Wednesday, April 23, 2008

SHOCKING: Star Jones and that guy are getting divorced.

I read the news today, oh boy, but I still have every reason to believe that the institution of traditional marriage remains unthreatened, as long as it's nothing but heterosexual couples getting divorced. Like Star Jones "Reynolds" and Al Reynolds, who got married in 2004 with God, friends, family and several corporate sponsors as their witnesses. Obviously a holy, personal union from the start and not Star Jones trying to prove to us and herself that she can actually get someone to marry her, I guess the magic just ended? Or maybe their money ran out?

Does it really matter? No, because no one blinks an eye when the straights get divorced. It's becoming par for the course - don't tattoo someone's name on you, because you'll probably get divorced. Make sure you're making your own money and sign a pre-nup, because you'll probably get divorced. But spend vast amounts of money on the one-evening event that is your wedding, because even though you'll probably get divorced, all that matters is that you lost an inch of your hairline/gained 15 pounds/took up smoking so you can show up your friends via online photo album.

But heaven forbid the gays from getting married, or even being together in the first place! Two consenting adults in love with each other? Blasphemy!

Maybe now that traditional marriage now includes divorce, that's what all the gay-bashers are using as their loophole: You won't be able to get a divorce, ladies and gentleman, and if you're uneligible for divorce, you can't be a part of the tradition of marriage. And if you think I'm joking, I saw much more warped circular logic during the 2004 election season. And the lead-up to the Iraq War.

And if you guessed that I'm a bitter singleton, you are correct. I won't front.

Labels: , , ,


Blogger KPinSEA said...

Marriage is either a legitimate interest of government and thus subject to the equality promised in the Constitution .... or a religious ceremony and protected by the Constitution from the govt. having anything to say about it.

Either way, I don't see the valid argument for prohibiting any person from marrying any other person if that's what they want.

1:17 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home