Hallmark “Comes Out” with Gay Marriage Cards
You knew it was coming, didn’t you?
So Hallmark has introduced gay marriage cards. They don’t feel it is a political statement, but rather answering consumer demand. You can read the whole story here.
For the record, I am definitely on the anti side of gay marriage. I am, as I have all ready said in another post, heartily sick of marriage being tugged at, prodded, pushed, and having it’s boundaries stretched.
It reminds me of the 1970s when some women decided that not only did they want to be sports reporters but that they wanted to do interviews in the locker-rooms. As a teenager with healthy hormones I often dreamed of doing interviews with certain athletes in the locker-rooms but lets not go there, o.k.?
Boundary stretching seems to be what our society is all about. What is the definition of sex, what is the definition of marriage, what is the definition of definition….
It does not hurt me that Hallmark came out with same sex marriage cards. I don’t feel threatened by it. But I do think that it should be in another category.
“Sin” comes to mind as being a good one…
I realize that companies are all about the profits but I fail to see how a company can create a Christian card and a Gay marriage card in the same factory. I think it is written in Deuteronomy or Leviticus that you are not supposed to mix certain things…It isn’t Kosher.
But I could be happy if they would just call them “Committed Relationship” cards. That way it would just cover all of those relationships where people don’t want to actually, you know, cut covenant.
I have read so much lately about how marriage is a sham, and how it has historically just been a political agreement…
Well, that is true. Geez, that is like someone looking at me and saying “YOU! YOU ARE NOT PERFECT!!!”
“Psh, Really? Crap!”
News-flash Genius, there is no requirement for romance in the marriage covenant…that is sort of the whipped cream and chocolate sauce….
So…Hey, grab a cup of coffee or tea, and a scone or something and settle in…this is going to be long.
First let’s look at the word, Marriage. Bolds, mine.
MAR’RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
It is a contract. So, if political powers in days past used it for political leverage that was o.k…it was within the legal definition of the contract.Sure, some marriages are bad, but just because Enron screwed up doesn’t mean that we totally restructure what a corporation is, does it? Because if it does, Hallmark is in trouble.
Now, being a foodie I happen to know that Devonshire cream only comes from one place. Champagne only comes from one place. Kona Coffee only comes from one place. There can be other imitations of those things, and they can even advertise being Champagne style, Devonshire style, etc. but they cannot claim to be the original.So Hallmark should have stated that they have ‘Come Out” with marriage style cards for Gays. I could live with that.
In the 1970s, back in the dark ages before Al Gore spoke and the Internet and global warming were created, I worked in the visual merchandising field in Dallas. I was also an artist, painting on commissions from local interior decorators…AND I modeled some. At the ripe old age of 17, as a very, very heterosexual female I was immersed in the gay community. The photographers I worked with, the guys that I did store displays with (at places like Neiman’s, Lord and Taylor, and Joske’s), the interior decorators…the guy that did my hair….When I went to the disco I went with my friends, who were all gay guys, and we went to a then famous Dallas club called Old Plantation, the 1977 Mecca for the Gay community.
I went to many, MANY Dallas parties at addresses on streets like Herschel and Oak Lawn. I have seen gay relationships up close. They may be alot of things…but they are neither marriages, nor are they gay (happy, joyful, fun).
And…Hallmark is not even really being politically correct with this thing….If I was gay, I would be pretty ticked at the sexism that Hallmark is showing..I mean they have two tuxs on a card, but not two wedding dressings. Let’s not overlook the small things guys, stereotypes and sexism are just as rampant in the pro-gay community as anywhere else.
I find it humorous that lawyers and judges, those people that study the law the most are the very ones pushing the boundaries and trying to twist words to say what they want them to.
And just as soon as gay marriage is commonplace and everyone is cool with it…we will have someone pushing the boundaries and trying to have marriages between people and animals recognized by the government, and then people and plants…and then people and rubber dolls…..
It used to be called insanity..but now we just call it freedom of choice.
Image: Photo provided by Hallmark, AP photo/Hallmark
Tags: gay marriage, hallmark, marriage cardsPOSTED IN: Marriage News
42 opinions for Hallmark “Comes Out” with Gay Marriage Cards
Instant Tea » Blog Archive » I’m angry, and you should be too
Aug 22, 2008 at 11:15 am
[…] neither marriages, nor are they gay (happy, joyful, fun).” I encourage all of you to comment on her blog and let Marye know just how wrong she […]
Jenn
Aug 22, 2008 at 1:15 pm
…and you just lost any authority that you had for understanding what marriage is about. It has been a long time since marriage was about property. Marriage is a public commitment with significant legal consequences. Today, it is also about deep and enduring love. I’m pretty happy about that. Despite the fact that your artistic friends were not ready for it, that does not mean that there are no same-sex couples who are.
-happily hetero, happily married
Sean
Aug 22, 2008 at 1:20 pm
How dare you equate your personal experience with the “norm” of the gay community. I can also give you a very long list of straight marriages that are neither joyful, happy, or fun. Do you think half of marriages that are ending in divorce are joyful, happy, or fun?
