I have to say, I’m really sort of sick to death of the statements going around waving Kim Kardashian’s name and face at us regarding…well, anything. But most recently, regarding why gay marriage should be legal. Actually, I was sick of it the first time I read it somewhere.

And this is absolutely not because I don’t support legalizing gay marriage 110%. And if you in any way question this, please refer to the article I wrote previously: https://gomersasquatch.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/proposition-8-protects-people-from-marrying-unicorns/ .

Furthermore, I agree that the sanctity of marriage has been compromised since probably its inception, and that upstanding right-wing politicians who yell the loudest about it often have several failed marriages under their belts, at least. Or extramarital affairs. Or hookers. Or extramarital hooker affairs involving belts. And often with a touch of gay-as-Christmas scandal to finish it on up. Not that any of these are bad, per se, but these are the sorts of things those politicians hypocritically pose to rally against, and that’s what’s bad. Clearly.

And I can see how drawing attention to their hypocrisy only strengthens our pro-gay marriage equality arguments. The people advocating hardest for a “sacred union” often have a completely unfounded argument when it comes to the way they live their own lives. Let us silence them one by one by holding them up to the mirror.


Who the hell gives a good goddamn about Kim Kardashian’s failed marriage? So, she got married in a highly public fashion—some have argued entirely for this publicity to promote her television show. Maybe. Sure, why not? Although I don’t know too many details about her life and celebrity past snippets here and there, I can still say I find it very plausible. Sooooo, that would put her in league with Gene Simmons this last season of his show. Fine. Trashy, but fine. And following that, Kardashian filed for divorce some 70-something days later. This seems on par for a celebrity marriage.

But then—oh goodness—everyone just went ape shit for a week. Normal, otherwise good-natured people are standing in (a metaphorical Facebook) line to throw the fact that Kardashian couldn’t maintain a successful marriage back at her. Ha ha! One for gay marriage! …wait. What did we win here?

I mean, let’s remove from this discussion the people who went ape shit because they’re actually interested in her life. Because, dear god, why even try to reason with them? You people—you go over to Perez. I’m sure he has something for you.

The remaining people—those whose Schadenfreude leapt from their hearts directly into their wagging fingers at the first chance to go, “AHA! Straight people sometimes get divorced hastily! Why can’t we get married?” Those are the people to whom I refer. But please let me explain.

I guess I just don’t understand the sentiment. To step through it: okay—I can totally see saying this if she had ever been actively against marriage equality or was in any way raving about the sanctity of marriage as she sees it. From what I can find (and if I’m wrong, please point it out; I don’t follow the woman’s “career”), she has never said anything against gay marriage to begin with. In fact, I painfully sat through this video of her stating that she is, in fact, for gay marriage. Nothing political about this video, really. She’s asked a question and seems to summon up a fairly neutral, if not slightly airy answer.

But the point is, the only thing I could find linking her to speaking out about gay marriage is actually a statement supporting gay marriage. And if she has ever been against it but I just haven’t stumbled across it yet, let me be first in line to dance on the grave of her diamond-encrusted schmaltz package she called a marriage, now that it’s been put out of its misery.

But considering I can’t find anything of the sort on her…why is her failed marriage pivotal? In her being unrelated to politics or sanctity of marriage issues, this mudslinging seems…I don’t know…mean spirited, I guess? Or misdirected? Or straight-up irrelevant.

Seriously, couples in Hollywood get divorced all the time. Well, for that matter, so do regular people. And if allowed the right to marry, so will gay couples. Not all love lasts forever, and not all love equals longevity in life-partnering. I realize this is an unpopular thought for both camps, but hey, it’s just the truth. Divorce is a right we are afforded when love turns cold, or expectations aren’t met, or someone is unfaithful, or cruel, or sneaking off to have relations with our livestock, or what have you. It seems to me that by offering Kim as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of marriage sanctity, you are either saying one of two things.

1.) “Look, her marriage was a sham, so clearly marriage isn’t a serious institution,” which totally undercuts the message that gay marriage is in fact a serious institution. Or this argument even encompasses the idea that Kardashian’s marriage proves that marriage isn’t sacred or holy, when it actually still is to many gay or lesbian couples, as well.

2.) “If I—an honest, loving person who has been in a committed relationship with the same person can’t get married, why should someone like she be able to get married?” And is that really a comparison one would like to make?  It cuts at marriage as a whole (when clearly marriage is a concept that’s important to all camps here), almost suggesting the argument that Kardashian shouldn’t have been able to get married if everyone else can’t get married because she’s such a poor model of marriage. Or that committed gay couples have more right to get married than people like Kardashian who don’t take marriage seriously.

