The Right to Adultery

In an opinion piece, columnist and president of the National Organization for Marriage Maggie Gallagher questions whether Americans should have the "right to adultery".

Going against the commonly held opinion of many in the legal community, Gallagher takes a dim view of tolerating marital infidelity.

Citing that "adultery involves twin offenses: (1) the violation by a married person of his or her vows; and (2) a third party's decision to invade another person's marriage, to seek their own personal satisfaction at the expense of the unknowing and unconsenting spouse", she is especially intolerant of using this common phenomenon as "a pathway to commercial success, " citing websites that help straying spouses to find sex partners, Rielle Hunter capitalizing on her status as "the other woman", and prostitute Ashley Dupre making money as a sex columnist on the New York Post. Gallagher states that she would like to see commercially soliciting for adultery be legally classified the same way as soliciting for prostitution.

Waving aside the truth that one cannot legislate morality, she believes that we need to "come up with a way to encourage a little common decency."

Gallagher insists that she doesn't want to persecute "every man or woman who has sinned," but rather that "people who commit this moral trespass to have the decency not to attempt to profit from it in the national media".

OK, where to begin?

First of all, the right for any adult to have sovereignty over their own bodies; the free choice to engage in any sort of sexual behavior they see fit, provided that their partner(s) are consenting adults, should be beyond question. Even when people have willingly agreed to restrict some of that freedom when entering a monogamous marriage, any departures from this agreement should be an entirely private matter between those involved and not something for the government to meddle in. The injured party should retain the right to sue for breach of contract as a practical matter, but the government has no business meddling in the private affairs of adults as a moral matter. Better yet, the government should drop sexual exclusivity as a necessary component of a legal marriage

Secondly, notions of what is moral and decent are highly subjective matters. Who gets to decide what is moral or decent and what should such ideas be based on? Gallagher openly states that adultery is a "sin", which is a purely religious idea and should have absolutely no place whatsoever in secular law that governs the actions of all citizens of all religions and of no religion.

My suggestion to Gallagher and others like her who are offended by those making money off of adultery would be to vote with their wallets and their feet. Don't patronize businesses that match married people with new sex partners, don't tune into TV shows or read magazine articles that feature Rielle Hunter, don't read newspaper columns by prostitutes, and so on. But don't restrict the freedom of others to do so, either.

Thoughts?

Rolling My Eyes at Tiger Woods' Apology

So, Tiger Woods has made a public apology for committing adultery. Pardon me while I allow my eyes toi roll back into my head.

Woods owes no one any apologies for his private behavior except for his wife. His lack of adherence to his marriage vows is an entirely private and personal matter, not a professional one. He is a professional golfer and I can't imagine that upholding monogamy was part of his job description.

And he did not break the law; he merely violated a societal sacred cow. Indeed, I don't see real criminals, such as the Enron bunch, making public apologies to their stockholders and the general public, so why should Woods apologize to all and sundry for his infidelity. It's not as if he is married to the whole world.

And Woods mentioned getting "treatment", presumably for "sexual addiction". Give me a f'in break! Non-monogamy is not a mental disorder and I firmly believe that the notion of "sexual addiction" is a very flimsy category, based more on social mores, than science. We must remember that homosexuality was likewise considered to be a mental disorder until as recently as 1973.

"Sex addiction is one of those pop psychology diagnoses that has scant scientific support," Scott Lilienfeld, Associate Professor of Psychology at Emory UniversityLiveScience. and co-author of "50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology," told

Dr. Marty Klein, a Licensed Marriage & Family Counselor and Sex Therapist, believes that the notion of "sex addiction" is "a set of moral beliefs disguised as science" that assumes sex is dangerous. The examples he gave are: that sex should be within the context of a committed and monogamous heterosexual relationship, that masturbation should be confined to once a day, and that having sex to escape problems is unhealthy.

He pointed out that sex addiction has also been used as a political justification for censorship, eliminating sex education and birth control clinics and opposing equal rights for gays and lesbians.

Tiger Woods' problem is his lack of honesty and failing to do as he promised to his wife, not his sexual behavior, per se. But in either instance, it's a private matter between the two of them and not any business of the public.

Thoughts?

Mark Sanford: A Promise Not Made

Yesterday,Jenny Sanford's tell-all memoir was published. Sanford is the soon-to-be former wife of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, who was recently outed as having gone AWOL from his post to visit his Argentinian mistress.

