Just saw this on the MSNBC web site. As the "pro-family" movement goes on and on (and on and on and on) about how gay marriage is an "assault" or a "threat" to the institution, we have ABC basically paying two people to get married.

MSNBC: Bachelorette’s million-dollar nuptials

They only get the $$ if they get married, and presumably ABC will then broadcast it all over the land.

If "Married by America" and these other shows do not demonstrate how lightly some straight people think about marriage, then I don't know what does. I always thought those "Today throws a wedding" segments were cheesy ratings ploys, but at least the Today Show isn't paying people to go through with it.

Our community is so 'gung ho' about marriage, but why do we want to participate in something that the hetero world has made a mockery of????

I saw a commercial last night for "Who Wants to Marry My Dad?" or some show with a similar title. Does that not sound kinda sick to anyone else?!?!????

No kidding!

Heidi Fliess would be proud...this kids are pimping out their dad for what, the angst of saying, You're not my real mommy!

I think some of that fear just stems from the name "marriage" itself. They consider it theirs; a holy bond between a man and a woman, yadda yadda yadda.

I think if we just said "hey, let's call it X instead", they'd all shut up.

Who wants to Marry a Millionairre?
The Batchelor
The Batchelorette
Who Wants to Marry my Dad
And that new one from Simon, with American Idol

If this is what hertos think of marriage, they don't deserve the right to be married. (IMHO, of course)The entire concept has become so unattractive, my partner and I want nothing to do with it. Going back in time, we should also remember that marriage often occurred for the purpose of inheriting property. So the misuse of marriage has been going on for a very long time. Only now, it's just really freaky! :confused:

True - I do believe that marriage in itself has become such a loose thing - maybe it is because divorce has become so easy. Hell, they even took out the words "Till death do us part." when the vows are read.

Though we really shouldn't discredit it because the hetrosexual world has destroyed the true meaning of it. We have to get back to what it is all about and the true meaning of it.

I know personally I don't want to get married or have a commitment cerimony until I am sure that he is the one for life.

If conservatives truly wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage, they would be working to make divorce more difficult. I would support some sort of law putting a cap on the number of times an individual can get married. One divorce, fine - everybody makes mistakes. Two divorces - everybody makes mistakes, but come on. Three divorces - at that point I'd say a person, for whatever reason, isn't cut out for marriage and shouldn't be allowed to dive back in again. For some reason, I suspect most conservatives would not support this idea...

I think this guy - a total right-winger, for what it's worth - has the same idea.

New Names for Marriage

I believe that couples should be required to live together before marriage. I heard today that the divorce rate is up to 50% in this country now.

...nor would divorce lawyers...

Those who preach about the sanctity of traditional marriage etc. should take a second look at history -- I know in Denmark, for example, during the 18th and 19th centuries many straight couples slept together before marriage -- they wanted to ensure compatibility and that a pregnancy would happen. Makes you wonder what traditional values really are!

That there was no sex before marriage prior to the sexual revolution is a myth.

[ July 10, 2003, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: DCBucky ]

I think I've said this before, but I get uncomfortable with the use of the word "sanctity" to describe marriage. Sen. Frist used that word when he proposed the constitutional amendment requiring two-sex marriages. It reminds me of the fact that marriage is fundamentally rooted in religious tradition and, perhaps, the state should not be in the marriage business at all pursuant to the Establishment Clause of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

I don't know what the answer is to that dilemma.

(By the way, I also get the same sort of nervousness when someone advocates protecting a particular parcel of land because it is sacred to the native, indigenous people. Well, if the government is going to protect the land because it's sacred ... that's wrong. Establishment Clause again.)

CITT,

The solution to the dilemma would be what Dr.Dean did in Vermont. Just call it something else. Civil Union, partnership etc. The french call it Pacs. All the rights and responsibilities of marriage without the use of the one word that's causing people to hiccup. So let the religious right have the word "marriage" we don't need it.

Like I said many times, as long as it looks like a rose and smells like a rose, I don't care if we call it a pancake. I'll know what it is.

Michael Kinsley proposes "privatizing" marriage. I think he's probably about 90 percent serious.

Abolish Marriage

The thought of privatizing things really gets me all worked up, almost as much as cutting taxes.

The problem with Kinsley's solution is it would still remove the one thing that the "pro-family" movement is trying to maintain - the superiority of heterosexual relationships in the government's eyes.