Posted on 12/07/2011 11:18:49 AM PST by RobinMasters
Good for him. I've been married to the same man for "all these years".
It's the "tone" that's the problem, not the fact that he's been married to the same woman.
And besides, being married to the same woman OBVIOUSLY doesn't make one suitable for the Presidency. As I recall, Obama has never been divorced. ;)
Usually called serial monogamy when applied to other religions.
The term is "Time and eternity". There are two types of marriages, "Time" and "Time and Eternity". A marriage for time is this life only. I believe that is what you would get after a divorce.
AFAIK, the only time when there is polygamy is when a wife dies, and the widower marries again in the Temple, he would have two wives in the afterlife. (A wife who loses a husband, can only marry again for "Time" not eternity.) There was some controversy regarding that fact is how I know about it.
“local LGBT chapter”
LOL
LOL!!!
Romney's boast about his marriage puts me in mind of something I read in Luke (18:14) yesterday ... "... every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
I'm with Jim Robinson and others here: Piss on Mitt Romney.
A marriage for time is this life only. I believe that is what you would get after a divorce. AFAIK, the only time when there is polygamy is when a wife dies, and the widower marries again in the Temple, he would have two wives in the afterlife.
- - - - - -
You are correct the proper term is For time and all eternity, however men can marry in the temple again after a divorce. I know several Mormon men who have done so, while the first wives must ask permission from the first husband in a divorce if they want the ‘seals’ broken and to remarry in the temple for time and eternity. Both in the cases of death and divorce, polygamy is the end result unless some of the marriages are for ‘time’ only or the previous marriage has had the ‘sealing’ broken.
I don't know if I'd brag about being married to Planned Parenthood Contributor Ann Romney.ftw!
You just did the same thing. You claim that by stating a positive fact about yourself (I have been married to the same woman for X years), you are attacking everybody who hasn’t, and are calling them “less” than you.
Well, I guess in one sense that is true — every time anybody says anything positive about themselves, I guess it’s an attack on everybody who doesn’t share that positive trait. But to claim it is out-of-bounds to say something good about yourself because it doesn’t apply to the whole world sounds a lot like the liberal mindset that you can’t have competition and grades and “judgment” because if someone wins, someone else must be a “loser”.
And with Gingrich, we aren’t talking about something that was beyond his control. It’s not like his wife just up and left him. He made a choice to break the solemn vow of marriage he previously decided on his own free will to accept. He betrayed her trust, and broke his covenant, and so she left him. That was his choice.
Does that mean he can’t be President? Of course not. It is just a measure of his character like so many other measures of character. If you found out that some guy had gotten a girl pregnant and hadn’t married her and didn’t try to be a part of that kid’s life, would that mean he couldn’t be president? Again no, it’s not a measure of presidential ability, but it might make you question his character.
Gingrich’s actual problems in this regard are from long long ago, and I wouldn’t personally be taking them into much account in making my decisions — I’m much more worried about what Gingrich has done in the past 5 years, not what happened decades ago. But each voter has his own “statute of limitations” — Certainly we judge Romney on things he said in 1994, and some here judged Perry on what he did in 1988, so why wouldn’t some people judge Gingrich on what he did long ago?
If Gingrich had married in 2008, and divorced his wife in 2010, I think it would be pretty clear that this was a problem — he made a promise, and broke it; how can we trust him to keep promises on the campaign trail which are much less personal?
At some point as you move that into the past, it becomes less of a concern — but where that happens is for each voter to decide.
Shouldn’t he be married to many wives?
__________________
He’d probably like to be- if he could get away with it.
I never claimed I’d been married for X years, I simply said I commend folks who do manage to have a life long marriage. I however don’t condemn someone who marriage didn’t last.
I also learned long ago not to meddle or judge based on who did the actual filings for Divorce, marriages are complicated private things that exist between 2 people and God. Whatever works for a couple so be it, but I’m not going to meddle in, or judge, their affairs.
I can personally know plenty of couples who’s marriage arrangements are far from traditional, and the pious would condemn them for their actions, yet they have been married for decades, and it seems to work for them. I know others who are some of the most pious people I know who have married only to be divorced inside of 5 years.
My critique is not that Romney has what appears to be a happy marriage, I commend him for that, my critique is, that he is trying to use that fact as though its something that has a huge significance. Obviously some will say, you’ve married 3 times your character sucks, and perhaps it does.. but if it does, I think you’d be able to find better example than someone is lousy at being married. Or, perhaps, just continues to marry the wrong people.
Romney really needs to make a compelling argument for himself, and he hasn’t, and can’t. Romney has to own RomneyCare, he did it, he fought for it, he wanted it, and someone who thinks government has the right to punish an individual for merely breathing under penalty of law is not a man who’s world view I want in the White House.
My point was (and it wasn’t a criticism of you, just pointing out what the argument had been) was that by saying you “commend” some folks, you “imply” that the other folks don’t deserve commendation.
That’s the argument style I am rejecting — the argument that you can’t say something nice about one group of people because people NOT in that group will be offended.
It’s like a rock band at a concert, saying “Fans in Kansas City are the Greatest!!!”, and having some fan visiting from another state complaining that the band attacked his state.
I certainly agree that “who did the filing” isn’t the important question. We know in Gingrich’s case that HE did the cheating.
It is sad that being married to the same woman your entire life is “commendable”, and not the vast norm. I’m not saying it has huge significance, but I think it’s sad that a candidate can’t say he’s happily married to his first wife and not get ATTACKED for “attacking” other candidates who aren’t.
I didn’t make this about Romney; the argument against him would have applied equally if Bachman, Santorum, or Perry had said that they were still married happily to their first husband/wife.
We attacked Giuliani for having multiple marriages when he was running in 2008. I think the “acceptability” of the argument seems to be based here on who is making the argument, and who it is made against, and not the underlying argument itself. I guess I took a chance because it was Romney; I’m not “defending” Romney, I’m defending the argument. Like saying the KKK has a right to free speech.
Given that nearly or just over half the marriages in the U.S. end in divorce, looks like Mitt alienated half the voting base in one fell swoop.
But Romney’s Grandfather had 3 wives. All at once...
We attacked Giuliani for having multiple marriages when he was running in 2008. I think the “acceptability” of the argument seems to be based here on who is making the argument, and who it is made against, and not the underlying argument itself.
People can pretty well rationalize anything, can’t they?
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.