In the book she revealed that Mark Sanford did not vow to be faithful to her at their wedding. ABC reported:

Sanford recalls how she made the "leap of faith" to marry husband Gov. Mark Sanford even though the groom refused to promise to be faithful, insisting that the clause be removed from their wedding vows.

"It bothered me to some extent, but ... we were very young, we were in love ... I questioned it, but I got past it ... along with other doubts that I had."

This means that Sanford made it quite clear right up front that he either could not or would not be sexually exclusive with her, giving her the chance to back out of the wedding. Instead, she went ahead and married him, anyway.

It seems to me that she has little to complain about, considering he made his intentions quite clear years ago. It's not his fault that she didn't take him at his word. He would not promise to be faithful to her, so I don't see why she's so surprised now.

As a South Carolina resident, I don't give a rat's ass whether or not the man was monogamous. Rather, I'm more concerned that he went AWOL from his job for a week, leaving the country without letting anyone know where he was going, and not leaving anyone to "mind the store", so to speak.

Thoughts?

Thoughts on the John Edwards Fiasco

When I first heard of the John Edwards affair, my first instinct as a libertine was to yawn and tell people that his marriage was none of their business and that he wasn't running for the office of upholding monogamy.

But as the months have passed, I find myself more disgusted with Edwards' behavior with every new report from the media. I still don't care that he strayed from his marriage or even that he sired an extramarital child, which is entirely besides the point of my opinion.

Rather, my disgust stems from how he's handled -- or not handled -- this affair. Instead of owning up to what he'd done -- or simply telling the press that his private life was none of their business -- he first denied that he'd had an affair with the woman in question. Then he later recanted and admitted he'd slept with her. But when she had a baby girl, he denied he was the father, pushing it off on one of his campaign aides. More recently, he's finally admitted that the baby is his. And now it's come to light that sex tapes exist of him and the "other woman".

Can we give the man an award for insensitivity and general dumbassery? Having an affair and siring a child outside one's marriage happens and while it's a political liability in our society, it's hardly a unique thing. And while the timing of the affair was particularly insensitive, considering his wife's illness, he's made it all the much worse with his unwillingness to admit to the truth. He's further humiliated his wife, while at the same time left a public record of repudiating an innocent little girl who will one day grow up to know that her father valued his political career more than he did her.

It doesn't really matter that he strayed or why, as there are dozens of reasons why people do so. But if he was going to get some on the side, he should have used his brain and done it properly. First of all, Edwards in his in fifties and the woman in question in her forties. Had neither of them ever heard of birth control? Granted, he might have thought her past the age of conceiving, but he shouldn't have taken any chances.

And for fuck's sake, what kind of a moron makes sex tapes proving the adultery to all and sundry? It's shit like this that makes me question his power of judgment in other matters as well.

Edwards would have done much better to handle this as David Letterman handled being outed as straying from his marriage, instead of turning himself into a Jerry Springer sideshow.

Thoughts?

Conservatives and "Big Government"

I often hear conservatives banging on about the evils of big government; that they believe a small government is a better government, blah, blah, blah. Most recently, many conservatives have stated that they're against health care reform because of their belief that government would do an inefficient job of it.

But it seems they have no problem with the government meddling in the private lives of consenting adults by regulating who may and may not get married. There are no calls for privatization in this arena or hand wringing about the inefficiency of big government here.

It seems that conservatives are happy with government involvement when it serves their agenda. To them, "big government" is only "evil" when it pertains to matters they don't support.

And as far as health care goes, the more honest conservatives won't talk about the supposed inefficiency of government; they'll tell you they don't want their tax dollars going to help "those people".

Just saying...

Polyandry: The Obvious Solution to China's Sex-Ratio Imbalance

In a recent report from Chinese state media, it was announced that 24 million "surplus" Chinese men of marriageable age will likely have trouble finding wives by 2020. The study specifically blamed sex-specific abortion as a major culprit. The study identified this gender imbalance as China's most serious demographic problem.

"Sex-specific abortions remained extremely commonplace, especially in rural areas," where the cultural preference for boys over girls is strongest, the study said,

Researcher Wang Guangzhou indicated that the skewed birth ratio could lead to difficulties in finding a spouse especially for lower income men and that it was likely there would be a widening age gap between spouses. Such low income men would face a scenario of marrying later in life or not finding a wife at all.