And that’s backward. My problem with this issue is that nothing about it states, “She has the right to marriage and we have the right to marriage because we are all equal and deserve equal rights provided to us and to our would-be spouses/families.” The point of the marriage equality argument is that everyone deserves that right—committed gay and lesbian couples, committed straight couples, and unfortunately, people who do it for money or reputation or dowry. (Because anyone of breeding of course still has a dowry.) Everyone deserves it. We’re all people and we all should get to choose how, when, and why we marry (within obvious reason). And that “everyone” is very important to the equal marriage rights agenda.

My gauge is that (and I could be wrong) the sentiment underlying this “Why should a marriage like that be allowed to exist when a marriage like mine is/would be real?” argument is that because straight marriage rights are already given, it’s gay marriage rights that need the media attention and public outrage on their behalf. So very, very true. But if we want to make comparisons to marriages that so offensively fail the sanctity of marriage test, let’s maybe pick a target that’s relevant and where the failed marriage actually proves to uncover the hypocrisy. Where our completely justifiable anger isn’t just spilling out all over the place but is actually focused where it needs to be in order to make the country pay attention and get the point.

And I feel like well-intentioned people are forgetting this in the excitement of the media hate-fest right now. (Well, this particular media hate-fest.) Instead, what’s been going on in reaction looks to me like useless mudslinging at someone who is just going through a divorce. And whether or not this divorce is painful for Kardashian, the mudslinging still lacks tact and precision.

I’m quite dumbfounded that this woman is the one that everyone has been so ready to jump on, when divorces of Hollywood and celebrity tend to line the drugstore magazine racks pretty much constantly. Um, can someone please explain to me why Kim Kardashian should be a  model of the sanctity of marriage to begin with? Why anyone who needs to have their mind changed about gay marriage would have cared one way or another about whether her marriage had been meant to last? Were we all expecting that this marriage was going to be successful? Were we even really caring?

I realize some of you care because you’re fans of hers, and you would probably do well to go read someone else’s blog. Because that’s just silliness. She’s a non-celebrity celebrity. Call me old fashioned, but in my day, you had to possess some sort of talent to be…you know what? Sorry. Tangent. I get worked up. About back in my day. When you had to have SOME kind of TALENT—nope. Stopping now.

But who was really thinking she would be a great person to make an example of? No one seemed surprised that this arrangement didn’t work out (possibly least of all Kardashian’s publicist). So why is everyone all, “Look! Look at your straight marriage, everyone! It fails too!” It’s petty, it’s redundant, it’s flawed logic, and I feel like it takes away from the serious, ardent message of people who want and unquestionably must have the right to marry the person of their choosing—whatever sex and/or gender that may be. I don’t know. That’s just my opinion on this topic. This whole particular media blitz is strange to me.


On what would happen should same sex marriage be recognized and protected at a federal level:

“Then pedophiles would have to be allowed to marry 6-, 7-, 8-year-olds,” she predicted. “The man from Massachusetts who petitioned to marry his horse after [gay] marriage was instituted in Massachusetts. He’d have to be allowed to do so. Mothers and sons, sisters and brothers, any, any combination would have to be allowed.”

– woman speaking in simulcast in videos produced by supporters of Proposition 8 (story)

Ooookay. What is so difficult to understand, folks, about the difference between keeping our country’s laws in check to equally protect and promote the rights of its citizens—especially minorities that might not have the benefit of majority popularity, and thus equal media coverage and equal funding—versus just opening up our laws to complete social entropy? Honestly, where does that societal chaos switch flip on for you? This is entirely preposterous and would be comical, were this woman actually joking.

To begin with—this is an issue of equality, not of religion or the American family or anything of that nature. Religions don’t have to agree to recognize same-sex unions. And a great multitude of American families are run successfully and lovingly right now (and have been) either by same-sex parents or with homosexual family members in them. Not all heterosexual marriages result in progeny that is the genetic result of both parties, nor would we find it even remotely within our right to insist that they do. So marriage as a means to create offspring is not a valid argument. Don’t be taken in by those who would otherwise obscure the focus of the examination of Proposition 8 from a discrimination matter to touchy-feely buzzwords like “family,” “America,” or “moral” in order to draw a halo above their agenda. It is not about religion or the American family. Both survive just fine right now with the concomitant occurrence of homosexuality in American families.

It is an issue of equal rights for minorities. This is an issue that is steeped in our country’s history and has provided much of our historical political turmoil. For those of you who claim true patriotism, you of course know that the reason our government instated and uses judicial review is to protect the rights of its citizens.

To quote Justice Washington, speaking of judicial review on behalf of the Marshall Court in an 1829 case, “We intend to decide no more than that the statute objected to in this case is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and that unless it be so, this Court has no authority, under the 25th section of the judiciary act, to re-examine and to reverse the judgment of the supreme court [of the state from which the case had originated]…”

I can’t think of anything more repugnant to the Constitution of the United States than ignoring or blatantly denying the rights of any of our law-abiding minorities. Doing so comes into direct conflict, I feel, with our Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment was initially created to protect freed slaves and their ancestors from discrimination in the Southern states after the Civil War. It states, ““Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This is one of the fundamental amendments used to protect any minority in this country. “…nor to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Same-sex unions are not given equal protection of the laws, currently; this is why Prop 8 should—and eventually will—be subject to judicial review and found unconstitutional on a Federal level in our country.

But… ya see, then there are those people who prefer to throw a sack over their head and start screaming about the dying of the light. Which, in turn, leads to ideas like this woman’s (quoted at the top of the page), and many of the other Prop 8 supporters’. People will marry children, animals, bottles of water, mounds of dirt, statues, and fountains. Clearly.

The difference between this Prop 8 supporter woman’s over-inflated, neurotic, paranoiac, crudely bigoted imagination and any basis in the reality of same sex marriage is the ultra-important issue of consent! For us, marriage is when consenting individuals enter into a commitment where they agree to legally, financially, and otherwise lovingly support one another. Generally speaking. I see no disparity between definitions if this is made to allow the same right to consenting same-sex couples.

The reason you can’t marry an animal is because animals can’t consent. And if you think they can, you’ve been up in the mountains too long. No, animals cannot consent to a marital union, and ergo no marital union can legally occur. I’m sorry, are you new? Were you dropped?

Likewise, minors can’t consent either. Altering the laws to protect the rights of same-sex unions doesn’t actually even touch laws having to do with the legal age of consent for children, as we plainly saw after the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas invalidated sodomy laws in 2003. The courts made certain to remind us that they still uphold that the age of consent is the same for both heterosexuals and homosexuals, under Romeo and Juliette laws. So if allowing sexual acts between same-sex individuals doesn’t mean legalized sex between adults and children, or just between children, why should allowing marriage of same-sex individuals mean anything at all about marrying kids? Are you under the impression that we’ve all gone nuts, or that with the legalization of same-sex marriage, our court system is just taking a massive hit off some (now legalized) California reefer? This is silly stuff, people.

It was the Nineteenth Amendment that gave women the right to vote. Well, shucks. Why not centaurs? Why not babies??? Because the Nineteenth Amendment didn’t make us all lose our sense of reality and proportion. Voting was guaranteed protected for every American citizen of age. And note—we never lost sight of the fact that centaurs can’t vote because they’re mythical. Babies can’t vote because we don’t recognize them as adults and know they would be incapable of competently voting. Come on.

The same applies to why same-sex unions will not lead to the legal disintegration of any other nationally treasured belief of ours. It’s nonsense, and furthermore it’s offensive on an immeasurable scale.

But fear of the dissolution of the American family or of any sanity regarding the institution of marriage is not really, I think, the reason for statements like the one quoted in this Prop 8 video. These ideas of people marrying children or animals are images thrown out by certain Conservative opinion leaders and stakeholders in order to intentionally obfuscate the point and to shock and confuse those who are too intellectually lazy to form their own opinions. I believe this. I have a deep enough love of this country and of our people to want to believe that there is NOT such a vast majority of us who are really so full of hatred, or who are willing to hate something they don’t understand, that they would knowingly campaign to rob their neighbors, brothers, and sisters of rights that they themselves so freely enjoy. I have to believe this Prop 8 business is just the result of ignorance and the bafflement caused by a precious few hate-mongers who misuse religion and money to fill this ignorance. I think most people are good at the very heart, and that they’re misled. I only hope that they can find it inside themselves to see through the intolerance and homophobia disguised as righteousness and to consciously decide to do what they can to help end the inequality.  I have to believe they will, and I will spend my time and energy opposing them until they do.

I have much hope for us yet.