Cheap?

I have a question for the social conservatives out there.
Britney Spears marries her childhood pal after a wild night out drinking in Vegas.
Britney and pal obtain an annulment 48 hours later
because plaintiff Spears lacked the understanding of her actions to the extent that she was incapable of agreeing to the marriage because, before entering into the marriage, the plaintiff [Spears] and defendant [Jason Allen Alexander] did not know each other’s likes and dislikes, each other’s desires to have or not have children, and each other’s desires as to state of residency
according to her lawyers.
Can you still, with a straight face, insist that two gay people in a loving, secure relationship, cheapens the institution of marriage, and Spears doesn’t?
(UPDATE: Should have checked Sullivan this morning- he says the same thing.)

Advertisements

3 comments

  1. Paul Bickford

    Brittney is an shameless publicity seeking airhead; the question is, why does anyone bother getting married now? It has no real legal status above common law, with no greater equity in settlements- just costs a shitload of money.

  2. Mithras

    They would never have split up if it wasn’t for Madonna kissing Britney.
    Oh, wait, I don’t qualify as a social conservative.

  3. submandave

    Don’t believe I qualify as a “typical” social conservative either, but if I were one I would offer the “two wrongs don’t make a right” defense. Simply because a couple legally entitled to state recognized marriage do so irresponsibly does not automatically mean the same right should be extended to a more responsible couple that do not meet the criteria.
    By way of an analogy, simply because some 17 year olds drive irresponsibly and some 13 year olds may be more mature does not mean the driving age should be lowered. (No, I am not making a blanket comparisson between gay couples and adolescents. The only similarity implied is that there are legal rights that are not extended to both groups)
    Personally, I am more along the lines that the state should, for convenience, recognize a standard exclusive civil contract between two concentual adults, regardless of sex. This would cover things such as joint property, survivor benefits and important child custody issues and may be entered into by man-woman, man-man, brother-sister, whomever wishes to have and provide reciprical legal protection. Marriage, as a sacrament, is a religious matter and can just as well continue to be handled by the chuch. The government issues the contract (instead of a marriage license) and the parties celebrate/sanctify this as appropriate to the occasion and their beliefs.
    I do, however, have problems with what I see as specious arguments and irrelevant comparissons.