An absurd aside in the marriage debate

In the recent public hysteria about marriage equality following Obama’s off-the-cuff endorsement, we’ve heard repeated complaints from the religious side of the fence that marriage is an institution ordained by their God, to be run a certain way (i.e. 1 man + 1 woman), and that the evil permissive secularists are ruining it by trying to redefine it so that just anyone can do it. Now, the Christian Right is, of course, claiming Christian ownership of marriage as a concept, though I’m sure they’d magnanimously agree that of course non-Christians can do it too, as long as it all stays properly traditional and heterosexual.

It’s at times like these that it’s interesting to note how the supposed idyll of “traditional” marriage isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, and that in religious communities, circumstances can really go pear-shaped when you’re dealing with controlling, narcissistic men who’ve bought into the patriarchalism idea with open arms.


Which, of course, leads me to my old bete noire, Yomin Postelnik. For those of you relatively new to the blog, here’s the short history: Yomin is a Jewish blogger and wannabe politician from Florida whom I angered about four years ago, when I posted a scathing beatdown of an article he had posted on some right-wing Canadian website purporting to prove God’s existence. I admit that my big mouth can often get away from me, and I just let him and his bad arguments have it.

He discovered my post, and things looked like a mildly interesting flame war was going to roast for a while. But then Yomin bizarrely leveled up, and began slinking around the web, making edits to my Wikipedia entry as well as posting on such venues as the’s old forum, saying things about me that crossed the line from the usual flaming and trolling into actual, legal defamation. I think the child molestation accusation was where I decided enough was enough, and I actually had my attorney file a libel and defamation suit. I later withdrew it on his advice once it was clear just how beyond the pale a personality Yomin was. The lesson I took from all this (though I admit it didn’t really cause me to reel in my tongue altogether) is that online, you never can tell if the person you’ve just blasted with both barrels is really right in the head. You could, one day, just piss off the wrong guy.

Though I know of no formal diagnosis, I’m convinced (as are Tracie and Jen and those who were present as this whole thing was unfolding) that Yomin may have, at the very least, narcissistic personality disorder. As Wikipedia describes the symptoms, people with NPD “have such an elevated sense of self-worth that they value themselves as inherently better than others. Yet, they have a fragile self-esteem and cannot handle criticism, and will often try to compensate for this inner fragility by belittling or disparaging others in an attempt to validate their own self-worth.” Yomin basically responded to a single blog post of mine by waging a six-month campaign of online harassment, including starting no fewer than three separate blogs dedicated solely to smearing me. Overreact much?

After everything had blown over, I was dismayed to find out late in 2010 that Yomin had been arrested on a charge of misdemeanor domestic battery.

Tracie opined that this was probably not the first such event in Yomin’s marriage, but might finally have just been the one where his wife decided enough was enough, and got the law involved. Based on my brief and not at all pleasant experience with the man, I can see how it might have unfolded, taking possible NPD on Yomin’s part into account. He had just run an embarrassingly inept campaign for the Florida State House (really, he did that), in which he alienated the GOP voter base with many of the same bizarre behaviors I saw him exhibit firsthand, like sock-puppeting on numerous comment threads to make it appear he had a slew of enthusiastic supporters. He garnered 6% of the vote. His need to fulfill his self-image of A Very Important Person (part of his campaign platform was to oppose pretty much anything Obama did, which was a little outside the purview of a state representative) was not coming to fruition. More and more, he found it harder to fill the gap between who he is and who he wants to be with his fantasies. Already a person unable to face criticism, he lashed out at the one person present in his life for that purpose. Again, I know none of the above for a fact, but personal experience tells me he’s the kind of man for whom this is not an unrealistic possible scenario.

Anyway, Yomin and his wife eventually got a civil divorce, but here’s the catch. They are practicing Orthodox Jews. Under Jewish rabbinical law, Yomin is supposed to sign a get, formalizing the divorce in Jewish courts and allowing his wife to remarry. And this he has steadfastly refused to do, despite repeated orders from rabbinical courts. The narcissist must maintain control at all times. As the DSM IV-TR describes it, those with NPD have “a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.”

Things have now gotten so bad that the Beth Din of America, one of the top rabbinical courts in the country, has issued a Shtar Seruv against Yomin, which is basically a contempt order. This obliges members of the Jewish community to shun Yomin until he comes to his senses and complies with the court order to sign the get. He’s now an unperson to his own people. And he still won’t budge. In fact, he has rather stunningly said — in quintessentially un-self-aware Yominish fashion — that he’ll only sign the get if his wife agrees to get counseling, conveniently choosing not to remember that he was the one arrested for beating her. One stalwart rabbi has taken to social media, to keep the pressure on Yomin with humiliating tweets. It’s all just a sad and absurd spectacle. And he’s not the only one. Apparently, Jewish husbands refusing to sign a get for their wives is a widespread problem.

So what’s any of this got to do with marriage equality? Well, as is my wont, I’ll finally get to it here in my windy and roundabout way.

Gay couples aren’t any more perfect than anyone else. They’re comprised of people, and people can be emotional and messy, with problems they often don’t know how to deal with. But they are people. Yet they’re being told they’re unworthy of the exalted right of marriage, for reasons entirely to do with religious disapproval of their sexual orientation. Wholesome, traditional marriages would be devalued by allowing gays and lesbians the privilege.

But I look at all the ludicrous spectacle in the marriages of the straight (or at least straight-for-the-cameras) and godly, and I facepalm at the cluelessness that it never occurs to them that anything they do could devalue the institution of marriage. I see Ted Haggard, and Jim and Tammy Faye. I see Newt Gingrich, serial adulterer. I see men like Yomin, casually treating their wives as possessions, not even bending in their recalcitrance despite the threat of ostracizing from the only real community to which they can belong. I see all this lunacy, and I marvel that none of it is ever seen as mocking the very institution of marriage.

And yet, two people who deeply want a marriage commitment, and the chance to share their lives together with the same legal rights and protections as the rest of us, are told they cannot, because they are of the same gender, and to even think that they could is destructive to the very idea of marriage, even (according to Kirk Cameron) to the very bedrock of civilization itself.

Madness. It’s all just madness, chaos and disorder.

Addendum: As I look over the blog by Rabbi Goldberg, I notice salient passages (that I have highlighted in bold) that demonstrate Yomin is exactly the same person who engages in exactly the same behaviors as he did in 2008. I feel my informal diagnosis of NPD is more and more confirmed, the more I read about him. Sad, disturbing, and probably dangerous. (Though I am not unsympathetic to critics who say Goldberg overstepped a line by trying to pressure Yomin by contacting his employer. In short, religious peoples, dey crazy.)

Leah came to me asking for help feeling abandoned by the Jewish community who have expressed no outrage and offered little to no help or support as she suffers in this limbo status and is tortured by a manipulative man. I began by contacting Yomin and gently and without judgment, offered to help coordinate the giving of the get as per the Beis Din’s instructions. Suffice it to say my offer, both on voice mail and in email, was not only rejected, but Yomin began a campaign to malign and defame me, including emails to our Congressman and others.

Two more posts by Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, here and here, about this whole odd drama and Yomin’s deeply strange behavior, described as a man “clearly mentally imbalanced” by Pruzansky.

The ex-wife began her testimony, and within minutes, the husband was interrupting her with cries of “Shut up, shut up!” Having sat on dozens of Dinei Torah, it was the first time I had ever witnessed such a breach of decorum and simple decency. When I insisted the husband stop – he would have the right to respond when his turn to testify came – he unleashed his venom upon me: “Shut up, you pig! Shut up, you punk! Shut up, you fool!”

Seriously. Holy fuck.


  1. Steve says

    It’s also interesting that there are Jewish family courts in the country, but people are against Muslims doing the same with the family portions of sharia law. Jewish law maybe somewhat more friendly towards women than sharia law over all, but the get issue shows that it’s far from ideal

  2. Vall says

    “Well, as is my wont, I’ll finally get to it here in my windy and roundabout way.”

    I’m rather fond of your windy and roundabout style.

  3. Max Entropy says

    From what I remember of Taoism, “windy and roundabout” would be a pretty good description of how the Tao flows. Martin might unknowingly be a natural Taoist master whose chi moves in harmony with the Tao. (Deep bow to Wagner Sensei.)

  4. jacobfromlost says

    I would love it if the republicans, in their zeal to defend “traditional marriage”, proposed an amendment to the constitution to outlaw all divorce, period.

    If “defending traditional marriage” is their goal, shouldn’t something like this be the FIRST step?

    The fact that they would never do this–and get divorced left and right themselves–conclusively demonstrates this is NOT their goal. They just LOVE “traditional marriage”…except when they don’t. They want the freedom to get married AND divorced, which has the side effect that they want all straight couples to have the freedom to get married and divorced. They just don’t want anyone else to have the same freedom, which has nothing to do with “traditional marriage” and everything to do with inflating their self-image by projecting all of their worst qualities onto that Other group–something they can’t do if that Other group suddenly becomes part of their group by virtue of having the right to marry and divorce too. If that happens, then they must accept that all their faults are their own…and that the real threat to “traditional marriage” isn’t gays, but poverty, immaturity, religious/societal/family pressure to marry before one is ready, etc, and that is so much more complicated than just blaming it on some group.

  5. says

    This whole “get” thing highlights the absurdity of religious “morality”. Their stupid religious rule says the man has to sign a get in order for his wife to be free to remarry. Everyone (except, I suppose, Yomin) seems to agree that it’s wrong that Yomin won’t sign the damn thing. Following that silly rule is obviously doing emotional harm to his wife. It is, therefore, an immoral rule yet they still think following it is the moral thing to do. What the hell? There’s no penalty to anyone if his wife were to just say “Fuck it, I don’t need no stinkin’ get”. Religious people do this all the time. They follow their ridiculous “god-given” rules even when it is abundantly clear to them that doing so causes real harm to real people.
    I feel for his wife for the abuse she suffered in their marriage but I have zero sympathy for her regarding the get…she doesn’t need one and is causing herself pain for no bloody reason.

  6. says

    And I think a very pertinent point to make is that the get is inherently sexist, in that it is not necessary (I don’t think so, anyway) for a wife to have to sign one so that her ex-husband can remarry. The fact that the Jewish community as a whole is on Yomin’s wife’s side in this, and united in their condemnation of Yomin’s treatment of her, does not take away the fact that the rabbinical institution itself is one that subordinates women where it simply should not.

  7. RW Ahrens says

    There’s no penalty to anyone if his wife were to just say “Fuck it, I don’t need no stinkin’ get”.

    Actually, if she wants to remain in good standing with that community, there IS a price to pay, since she cannot marry within her religion, by a rabbi, without a signed get. Yes, she could just marry with a secular, civil marriage under her State law, but in the eyes of her religious community, she would then be an adulteress, living in sin, and worse than her deadbeat ex-husband.

    That’s what makes this so bad.

  8. Cyphern says

    > in that it is not necessary (I don’t think so, anyway) for a wife to have to sign one so that her ex-husband can remarry.

    My brief google-fu suggests that the wife *does* have to sign. Gets appear to be initiated by the man and then accepted by the woman, which the woman can refuse. Statistics suggest that roughly the same number of men and women get “trapped” in this way (source:

    However, despite the number of incidents being about the same, it’s still sexist and stacked against the women. While neither is allowed to remarry without the get, any children the woman has out of wedlock are considered bastards, while children the man has are not. Furthermore, the man has a potential way to get the divorce without a get which is unavailable to women: a “Heter meah rabbanim”, literally “permission by one hundred rabbis” (

  9. mond says

    This whole ‘traditional marriage’ really is amazing.

    Religions bang on about traditional marriage yet none of them seem to recognise marriage outwith their own traditions.

    I will use the catholic church as an example here because its what I grew up with and they have a loud voice on the issue.

    Are a couple who marry outside the auspices of catholic church married in the eyes of the church and by extension the eyes of god?
    Under catholic doctrine they cannot be considered married.

    This means that under cathlolic doctrine

    protestant marriage is invalid.
    hindu marriage is invalid
    muslim marriage is invalid.
    civil marriage is invalid.

    Bascically all non catholic marriages are invalid. So what is the problem with adding one more (same sex) to the list?

    Now I am just not picking on catholics here. As far as I know most religions as a matter of doctrine only recognise marriage if its performed using there special words and actions.

    This seems to be a special trick of the various religions where they all appear to agree with each. But they disagree at a fundamental level but politically this does not play well.

  10. Ysanne says

    “Bascically all non catholic marriages are invalid. So what is the problem with adding one more (same sex) to the list?”

    Wonderfully put. They can keep the prerequisites for their private little club status called “married” whatever they like. What business of theirs is the exact definition of civil marriage?

  11. Ysanne says

    I’m totally amazed that in Jewish law, of all places, there seems to be no legal technicality to solve this problem… it’s not like stubborn and uncooperative almost-ex-spouses are something nobody ever expected.

  12. says

    Yes, but that’s a natural consequence of her actions which is just the cost of living in a society where individual freedom is valued. Sure, her community is a bunch of immoral assholes for wanting to shun her or otherwise treat her shabbily for leaving a marriage without the ridiculous get…but that is their right. It’s not like they can jail or fine her.
    Why the hell does she want to be a part of a community that would insist on treating her like shit anyway?
    This is largely a problem of her own making because she can just walk away.

  13. says

    That’s an excellent argument and I’m amazed I’ve never heard it put quite that way before. And I’m pissed that I didn’t think of it first.

  14. says

    Well, that’s easy for someone on our side of the fence to say, because as freethinkers, we pride ourselves on feeling no ties to rigidly structured social and cultural hierarchies. However, to someone who comes from multiple generations of living within a culture like Orthodox Judaism, where the ties are not only religious but ethnic and generational, “just walking away” is like “just cutting off a limb.” You’re breaking ties, not just with a club whose membership now has too many assholes for you to want to bother with, but from something that is deeply linked to your very identity.

    It’s not that it can’t be done, and I’m all for seeing it done. But it’s a huge step, and almost certainly not a simple matter of “just walking away.”

  15. JoeBuddha says

    I’m with you. Any culture that can come up with something so convoluted as the Kabbalah should surely be able to reason it’s way around the husband’s “Get” refusal. Methinks they aren’t trying hard enough.

  16. says

    I agree…it would be a huge life change for her…a huge decision. That’s life.

    I’m not sure what, if any, action other commentators are suggesting. Her choices are simple. Accept the authority of the rabbinical laws and remain religiously married to that asshole…and all the behavioural restrictions that entails. Or ignore the rabbinical laws, carry on with her life and accept the scorn heaped on her by her “community”.

    Freedom doesn’t mean being able to do whatever you want with no consequences. It means being able to do whatever you want (insert standard caveat of not infringing on the rights of others here) while accepting that others are free to react to your actions as they see fit.

  17. says

    I think a better way to say what I’m trying to say is: Sure, we disagree with many of the actions/decisions of the people involved but none of the players are doing anything that is not well within their rights as free adults. Yomin has the right to not sign something, the rabbinical dudes have the right to condemn him for that decision and the right to continue to consider he and his wife religiously married until he does. His wife has the right to play along or not.
    So, are we just having a discussion about what we think each of these player should do? If so, those answers are pretty simple. Yomin, sign the damn get. Rabbis, change the damn “laws”. Wife (does she have a name?), do whatever you want.

  18. RW Ahrens says

    Why the hell does she want to be a part of a community that would insist on treating her like shit anyway?

    Oh, I don’t know, maybe because she was born into it? Or because all her family and friends are there? Or perhaps because she blames this entire situation on a husband that is totally insane and intent on making her life a living hell – just because he can?

    The whole point here is that it isn’t her fault. Her religion and her culture both stack the deck against her because of her gender. Her husband has all the advantages, and the only reason her community is on her side here is because her husband is such an insane bastard, and they all recognize it.

    No, she can’t “just walk away”. Her entire life is in that community and few people have the internal fortitude to do that.

  19. says

    I think the point that we’d all agree on is that, whatever the ease or difficulty or even desirability of walking away from the life may entail, this whole affair is proof that secularism provides women with much better options and choices in life than being part of a religious culture.

  20. mike says

    If he doesn’t want to sign it, he shouldn’t sign it. He’s allowed to do what he wants, even if he is crazy. She’s the one that’s in the cult and if she doesn’t like the rules of the cult she’s free to leave it. She is also allowed to do what she wants.

    Martin is right, this just shows how secular women have more rights and is a preferable choice.

  21. says

    No, she can’t “just walk away”.

    Yes she can. She chooses not to. While I wouldn’t make the same choice in her situation, it is her right to stay in the cult if she thinks the cost of leaving the cult it too high. That’s life. The cult only has the power over her that she chooses to grant it.

  22. says

    Isn’t the most traditional marriage polygamous and arranged with the proposed wife having no say so about any of it? It seems to have been good enough for a certain bronze age tribal society these DOMAasses go on and on about.

  23. sosw says

    Even in the absence of such a formal community, a messy divorce can have similar consequences, where friendships break and people are forced to change their social circles.

