Friday, December 28, 2007

It's Britney, Bitch

Does anyone else think that the Spears sisters are doing more to make a mockery of the sacred marital institution and its supposed "procreative" purpose than, um, gay people are?

I mean, here we have two "superstars" who, because of media overexposure (whether deserved or not), influence millions of people.

And this is how they act:


Age 23, married childhood friend in Las Vegas. This marriage lasted 55 hours and ended in an annulment.

Age 23, 6 months after her brief first marriage, she married her baby daddy "K-Fed" (3 months after meeting him). When Britney met "K-Fed" he was in a relationship with another woman who was pregnant with his second child. 2 years after the marriage, and after having two children with "K-Fed," Britney files for divorce from "K-Fed".

Age 26, the rumor mills are reporting that unmarried Britney is allegedly pregnant again.

Jamie Lynn

Age 16, unmarried and pregnant with her boyfriend's child.

Jamie Lynn has her own show on Nickelodeon.

The purpose of this brief timeline is not to judge the Spears' sisters and their behavior. I personally don't care who they have sex with, how many babies and babby daddies they have, or how many times they get married. My purpose is to raise this point, in the form of a question:

So, "marriage defenders," how long are you going to keep devoting your lives to denying committed, loving gay people the right to marriage when famous and influential heterosexuals are making a mockery of the institution and its alleged purpose right in front of millions of people?

(Talk about an 800-pound gorilla.)

Open your eyes.

When I see celeb divorcees getting as much press in the "marriage defense" media as gay people do, I will take the mission of "marriage defense" (a little) more seriously. Because if marriage is in fact being "destroyed" it's the doing of the people who are actually able to get married. And right now, the main purpose of "marriage defense" looks like it has more to do with villainizing gay people than it does with protecting an institution.

No comments: