If Kim Kardashian Can Get Married, Why Can't I?

You won’t be hearing Maggie Gallagher railing on about how Hollywood socialites shouldn’t be allowed to marry.  When Kim Kardashian announced that she is divorcing her husband of less than three months, none of the usual voices promoting “traditional” marriage were front and center.  One of the most visible people in the world – so in-demand and well-known that photos of her lavish wedding fetched millions – talks of marital issues weeks into her marriage and ultimately files for divorce in just over 70 days.  Yet the silence of the marriage warriors remains deafening.

Well, why?  Why are they so quiet?  Why, when one of the most public people in the world lays to waste any conceivable notion of what marriage is supposed to be in the most public way possible, is everyone so quiet?  Where is the National Organization for Marriage?  The evangelicals?  Rick Santorum?  Why are there no grassroots uprisings about this threat to marriage.  Simple.  Kim and Kris Humphries have the correct genitals.  Crass?  Maybe.  True?  Definitely.

If one defines the bedrock of marriage as love, commitment, and honor…you know, the words virtually everyone says when actually getting married, Kim Kardashian’s marital sham should have awoken the ire and impassioned public pleas of the marriage warriors.  But that is not how those who have made their careers keeping marriage outside the grasp of the LGBT community define it.  They define it by genitals.  Anyone who’s seen Kim’s sex tape knows she’s all well and good down below and until (God willing) photo evidence arises (ahem) of Kris’, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.  

In the end, it’s not about kids (Kim and Kris don’t have any) or even the intention to have kids or even the ability to have kids.  It’s about genitals.

If anyone has eroded the foundation of marriage it’s those who insist on stripping away all that love and commitment rhetoric and reducing it to human anatomy.

There is not a single legitimate argument against same-sex marriage.  Some say well…it’s never been done that way, which of course, is moronic.  Everything was always done the same way until someone did it differently…its called progress.  Some say the divorce rate will increase.  Even if we take that at face value…what does that mean?  That closeted homosexuals will leave sham marriages?  That’s a GOOD thing…if, of course, you view love and commitment as the bedrock of a union.  But to some, it's better to have two people not in love and incapable of/disinterested in having sex with one another stay together.  To them, it’s about sex ORGANS…not about actual sex. 

Then there’s the slippery slope arguments that suggest one cannot tell the difference between a donkey and a human being.  On and on it goes. 

Kim Kardashian can have another sham wedding as soon as her absurd divorce from her never-in-love spouse is through.  By contrast, two guys who have been together for 10 years and are in love, cannot get married in California even once.  EVER.  Who's the real threat to marriage?

I’ll spend more time on this blog dissecting anti-gay marriage and people.  This is just the first installment.