It Gets Better/Rights of the Silent Majority: Marriage Vows and You

The FAMiLY LEADER recently released it’s presidential candidate pledge to defend marriage. It’s purpose is to record the personal convictions of each presidential candidate regarding marriage. Only those who agree to “defend marriage” may be endorsed by this group.

The wording is to protect the judeo-christian idea of marriage and fuck over everyone else, the agreement is barbaric and actually goes back into the past to strike at the simple rights of women. This is not a set of rules that defends marriage. This is a set of rules that disenfranchises everyone but straight judeo-christian men.

And Michelle Bachmann in her infinite ability to prove to us that she isn’t a feminist has signed it. This alone should raise warning signs.

Let’s delve further into it’s depths to learn about what Michelle now stands for.

“Presidential Candidates who sign the Marriage Vow will sign off on support of personal fidelity to his/her spouse, appointing faithful constitutionalists as judges, opposition to any redefinition of marriage, and prompt reform of uneconomic and anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and divorce law. The Marriage Vow also outlines support for the legal advocacy of the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), humane efforts to protect women and children, rejection of anti-women Sharia Islam, safeguards of all married and unmarried US military personnel, and commitment to downsizing government and the burden upon American families.”

It’s a good summary. It specifically points out that it’s doing this for the women and children. After all women have to be married to happy right? And they say they wish for faithful constitutionalists. Will they reverse the freedom of black people? The rights of women? The emancipation proclamation?

Ah but let’s remember that they wish to bring in faithful constitutionalists. This bit is important (and highly embarrassing since it’s a brit showing off his knowledge of american law which is utterly butterly daft.)

The actual document begins with this -

“Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order – as conveyed by the Jewish and Christian scripture, by Classical Philosophers, Natural Law and by the American Founders – Upon which our concepts of creator – endowed human rights, racial justice and gender equality all depend.”

There are many flaws with this section. For starters if you are a constitutional purist then you are sworn to remember that the US constitution then separation of religion and state is entombed in it at a very early stage. Thus voiding the judeo-christian viewpoint of this and the whole designed and purposeful order. Classical philosophers often were bigamists or practiced homosexuality themselves. The american founders were also deists who didn’t believe in gender equality or racial justice on accounts that the american constitution did not allow women any rights to vote until much later and treated black people as inferior to white in so much as they were kept as fucking slaves. The American Founders themselves had black people as slaves. Property. They had no goddamn clue about modern rights, racial justice or gender equality. And neither does this document as we delve deeply.

Natural Law are the laws of nature where rape, infidelity and incest are common enough. We aren’t followers of natural law because pretty much everything humans have done since we first took our earliest steps on this long road to being awesome has been “unnatural” as we have not relied on natural process as much as our brains to enforce our development. The fact is that you wear pants which is unnatural. The fact is that unlike the birds my method of flight is to place myself in a metal tube and compress air by the mechanical contrivance of a jet engine and hurl myself at 500 MPH along the sky flicking the Vs at gravity and stupid birds while sipping red wine and watching a movie. And nature is filled with polygamy and homosexuality.

“Enduring marital fidelity between one man and one woman protects innocent children, vulnerable women, the rights of fathers, the stability of families and the liberties of all Americans under our republican form of government. Our exceptional and free society simply cannot endure with the transmission of personal virtue from one generation to the next, by means of nurturing, nuclear families comprised of sexually-faithful husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. We acknowledge and regret the widespread hypocrisy of many who defend marriage yet turn a blind eye toward the epidemic of infidelity and the anaemic condition of marriages in their own community. Unmistakably the Institution of Marriage is in great crisis.”

What we see here is a “why won’t you think of the children?” argument. Children are fine in happy homes, happy homes require happy parents. If parents aren’t happy with each other then the home is not happy and the children suffer. If splitting up makes parents happy then the children are happy. Do you think kids don’t notice the lies and misery of their parents? They are children not goldfish. If your dog can tell when you are upset then they can.

Vulnerable women are generally vulnerable because of the bloody husband. Majority of vulnerable women are those in the sex trade (we shall see about that later), the poor (bad advice! What’s the difference between sex for money and sex for a comfortable life?) or the chronic abuse cases. Preventing them from leaving their husbands does not help chronic abuse cases. And how is reducing the liberties of gay people and women supposed to be increasing liberty for all?

The USA is not an exceptional nor is it a free society. It is one of many other societies. Personal virtue is acquired not by adherence to a book but by the acquisition of wisdom and experience to use that. It isn’t innate. A child is virtuous only by the idea of innocence, that the child’s lack of knowledge is endearing. It isn’t it’s endearing because a child is harmless. The gap of knowledge must be filled. Virtue is the application of knowledge to do things that are appropriate. Not to follow faith blindly. The average american is no different from the average person in the rest of the developed world.

“Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American president.”

Are these clowns suggesting that black people were better off as fucking slaves? Property? Chattel? Do you guys even know how to make a real argument?  The child being born to two slaves is many orders of worse of than a child born to practically anyone else. You would have to be Josef Fritzl to make that child’s life worse than slavery.