And also, the idea of comparing gay marriage (a union between to human beings, i.e. people, i.e. citizens, i.e living, breathing, loving people) to plants, rubber dolls, is laughable. Surely any educated person can see the difference here.
Until someone gives me a thought-out, logical, and legitimate reason gay people should not be allowed to marry, I cannot help but support it.
Marye Audet
Aug 22, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I agree, Jenn, that marriage is a public commitment with significant legal consequences. I agree that it should be about deep and enduring love. After 28 years of marriage, I think I get that.
What I don’t get is how we can change the legal definition of something that has been defined for thousands of years to encompass something it was never meant to encompass.
And I never claimed being an authority in anything. :)
I don’t doubt that there are same sex couples that have great marriage style relationships…however, they cannot be, by definition, a marriage.
I am only stating facts.
Marye Audet
Aug 22, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Sean, how dare I have an opinion? I don’t know. Just do.
I did not compare gay marriage to marriage to rubber dolls. If you will read carefully you will see that I said that if the definition of marriage continued to be stretched it would eventually be stretched in that direction.
Support anything you want. You have my permission.
Thanks for stopping by. :)
Sean
Aug 22, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Of course you are allowed to have an opinion, but base that opinion on fact. Don’t spread nonsense as truth.
You base your opposition on some friends you had in the 70s who had less than perfect relationships? I can’t begin to tell you how many flawed relationships, both straight and gay, I see.
Also - Definitions change all the time - as we become wiser as a society, and as a people. Because Webster says it - it must be fact? It cannot be altered or changed? It is forever sealed as the end-all, be-all? I really think this is incredibly shortsighted.
Marye Audet
Aug 22, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Sean,
I find your comment interesting. Let me ask you this. IF something is defined a certain way, in a legal sense, for eons then what gives modern man the chutzpa to change it to suit his momentary opinions and desires?
I don’t disagree that there are terrible relationships both hetero- and homo- sexual. What I disagree with is that a marriage style relationship can be correctly termed a marriage in a legal sense.
SHould we just alter laws that seem inconvenient or uncomfortable to us? While that does seem to be the norm for the past 20 years, I am not sure that it is a great idea.
Personally I would like to see cell phone use in restaurants made illegal. I would like to see large roadsigns advertising gentleman’s clubs made illegal…It negatively affects my quality of life. Sigh…that darn freedom of speech thing anyway!
In my middle age I have become a bit near sighted, but short sighted? never.
Sean
Aug 22, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I think you have made your general leanings very clear - which obviously would shape your opinion on any social growth - whether that be gay marriage, interracial dating, freedom of speech, voting rights - - anything that we are able to view from a wiser point of view.
If you believe that social norms should not change, even when once accepted as fact, why not still have slaves? Why should women have the right to vote? Why should blacks and whites be able to eat in the same diner? These were all once considered and defined as norms. But, we became wiser.
But, in closing, I have a sneaky feeling that you might still agree with some of these outdated social norms, so this argument might be moot.
Kristi
Aug 22, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Bravo!!!!!!! Well said!
Marye Audet
Aug 22, 2008 at 2:12 pm
I Never said that social norms should not change, Sean. Sigh..Have you not read what I have written?
I believe that the legal definitions of long standing laws should rarely be changed.
I imagine our world views are a bit different. I don’t think that social norms should necessarily rule society.
Blacks and whites, yellows and browns…even blues (have seen a couple of those lately at the VA) should all be able to eat at the same diner because:
1. They all have money
2. There is not a long standing reason why they shouldn’t…they only things that said that they shouldn’t were laws made for mans convenience, to legalize something that a few people wanted and alot of people didn’t….because it seemed to be the right thing to do…
hey…..wait a minute…..
Ginger
Aug 22, 2008 at 2:26 pm
You know Sean, it is a weak argument that starts making accusations based on assumptions such as you have done regarding Marye’s views on other issues.
You are attempting to side track people by bringing in a slew of unrelated issues and declaring Marye to be generally close minded.
You are trying to declare her arguments unfit by associating her with other isuues of which you have no proof. Sad, very sad.
Ironically, by assuming Marye to have these other beliefs you are actually showing your self to be close minded and bigoted.
To bring it back to topic, a person’s view on race and feminism has no bearing on the definition of marriage, and the definition of marriage is what is currently being discussed.
TerryLawrence
Aug 22, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Bravo Ginger. I was just thinking the same thing. A very weak argument indeed, and a common tactic for trolls. Not saying that Sean is a troll, only that trolls often use that tactic.
FWIW Marye, I have started several posts here trying to put my feelings on this subject into words and have erased them all. You are doing a beautiful job and I don’t need to add a thing :D
Terry
Marye Audet
Aug 22, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Thanks Ginger and Terry..
but do we really want to introduce LOGIC in this thing?
Jennifer
Aug 22, 2008 at 8:26 pm
<>
LOL!! Probably not, since there’s no LOGIC to gay marriage to begin with…
Terri
Aug 23, 2008 at 9:53 am
Marye,
Couldn’t have said it better! Thank you for being factual and honest about an issue that many people are afraid to touch for fear of being politically incorrect.
laurie
Aug 23, 2008 at 10:35 am
I could not disagree with you more on this topic. Kudos to Hallmark.