    Obviously, the “get” thing makes it worse. Like organized religion in general, it discourages thinking for yourself who (if anyone) is being more reasonable, and whether or not to blame or shun anyone, and extends the consequences beyond actual acquaintances.

  24. David Hart says

    It strikes me that you are being rather unsympathetic here. Yomin’s wife, if she is an Orthodox Jew, presumably believes something like the following: if you re-marry outside of the traditional rules, you will incur God’s disfavour somehow. Assuming that she genuinely believes something like this, this is reason enough in itself to want to comply with the rules, even if it didn’t also mean incurring the disfavour of almost every human you know and love. The fact that this belief is delusional makes no difference to the person suffering under the delusion, especially when it is a delusion shared by a whole community.

    But here is the point: we do not get to choose our beliefs. The wife here cannot just decide to stop believing that she will be disobeying her god if she re-marries without the signed waiver. Ask anyone here who has deconverted from a religion, and I’m pretty sure you will universally be told that they didn’t just decide to stop believing in gods because it would be convenient to do so; they only stopped believing when the right circumstances coalesced to make them see the contradictions and nonsequiturs inherent in their religious upbringing – the sort of circumstances which have not yet happened to Mrs Postelnik, but which she cannot be personally blamed for.

    (Of course, other people have a duty to try and persuade her community – that’s why things like ‘You can be good without God’ billboards in Hebrew in areas where lots of Orthodox Jews live are a good idea; they might just provide the first tiny crack in the edifice)

  25. says

    Yes. I am being unsympathetic. I “deconverted” from Catholicism. It wasn’t hard. I just turned 13 and grew up enough to recognize bullshit. She has a choice and chooses not to critically examine her beliefs even when all the evidence around her indicates they result in injustice. She’s a grown up. She should damn well start acting like one.
    She joined the Orthodox Jewish club knowing, I presume, the rules of the game. Her asshole of an ex-husband is playing by those rules. If she doesn’t like the rules of the game she is free to leave the game…otherwise, suck it up, princess.

  26. JJR says

    While I’d just as soon see Mrs. Postelnik choose atheism, secularism, and freedom, she could also consider switching to Conservative, Reform, or Reconstructionist Judaism as less extreme steps, with more liberal Rabbis who would recognize just how Meshugga her Ex is and hand waive it away, I think. It’s only in Orthodoxy that they don’t have nearly as much “wiggle room”.

  27. roggg says

    The thing that baffles me most about the defense of traditional marriage, (aside from the absolutely absurd premise that allowing gays to marry is somehow an attack on opposite sex marriage), is the religious freedom argument. In fact there are a variety of christian denominations that are accepting of same sex marriage. Opposition to same sex marriage is not a defense of religious freedom, it is an attack on it, and not just religious freedom as in the right to abstain form practicing religion, but a direct attack on the liberties of a subset within the christian community.

  28. Zengaze says

    Its absolutely pointless to point things like this out to them, when you demonstrate the logical fallacy of their arguments they go right back to step one. It’s like a blue screen crash.

    My most recent attempt to reason with the unreasonable was with a baptist minister. He was seeking people to lobby government to keep the traditional definition of marriage (yeah I didn’t even pick on the traditional bit).
    His logical argument was that since the majority of citizens are Christian (arguable) that the government should represent the wishes of the majority.

    I moved from pointing out that the way our democracies function is not by mob rule, and for good reason, to asking him if he would support a change in the definition if the demographics of the nation changed to support another definition…….. The bible defines marriage……. Well now that’s a bit different.

    I pointed out to him the many different interpretations on what marriage is within the bible, and that for instance the catholic church does not recognise divorcees who remarry to be married. That is why a secular definition of marriage is in the best interests of all as it is inclusive of all interpretations of gods will and No gods will, and therefore protects all from misinterpretations……Who gets to determine what gods word is on marriage……. Absolute silence

    Blue screen….. The bible says marriage is between one woman and one man (actually it doesn’t) and as a Christian he had to abide by gods definition.

    Trying to reason with these people is unreasonable. Better to call them stupid fucks who belong in the stone age and be done.

  29. says

    otherwise, suck it up, princess.

    Classy, Mark.

    Setting aside the fact that religious cultures are bad for everyone: we’ve already explained to you that she didn’t “join a club,” and the difference between that and being part of a culture that you identify with, and the fact that belief is not a choice. But… if a woman isn’t willing to be the awesome pillar of rationality you are, then she deserves every beating her mentally ill husband dishes out and should just “suck it up, princess”?

