Anything worth talking about, is worth blogging about

Posts tagged ‘Divorce’

Anti-gay bigotry weakens marriage

I came across this story on Pam’s House Blend (my emphasis):

Gay activists in Russia are planning to ask air passengers to boycott Aeroflot, Russia’s leading airline and not to use its services until the creation of equal conditions for all workers.

The call [for a boycott] comes following the revelation that gay flight attendant Maxim Kupreev was forced by his employers to enter into heterosexual marriage with his former high school girlfriend following his announcement last year to create an LGBT group within the company to fight for the protection of the rights of homosexual employees.

[…]

According to internal Aeroflot sources reported by GayRussia.eu, 25-year-old flight attendant Maxim Kupreev was given an ultimatum late last year to enter into heterosexual marriage or to lose his job. At the end of 2011 he married his school friend Sofia Mikhailova who got the right to fly Aeroflot for 10% of the fare – and other company privileges.

In order to register marriage with Kupreev, Mikhailova had to dissolve her real marriage to Grigoriy Andreykin. The divorce was finalised on 11 October last year.

Besides the fact that this is blatant bigotry, I’d also like to emphasize that this is actually weakening the sort of marriage anti–LGBT activists are always claiming needs to be protected.* First, Kupreev did not marry for any of the reasons anti–LGBT bigots are always claiming the purpose of marriage is (like having children), but rather to keep his job. And it required some other (different–sex) marriage to accomplish that. And if those things don’t weaken marriage, it’s beyond me how same–sex marriage possibly could.

* As far as I know, marriage equality hasn’t been much of an issue in Russia, and therefore I can’t know what sort of arguments are used about it over there. However, if I had to guess, anti–LGBT activists over there would probably use the same sorts of (refuted) arguments that are used over here.

Advertisements

A question

How exactly are laws preventing same–sex couples who really want to get married from actually getting married supposed to protect the sanctity of this 72–day marriage, a marriage that, unlike many other things, actually was over by Christmas?

Malta votes to enter the 20th century

In a referendum, Malta has voted to legalize divorce. From CBC News:

Malta, a tiny, staunchly Catholic Mediterranean island, has voted in favour of legalizing divorce, according to the results of a referendum.

[snip]

Sunday’s final results of the polling the day before showed that 52.67 per cent of people voted in favour of divorce, according to the Times of Malta.

Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi, who had campaigned against divorce, said parliament would respect the will of the people in the nonbinding referendum and work on legislation to legalize divorce….

This is an excellent move, and it should be no–fault divorce that is legalized. In a civilized society we do not force people to remain together if they do not want to. It should be no–fault divorce It should be emphasized that no–fault divorce has no long–term effect on the divorce rate (cite). From the previous it is clear that it is utterly ridiculous to argue that no–fault divorce threatens marriage. In addition, no–fault divorce reduces female suicide by 20%, likely reduces the number of women killed by their spouses, and reduces domestic violence against both men and women by up to a third (cite). With this information in mind, it is clear that anyone who would rather that people commit suicide and be murdered than get divorced clearly has seriously fucked up priorities.

So much for family values

The so–called “family values” of GOP presidential candidates are getting worse over time. This chart from Salon is instructive.

Nothing more to say, really.

How red staters live

The Christian Science Monitor (of all places) has a column about how those conservative Christian “family values” types actually live compared to blue folks (via Fannie):

… According to a new federal study, women with a college education are much more likely to be married than are women who have never graduated from high school. And men and women who married after the age of 25 have lower divorce rates than couples who were married at younger ages.

We could have predicted these results. The US family system, which once differed little by class or region, has become a marker of race, culture, and religion. A new “blue” family paradigm has handsomely rewarded those who invest in women’s as well as men’s education and defer childbearing until the couple is better established. These families, concentrated in urban areas and the coasts, have seen their divorce rates fall back to the level of the 1960s, incomes rise, and nonmarital births remain rare. With later marriage has also come greater stability and less divorce.

[…]

Difficulties in the “red” world, meanwhile, have grown worse. Traditionalists continue to advocate abstinence until marriage and bans on abortion. They’ve said an emphatic “no” to the practices that have made the new “blue” system workable.

Yet, paradoxically, as sociologist Brad Wilcox reports, evangelical Protestant teens have sex at slightly earlier ages on average than their nonevangelical peers (respectively, 16.38 years old versus 16.52 years old), evangelical Protestant couples are also slightly more likely to divorce than nonevangelical couples, and evangelical mothers are actually more likely to work full time outside the home than their nonevangelical peers…. (my emphasis in all cases)

Clearly, if anyone is going against the “traditional” family, it’s red staters. Also clear is how those godless, immoral blue staters are destroying marriage by having sex later and divorcing less. Absolutely no one is preventing conservative Christians from living the lifestyles they advocate; but if you don’t do what you tell others to do, the term for what you’re doing is hypocrisy.

This also shows the nonsense and hypocrisy of “family values” politicians. First of all, shouldn’t you get family values from your family? Why would you want to get it from the government?  This doesn’t mean that non–Republicans are exempt from criticism, but if you campaign on a “family values” platform but don’t actually live like you tell others to, it makes your hypocrisy worse.

All in all, it’s clear that Republican policies and lifestyles don’t protect “family values”. Instead, they just trap people in poverty, promote the very things they claim to stand against, and worse. Conservatives, evangelicals, and red staters are the real enemies in the war on marriage and the family.

Where are those marriage defenders now?

How many “marriage defenders” are defending the sanctity of this guy’s eleven marriages and counting? (via)

Also, by the looks of it, he is basically a parasite who lived off his wives. He has accumulated debts and hasn’t paid child support. Good reasons for him to be made to pay what he owes and to stay divorced11.

Also, a major FAIL for the BBC focusing on this serial divorcer and how he does not have gray hair, as opposed to, you know, the women and child he left.

Another brilliant example of “family values”

Eric and Sandy Mongerson, a Georgia couple with four children and married for twenty one years, are involved in a divorce case. It has been revealed that Mr. Mongerson is gay, and the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that his children cannot be disallowed from visiting him. Unsurprisingly, this has made it to OneNewsNow:

“In this case the court, in order to somehow perpetuate and further the interest of political correctness, has taken what’s in the best interest of the child and turned it on its head,” [Matt Barber, head of Liberty [sic] Counsel] contends.

Barber says there appears to be no consideration for the fact that children are very impressionable and could be harmed from exposure to a homosexual environment.

Deliberately keeping children away from their own biological parents is a pretty weird form of “family values”. It’s almost as if they think that being around gay people make you gay, the same way they think being around red-haired people makes your hair change colour.

Hat tip to Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: