by Jamie Neben
KISS guitarist Gene Simmons recently tied the knot with his long-time girlfriend Shannon Tweed after being “happily unmarried” for 28 years. Anyone who has heard Simmons express his views on marriage over the years, whether in interviews or on his reality-television show, should know why this event comes as such a surprise. In his book Sex Money Kiss, in which he dispenses business advice, he even saw fit to write a whole chapter arguing why men should not get married. Some of his more colorful statements include:
“The worst thing a man can do, financially and biologically speaking, is to get married.”
“Dumb men will always get married. So will smart women.”
“The only thing wrong with marriage is that one of the two people getting married is a man.”
Simmons may portray a demon onstage, but the ones inside of him were causing him to lead a selfish, dishonest life. Although it’s likely that he would still be maintaining his misbehaving ways had he not been caught, Simmons should be applauded for ultimately confronting his issues and making the commitment to his family once and for all.
But does the act of getting married hold that much value anymore?
I’m not suggesting that marriage is undesirable by any means. When two people vow to be together until death do they part, they are putting their dedication on record when they make it official. That’s a beautiful and powerful thing. I would not try to dissuade any happy couple from making their relationship legal. I may even try it myself someday.
However, a couple of glaring facts of life make wedded bliss seem not all that blissful after all. The divorce rate for first marriages is currently holding around 40%, and is significantly higher for second and third marriages. So much for hanging in there for better or worse and all the other sets of circumstances that are laid out in the beginning. Divorce is such a likely possibility these days that the pre-nuptial agreement is becoming just another item on the wedding checklist in many cases.
Of course, people change over time, and they may go in different directions than their partners. There could be lying, cheating, stealing, abuse, loss of interest, and many other factors that lead to divorce. When somebody is done wrong by their spouse in today’s society, not only do we usually support them in walking out, but we blame them if they don’t. I wouldn’t sit still for something like frequent abuse any more than the next person, and there is often good reason for couples to call it quits. Often there is not. Either way, the sacredness of the institution is weakened just a little more every time it happens.
The other point I made earlier concerned two people vowing to be together. That’s great except that not all people are considered equal. That dilutes the value of marriage as well. If we’re talking about a man and a woman, then with very few exceptions, there will be no legal reasons why they cannot be married, and we will accept it as “marriage.” On the other hand, if we’re referring to two men, or two women, somehow they don’t deserve the same privilege in most states. It doesn’t matter if a gay couple has a long and loving relationship that has lasted a lifetime. It doesn’t matter if a straight couple is just together for convenience, or if they have no intention or ability to reproduce. As it turns out, equality is very one-sided.
The most common argument against gay marriage that I’ve heard? Religion.
While everybody, including myself, is entitled to practice their faith in this country, religion has no place in our government. While I don’t expect opponents of this to suddenly change their minds and agree with the homosexual lifestyle, excluding gay people from the true and legal experience of marriage is wrong. If couples are building a life together, sharing the same house, and otherwise acting married, why should they be denied the formality of it?
Another reason why religion doesn’t hold water in this debate is the fact that one doesn’t have to be a Bible follower to get married. So if gay couples wouldn’t be recognized spiritually in the eyes of the Almighty, then what about Muslims or Buddhists or atheists? Why don’t our laws reflect that you have to be in solid spiritual standing with the powers that be (whoever writes the law) before you dare to fill out the certificate?
This is all a moot point though because God is all about love. I believe some people have forgotten that in their haste to justify their own beliefs or fears.
I don’t know if I’ll ever find myself walking down the aisle. But if I do, I hope marriage seems more valuable to me at that time than it does now. If we can focus on love, whether it’s in our own personal situations, or by extending the same rights of it to others, regardless of gender, we’ll make a lot of progress.
I guess if Gene Simmons can get married, anything’s possible.
Considering the output of our educational system, you might as well ask whether the act of teaching holds that much value anymore.
On the contrary, religion in its purest sense is absolutely indispensable to good government.
Because formal acknowledgment of such an arrangement as a marriage is patent insanity.
And perhaps others have deceived themselves into thinking God loves confusion.
Yguy – thank you for your comments. I’d like to address each of them.
Yes, we can and should talk about the educational system and whether its value has diminished. However, while the topic is worthy of long discussion, it has nothing to do with the question I posed in this article.
Religion was purposefully omitted from the U.S. Constitution. The founders of this nation wanted to ensure that our government did not favor one faith over another, and that the citzens could worship any deity they chose, or none at all. That does not mean religion didn’t play an important role in their lives. But they understood that the spiritual influence should be maintained on a personal level. Not a legal one.
I don’t understand why you believe that granting a marriage license to two adult human beings in love is insane. Why would you allow straight couples that clearly aren’t in love that freedom? Do they take away from your happiness?
Where’s the confusion? Are you saying gay people don’t actually love each other, or that God doesn’t love them just as he does all his children?
I have no intention of discussing that here. I drew the comparison to show the inanity of judging an institution by those who profess to operate under its auspices.
First, if they viewed it as such a fundamental principle, it behooves one to ask why the Framers did not extend the 1A prohibition to the states.
That aside, you missed my point. Look at the presidential oath, in which the President promises to faithfully execute his office, and explain to me how he is supposed to do that without religion in its purest sense.
Of course I don’t, if it’s granted to two people who CAN be married, which obviously doesn’t apply to two men or two women.
Because it’s not the proper role of the government to pass judgment on whether every couple is matrimonially compatible.
If somebody you never heard of gets murdered halfway across the country from you, does that take away from your happiness?
In you, obviously; and what nurtures it in you wants to do the same in others.
No, but it’s true anyway.
He doesn’t love those who love sin, because they won’t let Him. What sets homosexuals apart from most other sinners in the current political context is their insistence that their sin be legitimized, which no just society will tolerate.
I believe that the first ten amdendments were required by the states before they would ratify the constitution to ensure the federal government would always observe certain rights. All of those amendments provide rights to people on a federal basis only. It wasn’t up to the framers to dictate what states did, which is why we have amendments guarantee state rights.
If it’s not up to the government to pass judgment on matrimonial compatibility, then why should there be a problem with same-sex couples?
A same-sex marriage can hardly be compared to murder, where a person’s life is extinguished. One scenario is love, and the other is the absence of it.
You say it’s not true anyway that gay people don’t love each other? What do you base that opinion on? I know many happy couples that would vehmently disagree.
Is Canada not a just society? Gay couples can marry there, as well as other industrialized countries.
You’re twisting what I said. It is not for the government to screen every couple for compatibility, but it is perfectly proper for it to refuse to recognize as marriage arrangements which are not marriages.
Sure it can, just like murder can be compared to petty theft. They’re not the same, but they are both motivated by evil.
You don’t understand what love is.
Common sense.
Of course they would. You think any of them will happily admit they’ve been had?
Please, even America wasn’t perfectly just at its founding, or at any time since. It is an ideal that must be striven for; but if, through disdain for common sense, you don’t understand what justice is, you’ll strive for the opposite unawares.