Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I’ve been divorced four times, but homosexuals are the ones destroying marriage
The Matt Walsh Blog ^ | February 4, 2014 | The Matt Walsh Blog

Posted on 02/05/2014 4:15:29 AM PST by xzins

Last night, someone emailed and asked me to write about the gay marriage case in Virginia. This morning, a woman from Wisconsin asked if I would blog about the gay marriage case in her state. A few readers in Utah have also requested that I chime in on the gay marriage fight there.

And so I was going to do just that. I sat down to type a scathing rant about gay marriage. I sat down to tell the world that gay marriage is the greatest threat to the sanctity of marriage.

But then I remembered this:

That’s a sign I saw on the side of the road a little while back. Divorce for sale! Only 129 dollars! Get ‘em while they’re hot!

And then I remembered an article I read last week about the new phenomenon of “divorce parties.” Divorced is the new single, the divorce party planner tells us.

And then I remembered another article claiming that the divorce rate is climbing because the economy is recovering. Now that things are getting a little better, we can finally splurge on that divorce we’ve always wanted!

And then I remembered that – ebbs and flows notwithstanding – there is one divorce every 13 seconds, or over 46,000 divorces a week in this country. And then I remembered that, although the “50 percent of marriages end in divorce” statistic can be misleading, we’re still in a situation where there are half as many divorces as there are marriages in a single year.

And then I remembered no-fault divorce. I remembered that marriage is the ONLY LEGAL CONTRACT A PERSON CAN BREAK WITHOUT THE OTHER PARTY’S CONSENT AND WITHOUT FACING ANY LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS.

Sorry to scream at you.

But I remembered that marriage has for decades been, from a legal perspective, the least meaningful, least stable, and least protected contract in existence, and I think this fact should be emphasized.

And then I remembered how many Christian churches gave up on marriage long ago, allowing their flock to divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry and divorce and remarry, and each time permitting the charade of “vows” to take place on their altars. And then I remembered that churches CAN lower the divorce rate simply by taking a consistent position on it — which is why practicing Catholics are significantly less likely to break up — but many refuse because they are cowards begging for the world’s approval.

And then I remembered that over 40 percent of America’s children are growing up without a father in the home. And then I remembered that close to half of all children will witness the breakdown of their parent’s marriage. Half of that half will also have the pleasure of watching a second marriage fall apart.

And then I remembered that more and more young people are opting out of marriage because the previous generation was so bad at it that they’ve scared their kids away from the institution entirely.

I remembered all of these things, and I decided to instead write about the most urgent threat to the sanctity of marriage.

Divorce.

Divorces are as common as flat tires, and they often happen for reasons nearly as frivolous.

The institution of marriage is crumbling beneath us; it’s under attack, it’s mortally wounded, it’s sprawled out on the pavement with bullet wounds in its back, coughing up blood and gasping for breath. And guess who did this? It wasn’t Perez Hilton or Elton John, I can tell you that.

This is the work of divorce.

I am an opponent of gay marriage, but we here in the “sanctity of marriage” camp are tragically too afraid to approach the thing that is destroying marriage faster than anything else ever could. Gay marriage removes from marriage its procreative characteristic, but rampant divorce takes away its permanent characteristic. It makes no sense to concentrate all of our energy on the former while all but ignoring the latter.

To make matters worse, some of the loudest mouth pieces for “traditional marriage” in media and politics are bigamists, adulterers, and men with two, three, or four ex-wives. It’s not that you can’t defend the sanctity of marriage when you have been divorced multiple times, it’s just that you have zero credibility on the subject.

If you beat and abuse your children so badly that they have to be removed from you, you could, I suppose, still complain if you found out that your kids are also being mistreated in their foster home. But your anger must first be directed at yourself, because it is YOUR FAULT that they are suffering in this way.

So whose fault is it that the institution of marriage is beaten and broken? I don’t think we want to contemplate that question, for fear that we might see ourselves in the answer.

Should laws be written to “defend marriage”? Sure, and let’s start with legislation to make divorces at least somewhat harder to obtain than a magazine subscription. How serious are we about this? Anyone up for a law to criminalize adultery? What about putting some restrictions on re-marriage?

There are certainly times when a couple has no choice but to go their separate ways. What else can you do in cases of serial abuse or serial adultery, or when one party simply abandons the other? But infidelity and abuse do not explain the majority of divorces in this country, and they are not the leading causes of break-ups. According to these “experts,” the top causes of divorce are a lack of individual identity, “getting into it for the wrong reasons,” and “becoming lost in the roles.” A survey done by the National Fatherhood Institute found lack of communication, and finances to be the leading culprits. An article in The Examiner also cites finances as the most potent divorce-fuel.

In other words, these days marriages can be blown apart by the slightest gust of wind, coming from any direction, and for any reason. Noticeably absent from all of these polls about the reasons for divorce: gay marriage.

That’s because gay marriage is not the biggest threat to marriage.

We are.