“The out of wedlock birth rate is 41% of white people and 70% of black parents – a prime sociological indicator for poverty, pathology and prison regardless of race and ethnicity”.

 Really? Being born to single parents is the cause for poverty not being born to poor people? Bloody hell! We are obviously going about it wrong. Ecoute bien s’il vous plait (Listen very carefully for I shall say this only once!) correlation does not imply causation. Poor people may just be less likely to marry because they don’t see the bloody point of it.

Pathology? You mean single people are
more likely to bloody die? No they aren’t poor people are in your nation because they don’t have access to proper healthcare. The big issue is that people are poor, not that they aren’t married. That’s like saying that the biggest issue of someone dying of thirst is that he isn’t baptised.

“About 1 million children suffer through divorce each year – the outcome of about half of first marriages and 60 percent of remarriages, disproportionately affecting economically vulnerable families”.

Why are the children suffering? Surely living in a unhappy home is equally suffering? Would you rather a million children suffered in unhappy homes than made a clean break out of it? Sometimes loves in a marriage goes away. Sometimes it doesn’t work out. Should we punish both parties for all time?

And I think children are not selfish little dicks who only care about their own happiness. If mum and dad are happier apart and with new lovers then the kids may not understand why dad had to go away… but they will understand that their parents are happier and that leads to them being happy.

“The tax-payer borne social costs of family fragmentation exceeds $112 billion a year, especially when all the costs to the justice system are recognised.”

The research is by the incredibly biased source of the Institute for American Values. I would place that figure under contention. A quick question though. How many tax dollars are lost in tax breaks for highly unconstitutional marriage which is only of the Judeo Christian model?

And I am highly skeptical of this cost. Majority of divorce is by mediation rather than court and shouldn’t cost this much.

“Social protection for women and children have been evaporating as we collectively debased the currency of marriage. This debasement continues as a function of adultery, quickie divorce, physical and verbal spousal abuse, non comittal co-habitation, exemplary infidelity and unwed cheating among celebrities, anti scientific bias which holds in the absence of empirical proof than non heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye colour as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empiricle evidence, that homosexual behaviour and sexual promiscuity in general optimises individuals or public health”

Social protection for women and children have been on the increasing. You touch a child and you get to go to jail for child abuse. Women’s empowerment has been marching on despite the efforts of these people. Women don’t need social protection like this. This is akin to the purdah or the burkha. It protects women from “real abuse” by lumping that in with other non abusive things. That’s like saying we will prosecute rape on women harshly and then proceeding to ban them from driving cars.

Adultery is no different from cheating, it is an act of thoughtlessness and one that harms those we love by the betrayal of trust and love. It’s not some mythical sin that tarnishes the soul, it is just a thoughtless move. Quickie Divorce is actually what sane people call “no fault divorce”. The ability to sit together and mediate a painless divorce is one of the best things that has happened to women and men. If one person is miserable under the old system they had no recourse till things became so toxic that they couldn’t even stay in the same room to decide on how to deal with life. Now 95% of divorces are no fault divorce and are settled amicably with both sides being generally happy with the settlements allowing them to move on with their lives rather than be forever yoked to a bad situation until it ends horribly.

Gay people seem to like people of the same gender exclusively. I don’t see why it would be a choice. You could parade a thousand sexy men in front of me and I wouldn’t even bat an eyelid. I don’t see the attraction. I expect gay men would respond the same way to women. Even if it were a choice, it wouldn’t matter one iota about what they did. At it’s heart it is love. Love is just two people realising they are right for each other. Physically and mentally. It isn’t some forbidden thing, it’s just people seeking companionship.

Sexual promiscuity is at the heart of 1970s feminist drive. It is at the heart of the liberalisation of culture regarding women and part of female environment. The idea to realise that a woman can seek pleasure in sex just as a man can. Safe sex is actually better than victorian values. Because victorian values are a sham. You have so many hang ups about sex that boys and girls behave weirdly. Safe sex actually makes the public safer because it is blatantly obvious that loyalty to one person and no contraception doesn’t work. We see this in places like the Philippines where promiscuity still occurs despite “values” with devastating consequences. And no these aren’t threats to public health. You know what’s a threat to public health?

Incomplete medical coverage caused by a privatised healthcare system and non universal healthcare. Things your stance is for.

The list of candidate promises come up next, but we do have to laugh at some of them.

