Prop 8: Another Take on ‘Defining Marriage’

Let’s start with the notion of “traditional marriage.” 

I have heard that “traditional marriage” was what Proposition 8 was defending, but just when do you mean?


If you mean “traditional Biblical,” look to 3,000 years go, when King David and King Solomon married many women, had many more concubines, and all this was within the scope of traditional “Biblical” marriage.


If you mean “traditional Christian,” look to 2,000 years ago, when Jesus healed the “body servant” of a Roman Centurion. That was no mere domestic, but a young man (possibly selected by the Centurion’s wife) who provided sexual services to the Centurion when deployed together on long campaigns. Jesus knew what the relationship was, but chose to comment positively on the Centurion’s faith and devotion rather than the peculiar (to His and to our modern sensibilities) expression of the Centurion’s marriage.


One thousand years ago, marriage among the aristocracy was arranged for alliances, and men kept mistresses for love and fun.


One hundred years ago, marriage was common, divorce nearly unknown.


Today, divorce is common, perhaps more so than the “traditional” marriages that stick it out, no matter what.


My point is that marriage has changed with the times, and no single “traditional” model has existed through history.


We must restore the recent change to the model in California that included the marriage of same-sex couples. 

by Thom McCombs via Vallejo Times Herald:  Strike Down Proposition 8


3 responses to “Prop 8: Another Take on ‘Defining Marriage’

  1. As a heterosexual man who has been divorced not once, but TWICE, I’m more than happy to see my gay and lesbian friends take a crack at it. They certainly couldn’t do any worse than I did. 50% of us “traditional” marriage victims–er, I mean participants–end up in Splitsville, which begs the question: exactly HOW were the proponents of Prop 8 trying to defend marriage? Seems they could have put all those millions to much better use by opening some marriage counseling clinics.

  2. To add to the thought above – “50% of us “traditional” marriage victims–er, I mean participants–end up in Splitsville”, do Heterosexuals realize how much of their tax dollars go to the Gay Divorce Welfare Program?

    An absurd concept?! Hardly. Imagine for a second what would happen to some of the women and men of divorce if each party did NOT have legal protection during a divorce. Would one party use their power/wealth to screw the other if they could legally? Naw. That would NEVER happen, would it? Selfish and vengeful during a divorce? Impossible!

    Now come back to reality and add up the cost this adds to our welfare system. WA state taxpayers have forked over $40,000 to support me, and unless my current situation changes dramatically, the lifetime total could exceed $200,000. For one person. Now with a legal divorce the total would likely be $0.00.

    Do the math, America – your discrimination is costing you.

  3. So true, John! When my brother and his boyfriend broke up it left him nearly destitute. He had to move in with me and my three kids–after living for years in a great place in West Hollywood. It took him years to recover financially. I got hammered in my divorce, but at least I got to keep some of my assets.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s