#LoveWinsSunday

I love this especially since it uses the same song I used to propose to Scott

All That X-Rated Smut Is Killing Off Marriage, According To The FRC

The Family Research Council just won’t quit. Having clearly lost the battle to convince Americans that being gay is just about the worst thing you can “choose” to do, they’ve widened their scope in an attempt to shake their proverbial finger at the rest of a society they see as crumbling relentlessly around them.

Marriage — that sacred bond between a man and a woman, has been on the decline lately. Why? Well, according to them, it’s all that porn everyone is watching! They call it “common-sensical” that the more x-rated smut is freely available on the interwebs, the more damaged the institution of marriage becomes.

What they’re actually doing is taking the results from a study by a German think tank and using them to prop up their distorted view of reality. The Washington Post looked at the same study and had this to say:

“There are many reasons for the trend. One of the most provocative is the rise of wealth inequality. Andrew J. Cherlin made this point in a recent op-ed in the New York Times: Historically, low and stable inequality has coincided with periods of higher marriage rates among all socioeconomic groups. Marriage can be a expensive institution, especially without two sustainable sources of income. It’s likely of little coincidence that the United States is particularly unequal today, and its poor are particularly less likely to marry than the rich.”

They went on to point out several flaws in the study, one of which being that it examines data collected from 2000-2004, so, data that are a decade old.

Also, the researchers themselves note that their “findings fall short of being conclusive.”

But far be it for the FRC to use real-world logic when deciding which damaging thing to assert next.

These Gay Men Are Virgins... And Waiting For Marriage. Yes, Really...

Arielle Scarcella, Vlogger, Interviews Gay Men Waiting For Marriage To Have Sex :: In "Gay Virgins Til Marriage," the lesbian vlogger sits down with two gay men whose views about sex and relationships differ from the majority of those in the gay community.

Christian Anti-Gay Marriage Activist Admits Institution Of Marriage Is Doing Just Fine

In his attacks on the majority of Americans who support legally expanding the institution of marriage to include same-sex couples, religious right Christian warrior Matt Barber has said that the "homosexual lobby" doesn't want "the white picket fence, they want access to the white picket fence so they can burn it down."

But in a Friday night World Net Daily op-ed, "Flash: Christians actually far less likely to divorce," Barber admits that contrary to generally-accepted beliefs, the institution of marriage is actually doing just fine.

Barber, pointing to the research of a "Harvard-trained researcher and author," says "the 50-percent divorce figure is simply a myth based upon decades-old (and woefully inaccurate) speculation. As it turns out, the shelf-life for marriages in the U.S. has taken a sharp turn for the better since the 1970s and ’80s."

In short: all the fire and brimstone, end-of-the-world fear-mongering Barber -- and his partners in the Christian war against same-sex marriage -- have been waging has been entirely without merit. 

The institution of marriage is doing fine -- even better than it was just a few short decades ago. And same-sex marriage isn't hurting different-sex marriage, not one bit. Barber's numbers prove it.

So why does the institution of marriage need defending?

In his WND op-ed, Barber claims (despite research to the contrary) that "Christian marriages prove the most durable," or, as he repeats, "as with all things, marriages built upon the rock of Christ prove stronger still."

Of course, as with most things, Barber blindly promotes Christianity without looking beyond it.

As The New Civil Rights Movement noted last year, an evangelical Christian pollster found that atheists divorce less (and are better educated) than their fellow Christians.

A Barna Research Group report found that fundamentalist Christians have the highest divorce rate, followed by Jews and Baptists, as the Knoxville News' Al Westerfield reported. Atheists "tied with Catholics and Lutherans for the lowest divorce rate," Westerfield wrote.

So, Barber's "Christian marriages prove the most durable" schtick seems a bit inaccurate.

But bottom line: the institution of marriage is not in danger -- nor will attempts by Barber and his ilk to protect it help any.

What would help? The very thing the religious right hates: government intervention.

Why do Americans, especially those who claim to be "pro-life," refuse to push for what much of the Western world already has? 

Single-payer health care, more paid vacation time, more paid sick time, and especially, more paid maternity and paternity time.

"Out of 185 countries," Think Progress, (which has a great chart,) reported last month, "the United States is one of just three that doesn’t guarantee paid maternity leave, the others being Oman and Papua New Guinea. Over half of the countries that provide leave give at least 14 weeks off."

Families -- of all shapes and sizes -- do need help. 

But the institution of marriage, without Matt Barber, will do just fine.

Traditional Marriage

Sanctity Of Marriage Alert: Reality Show Features Couples Who Meet At The Altar

The Hollywood Reporter rips into the new show: 

For those who don't think ABC's The Bachelor escalates fast enough between meeting up and marriage, there now is FYI's Married at First Sight, on which three couples meet at their weddings, then have four weeks to decide whether they want to stay married. The concept is based on a popular Danish series and apparently a desire to make the idea of marriage as frivolous as possible. And, at a time when the definition and legalities of marriage are at the forefront of national conversations, it also seems particularly callous. Married at First Sight is one of more than six series that will, for better or worse, define the new FYI network. Parent company A&E appears to be throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, calling FYI (formerly known as Biography) a "hyphen network: creating-tasting-designing-loving-life." The I in FYI also is mutable, standing for "inspiration, imagination, innovation" (basically, I like whatever you like).

Virginia Court Official Tells Atheist Couple They Have No Right To Get Married Because They Don’t Believe In God

Marriage is a right that belongs to any consenting adults. But an over-religious court official in Virginia has a message for atheists and any other non-Christian: you have no right to get married if you don’t believe in God.

Bud Roth is a court appointed officiant in Franklin County, Virginia. He performs wedding ceremonies for couples who go to the courthouse to get married. Atheists, however, have no right to get married as far as he’s concerned.

When Morgan Strong and Tamar Courtney contacted the county courthouse to seal their love for each other after six years together, they were directed to Roth. Roth refused to perform the ceremony at the courthouse and only agreed to marry the couple if they tied the knot at his church. A deal was struck and the cost and date were set. Strong and Courtney would go through the legal part of the ceremony at Roth’s church. That’s when the whole situation turned ugly.

Roth asked the couple about their religious beliefs and upon hearing that he would be performing a ceremony for an atheist and an agnostic, turned the couple away. Why? Because they “didn’t know where God was.” That’s right, Roth refused to marry the couple out of sheer religious bigotry. Disappointed, Morgan and Courtney decided to discuss the situation with Roth and they kindly recorded the conversation.

Upon asking why Roth denied them their right to wed, he replied:

“Because she’s agnostic and you’re an atheist. I will not marry you. You don’t believe in God… I just don’t marry anyone who does not believe in God [or] believes that there is a God someplace. So I’m not going to talk the issue over with you and I’m not going to argue about it, okay? I’m just not going to marry you. Correct?”

The couple contacted the county clerk, who was floored by their story. She suggested they contact the judge who appointed Roth in the first place. So they wrote a letter to Judge William Alexander who didn’t see any problem at all with a court officiant refusing to marry a couple simply because they don’t share his religious beliefs. The judge referred the couple to the other court appointed officiant who agreed to perform the civil ceremony this coming Monday.

But this incident raises serious concerns. First, a civil servant is supposed to serve the public. That means anyone. As long as a couple has a marriage license, there shouldn’t be any problem. Second, religious discrimination is wrong no matter the venue, but for it to occur at a courthouse by a court official is totally unacceptable. People go to get married at a courthouse to avoid religious pomp and circumstance and because it’s quicker. They don’t go there to have religion shoved down their throats. That’s why my wife and I married at a courthouse. Not because we didn’t believe in a god, but because we didn’t want religion to dominate our day.

Roth was wrong to refuse to perform the ceremony just because Morgan and Courtney don’t share his beliefs. He was also wrong to require them to get married at his church. He’s a COURT-APPOINTED OFFICIANT, for crying out loud! He’s a courthouse employee. Therefore, anyone who wishes to marry at the courthouse should be married at the courthouse. Even if he’s the one asked to perform the ceremony. He’s paid by taxpayers to do this task. He’s not paid to drag couples to church or to refuse to marry a couple because of his own religious beliefs. Separation of church and state is clearly being violated here by both Judge Alexander and Roth. If Roth were a private citizen, then he could refuse to marry anyone. But in this case, he’s NOT a private citizen. The people of Franklin County, Virginia should be embarrassed and outraged by this and they should demand a change be made. Because once religious discrimination infects our courts, anyone is at risk to have their rights and freedoms trampled on by self-righteous pricks in the name of Christianity.

State lawmakers are considering throwing out marriage in Oklahoma

The Kind Of Marriage Proposal That Makes You Want To Go Out And Fall In Lesbian Love

Is Your Congressman Co-Sponsoring A New Amendment Banning Gay Marriage?

There are 29 Republicans who just became the most anti-gay Congressmen in America. After the Supreme Court last week ruled that DOMA is unconstitutional, Republican Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) introduced a bill proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would forever ban same-sex marriage across the nation. The bill now has 28 co-sponsors.

The bill’s introduction is a staggeringly stupid idea that could only come from a Republican, and only from a member of Congress. The bill is akin the the GOP’s 38 repeated attempts to repeal Obamacare — and it will never garner a supermajority of two-thirds of both houses of Congress, nor will it ever win the three-fourths majority of all state legislatures it requires to actually amend our Constitution, which is something that hasn’t been done — even in less polarized times — since 1992, and that amendment, the 27th, was introduced in 1789.
(To be historically fair, the 26th Amendment, allowing the right to vote at the age of 18, was introduced and passed in the same year — 1971.)
So, the Supreme Court rules that DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 that banned the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional.
Two days later, Rep. Huelskamp introduces a bill that supposedly will amend the constitution to make only “one-man, one-woman” marriages legal, because, you know, religious freedom, liberty, and protecting civilization.
He picks up 28 co-sponsors — all Republicans, of course — for the bill, House Joint Resolution 51.
They are, alphabetically, per GovTrack.us:
Barton, Joe [R-TX6]
Bridenstine, Jim [R-OK1]
Brooks, Mo [R-AL5]
Broun, Paul [R-GA10]
Duncan, Jeff [R-SC3]
Fleming, John [R-LA4]
Franks, Trent [R-AZ8]
Gohmert, Louie [R-TX1]
Hall, Ralph [R-TX4]
Harris, Andy [R-MD1]
Hultgren, Randy [R-IL14]
Johnson, Sam [R-TX3]
Jones, Walter [R-NC3]
Jordan, Jim [R-OH4]
Lankford, James [R-OK5]
Meadows, Mark [R-NC11]
Neugebauer, Randy [R-TX19]
Palazzo, Steven [R-MS4]
Pearce, Stevan “Steve” [R-NM2]
Pittenger, Robert [R-NC9]
Pitts, Joseph [R-PA16]
Schweikert, David [R-AZ6]
Shuster, Bill [R-PA9]
Smith, Christopher “Chris” [R-NJ4]
Stockman, Steve [R-TX36]
Walberg, Tim [R-MI7]
Westmoreland, Lynn [R-GA3]
Wolf, Frank [R-VA10]