  • Personal fidelity of a spouse is appreciable but what does that have to do with competency to rule a country?
  • Surely respecting the marital bonds of others means accepting that gay people can get married? Their marital bond matters too.
  • Election of constitutionalist judges is a faulty idea. The entire point of the constitution is it is a living document. The original constitution is pro slavery and anti women. Progress is improvement of the ideals of freedom of the 17th century to the modern version.
  • If the institution of marriage is mandated by the judeo christian god then it is illegal to provide government support as it is a religious institution. 
  • Marriage is failing because people get married too early without realising that love is sadly transient. When it exists it is beautiful, two people whose lives and minds interact in an unfathomable way unique to each one. But it eventually can die. Widows and widowers do remarry. Waking up one day and finding out you no longer love the person you are now forever yoked to is a damning thought. We all think we are the love that lasts the ages and even the universe, but most of us fall short. It is better to move on and be happy than to be miserable or worse delusional. 
  • Married people? Well not really. People in relationships tend to have all that because relationships make you happy and happy people live longer and take care yourself better. People in relationships tend to raise kids better simply because there are two parents available to care for the child. Not because there is some mystical properties of marriage.
  • Anti-marriage welfare policy includes alimony, tax breaks for single parents, divorce law and extended “cooling off/second chance” periods. Bollocks. Those are necessary for a modern society and women’s rights. Holy crap do you want abusive husbands to go back to their wives to see if they can “work it out”? Force unhappy people to sit together without mediation for x months before they get divorced and expect them to think about it sensibly? If one partner doesn’t want to be in a relationship then there is no point forcing them to stay in one. No fault divorce is a product of that. 
  • DOMA and the definition of marriage are backwards. My marriage to a woman is not going to be tarnished by sharing the moniker with some gay people. I hope to find the woman of my dreams one day. I work daily for that very day, but I would be a complete arsehole if I declared that others may not experience the love I feel. Gay or Straight or Bi or queer, everyone deserves th
    e chance to love and marry. And I am an atheist, if Judeo/Christian marriage is the norm, then my marriage is not protected. I come from a Hindu culture, I would want a hindu ceremony as well and therefore it wouldn’t be protected.
  • Human trafficking, Sexual Slavery, Coercion into sex are all sad problems. But not ones that can be solved by this stupid rule.
  • Pornography is healthy if it is produced by willing people. I see no problem with people producing videos of their activities for other people. You may not like it but that’s your problem. If I don’t enjoy a church service, then I wouldn’t go to a church. I would declare churches banned. It’s freedom of expression. If prostitution is banned then how will prostitutes put food on their table? Oh wait, by being prostitutes. All you are doing is reducing their protection. You want to protect women? Then legalise prostitution. Fight pimps. Let the girls keep their money instead of funding crime. Keep the girls healthy, let them move out of their slums and away from the abuse and the crack and the disease.
  • Abortion and Infanticide are being used together here. Here is the thing, abortion is part of the whole “sexual health of women”. All pro life movements have done is increase the number of abortions courtesy of reducing education. And abortion actually increases when banned with horrifying effects as women taking matters into their own hands. Innocence isn’t being stolen, it is being replaced with wisdom. 
  • Miltary policy being bandied around is barbaric. It assumes that all gay men want to sleep with straight men. It assumes that all men want to sleep with all women. I love women, they are ace but I have no interest in lesbians or indeed most women. I can work with women without trying to sleep with all of them. And banning women from front line combat is a stab in the back for women who qualify for front line combat. They aren’t delicate flowers, if they are good enough to serve then they are good enough to fight for the roles they qualify in.
  • Sharia Islam isn’t a real thing. And the laws stopping you from spreading your religious nonsense as law protect the rest of the USA from Sharia law. Infact this piece of legislature is more anti-woman and anti-human than you realise.
  • Robust Childbearing does not improve the USA. It is a first world nation. Having more people than jobs doesn’t actually work for Indian and China (the only two nations on this planet with more manpower than the USA.) they are actual detriments to be corrected. China’s brutal policy is having an effect. India’s policy is simply so out of control that it is damaging the environment, infrastructure and economy. Nearly 60% of children are malnourished. Demographically it is not helpful. Economic wise it just means more unemployment because jobs must match people. Strategic? Are you planning to march people into the teeth of guns in human waves? Then wanting a billion americans is a fucking pointless exercise! The USA’s army’s strength is small size and high technology. Actuarial? Security? These points don’t make any sense apart from atrocious policy designed to wreck american economies by overcrowding.
  • Downsizing government means loss of government oversight which protects american families. The biggest cause of bankruptcy in the USA is healthcare costs from the lack of coverage of medical care and the cost of privatised medicine. Not big government. Naturally that defence budget won’t drop nor will the salaries of politicians. And lack of oversight caused the economic downturn. 
  • I am sorry the First Amendment covers pornography (Flynt) and the separation of church and state and actually stands against your definition of marriage as it is solely a biblical world view you are pushing. Not a human one. 
Ultimately it is terrifying that Michelle Bachmann is so blinded that she thinks that signing this protects women or is in any way justice. It hurts women and it hurts marriage.

Marriage isn’t something that cannot defend itself, its a human institution. Giving gay people the same rights as us straight people isn’t the downfall of marriage, it is just the correct thing to do as it is equality.

Women don’t need you to hold their hands. They are fully capable of being equal to men. All this legislature does is remove their rights to a sane relationship. This is a step back, not a step forward. The manifesto indicates the sheer idiocy of the republican stance and how fundamentalism poisons your perception.

When a british man in India can point out a flaw in your own plans and the rules of your own constitution then you have lost perspective. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>