We are, when we vow on our very souls to stand by someone for the rest of our lives, until death do us part, only to let financial troubles and communication difficulties dissolve that union we forged before God. We are, when we forget about those Biblical readings we picked out for our wedding service:

My lover belongs to me and I to him. He says to me: “Set me as a seal on your heart, as a seal on your arm; For stern as death is love, relentless as the nether world is devotion; its flames are a blazing fire. Deep waters cannot quench love, nor floods sweep it away.”

For stern as death is love.

When we marry, we die. Our old selves die, and we are born anew into each other; into the unbreakable marital bond.

We are a threat to the sanctity of marriage when we let our selfishness fool us into thinking that our wedding vows weren’t that serious.

Indeed, despite popular sentiment, they were serious. They are serious. They’re as serious as death.

The struggle to protect marriage is also serious. It’s an important battle.

So maybe it’s time we actually start fighting it.

*NOTE. To answer your questions: no, I have not actually been divorced four times. I’ve been married once, and I’m still married to her, and I’ll never be married to anyone else. The title was tongue-in-cheek. I was writing it from the perspective of the sorts of people who rant about the sanctity of marriage, yet have racked up multiple ex-spouses. Perhaps I should have been more clear about this. In any case, there it is. I appreciate your concern.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Miscellaneous; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; marriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 last
To: Frapster

Yes, and also the tagline.


81 posted on 02/06/2014 1:22:58 PM PST by Tax-chick ("The right" is a gelatinous mass of contradiction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Your post deserves a detailed reply but I am very busy for several days. I will try to get back to you.


82 posted on 02/06/2014 4:03:54 PM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

ha! that’s classic!


83 posted on 02/06/2014 6:00:52 PM PST by Frapster (Build the America you want in your home... and keep looking up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

That too!


84 posted on 02/06/2014 11:32:51 PM PST by Fledermaus (If we here in TN can't get rid of the worthless Lamar, it's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Frapster

My 17-year-old is nearly as funny as he thinks he is, sometimes.


85 posted on 02/07/2014 2:46:24 AM PST by Tax-chick ("The right" is a gelatinous mass of contradiction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: drbuzzard
The Left now commonly cites the divorce rate as evidence that traditional marriage is already dead, but they are the ones that introduced no fault divorce all over the country

The left? That's why Oklahoma and Utah and Missisippi and all those leftist states have no-fault divorce?

Let me remind you of a little history: the first no-fault divorce law in America was signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan. The last state to adopt no-fault divorce was New York.

86 posted on 02/09/2014 4:38:22 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldPossum

Not to imply that I am in any way better than anyone else, but I am very content to have been married to one woman, and to have been with her for 35 years. I have no interest in making any changes to my relationship with my wife. We’ve had good times, and bad. But, we believe in the vows we made to each other all those many years ago.


87 posted on 02/14/2014 1:57:41 PM PST by SoldierDad (Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SoldierDad

Thanks for the comment.

I’m glad that there are those out there who believe in their marriage vows. You clearly are one of them.


88 posted on 02/14/2014 3:05:46 PM PST by OldPossum ("It's" is the contraction of "it" and "is"; think about ITS implications.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Trying to say divorce is a reason to have same sex marriage is a stretch at best.

Then pointing out gay’s will get divorced also (and over time probably statistically catch up) again does nothing to advance the pro-gay argument.

If you have to resort to “well, it won’t be near as bad as marriage now” you’ve probably run out of steam.


89 posted on 02/14/2014 3:11:22 PM PST by Fledermaus (If we here in TN can't get rid of the worthless Lamar, it's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

Those aren’t “marriages” in the true sense. That sounds more like an addiction to the process.


90 posted on 02/14/2014 3:13:27 PM PST by Fledermaus (If we here in TN can't get rid of the worthless Lamar, it's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
"... as long as you are not arguing that the state could somehow stay so far out of marriage that it fails even to support marriage. That is the situation we have now, in fact."

I think this idea should be examined. To start with, what kind of support does the state, or should the state, give?
Government has proven time and again that it spoils what it touches. Over time and in many places, government has tried to take over religious sacraments, never for the purpose religion assigned them, but for *other* purposes. Births used to be registered in church, now they are registered by the state. Marriage (and divorce) are done by the state. Burial, and now even death, are being encroached upon by the state.
None of them are improved by this.
Alternatively, when marriage, as such, is between people and their faith, it is socially enforced by their community and themselves. An absence of government involvement likely helps far more than it hurts.


I told you some weeks ago I'd get back to you on this. Finally, a thread has been posted that gives some of the rationales why government staying out of marriage entirely would not work:

Why Privatizing Marriage Can’t Work

91 posted on 02/16/2014 3:45:05 PM PST by Albion Wilde (The less a man knows, the more certain he is that he knows it all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Charles Henrickson

I’m sorry to hear that.


92 posted on 03/20/2014 4:20:41 PM PDT by Jacob Kell (The last good thing that the UN did was Korea.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson