CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

‘I Me Do Wed’

Mar 18, 2012

I guess it had to come to this. After all, the homosexual activists and their secular left supporters have been telling us for years now that marriage can be anything you want it to be. They have made it perfectly clear that mere gender has nothing to do with marriage, so why should paltry matters like number make any difference either?

We now know that marriage equality is everyone’s right, and we dare not allow prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness to come in the way of real love. So if you happen to be head over heels in love with yourself, then who are we to deny you your right to marry?

Only some religious cavemen would dare to deny the autoerotic their rights. Only some fundamentalist nut job would keep self-love banned and hidden in the closet. Only an ugly bigot would deny any person their right to marry themself.

And as usual, I am not making this up folks. Here is the story: “Here comes the single bride. Last week, Nadine Schweigert married herself in a symbolic wedding ceremony. The 36-year-old divorced mom of three wore blue satin and clutched a bouquet of white roses as she walked down the aisle before a gathering of 45 friends and family members in Fargo, North Dakota.

“She vowed to ‘to enjoy inhabiting my own life and to relish a lifelong love affair with my beautiful self,’ reports Fargo’s InForum newspaper. After the ring was exchanged with the bride and her inner-groom, guests were encouraged to ‘blow kisses at the world,’ and later, eat cake.

“Schweigert, who followed the ceremony with a solo honeymoon in New Orleans, claims the wedding was her way of showing the world she’s learned to love and accept herself as a woman flying solo. ‘I was waiting for someone to come along and make me happy,’ she told reporter Tammy Swift . ‘At some point, a friend said, “Why do you need someone to marry you to be happy? Marry yourself”.’

“Not everyone was in agreement. Some of Schweigert’s friends, who’d undoubtedly seen Carrie Bradshaw register for a pair of Manolos on season 6 of Sex and the City, thought she was going a little far with the single pride thing. Schweigert’s 11-year-old son was her biggest critic: ‘He said, “I love you, but I’m embarrassed for you right now”’.”

And she has other supporters. Piper Weiss, Shine Senior Features Editor wrote this: “I believe everyone has the right to marry, regardless of sexual preference. For some people being alone is what feels most natural. Shouldn’t they too be entitled to tax breaks?

“Don’t they get a moment in the spotlight, the chance to rationalize a way-too-expensive dress, the two weeks off from work unquestioned, the ridiculous kitchen appliances they’d never have bought for themselves? It’s time we did away with the stigma of ‘old maids’ and the belief that you’re not really complete without a partner. Some people are actually proud of their solo relationship status and even ready to commit to it.

“Maybe if more people could reap the benefits of a wedding without a partner, there would be a lower national divorce rate. And while we’re on the subject of weddings, consider the benefits of a one-person affair. No dueling families, no massive guest list, no pre-wedding am-I-doing-the-right-thing meltdowns. It may seem indulgent to plan a big reception for yourself, but imagine how much less stressful it would be for your guests? They can all bring dates. Nobody’s seated with strangers and forced to ask ‘do you know the bride or the groom?’”

So there you have it folks. Thanks to the sexual revolution of the 60s, and the bigger counterculture it was part of, we are finally getting some real liberation and equality here. It took a while, but we are finally making some real progress in this area.

Of course the conservative fuddy duddies will be spitting chips, and will be whining about slippery slopes and the like, but that is their problem. Real love of course knows no bounds. Real love should always be recognised, celebrated, endorsed and supported by the state.

After all, that is only fair. We must end all blatant discrimination here, and offer genuine equal rights to all lovers of all stripes. Love is the only thing that matters, not out-dated religious prejudices and ugly bigotry. Genuine marriage equality must happen, and must happen now.

We must stamp out this blight of autolovephobia. It has no place in a civilised society. All such phobia must be seen for what it really is: hate speech. As such it is a hate crime which must face the full force of the law. No civilised society can allow such vile hatred and bigotry to continue.

Autophiles have as much right to love and marry as anyone else. We demand the government at once set up a high-level government ministry dedicated to the well being of autophiles. We need a cabinet minister of autophilia, and all discrimination laws must ensure that every last vestige of autophobia is wiped out.

And while we are at it, I demand the right to marry my bookshelves.

shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/bride-marries-herself-more-singles-throw-solo-weddings-202200537.html

[862 words]

22 Responses to ‘I Me Do Wed’

  • If it didn’t come from you Bill, I would have had to check if April 1st came early! But why stop at one? Why not let nobody be married to nobody? Our society is becoming ridiculous.
    John Bennett

  • Yes it sure is John.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • ?”And while we are at it, I demand the right to marry my bookshelves.”

    As funny as that is, objectum sexuals can marry any object they like. So marrying a bookshelf is nothing unheard of.

    http://www.objectum-sexuality.org/

    Ashley Brewer

  • Many thanks for that link Ashley. Why are we not surprised? Actually it is now new: I wrote earlier about a woman marrying a warehouse:

    https://billmuehlenberg.com/2012/02/01/yet-more-scenes-from-the-passing-madness/

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • I showed this to my wonderful wife, who laughed and said “I wonder how the solo divorce rate will go!”.
    John Bennett

  • Fun with Reduction ad absurdum: since “everyone has the right to marry, regardless of sexual preference,” & bookshelves seem to be par for the course, we should be supporting the right of somebody to marry their donkey if they wish, no?

    If that’s deemed reasonable, then life-partners who happen to be octopi, crocodiles or cougars should be no problem.

