The Marriage Vow--A Disaster for Human Rights

I am pissed.

If you haven't seen the news lately, you'll be interested to know that both Republican presidential candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum recently signed a document referred to as the Marriage Vow. It's basically a Christian-based promise for political candidates to keep marriage between a man and a woman--but it's so much worse than that. The entire 4-page document is an atrocity, but I'm going to touch on three main pain points: black people, gay people, and divorce, all of which are grossly misrepresented by the narrow-minded authors and signatories of this document.

It starts by claiming that "the Institution of Marriage in America is in great crisis" and supports this first and foremost by saying that African-American children born into slavery were more likely to be raised by a married mother and father than African-American children born today. I quote:

"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President."

That may be true. But sadly a child born into slavery was also born into slavery. His or her parents were slaves, and that child was a slave, forced to work in terrible conditions for no pay and was deprived of nearly all human rights. To compare that in any way to an African-American child born today is ludicrous. So what if you're born to a single parent? Even if you're born into poverty and have to struggle your whole life, at least it's your life and not something that can be bought by another human being and used in whatever way your "master" sees fit. Obviously this statement from the Marriage Vow was not well-received.

But the authors of the Marriage Vow do not stop at disgracing black people. They then move on to severely misrepresenting gay people as well. The Vow's main goal is to keep marriage between a man and a woman, which of course excludes same-sex marriage in all forms. It claims that there is no scientific proof that "non-heterosexual inclinations are genetically determined, irresistible and akin to innate traits like race, gender and eye color; as well as anti-scientific bias which holds, against all empiricalevidence, that homosexual behavior in particular, and sexual promiscuity in general, optimizes individual or public health."

I barely even want to talk about that first point. Really? Still using that argument? That people choose to be gay? Yes, one day, a person just wakes up and decides that they are going to choose who they love, who they are attracted to. And then, my favorite part, where they group sexual promiscuity and homosexuality together, as if they are one and the same. Breaking news people, just because you're gay doesn't mean you're giving it away to everyone you meet. And yes there is certainly no scientific proof that homosexuality improves public health, but there certainly isn't any proof that it has a negative impact on public health either. Gay people did not spread HIV, if that's the thought that pops into your head. Ignorant people of all orientations who had no concept of venereal disease spread HIV.

This lovely document also groups bisexuality, homosexuality and anal sex in with adultery, group sex, promiscuity, serial marriage, polygamy, polyandry and extramarital sex. Ok so wait a minute, why does sexual preference have to be listed in the same series as sexual deviance? They act like being gay or having anal sex is some kind of gateway to having multiple wives and husbands and cheating on your spouse. Um, no, that's not how it works, actually. Gay people and straight people are equally likely to commit adultery and extramarital sex acts. These choices aren't based on your sexual orientation (which as you remember from above, is also not a choice), it's based on the kind of person you are and your view of what is right and what is wrong.

And now let's get to the last part: divorce. I was shocked when I read the claim that "children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy." What about children raised by a mother and father who are living together but completely unloving toward their child, or even abusive? What about children raised by parents who scream at each other all day and all night and never exhibit love toward each other? Is that better than being raised by a single parent who loves their child unconditionally? Or by two parents, who living separately, love their child unconditionally?

My parents divorced when I was 7 years old, and sure, it may have been rough at times, but it was probably the best thing that could have happened to me. My parents just didn't get along. The life that I have lived, being raised by two separate parents living in two separate households, has been phenomenally better than the life I would have lived had my parents decided to stick it out. Everyone knows what it's like to hear their parents fight--it gives you that horrible feeling in the pit of your stomach, and you just want to lock yourself in your room and wait for it to be over. Imagine spending your entire childhood and adolescence like that.

So now the Marriage Vow is trying to tell me that if my parents had stayed together, fought constantly, and raised me in a household filled with tension and anger, that I would have had a better life? Well last time I checked, I exceled in school, I stayed away from drugs, never got into trouble with the law, and managed to avoid getting pregnant. And my parents, by getting a divorce, were able to better show me what love could be than if they had stayed together.

At this point, the Marriage Vow has managed to insult just about every person under the sun and still (!) our potential leaders are insisting on signing it, writing their names on a neat little line over which is printed "So help us God." If there is a god that is going to help a political leader achieve legal segregation and alienation of a group of people because of who they love or because of their non-nuclear family structure, then that is not a god that deserves followers, and this is not a country we want to live in.

So let's fight to keep our country headed toward equal rights for all, and refuse to vote for any political candidate who has signed a document that promises to rob American citizens of their rights as people. If you need more fuel for your fire, read the full text of the Marriage Vow now:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/read-the-marriage-vow-pledge-signed-by-michele-bachmann-and-rick-santorum/2011/07/08/gIQAwT7K4H_blog.html

Nothing is free--not even a Slurpee

That's right. Did you really think I was going to let something like "Free Slurpee Day at 7-Eleven" just slide by unnoticed? Please.


Like I've been saying all along, nothing is free! Even booming convenience store chain 7-Eleven is willing to admit it, on the day that it claims to give out "free" Slurpees no less. That's right, to celebrate the "birthday" of the chain, they gave out "free" 7.11 ounce Slurpees. Cute.


But here's the thing. Those little Slurpees that people flocked from all over to try actually promoted increased Slurpee sales by almost 40%. I mean come on. It's like giving someone one free and delicious chip and then being surprised that they bought a whole bag. People marched into their local 7-Elevens, took one brain-freezing gulp of that liquid popsicle and just had to have more.


Plus, they bought other stuff too. Think about it. You drink a tiny Slurpee, you see a candy bar out of the corner of your eye, then maybe a Gatorade looks at you in just the right way...before you know it, you've bought an entire "Thank you for shopping" plastic bag of goodies. And you probably wouldn't have even stepped in to 7-Eleven that day if they hadn't been giving out "free" Slurpees.


It happens every day! How many times do you go to the store and buy something just because it's on sale? Oooh, strawberries are buy one get one free! Well breaking news, you have to BUY one to get the other one for "free". Therefore, you have spent money. You still technically paid for both strawberry buckets. Maybe you wouldn't have even bought strawberries if they weren't featured in some "BOGO" deal.


-What about library books? They're free.
-Nope. Taxes. Not to mention late fees.


-I got a free keychain when I bought this DVD.
-The price of the keychain was included in the DVD, for which you are most likely already overpaying.


-I found $20 on the ground. Free money!
-Well, not exactly. Just because you aren't paying for it doesn't mean it's free. Someone lost that $20 and therefore paid a price. Plus if you have a conscience, you'll feel guilty. That's a price too.


The point is, when a company advertises something as "free", they're not doing it to be nice. They're doing it because they know it will draw you in with thoughts of legally stealing and one-upping a corporation--of getting your "money's worth". And it works. It feels good to get two things for the price of one (even if the price of one thing is overinflated to account for the price of both)! Or to have someone give you something without asking for anything in return (at least not right that second). But just remember: everyone pays for everything. Even if it isn't in dollars and cents, everything comes at a cost.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2011-07-10-free-711-slurpees_n.htm