I read an article yesterday about how Doug Hutchison of “The Green Mile” married a 16 year-old girl in Nevada. Marriage of minors is allowed in 39 states. So, a 51 year-old guy can marry someone who is young enough to still be in high school. That’s 39 states that see no issue with children whose brains have not fully developed to make (what aren’t always) life long commitments to another person of the opposite sex. Yet, 44 states in this country do not allow same-sex marriage. Six states (New York included) and D.C. allow same-sex marriage. That’s it. Is there something wrong with this picture? Okay, even the state I live in, which is pretty liberal could not pass a same-sex marriage bill, but it is one of the states that allow 16 year-olds to get married with parental consent. My state also allows first cousins to marry. Apparently all of that is fine and dandy, but God forbid that two consenting adults who just happen to be of the same sex want to tie the knot.
Traditional marriage is supposedly under attack, but if what is considered to be “traditional marriage” allows teenagers and first cousins to marry, what is it that is in so much danger by adding same-sex marriages to the table? Alfred Kinsey found that about 50% of men and 26% of women had sex outside of their marriages at one point in time. That means, out of this institution that somehow needs protection, a large percentage of spouses are stepping out on each other. So, we have teenagers and cousins who can get married, have their marriages recognized throughout the country, then can step out on each other. (Even in states that do not allow the marriages to originate, they must recognize them. i.e. first cousins cannot get married in WV, so they have to hop the border to MD or VA, get hitched, and then it can be recognized back in WV.) Yet, I cannot have a valid marriage to another woman recognized in my state or in other states unless it’s one of the six. The interstate rule against this is because of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). I repeat: What is being defended?
It seems to me that there are far bigger fish to fry than to ensure that a certain population cannot marry due to not being able to naturally procreate. That leads me to another thing; I have heard the line that marriage is needed in order for procreation. If procreation is the stipulator, what about married couples who never have children? I mean, what’s the point of their union?
Just a little food for thought.
Filed under: Uncategorized
I’ve written numerous letters to the editors about this. According to the ridiculous argument about kids, my marriage should be invalidated!
I think that traditional aka straight aka heterosexual should be made illegal as long as we keep producing gay children!!!!
Ok, that was a (lame) joke. People are afraid of what they don’t understand. And same sex marriage is an easy point of focus when the country is headed into default. I (because my brain works) support marriage between consenting adults and at times that is my only focus. (Actually had a boss get married in your state and was asked if he & his future wife were related. They replied, “Not yet.”)
And Riot Kitty is 100% correct. My marriage has produced 1 gorgeous Labradoodle, so we should be forced to split up & work in the coal mines or something (“Handmaid’s Tale”)
Exactly….took the words right out of my mouth!