"The chance of getting married will be rare if a man is more than 40 years old in the countryside. They will be more dependent on social security as they age and have fewer household resources to rely on," Researcher Wang Yuesheng said.

Another contributing factor to this phenomenon is the country's family planning policies, which limits most couples, with a few exceptions, to only one child. An inadequate social security system also contributes to the already strong cultural preference for male children, as it is believed that men would better be able to financially care for parents in their later years.

The report also stated that the incidence of abductions and trafficking women are becoming serious problems in areas with the highest humbers of excess men.

In normal circumstances in China, there is a slight imbalance in the sex ratio, with about 105 to 107 males born to every 100 females. In 2005, the ratio had widened to 119 males to 100 females, with some areas as high as 130 males to 100 females.

The study recommended that the government relax the one child policy and to encourage "cross-country" marriages.

While I agree that these steps will help the generation after the one currently coming into adulthood, it doesn't help those who will be coming of age within the next ten to fifteen years. A more immediate solution is needed to help these men now.

It's an obvious solution, but it occurs to few people because it violates one of the biggest societal sacred cows.

In a word, the obvious solution is polyandry, which is a form of polygamy that allows one woman to have multiple husbands. If China allowed legal polyandry to exist alongside monogamy, then none of the projected 24 million surplus males would have to remain unwillingly single.

Many people both in Western countries and in China would object to this solution for "moral" reasons. But is this a valid reason?

Looked at objectively, monogamy is no more inherently moral than either form of polygamy. Instead, these three types of marriage are at their base, simply different types of reproductive strategies, each suited for different societal needs..

Polygyny, one man with multiple wives, has often occurred throughout history where population growth was desired and/or needed, such as in agricultural societies where many hands were needed to do the necessary work, and where women outnumbered men.

This is because polygyny is a much more efficient system than monogamy if the goal is to produce large amounts of children. One woman can produce only so many children regardless of the form her marriage takes, but one man can easily sire hundreds of children with multiple women.

Polyandry, one woman with multiple husbands, is suited well for societies where population growth needs to be halted and where men outnumber women. Polyandry limits population growth, as several men are sharing the limited reproductive capacities of one woman. Thus, polyandry is a reproductive strategy that would be ideally suited for today's China, as China both desires to curb its rampant overpopulation and to give its 24 million surplus males a chance of marrying that would not be possible in a monogamy-only society.

But I doubt China will seriously consider this practical solution, even as a short term strategy, because that is the nature of sacred cows, People tend to cling to them, even when doing so is impractical and is maladaptive for a society's current needs.

Thoughts?

Thoughts on the Tiger Woods Brouhaha

I've not so far written about the Tiger Woods story because I viewed it as yet another story about a straying celebrity and that it would quickly become yesterday's news. Reports such as these are now rather commonplace and are hardly worth reporting on, let alone commenting on.

But this story outlived its fifteen minutes a long time ago and, personally, I'm getting tired of hearing about it. I don't see what all the shock and fascination is with this story. It's not as if he's the first, nor will he be the last celebrity (or non-celebrity, for that matter) to fall off the monogamy wagon.

I also don't see why Woods is off the golf tour. I don't see what one thing has to do with the other. The state of his marriage should be a private matter between him and his wife and it in no way impedes his ability to play golf. It's not as if being monogamous would make him a better golf player.

And it's not as if he beat his wife and had done something criminal. Indeed, if anything, the shoe is on the other foot in this instance. It seems the only reason he had an accident was because his wife bashed in the back window of his SUV, thus distracting him, as he tried to drive away.

I've read comments from people cheering her on for this; taking the opinion that he got what he deserved for his infidelity. The sexism of such statements boggles my mind, as I'm quite certain there would be no cheering if their roles were reversed in this drama. People would be calling to have him locked up and the key thrown away if it had been him bashing a window in with a golf club while she drove away. It seems when it comes to domestic violence and infidelity, the double standard is alive and well.

Other people are shocked, asking how could he do such a thing. Again, with the ubiquity of stories about celebrity infidelity and its corresponding prevalence in the lives of ordinary people as well, I think that people are asking the wrong questions. They take the view that people are failing marriage, but in reality, it would seem that our idea of what marriage should be is failing people.

