The Worldnutdaily has a link to an AP article which they announce with the breathless headline ACLU Pushes for Legal Cohabitation - like that's a bad thing. The article concerns a 200 year old North Carolina law against living together, a law which recently cost a sheriff's dispatcher her job and is being challenged by the ACLU on her behalf. The article includes this gem of absurdity:
"We think that it's good to have a law against cohabitation because the studies show that couples that cohabitate before they're married, that their marriages are more prone to break up, there's less stability in the marriage," said Bill Brooks, executive director of the conservative North Carolina Family Policy Council.
Brilliant thinking, Mr. Brooks. Come to think of it, there are studies on all sorts of things that might affect the stability of a marriage, so let's get to work on criminalizing them. Men watching too much sports might hurt a marriage, so by God let's set a limit on how much sports they can watch. Maybe if we can find a study that says that couples who go to church get divorced less, we can pass a law mandating church attendance. And remember, conservatives are for "smaller government." Uh huh.
While we're on the Worldnutdaily thing, here's something amusing. They are simultaneously pushing two different products with fake ads/articles. One is titled Why are Christians Losing America and the other is titled Christianity Taking Over Planet? Get book Free! How do you even begin to parody this?
- Log in to post comments
While I don't endorse living together without being married, I see it as rather benign thing. The fact that it is illegal is rather shameful in a supposedly 'free' society. The fact that the wingnut's find it newsworthy is also shameful.
One could argue that those who live together, and marry only to have the marriage end could feel pressure to marry from people like those over at wingnut when they otherwise may not have viewed the scenario as a lifetime committment.
As to the adds 'Why Christians are losing America' one need only see the preacher in the article below, the other is wishful thinking. Although religion is best spread by a successful nation, of which the USA is one.
Maybe some sharp legislators and attorneys could create some laws that protect families from the economic hardships perpetrated by corporate greed. When a company such as WalMart fails to provide living wages and viable health coverage for its employees, they could suffer criminal sanctions for failing to properly support marriage and family viability.
"Although religion is best spread by a successful nation, of which the USA is one." I have no idea what this sentence is suppose to mean. Is Uber articulating some criteria for "success" as a measure of a nation's self identity?? Is a nation that is based on the freedom of religion, for it and from it--one that promotes the greatest possible diversity of religious orientations--one that "spreads" religion? If the measure of "spreading" religion can be taken to mean the advocacy of a particular sect's benefits over another's, then i would suggest that missionairies have been the most successful agents in human history.
Speaking of divorse rates, when we see that Massachusetts, the one state that allows gay marriage, has the lowest divorce rate in the nation, shouldn't we be promoting gay marriage around the rest of the country? Works for me. BW
Spyder wrote:
Is it really your contention that all companies owe all their employees a "living wage" and "viable health coverage"? Or are you just feigning socialist indignation here?
Bill, you should be locked up. I hear cognitive dissonance causes marital breakdown.
I think cohabitation before marriage is perfectly sensible--or rather, it would be, if the prevailing moral attitude didn't get in the way. We test drive cars, don't we? And test driving may take some of our time, but it doesn't prevent us from eventually buying one.
But Jason, what do we do with those cars in five years? Trade 'em in. See? See?
(Oh, and thank you, Ed, for saving me the time of posting nearly exactly the same response.)
The car analogy--hehe, not exactly a good analogy but pretty funny. I'd rather be traded in after five years than kept in the garage without having my engine turned over for 50.
Which is exactly what happens to many who rush into a lifetime commitment. Living together provides information, thats all. Like I said benign.
'But Jason, what do we do with those cars in five years? Trade 'em in. See? See?'
Yeah--but why spend a lifetime with someone you can't live with---By the way if you have cohabitated for 5 years you should really consider marriage, I think 5years is enough to know.:-)
Thanks, Uber. For what it's worth, my partner and I got married just about a month after the first jurisdiction in the world made it legally possible for two U.S. men to do so. We've been happily married for almost two years now, but I certainly don't regret the time we spent cohabiting and learning to live with each other. I honestly think it helped ensure stability in our marriage.
Ginger Yellow,
Whatever do you mean? Cognitive dissonance never hurt anyone. hurt anyone. hurt anyone. [splat!]
As far as I can tell, the cohabitation law applies whether the couple is romantically involved or not. Why do they assume males and females cannot live together without having sex - have they never heard of roommates?