtewael, 1595, entitled "Lot and his Daughters."

I’m not even getting into Lot and his daughters. YOU’RE WELCOME. (Painting by Joachim Wtewael, 1595, entitled “Lot and his Daughters.”)

Your OPINION about what rights a minority group should have, and whether that group should have rights equal to your own, is just not constitutionally relevant. It wasn’t for Loving v. Virginia, and it’s not for this.

There are well over 100,000 same sex couples in the US who are already married. If the “institution” of marriage were to “weaken” (and I still believe that YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT THAT EVEN MEANS WHEN YOU SAY IT) it would have happened long ago.

These two look particularly dangerous.

These two look particularly dangerous.

Stop pretending that marriage equality will have any effect on your life whatsoever. We all know you’re lying, you know you’re lying, and we know you know you’re lying. Now you know we know you know you’re lying.


Tagged ,