Instead of asking why so many people are unfaithful, we need to be asking such questions as, why are all marriages expected to be monogamous, why was monogamy originally instituted in the first place, are the original reasons for monogamy still relevant in our society today, what is the exact nature of "fidelity" -- is it summed up by sexual exclusivity or can it refer to other aspects of a marriage and, if so, must sexual exclusivity always be a part of it. and so on.

Perhaps we need to be re-examining and re-evaluating the structure of marriage and the purpose it serves in our society and be willing to make some changes, instead of trying harder to cram people down into the same old, ill-fitting boxes.

Thoughts?

Some Thoughts on Bigamy

Reading the webpage of one of my local TV stations, I came upon a story about a man who had been arrested for bigamy. He'd married his first wife in 2005, and had married a second woman this past October.

Neither wife had been the wiser until the first wife intercepted a text message for their husband from the second wife. After texting back to the second wife and determining who she was, the first wife called the police to report him for bigamy.

After an investigation, police arrested him and charged him with bigamy. The man is now out on bond awaiting trial.

Arresting someone for bigamy boggles my mind. First of all, I don't think the government has any business meddling in the private relationships of consenting adults, except for cases of domestic violence. If it were up to me, I'd abolish marriage as a legal category altogether.

Knowing that this isn't likely to happen any time soon, I think that as long as legal marriage exists, it should not be limited to monogamous couples.

That being said, with the law as it stands now, bigamy should not be a criminal offense. At the most, it should be a civil matter. In fact, I'd thought it was something that had been decriminalized -- that when discovered, the second marriage would merely be annulled and the offender given a fine.

The police have much more important things to do than being in the business of enforcing monogamy. They should not be involved in the personal relationships of private citizens if there is an absence of domestic violence. In my opinion, the first wife should have handled the situation herself, perhaps by contacting a divorce lawyer, rather than calling the police and keeping them from doing more important things. Sue the guy for breach of contract or some such thing, but don't put him in jail.

Thoughts?

What Do You Think I Fought For on Omaha Beach?

The following is a transcript of a WWII veteran speaking out for marriage equality in Maine. I think this man's words speak eloquently enough for themselves, so I'll not add any comments of my own, except to ask for your thoughts after reading this:

Good morning, committee. My name is Phillip Spooner and I live ...in Biddeford. I am 86 years old, a lifetime Republican, and an active VFW chaplain. I still serve three hospitals and two nursing homes, and I also served meals on wheels for 20 years. My wife of 54 years, Jenny, died in 1997. Together we had four children, including one gay son. All four of our boys were in the service.

I was born on a potato farm north of Caribou and Perham, where I was raised to believe that all men are created equal, and I’ve never forgotten that. I served in the US Army 1942-1945 in the First Army as a medic and an ambulance driver. I worked with every outfit over there including Patton’s Third Army. I saw action in all five major battles in Europe including the Battle of the Bulge. My unit was awarded Presidential Citations for transporting more patients with fewer accidents than any other ambulance unit in Europe, and I was in the liberation of Paris. After the war, I carried POWs back from Poland, Hungary, and Yugoslavia, and also hauled hundreds of injured Germans back to Germany.

I’m here today because of a conversation I had last year when I was voting. A woman at my polling place asked me, “Do you believe in equality for gay and lesbian people?”

I was pretty surprised to be asked a question like that; it made no sense to me.

Finally I asked her, “What do you think I fought for at Omaha Beach?”

I have seen so much blood and guts, so much suffering, so much sacrifice. For what? For freedom and equality. These are the values that make America a great nation, one worth dying for.

I give talks to eighth grade teachers about World War II, and I don’t tell them about the horror. Maybe I have to invite them to the ovens at Buchenwald and Dachau. I’ve seen with my own eyes the consequences of caste systems, and it makes some people less than others, or second class.

Never again. We must have equal rights for everyone; it’s what this country was started for. It takes all kinds of people to make a world. It doesn’t make sense that some people who love each other can marry and others can’t, just because of who they are. This is what we fought for in World War II, that idea that we can be different and still be equal.

My wife and I did not raise four sons with the idea that three of them would have a certain set of rights, but our gay child would be left out. We raised them all to be hard-working, proud, and loyal Americans, and they all did good.

I think if two adults who love each other want to get married, they should be able to. Everybody’s supposed to be equal in this country. Let gay people have the right to marry.

Thank you.

View his YouTube video at What Do You Think I Fought For At Omaha Beach?

Is This 2009 or 1909?

Most people by now have heard of the justice of the peace in Louisiana who recently refused to marry an interracial couple. When I first heard the news, it boggled my mind, as I could not imagine such a thing happening anywhere in the United States in 2009. I'm not at all surprised that such racism still exists now, but it was a shock to see such an overt expression of it. One would think that he would be well aware of the Supreme Court decision of 1967 which made interracial marriage legal in all fifty states.

The judge, Keith Bardwell, said, "I don't do interracial marriages because I don't want to put children in a situation they didn't bring on themselves. In my heart, I feel the children will later suffer." Yeah, they might grow up to be, oh, President of the United States or something.

He added that he came to the conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither does white society,that most interracial marriages do not last long. Bardwell is also of the opinion that

My disgust for his racist attitudes aside, what business of his is it to speculate on how long any individual marriage will last, regardless of race or any other characteristics, or to predict how any children born of that union will fare? He's a justice of the peace, not a social critic or a psychiatrist/psychologist, and it's his job to conduct marriage ceremonies for anyone who requests it who meet the legal requirements, regardless of his personal opinions. If he will not perform a legal function of his office, then he needs to find another line of work.

Thoughts?

Faulty Logic

The other night I was changing stations while listening to the radio in the car. I happened upon a station where they were talking about a survey of Americans who had been married at least once and it said that out of that groups, 76% had been married only once, 20% had been married twice, and only 5% had been married three times. A spokesman for the religious right group, Focus on the Family, said that the results were proof positive that most Americans still believe in and supported "biblical marriage".

Feel free to roll your eyes now.

Before I comment I on the faulty logic surrounding this conclusion, I have to point out that Christians didn't invent marriage; that marriage existed well before the Abrahamic religions did. One should also be aware that there's more than one kind of marriage mentioned in the Bible. So one would have to ask "Which type of so-called 'biblical marriage' are you talking about?"

But let us return to the original faulty assumptions made here.

First of all, the 76% of people who had been married once in their lifetimes were not necessarily currently married -- they'd just been married only once in their lives. This included widowed and divorced people, as well as the currently married.

It's quite possible that many of those not currently married may have simply chosen to live with any subsequent romantic partners and decided not to involve the government or the church in any new relationships. In other words, such people remaining legally single had nothing to do with any adherence to fundamentalist ideas about marriage. Similarly, there are no doubt many others who hadn't found another partner yet at the time of the survey, but who are open to being married again.

Secondly, out of the 25% who have been married more than once, this includes widowed people who have married again. Are these FotF fundamentalists saying that it's "unChristian" to be married more than once regardless of circumstances? I'm guessing that quite a number of religious people would beg to differ on this point.

Third, it would seem to me that many people who have a string of failed marriages and have several divorces under their belts have a misplaced belief in the institution of marriage and would do better not involving the legal system in their personal, intimate relationships in the first place. Marriage doesn't fit everyone and there's no shame in that.

Using myself as an example, I've only been legally married once, but they're definitely barking up the wrong tree if they think I'm a supporter of "biblical marriage". I'm one of those people in the third category who is better off remaining legally unencumbered, as marriage as it is currently understood is a bad fit for my non-monogamous, libertine lifestyle. Unlike those who have several marriages and divorces under their belts, I learned my lesson the first time.

Thoughts?

Hypocrisy and Human Nature

With all the recent outings of politicians engaged in extramarital sex, my favorite liberal news site, Alternet, has been doing a flurry of articles relating to this subject. In a recent article, Relax: Adultery Is Not That Big Of a Deal by Samara O'Shea, she explores the idea:

I'm not justifying infidelity. But it certainly isn't going to shake the nation's moral foundation or destroy the institution of marriage.

My response follows below:

Monogamy is not natural for human beings, male or female. Yet, considering the strict sanctions against adultery that have existed for centuries, people still do it.

We must ask ourselves, what was the original point in mandating monogamous marriage in the first place?

Religion?

No, guess again. In ancient times, when hunter-gatherers settled into agricultural societies, the ideas of private property and inheritance were established. To reliably name heirs, a man had to know which children were actually his. To do this, the sexuality of women had to be tightly controlled. Thus, formal monogamous marriage was established, with polygyny for the rich(and where the women were still monogamous, even the men weren't). This is also why women have been traditionally punished more harshly than men for adultery and why virginity was required for brides.

It had nothing to do with love, as marriage was mainly a practical arrangement until around the beginning of the 18th century.

Religion put its stamp of approval on this, which gave it the force of law in societies where religion was the law. The pronouncement of "God said it" was to ensure compliance to what went against basic human nature.

Yet people have committed adultery all through the centuries, as it's almost impossible to completely thwart human nature.

We see adultery more in the news now, as the original valid reasons for monogamy no longer exist:

Marriage is no longer primarily about reproduction, DNA tests prove paternity, non-marital children enjoy the same rights as marital children, women are no longer legally dependent on men for their survival, etc.

However, cultural sensibilities have not caught up to current practical realities, especially considering that few people know the real reasons why monogamy was mandated in the first place.

It's time our society stopped insisting that every marriage be a monogamous one in "one size fits all" style. Only then will the hypocrisy end, as human nature will surely not change.

The Elephant in the Living Room

A recent article on Alternet, For Many, Marriage is Sexless, Boring, and Oppressive:Time to Rethink the Institution? by Amanda Marcotte, asks the question:

Marriage is failing many, many people. Why do we still idealize it?

My response to this article follows below:

Formalized marriage and monogamy began for practical reasons, unrelated to any religious notions of "sanctity". Once ancient hunter-gatherers settled into agricultural societies and ideas of private property and inheritance came about, socially sanctioned monogamous marriage began as a way to control women's sexuality so men would know which children were actually theirs. Polygynous marriage existed for the very rich, but the women in such marriages were still monogamous, though men were not. It is because of this original reason that women are punished more severely for infidelity than are men, as men couldn't be sure of who their children were unless women's sexuality was tightly controlled.

Religious insistence on monogamy was soon added, as it gave the force of law to a practical idea in societies where religious leaders were the law. "God said it" leaves no room for debate.

People did not marry primarily for love until around the 18th century. It was strictly a practical arrangement, a vehicle for joining powerful families for the rich, along with inheritance reasons, and to have a socially sanctioned partner to have children with and work together for survival for the poor. Love, if it happened, was icing on the cake, not the reason to get married in the first place.

People lived shorter lives then, so "until death do us part", did not include decades of the "empty-nest syndrome". Most people were lucky to live long enough to see the youngest child to adulthood. Life itself was harder and more survival oriented, thus people did not worry overmuch about love or personal fulfillment then.

Still, infidelity occurred all throughout history for both sexes, despite sanctions against it, as it's very difficult to overcome basic human nature. It's always been a big scandal for women, but not so much for men until the 19th century or so. The feminist movement no doubt influenced the increasing disapproval of male infidelity, rather than freeing women to male norms.

Today, we marry for love, life isn't strictly about survival, DNA tests prove paternity, overpopulation discourages large families, we live longer lives, women can support themselves, and the abolishment of legal distictions between marital and nonmarital children have removed much of the valid reasons for legal marriage and monogamy. Thus, marriage as it's currently understood has become maladaptive for modern needs. It's no wonder we're seeing what we're seeing.

In light of this, marriage needs to be redefined if it is to survive in a workable form(s) and adjusted to reflect the realities of modern life and human nature. One of the first steps would be to cease mandating monogamy.

Is It Really a Scandal?

The news is full of stories about the latest political "sex scandal" of the day.

Yesterday, Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign publicly admitted to having an extramarital affair while legally separated from his wife. His admission was accompanied by the usual insincere, crocodile tears statement:

"Last year I had an affair. I violated the vows of my marriage. It is the worst thing I have ever done in my life ," Ensign said.

Spare me the treacly fake remorse, Even among many of those who are much less permissive about sexual matters than I am, having a relationship while legally separates isn't identical to having an extra-marital affair while in an ongoing intact marriage. Though one is technically "still married" when separated and the law would consider it adultery, the de facto reality is that it has already been acknowledged that the marriage has broken down and that divorce is soon likely to occur. To remain "faithful" to a broken marriage is merely to perpetuate a useless fiction.

The man was separated. Obviously, he's not going to be able to get any from his wife. Is he expected to remain celibate while in marital limbo? I think most people would agree with me that this is an unreasonable expectation in modern society.

As sex scandals usually go, this one is pretty tame. He didn't solicit a partner in a men's room, like Larry Craig, nor did he run around on a sick wife, as did Newt Gingrich, John Edwards, and John McCain, nor did visit a sex worker, a la David Vitter.

But like Gingrich, Craig, and Vitter, he is guilty of rampant hypocrisy. Like these men, he is a social conservative, who has made many judgmental statements about the decline of "traditional" marriage, and is a member of the Christian conservative group, Promise Keepers.

But hypocrisy is nothing new in Washington.

This latest sex brouhaha doesn't rate more than a loud yawn from me.

Marriage and Children

Many people who oppose same-sex marriage base their opposition on their belief that the purpose of marriage is to provide a legal structure in which to raise children, preferably of their own biological origin.

But I believe that issues concerning children and those concerning marriage should be viewed as separately for a couple of reasons.

One is the fact that people marry for a wide variety of reasons these days with almost no one marrying for the single purpose of raising children. People most often marry now for love and because they want to share their lives as a legally and socially recognized unit. And though many people would be happy to just live together to achieve those goals, they enter into legal marriage in order to gain the myriad legal benefits that come with making their union official.

Though most people do have children, it’s almost never their sole reason for getting married in the first place. It’s not as if couples who love one another but who don’t want to or can’t have children decide to simply remain friends because of that fact.

People who have no intention of having children, along with infertile people and people past reproductive age get married all the time, and no one is clamoring to remove their legal rights to do so — as long as they are heterosexual, of course.

Secondly, the law no longer distinguishes between children born to married parents and those born to unmarried parents. “Illegitimacy” has not been a legal status for non-marital children since the late 60s. The law now focuses on how children relate to their parents, rather than so much on how their parents relate to each other.

Hence, this makes opposition to same sex marriage for the “marriage is for having children” reason moot and invalid.

Dissecting 10 Stupid Reasons Against Gay Marriage

I got this one in an email

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Mormons: Same-Sex Marriage vs. Polygamy

On Alternet recently, I browsed through an article, Mormon Homophobia: Up Close and Personal by Sheldon Rampton. Once again, I found myself responding to a comment that had veered off the point of the original article.

The original comment:

Individual Mormons changing is what changes the church

My sister follows Mormon doctrine to the extent that she bore 7 healthy children and is now, at age 74, grandmother to more than 20. She is the matriarch of this very large family. She is "Mrs. Mormon."

BUT she did not vote for the "Gay Marriage Ban" when it came up in Utah elections. As she expressed it, The problem in Utah is not gay marriage -- it's polygamy.

My response:

The Problem is Forced Marriage of Underage Girls, Not Polygamy, Per Se

Or should I say polygyny, because such Mormons only allow men to have more than one spouse and not the other way around as well.

It's not non-monogamous marriage that is even the problem among such Mormons. It's patriarchal, fundamentalists religion that compels underage girls to marry old men that's the problem.

It would still be as big of a problem if it was just ONE young girl being forced to marry just ONE old man.

So, the problem isn't monogamy vs non-monogamy, per se.

Indeed, the existence of polyamory, which is when both men and women may have multiple spouses, and is engaged in only by fully consenting adults shows that this is so.

Let's focus on the real root of the problem: fundamentalist patriarchal religion.

Your thoughts?

Mormons and Marriage Discrimination

The passage of Proposition 8 in California, which categorically defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman, was successful in part because of the LDS (Mormon) Church's mobilized support for the issue, despite Mormons being only two percent of the state's population.

According to the Los Angeles Times, monetary support for Proposition 8 from Mormons is estimated to have been about twenty million dollars. Donations from individual Mormons were in response to a letter from church leader read in all LDS congregations in California, urging members do all you can to support" the proposition by donating "your means and time." The church's position, the letter said, was that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children."

As well as providing financial support to Prop 8, Mormons also hosted websites, formed an outreach organization: Protect Marriage Coalition, posted pro-Prop 8 videos online, and so on.

I think the Mormon stance against same-sex marriage is ironic, considering that the US government forced the LDS church to give up polygyny in 1890, as a pre-requisite to Utah becoming a state.

Perhaps if the US had allowed polygyny and other forms of polygamy to remain legal and aboveboard, we'd not be seeing these renegade Mormon groups forcing underage girls to marry old men, as the government could have applied the same rules to such marriages as they do to monogamous ones (consenting adults only).

One would think the Mormons would be especially sensitive to marriage discrimination, but apparently this isn't the case.

Thoughts?

Propostion 8 Passes in California

California has passed Proposition 8, which yet again repudiates same-sex marriage, returning it to a legally unrecognized status. Religious conservatives, who supported Prop 8, made much of the idea of "preserving the 'sanctity' of marriage".

But they're wrong. It wasn't the "sanctity" of marriage that was up for a vote; it was the legality of it.

The idea of sanctity has a religious base, thus is not subject to any law in a country that has the separation of church and state. It is a highly personal and private thing and properly is defined by whatever religious, ethical, or personal tradition one may believe in. It has never been the business of the government, nor should it ever be.

The legality of marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with religion in our country and never has. This is shown by the fact that getting married by a judge, a justice of the peace, or other non-clergy member is legal, where a wedding performed in a church or other house of worship without a civil marriage license is not a legal marriage, though it is a religious one.

Legal marriage has to do with practical benefits bestowed by the government, period. It doesn't concern itself with the emotional aspects of marriage or anyone's idea of sanctity. That's a wholly personal matter, up to those involved and whatever ethical beliefs they have to provide privately.

Even the Bible says to render unto Caesar (government) what is Caesar's, and to render unto God what is God's. Legalizing same-sex marriage, then, is "rendering unto Caesar", and has no effect on "what is God's".

Legal same-sex marriage will not affect religious marriage in any way. Houses of worship will be free to offer or deny religious weddings to same sex partners as they always have, as it will not affect their legal rights to be married in any way.

It just boggles my mind that such a basic right was put to the population to vote on, where people are likely to vote against the right to same sex marriage based on religious beliefs, that they think it's "icky", and other reasons that are properly considered to be legally irrelevant. Interracial marriage, for example, was finally legalized in all fifty states by a Supreme Court decision, and was never subject to voting from the general population. If it had, I'm guessing it would still not be legal in all fifty states.

And though I would vote in favor of same sex marriage (and did two years ago, unsuccessfully), I personally believe it's none of my business. I do not think it's my place to decide on the basic civil rights of fellow citizens, as same sex marriage does not affect my rights or my life any way, positively or negatively, Those who voted "yes" to Prop 8 based on religious reasons have effectively imposed their religious beliefs on the rights of others, which violates the separation of church and state in my opinion.

If it were up to me, I'd just abolish legal marriage altogether for everyone, as I don't think it's the government's place to define, legislate, or promote any form of private, personal relationship between consenting adults. As a non-monogamous heterosexual, I strongly believe this.

The practical rights and benefits that currently come with marriage could be granted under Domestic Partnerships that would focus wholly on such practical benefits that come with sharing a household on a long-term basis, and would be granted without regard to the nature of the personal relationship of those involved, sexual or non-sexual. That would be private, as it should be. Marriage would then be defined by those involved and optionally by whatever faith, personal, or ethical tradition those involved might have and would be unrelated and irrelevant to whatever legal benefits one would have as a Domestic Partner.

Thoughts?

Don't Confuse "Normal" With "Healthy"

In a recent Alternet article, Why Straight People Need to Get into the Fight for Marriage Equality , by Joshua Holland, the author wrote of why it's important for straight people to support same-sex marriage.

While reading the comments, I came upon one that irritated me. This comment follows below, with my reponse after it.

The original comment:

Is It Normal?

I wonder if children being adopted by gay couples will grow up in a normal way like other children ( Who's Mom and Who's Dad?).
I know a male child will learn a lot from his father, who's going to shape the character of the daughter (the other guy playing mom!).

My response:

Don't Confuse "Normal" With "Healthy"

Healthy families love and nurture their children by keeping them safe, seeing to their welfare, and educating them into being happy, responsible adults.

Good character is the same for both sexes -- honesty, compassion, responsibility, and so on. It's not necessary to teach a child how to be a good man or a good woman -- we teach them how to be good people. If you're a good person, then you are automatically a good man or a good woman as well. Thus, the number and type of parents involved is a moot point. It's not the form of the parents' relationship that matters, but it's how they treat their children that's important.

There are already adults who have grown up in households headed by same sex parents and they run the gamut of character, just as those raised in families headed by different sex parents do. I can't see how legalizing same sex marriage will change the nurturing of the children in such families from what they've been receiving all along.

It's also interesting to note that these same tired arguments were presented as reasons to oppose interracial marriage -- that it was unfair to bring biracial children into the world because they wouldn't know where they "belonged", that they'd be crushed under the inevitable prejudice, blah, blah, blah. This opinion was repugnant then and the same attitude applied to same sex relationships is repugnant now.