    You aren’t really saying that, I hope.

    Yes. I am being unsympathetic.

    Well, so much for this study, I guess.

    Sorry to have to say this, but you’re starting to sound like one of those wealthy white one-percenters who casually say things like “I got an amazing job with benefits and a 401K right out of college, why haven’t you?” to some minority kid in a low income neighborhood where all the jobs have been outsourced to Shanghai and politicians have made sure that ketchup is a “vegetable serving” in school lunches. It’s not impossible to break free from that environment, but only the smug cluelessness of privilege assumes that it takes no effort.

  30. Zengaze says

    Whilst i do have sympathy for the individual responsibility argument, I do think we have to take conditioning into account. Case in point was the girl in germany who was kept as a prisoner for 18 years of her life as a sex slave, her children were raped by their biological father who was the captor on many occasions she had the opportunity to escape, but she didn’t. Is she to blame for her captivity? Can you really say that she chose to remain a captive, and therefore wasn’t really imprisoned?

  31. says

    Right. Thinking that changing a thing that’s at the core of your being is as simple as flicking a switch just ignores basic realities of being human.

  32. Zengaze says

    For the sake of accuracy, my memory failed me and I merged two separate cases into one. Never the less I think the argument stands.

    Jaycee lee dugard and Elisabeth fritzl are the two cases that my brain mangled! Apologies.

  33. Zengaze says

    I’ve just posted a reply above about conditioning and how it has to be given consideration.

    My post here is contrast to that, as I said the baptist minister should be disregarded and left in the stone age. Can I make a retraction. lol.

    I don’t think he should be left in the stone age, in fact progressing our society depends on reaching people like him. My quip was a reflection of my frustration at someone who is an Intelligent studied person, who makes absolutely stupid arguments which have real world harm on other real world people.

  34. says

    How low is IQ’s of religious people who seem to always complain about being persecuted? They should know, their Jesus did that for them already, and the Bible states that they should endure and even welcome persecution, their God will love them more for it. It has been stated over and over again that NO church or Chaplin, priest, whom ever, will be forced to marry a gay couple. They WERE forced to marry “mixed race” couples once that became legal, but as always, they want exemptions from laws, special rights and protections from the government. I find this so disgraceful that I constantly tell people (via forums/talk/emails) about how horrendous these people are. Christians once supported “gay marriage”, along with reincarnation, etc…but they always say their God spoke to those who constantly re-wrote the bible, from one language to another, which we all know can be difficult because some languages don’t have corresponding words that could be used and some languages have words that can mean more than one thing. For example; Himmel in German, can mean Heaven or Sky, two words that could change the whole meaning of a sentence. But again, they believe the bible is infallible and the word of their god.

  35. tracieh says

    I’ve never understood that whole ‘refuse to give you a divorce’ thing. I’m married. I’ve been through tough times and great times; but I know that if my husband ever came to me to say he was unhappy with me and knew he couldn’t be happy while he was with me, I would see NO benefit to chaining him, by law, to me. It wouldn’t serve to bring me any joy. And it would only serve to cause a problem for him. Even if I *could* force him to stay with me, where is the charm in living life with a person I know would rather not be with me, who is only there because I’m forcing them? Is that really my ideal relationship status? “Yes, my partner and I have been together for 10 years. He stopped loving me after five, and doesn’t want to be my partner anymore–and that just gives me a warm fuzzy to know that’s who I’m with.”

    The weird distortion involved in WANTING that as a relationship status is just beyond ill. W-T-actual-F?!

  36. says

    Well, there’s a real problem when your spouse is a delusional nutcase like Yomin Postelnik, and has convinced himself you’re the one with the problem, that you still love him deep down inside, and will be happy to get back together with him once you get over whatever your problem is. Healthy lesson: before accepting a marriage proposal, make sure you’ve landed a sane, well-adjusted adult.

  37. Ex Patriot says

    What is the problem with Gays getting married, none as far as I can see, It will not effect anyone else in any way. It will not effect hetero marriages at all, I have had 2 and screwed them up all by myself with no help from anyone or any thing. If the Gays and Lesbians wish to get married, let them, it is none of the f—n government’s business to start with and as far as the church and religion is concerned they can blow it out their ass. FYI I am over 70 and have been an atheist for most of my life.