    If you surmise that the wheels haven’t yet come off this planet, consider this: somewhere, there is a person who would take such a suggestion seriously.

    Leon Brooks

  • I’m willing to bet she’ll divorce herself if a better partner comes along.

    The saddest thing is that she’s actually right. As long as she looked for fulfillment in some bloke she was never going to find it. Unfortunately she then looked in the wrong place.

    God bless all,
    Michael Hutton

  • I think the NINE MILLION married people in Australia should really be the ones who get to vote on any change or negation of change to the Marriage Act, as it primarily concerns them. Why should those who are not married dictate changes to those who are? Let Getup get up and go interview all the Australians who are married. I wonder how many Getup followers are married let alone are parents bringing up children?

    As to the above kind of marriage (of self) this takes away all the stigma and sadness of singleness (boohoo) and elevates it to respectability Wow! This is the same ‘poor fella me’ victim type reasoning given by homosexuals – marriage for the sake of immediate social acceptance, equality, respectability and status that they claim marriage as having and on the other hand attacking it for its apparent breakdown.

    Anne-Marie Modra

  • And in the last days they shall give themselves over to everything that is un-natural. They shall give themselves to un-natural desires (ssm), make their children walk through the fires to ba-al (abortion), deny God (atheism/antitheism), they shall call good evil and evil good (scientific ethicists), there shall be wars and rumours of wars (war on, terror, drugs, fat, alcohol, sugar, waste, environment, etc etc).

    Get it? Got it? Good, any questions? <attempt at slight humour.

    I think we can safely say that satan was simply for the last century trying out different things to get the ground work finished, now he has unleashed the lot all at once in his curtain call before he gets chained for the millennium. Are we all ready to "endure to the end"?

    Neil Waldron

  • She shouldn’t stop at a single wedding, she need to be auto/poly since she can marry me, myself and I. Silly woman for not realising her right to marry herself more than once. This is something I demand to be done properly.
    Ian Nairn

  • Too bad Narcissus was so in love with his own reflection… He might have survived to enjoy a wedding feast with himself, instead of dying of starvation! The possibilities for sufferers of Multiple Personality Disorder for this latest mutation of marriage could be interesting to say the least…
    John Wigg

  • Bill

    That last line was too close to the raw nerve. My wife has occasionally accused me of committing adultery with my books. Bit over the top, I thought.

    But now you are suggesting that I could actually divorce a real live human being and marry thousands of books (would make Solomon’s harem pale into insignificance). Or, perhaps add the books to the current wife and have the best of both worlds? Think of the family support I could rake in, when the books have children, through the writing of books through reading them? I could be wealthy beyond my wildest dreams, have someone to scratch my back when its itchy, whilst doing what I love.

    The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?

    Do you think we might even go there?

    Lance A Box

  • Thanks Lance

    Hey, why do you think I used that example? I might have picked any one of thousands of others, but this one was close to home to me as well. I keep encouraging my children to leave home so that I might turn their bedrooms into libraries. Needless to say, they are not too thrilled with the idea. But yes my wife could also see me involved in an adulterous relationship with my books! We walk a fine line here!

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • If she married herself can she then divorce herself? And what for? Irreconcilible differences? Abuse? Maritial Infidelity? Perhaps she’d better hope her alter ego/id/superego likes her new man (correction ‘partner’). And does marriage to a new partner mean she must be a polygamist?

    BTW – ‘she walked down the aisle’ – please tell me this wasn’t a church?

    Oh the lunacy of the social engineers.

    Doug Holland

  • Yes quite right Doug.

    And good question about the aisle bit!

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Good article Bill. I’m with you almost all the way. As long as she genuinely loves herself, who should stand in the way?
    However as for your bookshelves, We have to draw the line somewhere.
    Terry Darmody

  • Go for it!!!!!
    What I want to know is what happens after the divorce, I mean, divorced people usually don’t continue to live together? I would love to get away from myself sometimes, so maybe that is the way to do it.
    Many blessings
    Ursula Bennett

  • Dear Bill… marrying books makes a lot of sense. With a book you
    – spend heaps of quality one-on-one time
    – intimate time alone enjoying a cuppa & Tim Tam
    – can travel the world
    – explore new places, visit new worlds

    But the issue becomes, I can’t just marry just one book, because I’ll never be faithful to just one, though of course I do have my extra special favourites, so I guess I’d need to marry my own library. But can I add to my library after that, or is going outside my library infidelity? Does buying a new book for Dymocks constitute eliciting prostitution? Or should I just go to my free local library – but if so wouldn’t that just make me loose? I’m confused – I just want to express my love for books to the world and not be judged for it…

    Please help.

    Garth Penglase

  • Once this barrier of one man one woman falls thousands of years of history go down the drain and anything becomes possible. And it not that many things did not happen before behind closed doors but to be sanction by our government, unbelievable.
    Rob Withall

  • Isn’t the whole point of tax breaks for couples that there are two (or more if children are involved) people living on the one income? Why should a person who marries herself be eligible for a tax break? It really takes the whole self-esteem thing a bit too far. If she really is happy to be single why not be single? How does marrying oneself show that she is happy to not have a partner?
    Kylie Anderson

  • Wow… I can’t believe 45 actual people humored her on her “wedding day.”

    I sure hope that there never comes a day when we have to engage in a debate about how self-marriage degrades the true meaning of marriage. By then marriage will probably be considered on par with a one-night stand.

    Adriana Suzz

  • Adri, I’m sure the cake had something to do with their attendance.

    Marcus Anderson

Leave a Reply