While I value your right to your opinion, I find it upsetting you would imply the people that disagree with you are not logical. One poster even laughing about it. There is nothing remotely funny about this post. It is a very serious subject that affects millions of people. How there is humor in that, I dont know.
Marye Audet
Aug 23, 2008 at 10:46 am
Jennifer, thanks for stopping by
Terri- hi! good to see you
Laurie- I am not implying that people that disagree with me are not logical..I am saying that the arguements I was getting were not logical. Too many times when there is a difference in opinion the dissenting opinion will go off on tangents.
Remember that it was implied in a comment that because I don;t think gay marraige can be defined as marriage that I am racist and anti-feminism…how logical is that? and I have no control over my commenters…I just edit out the bad words. :)
I respect anyone’s opinion. This was mine.
TimS
Aug 23, 2008 at 11:10 am
Society IS about stretching boundries. If your ancient logic is correct,then women are the property of their husbands. How many fought long and hard for women’s rights,including the right to vote. Everyone should have a right to pick who they love and want to marry,unite with,or whatever we can call it to make YOU happy. Why don’t you devote more time to divorce and adultry that your Bible speaks about? I don’t understand how Christains are always attacking gay people,but don’t seem to mind hetrosexual people on their second,third “marriage”. Is that commitment? What does your imaginary friend Jesus have to say about that?
Marye Audet
Aug 23, 2008 at 11:22 am
Tim,
first of all thanks for stopping by. Second I have not attacked anyone, I have merely stated an opinion, backed by my own reasons for thinking that way.
My imaginary friend Jesus says that you are in His imaginary heart constantly. :)
TimS
Aug 23, 2008 at 5:22 pm
If you say that me and my partner of seven years have no right to our civil right of marraige,then you have attacked US. You didn’t answer my question about why divorce seems to be ok. My local Baptist church has classes for newly divorced to help cope. I was raised in the hateful Baptist church where I was told as a young teen that it was better to commit suicide than to be gay. If me and my partner,lover,boyfriend,whatever name you want to call the sweet kind man that I love, went to a Baptist church and held hands,I’m sure we would be asked to leave,but how many of those good Baptists are still with their first,and ONLY wives or husbands in the eyes of God, but are welcomed in the church? Why can’t you say divorce is the real threat to marraige,not what me and my very steady partner are up to? Are you divoced? Again,your Bible has been used to justify such old,antiquated ideas as slavery and racism. Please quit using the Bible to hold me down and denying me the right to love who I choose.
TerryLawrence
Aug 23, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Tim,
In a sense, wives do belong to their husbands. I belong to mine, and he belongs to me… that’s pretty much what our marriage vows said in a nutshell… :D
I am about to make an assumption… so if I am wrong, please forgive me. I assume that you are speaking about the whole “wives submit to your husbands” thing when you bring up wives being “property” of their husbands. Most non Christians have a hard time with that one… heck, most Christians have a hard time with it :D
As a Navy wife who spends long periods of time being in charge of the houshold and then has to adjust to having a husband in the picture again, let me tell you, submission might have a whole different meaning to me than to other Christian wives, so I apologize in advance to all my Christian sisters if I don’t have it quite right :D . What it means to me is that when a problem arises, or a family decision needs to be made, my husband and I sit down, discuss, crunch numbers, hash out ideas, whatever. I then sit back and since I know my husband loves us and only wants the very best for us (Kinda like Jesus does :D ), I trust him to take all the ideas, discussion, whatever and come to the very best decision for us. We have been pretty much happily married for over 27 years, so I think it’s working pretty well, so in that sense, I am perfectly happy to “belong” to my husband :D
As for Christian attitudes toward divorce and re-marriage, I am not sure about the Christians you know, but in the many years I have been a Christian and with all the Christians I have known throughout my life, I have never met a single one who was cavalier or nonchalant about divorce. Divorce is a serious thing and is not something that should be taken lightly. I have never met one single Christian, even the divorced ones that I know, that thinks divorce is hunky dory and a good option. It’s an agonizing, heart breaking process… which is why God really doesn’t like it at all… that whole “He loves us and wants what’s best for us” thing again :D .
Quote: “What does your imaginary friend Jesus have to say about that?”
:::sigh::: This is why I generally steer clear of “debate” forums… I know this isn’t one, but… A statement like that does nothing to help others understand your position or gain respect for your post. It is meant to evoke emotion and disrupt logical, intelligent discourse. Why not just have an intelligent discussion about the subject and avoid the jabs? It is possible to have a respectful discussion, even with people you totally disagree with. It just takes a little effort :)
As for our imaginary friend, Jesus.. why not ask Him your self what he thinks? You might be surprised at what you hear :D
Marye, my apologies for the long post… and for any Biblical errors… you know me, I approach God pretty simply and childlike most of the time… I never feel like I am as “deep” as others, but it works for me! :D
Terry
Marye Audet
Aug 23, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Tim- I have not said you have not right to your civil marriage..you can do what ever you want.
I don’t know about any church but mine. You would not be asked to leave. I don;t think you would be asked to kill yourself…We do have koolaide once in awhile but noone has died yet.
