Posts tagged ‘GLBT’

July 11, 2011

Slamming the Family Leader Pledge

by thefulllidvmg

Gary Johnson does just that:

“This ‘pledge’ is nothing short of a promise to discriminate against everyone who makes a personal choice that doesn’t fit into a particular definition of ‘virtue,’” reads a statement from Johnson’s office, which is accompained by a video: 

June 30, 2011

Pride and Prejudice: Reflecting on New York’s Marriage Law (Part 3)

by thefulllidvmg

I want to focus on three pragmatic issue points regarding same-sex marriage. They may span the general topic of same-sex marriage or something specific to New York.

  1. “Same-sex marriage is doing a big no no: it is redefining traditional marriage”. This message has cropped up across the anti-same sex marriage spectrum, from Pat Robertson on the 700 club to intellectuals at the NRO. You can’t redefine traditional (American, not Biblical) marriage because it has never been done before in any civilization or nation. To some, America is doomed because we have opened the Pandora box and begun to accepted (and even show love, not bigotry (why do some Christians worship on Sundays their lord of love but flamethrow the other days of the week?) for) same-sex marriage couples and their relationships.

Steven Taylor explains just a smidgen of the falsehood in the claim that marriage has never been redefined before. His piece is worth a full read but I will give you a paragraph or so:

“…the very fact that there were laws forbidding interracial marriage demonstrates the degree to which marriage has been a creature of legislation.  And, as I noted the other day, the involvement of government in marriage is essentially escapable.  So, at least from a legal point of view, marriage hasbeen redefined in living memory.”

Taylor delves into the story of Jacob of the Torah who had an interesting “marriage”. Indeed marriage has evolved since the days of marriages arranged by fathers, bride prices, bigamy, and sanctioned adultery.

2. “Same-sex marriage was legislated by liberal thugs, liberal tyrants, and (insert any other foaming at the mouth ad hominem, non-reality based stereotype)”. These sad canards crop up at the NRO, even to the point of comparing the New York state legislative process to fascist North Korea.
Faith in Public Life has continually brought the cut throat discussions in politics back to where they should be: to a humanized form. Ad hominem stereotypes distort and distract conversations to the point that we are no longer are talking about humans equal to us (and made in the image of God: imago deo) but “the gays”. FIPL provided a few news ads and commentary that helps with the now everpresent topic of same-sex marriage post-New York.

3. “Gays are going to sue religious organizations for discrimination”. This was an issue for the four Republican legislators in New York. Would there be enough protection for churches and organizations that may have objections to serving same-sex weddings or events so that they are not liable for discrimination? In a brief paragraph, yes, those protections are in place:

One of the most striking things about the week-long battle was how much of it hinged on the canard that worked so well for anti-marriage activists in California: If gay marriage is passed, religious organizations will be forced to marry same-sex couples, and businesses that object to homosexuality will be sued for refusing to provide their services at gay weddings. Under current law, religious leaders already can’t be compelled to sanctify a same-sex union, making this bill’s provision a politically motivated redundancy. Whether passing a same-sex marriage law without a religious exemption for businesses makes a difference is a more murky question. City and state nondiscrimination laws might have required businesses to provide their services at gay weddings—a protection the law passed yesterday supersedes. But it’s hard to imagine too many people in the wedding industry turning down money, and which gay couple would want to hire a homophobic organization anyway?

June 30, 2011

Pride and Prejudice: Reflecting on New York’s Marriage Law (Part 2)

by thefulllidvmg

Let’s first take a look at Presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s lamentation over New York (this is almost the most foaming at the mouth pro-family you can get today):

I have long opposed the redefinition and nullification of marriage, the central building block for society. Indeed, as a U.S. senator I co-sponsored the Defense of Marriage Act and the Federal Marriage Amendment. As a citizen, I actively campaigned against the judges in Iowa who ordered gay marriage there.  I also was one of the first to step out and encourage the leadership of the House of Representatives to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court when the president refused to do so. Unlike others in this race, I believe it is the role of the president to weigh in when states try to redefine the meaning of marriage. Marriage is defined in the federal law as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife; any state that redefines marriage is wreaking havoc not only with the definitions of the federal law and the majority of states, but, even more importantly, with the single most important and time-tested institution of every successful society.

My emphasis is made on the last sentence. There is a general lamenation that traditional marriage is fleeting. To some, passing legislation to allow people of different sexual orientations dissolves traditional marriage. But wait, same-sex marriage has been legal in some states for some time now. Why has the family been doing better, not worse, since then? David Frum gives a personal take:

I was a strong opponent of same-sex marriage. Fourteen years ago, Andrew Sullivan and I forcefully debated the issue at length online (at a time when online debate was a brand new thing).

Yet I find myself strangely untroubled by New York state’s vote to authorize same-sex marriage — a vote that probably signals that most of “blue” states will follow within the next 10 years.

I don’t think I’m alone in my reaction either. Most conservatives have reacted with calm — if not outright approval — to New York’s dramatic decision.

Why?

The short answer is that the case against same-sex marriage has been tested against reality. The case has not passed its test.

Since 1997, same-sex marriage has evolved from talk to fact.

If people like me had been right, we should have seen the American family become radically more unstable over the subsequent decade and a half.

Instead — while American family stability has continued to deteriorate — it has deteriorated much more slowly than it did in the 1970s and 1980s before same-sex marriage was ever seriously thought of.

By the numbers, in fact, the 2000s were the least bad decade for American family stability since the fabled 1950s. And when you take a closer look at the American family, the facts have become even tougher for the anti-gay marriage position.

Mataconis sums up Frum’s point:

Indeed. We’ve lived with same-sex marriage, and more generally increasing acceptance of homosexuality, for long enough now to know that the gloom-and-doom preachers were wrong and that the world isn’t going to end just because two women, or two men, go down to City Hall and get a marriage license.

Kathryn Jean Lopez brings up a quote from George Weigel. She ends her post with no comment regarding his quote:

Marriage, as both religious and secular thinkers have acknowledged for millennia, is a social institution that is older than the state and that precedes the state. The task of a just state is to recognize and support this older, prior social institution; it is not to attempt its redefinition. To do the latter involves indulging the totalitarian temptation that lurks within all modern states: the temptation to remanufacture reality. The American civil-rights movement was a call to recognize moral reality; the call for gay marriage is a call to reinvent reality to fit an agenda of personal willfulness. The gay-marriage movement is thus not the heir of the civil-rights movement; it is the heir of Bull Connor and others who tried to impose their false idea of moral reality on others by coercive state power.

A humane society will find ample room in the law for accommodating a variety of human relationships in matters of custodial care, hospital visiting rights, and inheritance. But there is nothing humane about the long march toward the dictatorship of relativism, nor will there be anything humane about the destination of that march, should it be reached. The viciousness visited upon Archbishop Dolan and other defenders of marriage rightly understood during the weeks before the vote in Albany is yet another testimony to the totalitarian impulse that lurks beneath the gay marriage movement.

Because a same-sex marriage is not reality for some heterosexuals does not mean it is not reality for others. You gotta love the comparison of Bull Conor and the use of fire hoses (powerful enough to peel bark off of trees) on African Americans in preventing them to vote to marriage equality (legislatively achieved through many measures, not in totalitarian fashion by a dictator). As Sullivan notes, we live in a republic, not a church. I am left wondering what aspects of life are on the sacrosanct list never to be touched, altered, or changed for the sake of doing something about an ever growing group of humans

(Photo: A young boy waves a flag during the 2011 NYC LGBT Pride March on the streets of Manhattan on June 26, 2011 in New York City. Thousands of revelers had reason to celebrate since New York state legislators approved a bill legalizing same-sex marriage which Governor Cuomo signed in to law on Friday June 24. By Jemal Countess/Getty Images)

June 24, 2011

Push Ups in Albany

by thefulllidvmg

As the New York state legislature wait for the outcome of the same-sex marriage bill, state senators are having push up contests (with improper elbow form).

May 29, 2011

Quote of the Day

by thefulllidvmg

“In the late 1990s, a flurry of books were written about what the Bible says and what the Bible does not say about homosexuality. Outstanding Bible scholars joined the fray. There was a clear winner. The commonly held position today is that the Bible says nothing about same-sex relationships that is relevant to the modern discussion. There are many voices who are still shouting “the Bible says …” but they are seen as irrelevant to our modern discussions of same-sex marriages. They are of the same genre as the recent predictions of the end of the world.

Serious theological discussion has turned to the nature of the marriage relationship rather than the sexual orientation of those who are being bound together. In traditional Protestant wedding ceremonies, the persons presenting themselves for a blessing of their relationships are asked to make promises. They are asked to promise to have and to hold one another from that moment on, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, so long as they both shall live. They are truly joined in marriage when they promise to be faithful in those responsibilities. There is no mention of sexual activity or childbearing. Faithfulness in the keeping of promises is the glue of Christian marriage.

A new discussion of the marriage relationship is a refreshing development. While I am glad to see the demise of legal barriers to gay marriages, and while I am glad to see the growing acceptance of our gay friends in our churches, I am most pleased to see the move to looking at the marriage relationship as an opportunity to experience both human and sacred wholeness.” –Rev. Howard Bess, writing from Wasilla, AK (where Sarah Palin is from)

Enjoy your holiday weekends, yall! Eat some hotdogs and burgers with me :)

May 27, 2011

America’s Moral Acceptance of Same-Sex Marriage

by thefulllidvmg

And this is why many fundamentalists say we are doomed as a country. Money quote:

Americans are somewhat less likely to consider gay or lesbian relations to be morally acceptable than to say they should be legal. However, the 56% who consider gay or lesbian relations morally acceptable is the highest Gallup has measured since this question was first asked in 2001.

May 24, 2011

Same-Sex Marriage: “A Choice, Not a Fate”

by thefulllidvmg

Andrew Sullivan explains like almost no one else can:

It has always seemed chilling to me that gay leftists – when pushed to say what they really believe -  want to keep gays in some sort of glorious, oppressed, marginalized position, until the majority agrees with the gay left’s view of human nature, and revolutionizes straight society as well. This will never happen (and in my view, shouldn’t).

Until then, the gay left focuses on demonizing those gays who argue for those who want to belong to their own families as equals, serve their country or commit to one another for life. In this, in my view, the gay left mirrors the Christianist right: they insist that otherness define the minority, even though most members of that minority are born and grow up in the heart of the American family, in all its variations, and of American culture, in all its permutations. No one should be marginalized for seeking otherness. But we are fighting for it to be a choice, not a fate.

He was responding to this piece:

Nobody is saying gay people have to get married—only that it should be a legal option if they want it. If you disagree with marriage, don’t get married.

This is good for the U.S. to think about because just as there are many nuances and shades in different religious groups (literal factual readers of The Bible vs. metaphorical historical readers of The Bible), there are some in the GLBT fold as well.

May 18, 2011

Anti-Discrimination Quote of the Day

by thefulllidvmg

“First of all, every player has played with gay guys. It bothers me when I hear these reporters and jocks get on TV and say, ‘Oh, no guy can come out in a team sport. These guys would go crazy.’ First of all, quit telling me what I think. I’d rather have a gay guy who can play than a straight guy who can’t play.

Any professional athlete who gets on TV or radio and says he never played with a gay guy is a stone-freakin’ idiot. I would even say the same thing in college. Every college player, every pro player in any sport has probably played with a gay person. … They always try to make it like jocks discriminate against gay people. I’ve been a big proponent of gay marriage for a long time, because as a black person, I can’t be in for any form of discrimination at all,” - Sir Charles Barkley.

Barkley is all over the place but his final point is spot on.

May 14, 2011

“Is T.V. Too Gay?”

by thefulllidvmg

A discussion with Bryan Fischer (of course) since the recent Glee episode that featured two same-sex teen couples. Money quote:

As much as you all (Bryan Fischer (American Family Association and other right wing groups) want to bring 1954 back, you can’t.

May 12, 2011

Is Soujourner’s a Progressive Christian Group?

by thefulllidvmg

I would lean towards saying yes, they are. However, they rejected the above ad.

May 4, 2011

Sexual Orientation as a Gift from God

by thefulllidvmg

Is it? Email me your thoughts: vgiordano at gmail dot com.

Above:

Testifying at yesterday’s hearing on a proposed same-sex marriage ban, Minnesota state Rep. Steve Simon (DFL-Hopkins/St. Louis Park) asked his colleagues to ponder the possibility that God may just be A-OK with gay people. “How many more gay people does God have to create,” Simon inquired, “before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?” 

November 29, 2010

Marriage for Procreation’s Sake

by thefulllidvmg

Here is a long essay mulling over North America’s shifts within the same-sex marriage fight. Although I don’t fully agree with it all, it is a good read and makes me think / form questions.

Should the Catholic church be forced to evolve or rethink its stances via laws against its stances on adoption and same-sex parents?

I appreciate the honesty of the author and his lamentations over fanatics with signs hijacking the evangelical/Christian movement. Here’s a big statement worth quoting:

Worst of all, we have failed to deal honestly with the major threat to marriage and the family: heterosexual adultery and divorce. Evangelicals divorce at the same rate as the rest of the population. Many evangelical leaders have failed to speak against cheap divorce because they and their people were getting divorced just like everyone else. And yet we have had the gall to use the tiny (5 percent or less) gay community as a whipping boy that we labeled as the great threat to marriage.

Here are some other worthy quotes:

The former vice president of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, Ed Dobson, got it right. After he left Liberty to become pastor of Calvary Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, he regularly visited a former parishioner’s hospitalized son who turned out to have AIDS. Slowly, he sensed a call to serve other people with AIDS.

He decided to visit the local AIDS resource center run by the gay community. The director was shocked that the pastor of the largest evangelical church in town would visit. Dobson’s church was soon deeply engaged with the gay community. Calvary placed a church member on the board of the AIDS resource center, bought Christmas gifts for families affected by AIDS, paid for funeral expenses for impoverished people who died of AIDS, and welcomed the gay community to attend the church.

Of course, it was controversial. One church member warned that the church would be “overrun by homosexuals.” Dobson responded in his next Sunday sermon: “If the church gets overrun with homosexuals, that will be terrific. They can take their place in the pews right next to the liars, gossips, and materialists.”

At one point in this essay, I reflected on the topic of “witnessing”. I first knew the phrase as an approach to sharing one’s faith with non-believers (or who we thought were non-believers). I have heard quite a bit before from evangelical circles or individuals that being a good “witness” is important. They were referring to one’s lifestyle and how it may be interpreted by others and especially those outside the church. Christianity is seen by non-church goers as anti-gay (held by 91%) as well within its own pews (held by 80%). That is a witness that is buttressed by the Westboro Baptist Church, wing nut evangelicals, and various other pundits. In the end, the church at large has been branded, as Dobson has noted, as “better at hating than loving”, better at focusing on the differences between other children of God than the similarities, and most notably better at not communicating, listening, or learning others stories (the grey areas – everything is not black and white).

Finally to the procreation point:

But everything depends on the definition. If marriage is not about bringing up children, but about how adults solemnize their emotional commitment to each other, gay marriage becomes plausible.

Is emotional commitment between two adults what the state should care about in marriage? What should a state that does not establish any religion understand marriage to be? I think the answer is clear. The state must promote the best setting in which to nurture the next generation of wholesome citizens.

Evangelical wing nuts, such as Bryan Fischer, see marriage as meant for birthing a minimum of 3 kids and should be ready for our youth by the time they are 16. I don’t know why marriage has been hijacked and held up with a  “procreate or your marriage is not a true marriage’ mantle. Many couples, I bet, have contemplated not having kids after being married and spending time with friends and their children. It is extremely ignorant and hurtful to imply that couples who get married and don’t have kids are not fulfilling an unwritten duty.

In the end, this comes down to what we each define as Truth, what black and white stereotypes we hold up as molds everyone truly fits into, discerning how our houses of worship and communities have turned from communal (seen as evil socialism!!!!) into a narcissistic individualism (free capitalism! America!), and asking the questions or taking down the guards to see these situations/battles/ideological wars in a softer, more pragmatic frame of being.

November 29, 2010

Then and Now: Conservatives and the Briggs Initiative

by thefulllidvmg

Fast forward to the 3:40 mark. Sullivan brings up the Briggs Initiative and essentially how it is viewed today (73% of conservatives oppose gays/lesbians/those who support gay rights teaching in public schools) compared to yore (Ronald Regan was against it and helped defeat it). A historical note, too, was that Harvey Milk was a strong supporter against it (duh!).

Sullivan rightly wonders: has the conservative movement today gone in a strongly rightward direction?

I wonder: how can you claim to worship at the church of Ronald Regan and mis-attribute his views?

November 15, 2010

A Silent Genocide

by thefulllidvmg

A young gay teenager stands up against the second-rate citizenship of gay Americans. This kid was pushed by this treatment to a suicide attempt at the age of 9! Check out the video to his speech.

October 14, 2010

“Speaking Your Heart”

by thefulllidvmg

Carl Paladino, above, claims to be speaking from his heart.

Openly Gay Fort Worth TX City Councilman Joel Burns follows suit.

September 30, 2010

“I am a Christian Citizen”

by thefulllidvmg

Assistant Attorney General of Michigan Andrew Shirvell has been harassing the University of Michigan student president (who happens to be the first openly gay president in UM history). Shirvell claims not be a bigot, not to have an ounce of hate in his body, and he and his boss find it OK to be hidden behind the 1st amendment. I feel that this is Christianism gone very sour and under a deceptive guise of “playing politics”.

September 21, 2010

What About The Children? Malignancy Rooted in the Marriage Debate

by thefulllidvmg

Updated; added a link to DADT below (as of 9/21/10 at 8:49pm)
Andrew Sullivan continues on with the sulfuric same-sex marriage debate by reading the cover story by the National Review. He and I agree that this issue, along with DADT, are absolutely a theological issue first and a political issue second. The NRO stance echoes the Vatican doctrine of marriage: primarily for procreative purposes.

The article is a mass of non sequiturs. It assumes that if marriage is “for” something—regulating procreative sex—then using it for anything else must be “against” marriage, which is like saying that if mouths are “for” eating, we mustn’t use them for talking or breathing. It claims (conjecturally) that marriage would not have arisen if not for the fact that men and women make babies, from which it concludes that society has no stake in childless marriages.

Since this is primarily a theological issue, this all can’t be solved in political terms. Even court rulings dictate what is legal or illegal but cannot override the popular consensus amongst the church pertaining to same sex marriage. The key verses that are always thought of in mind, sometimes even recited verbatim on call, are Genesis 19 (make sure to read Ezekiel 16:49-50), Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and 1 Timothy 1:9-11. See chapter 7 in Love is an Orientation for a better effort than I can ever muster at unpacking those “Big 5″.

The material to dig through related to this topic is literally endless. The material I have read, in short listing, has been enlightening but in my eyes (and the eyes of a graduate from a feminist woman’s college) has fallen short of fully encompassing the subject.

I could pontificate about the annals of political movements dabbering with this subject, but that is all downstream from the ultimate priorities and beliefs that make up the foundation of the same-sex marriage polemic. A spiritual mentor of mine in college, who is happy with being a neophyte when it comes to politics, always said that politics are downstream from our hearts, our faith, and our religious beings.

September 16, 2010

The Pernicious Nature of Bryan Fischer

by thefulllidvmg

I have seen his name before when checking up at Right Wing Watch. I never paid him much attention or mind…until now. According to the American Family Association website, “Bryan Fischer is the director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at American Family Association, where he provides expertise on a range of public policy topics.

He then connects American sports to protecting the country from terrorism:

The significance here is that “God Bless America” is not just a collection of words, not just a song, not just a memorable melody. What is significant here is that “God Bless America” is a prayer.

When we sing this song, we are not just singing – we are praying. We are joining heart and voice together to ask God to bless America, to “stand beside her and guide her through the night with a light from above.”

Remarkably, we have established the practice of converting every major league stadium, every NFL stadium, and every NBA arena into a temporary cathedral in which hundreds of thousands of Americans every week pray to God and ask him to watch over this land.

I suggest that these prayers have been heard and they have been answered … Since 9/11, multitudes of the American people have on a weekly and almost daily basis asked God to watch over our nation. I believe he has inclined his ear to our prayer.

If you want to know why America has been kept safe since 9/11, I believe we have professional baseball, football, and basketball owners to thank for giving Americans the opportunity to engage in consistent corporate intercession for the safety of this nation.

Before I move on, I wish I could ask Fischer about his thoughts on ballooning professional salaries, drunkenness and gluttony via overpriced beer and food within these “cathedrals” and rising ticket costs regardless of the country being in a recession. Or the Muslims, atheists, or other religious/non-religious attenders – are they praying, thinking more of our founders than God, or waiting to be the first one to clap?

Next, he views America as a Christian nation. Therefore, Muslims looking to move into the USA should be sent back to their Muslim countries. We would be doing them a service.

He has some sense to respect Muslim American citizens. You’d have to live in a white gated community to be oblivious to America’s melting pot founding and current makeup.

Has he read the Quaran?

Andrew Marin’s book Love is an Orientation calls the conversation of homosexuality to be distinctive between promiscuous, drug infested, polygamous relationships and long term, monogamous gay relationships. There is a difference. The far right would like there to be a difference between themselves and the Americans who foreign-bred terrorists are out to get. But unfortunately, to the far right, there is no distinction with the GLBT community: all gays are the same, just as all Muslims are the same. Some have even claimed to of learned all they needed to learn about Muslims on 9/11 and gays from whatever biased media outlet they have tuned in to.

September 10, 2010

Book Review: Love is an Orientation

by thefulllidvmg

I just finished this book tonight. What a neat read!
Andrew Marin had three friends “come out” to him in three consecutive months. As an evangelical bible thumper, he wondered what to do. He at first struggled with his thoughts but then made the choice to fully immerse himself in the GLBT (gay lesbian bisexual transgender) community and live within Boystown (a GLBT community in Chicago). He established the Marin Foundation at the age of 24, which stands to bridge the divide between the GLBT annd Church community all the while elevating the discussions surrounding it from both sides.

If you are planning on picking up this book with hopes of it saying homosexuality is a sin or answering any other close-ended question of yours, you won’t be fully satisfied. Marin models after Jesus’ ministry: just as Jesus elevated the conversation when he was asked polarizing, close-ended questions (the most being by his disciples), Marin elevates the GLBT conversation by not looking to pack punches and preconceived prejudices with each conversation or interaction. He takes the humble road of listening, trusting in God’s lifelong plan for everyone, and listening some more. I blurted out to MJ today that I wish Marin would just answer some close-ended questions. I felt like my insides thrived on them being answered!

Love is an Orientation explains this topic from many angles: it includes a pro-gay hermeneutics approach, about 20 lifestyle directions to practically reflect on pertaining to this issue, and much more. Basically every question or thought you could just about think of related to the GLBT community, homosexuality, the Bible, and the church can be found or directed to in this book. That sounds like a bold statement but I feel this book, along with its references to other books and biblical verses, passages, and books, provides a solid and elevated approach to this heated topic.

I leave you with this quote from the end of the last chapter:

Generally speaking, I don’t know any believer – gay or straight – who doesn’t want to be like Jesus. And here is our chance to be just a little more like him: stop asking and answering close-ended questions in an attempt to determine if someone is on “our team” or “their team”. Jesus modeled a life about kingdom ways and thinking, not pinning down – or getting pinned down by – circularly legalistic debates of politically charged matters. As such we have the ability to follow his model and elevate our questions and answers past the same means that have tragically only haunted the GLBT-Christian relationship. (p.185)

August 9, 2010

Going Literal with Same Sex Marriage

by thefulllidvmg


At this point in my life, I do not agree fully with all of the justifications for same-sex marriage. Let me be clear that I do agree with the Proposition 8 ruling. That may not make sense so let me unpack it.
In some ways, I agree with allowing same-sex marriage: banning it can in some cases perpetuate the lifestyle of isolation for those openly gay as well as keep openly gay men and women without families.
I see the value in procreation and respect couples that do not procreate. The above video with the below list makes song strong arguments against the irrational views held by dogmatic religious believers. In the end, I still don’t fully buy in but respect anyone who marries a great deal.

The National Organization for Marriage will happily recognize my marriage if I:

marry someone 20 years older
marry someone 20 years younger
marry someone on death row
marry someone I’ve never met
marry someone of a different race
marry someone of a different faith
marry someone who clearly loves my things more than me
marry someone who has been divorced 8 times
marry someone who wants children
marry someone who doesn’t want children
marry someone who doesn’t much like sex
marry someone who can’t have sex
marry someone for companionship
marry someone for their connections
marry someone for their wealth
marry someone because my family wants me to
marry someone in a arranged marriage
marry someone with an Elvis impersonator presiding
marry someone for eternity in the Mormon temple
marry someone only until death do us part
marry absolutely anyone in absolutely any way with absolutely any purpose and absolutely any agenda

EXCEPT that they can’t have a penis. Because that’s what REALLY matters in marriage: who has a penis.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.