You would be told that the church feels that you are wrong, you would be showed why scripturally, and then you would be loved.
Because despite the fact that some of us narrow minded christians disagree with your lifestyle, it has no bearing on how we feel about you personally..so chill.
If you read more than just this one post that ticked you off you would see that personally speaking I don’t believe in divorce either. I am pretty good about being non-discriminatory about who I tick off…Gay, straight, black, white…men, women….
I just seem to be an irritating sort of person.. :)
But my imaginary friend Jesus and I had a chat about you today…and we will continue to do so..that you are blessed in every way, and know Him more..and then maybe, when he is your imaginary friend too, the two of you can decide what is best for you..It really is not my business…
I just don’t like the cards. And I don’t happen to believe that the definition of marriage stretches to fit same sex relationships. Notice that I did not get bent out of shape when you tagged Jesus my imaginary friend? I have no issues with other people’s opinions. You have every right to have any relationship (with a consenting adult) that you want..because we live in AMERICA, by golly!
Aww, Ter, you did great. :) Always good to see ya.
Marye Audet
Aug 23, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Oh..Tim…by the way…
Nope…Marc and I have been married for 28 and a half years.
And we still really, really like each-other…a lot.
I agree, the Bible has been used as the freedom to do many awful things but that doesn’t mean that those things are encouraged in it. There is always freedom of choice….and of course that pesky old sin nature.
Sigh…did I ever say that your relationship was a threat to my marriage? No I did not. And I am not Baptist.
Dear God, it is worse than that, Tim…I am a…a….nondenominational Christian..too God-awful rebellious to be in a denomination.:::sob…sniff:::
Focus on Family
Aug 24, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Mary, It is so nice to have you on our side to fight for the rights of all breeders. If you went to the Old Plantation, then you must be really Old. That is the kind of women we love and depend on. Old ex bitter fag hags make the best homophobes. I hope you will join me, Mr. Ted Haggerd, and Mrs. Larry Craig at the Westboro Baptist Church next week where we are getting a petition together to make it illegal for homosexuals to drive cars. I mean, who do they think they are, wanting to travel and all. We are just getting started. As soon as we get all the gays shipped away, we are going to start working on the blacks and jews. Did you know that white jewish women have been known to marry black men? Society can not allow this sort of sin to continue. It is up to people like us, the holier than thou, to correct all that is wrong with the world. It is evident that Hallmark Cards in a front for Satan worshipers and democrats.
Thank you for helping shine a light on this
evil doer company and hopefully bring them down.
I heard they even sell sympathy cards to some of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that we have killed in the name of God. Of course, as we believe life begins at conception, I trust you have never used contraceptives, birth control or
had your hetersexual male mate wear a condom. That would make you a baby killer, and you know that we only want to kill the gay babies…right?
Also, you are aware that the life begins a conception concept only applies to Americans. If you live outside of America, your right to life is totally based on the Bush Family.
Now, please continue to spread your bigoted word and without a doubt, you will be the next Ann Coulter. That is what we all yearn for.
Now I must go as we are having a Botox party at 7pm.
Marye Audet
Aug 24, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Focus on the Family-
thank you so much for your warm welcome. Reading your comment I had that same warm, fuzzy feeling as when I got off the bus at Ft. Leonard Wood Missouri for boot camp and met my Drill Sergeant for the first time!
You are absolutely right..I am incredibly old…so my mind doesn’t work as sharply as it used to..It makes it very difficult for me to pick up sarcasm…what with my dementia and all.
Well, thank you so much for stopping by..I really must go…I am clubbing baby seals this weekend!
{{{{Hugs!}}}}}
Michael West
Aug 25, 2008 at 3:17 pm
The use of a dictionary from the past is only useful in defining what a word meant, not what it means and certainly not what a word should mean. A dictionary does not have legal standing, nor does the dictionary definition and the legal definition of a word ever match exactly.
If marriage is a contract then it is an activity defined by the state. If it is a covenant then it is an activity defined by religion. This is obvious since no matter what I may believe about marriage and divorce, both contracts must be filed with the state to affect any change in my legal status. What I’m getting at is that as a legally binding ceremony it is in fact whatever the law defines it as. And the law is whatever the people agree that is. You cannot in a free society choose words that are used by the public at large and freeze them for use only by a single group. It is more justified that Christians should be forced to refer to their beliefs as Christian marriage than it is for all other groups to refer to their marriages as marriage like.
brian nesbitt
Aug 25, 2008 at 4:05 pm
but you are only clubbing the gay baby seals right?
i’m glad to see that you have some sense of humor however the tone of your article really bothered me.
without over-doing quotations let me say how hypocritical i found this article. you describe homosexuality as a sin yet speak of lusting after men in locker rooms. you use levitical law yet i’d be willing to bet you are just as guilty of breaking rules in those same passages (ever had shrimp before).
you talk about your friends in the 70’s that had unhappy gay relationships and imply that all gay relationships are this way.
in a reply to a comment you said that even happy gay relationships cannot be called marriages and that you are only stating facts. well, you say that marriage is a legal contract. one that is recognized by several different countries and 2 states within our own. the fact is, 2 men or 2 women can get legally married. unfortunately that isn’t the case everywhere (yet) but it does happen in some places.
well, i could sit here and debate this with you all day but what’s the point. you believe that gays don’t deserve the same rights that you have. you believe that our love is somehow a lesser love. i have to go now so i can start planning my wedding to a rubber doll….
Marye Audet
Aug 25, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Micheal- thank you for your comment. It is one of the few that was logical, well thought out, and did not assume that I was racist, anti-feminist, or old. Obviously we have different perspectives. I do think that marriage is a covenant and always will be. What the state chooses to do is secondary. I do concede that gays can certainly have a state approved, legally binding contract …but I cannot define that as a marriage from my perspective.
Ah Brian. No, I club baby seals whether they are gay or not… I think that lusting after men in locker rooms at age 17 is probably pretty normal for 17 year old girls, and maybe even some 17 year old boys from the way it sounds here…I could be wrong.You are right though, sin is sin..and I repented of the lusting a long time ago..unfortunately not being perfect I repent of alot of things..often.
I never said that gay love was a lesser love..I only said that it wasn’t marriage. And hey..when hallmark comes out with wedding to a rubber doll cards I will certainly send you one…
Dave
Aug 26, 2008 at 6:31 am
For me, part of the problem stems from the confusion and wasted time. Imagine telling someone you’re married, and having to explain when they ask after your wife (or husband as teh case may be) and you tell them you don’t have one. Awkward!! And a wonderful way to get to know homophobes such as Marye or myself.
So, instead of broadening the denotation of the word marriage, I’d like to suggest that gays go find their own word for Same Sex Marriage. Perhaps “Ssmarriage”.
Now you can go up to someone and say “I’m ssmarried!” and we’ll know exactly what you’re talking about. We can then immediately ask after your husband (or wife) without that truly awkward moment involved at all.
“I’m ssmarried”, “he’s ssmarried”, “she’s ssmarried”, “they’re ssmarried”.
The more I think about it, the more I hope it catches on.
Remember, you heard it here first!!
>G<
Dave
Marye Audet
Aug 26, 2008 at 8:05 am
Brilliant, Dave….simply brilliant. :D
Charles Watkins
Aug 26, 2008 at 9:16 am
This is a very interesting conversation. Everyone appears to have made their point to some degree.
I would propose that it is not a question of legalizing gay marriage. The real question is not weather time has defined what a marriage is.
The question is, “Is Homosexuality A Sin?”; that is the question. If it is, then the question of marriage is a moot point.
We should not deal with what is right or wrong, there are too many shade of gray in that comparison. We must deal with what is Godly or un-Godly.
Too often we operate in the perceptions of what we think God is or should be while God operates in the reality of who he is.
Two people can look at the same law and come to different interpretations, but in the end the judge will decide and each person will have too live eternally by the merit of their decisions.
One can not be convinced of the truth. We could choose to believe a lie and hold to that lie until death. But the christian has a mandate to speak the truth and God be will the judge, ” Let God be true and every man a lie.”
Christians do not have to apologize for the truth. Because I do not accept a lifestyle that is sinful does not mean I don’t love the person.
Lifestyle acceptance is not a prerequisite for love nor is the lack thereof a mandate of hate.
The Stepford Wife
Aug 26, 2008 at 9:44 am
I personally have no issue with Hallmark’s decision to create cards for people who are entering into same-sex marriages. There are many people across the country who are entering into both legal same-sex marriages, and non-legally binding unions that are announced and celebrated as marriages, and I think that Hallmark is right in saying that there is a market for cards that celebrate those facts. I personally see nothing hypocritical about producing same-sex marriage cards and Christian cards by the same company… Hallmark is a business, not a representation of a particular religion, nor a figurehead of any church or doctrine. As such, their goal is not to forward a particular religion or belief, but to market a variety cards to the widest demographic of people. After all, before Hallmark produced homosexual marriage cards, they produced a line of cards under their primary “Love” category with the sub-category of “Suggestive.” Those cards are varying degrees of sexual suggestiveness. I should know, I get (and give) quite a few of those to Mr. Stepford… ;) One of them I got for him wasn’t very subtle as the punch line referred quite clearly to receiving oral sex.
That goes to show, to me at least, that Hallmark feels comfortable in exploring topics which some would feel are uncouth or taboo, because in spite of one person’s discomfort with such a card, there are others who find them funny or appealing. For those who find it inappropriate or offensive, there are a variety of other cards offered, including Christian-themed ones, which may more reflect the sentiments of some customers.
As for the same-sex marriage issue as a whole, I have no objection to allowing same-sex marriages, and I’m proud to live in a state that allows same-sex unions and is exploring the possibility of legalizing same-sex marriage. I support my state’s endeavor, and I hope that other states will follow suit in due time. I know there is concern that allowing same-sex marriages will somehow demean or diminish the value of other marriages… But I can state first-hand that since the allowing of same-sex unions in my state, my marriage has not been affected in the slightest. The sanctity of one’s marriage comes not from external forces, but from internal forces. As in, a marriage is only as sacred as it’s participants. If one has a non-sacred marriage, or a meaningless marriage, it’s probably not because the gay neighbors decided to get married, if you know what I mean. :)
Remembering always that marriage is not an exclusively Christian expression, but it’s also one shared between people of other faiths, mixed faiths, or even no faith, and that it’s an institution with both religious and legal implications, I don’t see how allowing gay marriage would affect one’s Christian marriage. As we speak, there are people of non-Christian faiths marrying, or people who are Christian marrying outside of church, or people who’re Christian marrying non-Christians. From a strictly Biblical sense, such things are certainly frowned on. However, we allow the marriages to happen in recognition that marriage has implications beyond Christianity, beyond spirituality. I don’t see why homosexual marriages should be any different. Maybe they can’t marry in a Christian church that disagrees with such unions… But hey, a Catholic Church won’t marry a Baptist, and an Amish Church won’t wed a Jew, I couldn’t marry in a Muslim ceremony if that was my choice… So churches exercising their choice in who to marry and who not to marry would also extend to a church’s view in not marrying a same-sex couple. If a Christian minister didn’t want to marry a gay couple, he wouldn’t be required to, for the same reason he’s not required to marry everybody who asks. My grandmother remembers a time where she remembers churches not marrying interracial couples, and interracial couples being not only socially rejected, but legally impossible. When the tides had turned, individual churches reserved the right not to bless the union, as I’m sure some churches now continue. That is their right. But their right to not marry those couples doesn’t translate over into dictating how marriage as a bond and legal standing should be carried out by other faiths, or by the government.
Marriage is something that’s existed for more than awhile now. It’s been able to withstand marriages set up for convenience, marriages that were arraigned, marriages that endured violence and abuse, marriages entered into with little thought involving near or total strangers, marriages as the result of pregnancy, and marriages that eventually end through divorce, abandonment, or death. Things I think are all far greater issues than two people of the same sex willfully and intentionally entering into a union.
Remembering always that at this time, there are countless people entering into marriages we personally may feel are not appropriate, unwise, disgraceful, counter to one’s religious belief, or even general marital bliss, happiness, and success… Yet in spite of this we still allow them to marry without any objections or legal tip-toeing, I don’t see why this can’t be extended to homosexuals. If one doesn’t agree with the union, don’t go to a marriage of that nature, don’t enter into a homosexual union, and don’t send them a card… Those are all your rights. But telling them they can’t, or telling the government they can’t… That’s no more appropriate when the couple is two men or two women then it would be for you to tell the government a marriage contract shouldn’t be issued to the two 18 year olds who’ve known each other for a week. I guess if you don’t even want to call them a marriage, you don’t have to… However, when I meet a couple I don’t interview them and their beliefs so I can determine if I believe their marriage valid or not, then refer to them as unmarried or refuse to acknowledge their marriage if they don’t meet my criteria. I don’t think that’s how one demonstrates love and respect to another, though if one chooses differently, that is of course their prerogative. It’s just something to consider.
As to it now being the launching point to marriage with animals and inanimate objects… One of the basic tenants to marriage is the legal agreement established by two consenting parties. Two men can consent to marry, and a man may consent to marry a plant, but the plant can’t consent back. The dog can’t consent back. Your car can’t consent back. And for the social awkwardness of saying “I’m married” then having somebody inquire about a wife, only to be corrected that the spouse in question is male… I don’t really see that as socially awkward. I know that from the gay men and women I know, they’re used to such corrections. I don’t find that kind of correction any more or less socially awkward then having somebody state they’re married, then discovering that the spouse in question is deceased… It’s a possible state of one’s marriage, one of the many marital variables that can come up through social interaction. Nothing to be embarrassed about. Certainly not enough of a reason that we can legislate that either same-sex couples or widowed spouses can’t call themselves married.
Marye Audet
Aug 26, 2008 at 10:49 am
Charles, you are exactly right…there is no way to find common ground in this argument when you are dealing with two completely world views.
Stepford, thanks for stopping by over here! I appreciate your comments. The issue seems to be, as Charles said, whether or not marriage is something that was defined and instituted by God. If you believe it is then your definition will be different than if you believe it to be a legality.
TerryLawrence
Aug 26, 2008 at 12:25 pm
First, let me say how nice it is to see comments that are thoughtful, respectful and informative! Kudos!
Stepford, I agree with a lot of what you had to say. There are plenty of heterosexual marriages that don’t even come close to Webster’s definition.
My husband and I met in the summer of 1979 at The Rocky Horror Picture Show… now there’s a story that is fun to tell when someone from church asks how you met ;D LOL! We ran with the “elite” group that went in costume every week… in fact, I was dressed as Columbia when I met hubby… the one and only time that they covinced me to go in costume… LOL :D It was an interesting group of people. I don’t regret one minute of that time of my life. I believe that all your life experiences contribute to who you are. There were valuable lessons learned… both positive and negative… and a couple of very valuable relationships made… married one of them, best friends to this day with another :D .
Hubby’s best friend, who was also his best man at our wedding, was/is gay. He is also a now a Wiccan, although he wasn’t at the time of our wedding.
We lost touch with him after we had been married for a few years only to finally find him again several years later. We visited him and his partner after we got back in touch with him. We were ecstatic to have found him again. We had a nice long visit. We caught up on what we had been doing in our lives, remembered old times, laughed a lot. We had a good time.
After we left and took the long trip back home, we emailed a couple of times, but our friend seemed distant. I finally emailed him and asked him point blank if something was wrong. He said that he was worried because hubby and I had changed so much. We were Republicans… conservative… Christians… military. He was gay, liberal, Wiccan. I asked him if during our visit we had done or said anything to make him uncomfortable. He said no, it was afterwards when he was thinking about all the differences. I then pointed out that we actually had not changed all that much. We had always been the most “conservative” of our group of friends and in fact, by the time the wedding came around, we were pretty much out of that circle of people and we had gotten married on Sunday morning during our regular church service and for goodness sakes he was there so he should remember! He laughed and agreed that we had already been well on that road by that time. I told him that while we might not agree with everything he believed that we would never, EVER judge him or preach to him or try to change him… but that we might pray for him to be happy, healthy and all that God wants him to be… :D . We just wanted to be friends and to love him.
That was about 10 years ago and he has finally realized that it’s safe to be in our lives and talks to us regularly over the computer. We don’t hide our Christianity with him… we share stuff that happens in church… like the time our pastor was baptizing a baby girl named Victoria Rose and when it came time to do the baptism he said, “Victoria Secret, I baptize…” in stead of Victoria Rose ROFL!
We truly do love him. He is no longer in a relationship with anyone, but is still gay. It’s okay. It’s really between him and God. We can’t do anything to change him. We just live by example by trying to live the best we can. Our pastor often says that we should be living our lives so that people come up to us and ask what it is we have that makes us so different and how can they get some too :D How you live is sometimes the very best witness :D
If we were to ever get a wedding invitation to a wedding between this friend and another man, I will be honest and say that I can’t say for certain what we would do. I tend to think that it would be our higher calling from God to continue to love him and to witness to him through our lives and not to damage the relationship.
I still don’t believe that gay unions should not be called marriages. I believe, like Marye, that marriage is a covenant… it’s a sacrament in my denomination (Anglican). I don’t have a problem with civil unions with all the legal rights. I actually think that heterosexual marriages that are not religious in nature should be called civil unions also.
The Stepford Wife
Aug 26, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Marriage can be something designed and instituted by God according to one’s particular faith, but also has legal, social, or governmental outlines and designations as well. They’re not mutually exclusive. It can, and is, both a religious institution and a legality. If it were just a religious one, then that would mean that only those who fit the definition of followers for the faith we choose to assign as the primary facilitators of “the meaning of marriage” would be allowed to get married AND perform marriages.
However, people from a variety of faiths, a variety of beliefs, a variety of non-beliefs, with a plethora of creeds, spiritualities, and dogmas are allowed to get married, and representatives from all of these groups, including ones who’re just governmental and not representatives of any entity other than the government, can perform them. And the government regulates both the conditions of marriage (all of which supercede church regulations… For example, a church can have no objection to marrying 11 year olds to 55 year olds, but our government has laws against such a marriage, and so if it were to occur, it wouldn’t be legal), as well as the benefits of marriage like tax breaks, spousal rights, etc, and the legality of its contract, as well as the ability to dissolve that union. So marriage is clearly both legal and spiritual.
So marriage isn’t one or the other, it’s both. The fact that it is both is what gives us all the ability to get married, and not only the followers of one faith, and why we can have it performed by so many people, not just representatives of one faith. It’s also why churches have the right to refuse to marry specific people if they so choose… Because it’s their right to do so, but also because to do so doesn’t exclude a group from the institution of marriage. They can simply get married by somebody else.
If we were to decide that marriage was simply a religious standing, then there’d be no legal benefits to it. So the government has every right to outline who can and can’t marry, just as the church has every right to marry or not marry people or groups of people. Just because a church says its wrong does not, and should not, mean that the government obeys that church’s belief. The government regulates everybody, not just those who follow it. It protects your right to believe as you do, your churches right to act as it does, and it protects the rights of everybody, including those who don’t follow your faith.
I might add, there are a lot of faiths out there. Government regulation reflecting religious ideals is only wonderful as long as the religion that is being used as a basis of regulating laws is your own. For those faiths who have no issues marrying homosexuals, a law made to reflect the leanings of another religion that specifically prohibits your practice isn’t such a great thing. I’m sure you’d agree that if our government regulated its laws based off of Muslim ideals, or Satanist ideals, or fundamentalist Mormon ideals, you wouldn’t be so pleased either. If there was a law that was created in accordance of another faith that expressly prohibited the expression of your faith and denied your church the right to marry you and your husband based off of the premise that your marriage would be sinful and an affront to God, I’m guessing you wouldn’t find that such a great thing. It shouldn’t be OK now just because it’s your particular denominational belief doing the regulating.
The Stepford Wife
Aug 26, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Terry, first off, love the RHPS, still do. It’s a great movie, and I can Time Warp like nobody’s business. LOL! I’m super jealous that you’ve been to a costume showing… :) I personally think it’s a great story, but then again, you’re talking to the woman has her own interesting explination for how Mr. met Mrs. LOL!
You bring up some interesting points, and I enjoyed the story of your friend. I personally think that is the mark of not only a true friend, but a true example of being a living witness to your faith. I’m sure your friend knows your faith, and knows that if they need anything that you guys are the ones to come to. Your support in being present, holding your beliefs, but putting that aside to continue to be a model to your friend is really selfless and frankly, a model I wish others could follow in this whole debate on homosexuality.
In the end, I think this issue is like any other when it’s about deveating from the core beliefs of any particular faith. One can be a Satanist, we don’t have to agree with it. One can not believe in God, we don’t have to agree with it. One can be gay, we don’t have to agree with it. But our agreeing with it or not agreeing with it shouldn’t impact their own personal rights. The Satanist we don’t agree with still has a right to be a Satanist. The person who doesn’t believe in God has a right to that belief, even though we don’t agree with that philosophy. The person who’s gay we don’t have to agree with, but they still deserve basic rights. Part of living in a free country means that everybody deserves basic and equal rights, not just the people we agree with who are doing the things we like.
If a gay person wants to marry, I think they have every right to. If a church doesn’t want to marry them, I think the church has every right to refuse. Homosexuals can still legally marry, just marry elsewhere, and the church maintains it’s right to believe and practice in a way they feel is Godly. This other alternative, where gays can’t marry, and the churches and religions that don’t have an issue with it can’t perform them, it only protects the rights of the people who disagree with gay marriage, not the other religions, and not homosexual community. I think that’s inherently biased, even if it’s unintentional, or if some believe they’re doing it in the best interests of somebody.
Marye Audet
Aug 26, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Terry- thanks..that is very much how I feel, inspite of being…you know…a racist war monger anti-feminist baby seal clubber.
Stepford- I am actually nondenominational. So my thoughts and opinions are not based on denominational beliefs but on what I read in the Bible. I do assume that the Bible is the ultimate guide to life and i make no apologies for that. Muslims, Jews, and Christians have the same basic root in the Old Testament. If I was denied the right to marry my husband in the law I would still have covenant with him..Again, what I have realized is that some see marriage as a legal union and some see it as covenant..It is a different world view.
I am going to back out of the comments now, because I don’t think I have anything new to add, but y’all keep the conversation going..it is awesome.
The Stepford Wife
Aug 26, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Marye, I didn’t know what your faith was, and more said “denomination” because I got tired of saying “belief” and “religion” over and over again. LOL! Moreover, when I say “you” most of the time, I mean the hypothetical “you.” As in a vauge somebody, not specifically anybody. Sorry for that confusion. :)
How would you feel, though, if you were married only in the eyes of those who agreed with you and your husband in your specific church only. Socially, you were viewed as a union of nothing and nobody significant, your claim to be married questioned and disrespected, and legally, you had no joint rights whatsoever, because your relationship with your husband was viewed as sinful by the ruling faith and therefore unfit for, or unworthy of, marriage?
Would you be OK with that? Would you be content? Would you expect that because you were, all others in your situation should be as well?
More importantly, would you not fight to change it?
The Stepford Wife
Aug 26, 2008 at 1:19 pm
And for the record, I don’t think anybody here is a “racist war monger anti-feminist baby seal clubber…” :)
Marye Audet
Aug 26, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Thanks step…because actually I am too liberal for most conservatives and too conservative for most liberals..I just tick everyone one off equally.
You know, I have thought about it…would I fight in that case, to have equal rights…and I can honestly say, no.
I have taken up causes, as you probably figured out I am rather opinionated. But they are generally not my own causes. Where my personal cause would directly contradict scripture is the point at which I need to look at my cause more closely. Homosexuality is labeled as sin in both Old and New Testament. I am not about to argue the matter with either Paul, or Jesus Christ. Lying is also labeled as sin, and I would not try to have that legalized either.
On Simply Home Remedies I wrote a post about the dangers of soy in the diet. Lots of people eat it, the government says it is o.k…but the fact is that it is a dangerous substance that should be pulled from the shelves. Should I all of a sudden agree with the government that soy is o.k. to use despite the fact that I happen to know that it can kill you? I won’t, nor will I concede that gay marriage should be accepted by society as a whole. I think it is a dangerous lifestyle, if not physically then spiritually.
JJ
Sep 22, 2008 at 4:43 pm
I don’t think that gay people ruin marriage. People who marry illegal immagrants to stay in the country, or drunk people who get married in Vegas, or people who get married for 24 hours as a “JOKE”…THEY ruin marriage. There are plenty of military people who have gotten married to have a luxury of extra benefits. So you are telling me those people should be allowed to get married over gay couple who actually LOVE each other and WILL spend the rest of their lives taking care of one another. You make me sick. Also, can you point out where in the bible it talks about GOD inventing marriage? The dictionary was written by man NOT by GOD therefore, the definition of marriage was interperted by someone as close minded as you!
JJ
Sep 22, 2008 at 4:53 pm
By the way being gay is NOT a choice. I was born that way…teh same god who created “anti-gays” also created me to be gay and find the love of my life who happens to be another woman. If I really had a choice in the mattter do you think I would CHOOSE to make my life harder and be a target of haters like mayre?
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: