"Gossip Posing as Moralizing"

Kimmie Davis' play for a Wingnut Welfare retirement has submerged the Ashley Madison hack and the exposure of uber-freakazoid Josh Duggar as a sister-molesting, hooker-beating piece of shit.

But last month Digby and Greenwald put the gleeful scolds in their place.

 I think this Ashley Madison hack is nothing more than sophomoric gossip parading as moralism. I don't even care that Josh Duggar cheated on that poor wife of his --- I assume that all those patriarchal moralists do that. It's one of the perks. I feel sorry for his wife both because of what he did and the fact that she now has to be publicly humiliated all over again. I'm sure he deserves to be held up for ridicule for his hypocrisy, but in the end the whole thing is just a sordid, small town gossip fest.

Anyway, Greenwald's been following the story and wrote this up today and I thought it was very poignant:

Ever since I wrote on Thursday about the Ashley Madison hack and resulting reactions and consequences, I’ve heard from dozens of people who used the site. They offer a remarkably wide range of reasons for having done so. I’m posting below one email I received that I find particularly illuminating, which I very lightly edited to correct a few obvious typographical errors:

Dear Glenn,

Thank you for the kindness and humanity you have manifested to those of us whose data is now a source of public mockery and shame on AM.

I am female, hold a job with a lot of responsibility, have three kids, one with special needs, and a husband with whom I have not been intimate for several years due to his cancer treatments.

I also used to write about marriage law policy, encouraging traditional marriage for the good of children. My institution has a morality clause in all contracts.

Mine is a loveless, sexless, parenting marriage. I will care for my husband if his cancer spreads, we manage good will for the sake of the children, but we cannot talk about my emotional or sexual needs without him fixating on his death and crying.

I went on AM out of loneliness and despair, and found friendship, both male and female, with others trapped in terrible marriages trying to do right by their children.

My experiences have led me to soften my views of marriage as my own marriage is a deeply humbling, painful longterm commitment.

I expect to be ridiculed by colleagues, to lose my job, and to be publicly shamed, especially as a hypocrite. Yes, I used a credit card. In my case, I will get no sympathy from the right or the left as I do not fit into either of their simplistic paradigms.

I have received email from Trustify that I have been searched, and it is soliciting me to purchase its services. And I am receiving lots of spam with racy headings

That is my story. When my outing happens, I suppose I might as well take a stand for those who are trapped in bad marriages. Many of us are doing the best we can, trying in our own imperfect way to cope with alienation, lovelessness, and physical deprivation.

I do not want to hurt my children or husband. I truly wish I had a good one and I want happy marriages for others. I did what I did trying to cope. Maybe it was a bad idea but again, I have met some very decent people on AM, some of whom are now dear friends.

Thank you again.

Anonymous

As I argued last week, even for the most simplistic, worst-case-scenario, cartoon-villain depictions of the Ashley Madison user – a spouse who selfishly seeks hedonistic pleasure with indifference toward his or her own marital vows and by deceiving the spouse – that’s nobody’s business other than those who are parties to that marriage or, perhaps, their family members and close friends. But as the fallout begins from this leak, as people’s careers and reputations begin to be ruined, as unconfirmed reports emerge that some users have committed suicide, it’s worth remembering that the reality is often far more complex than the smug moralizers suggest.

The private lives and sexual choices of fully-formed adults are usually very complicated and thus impossible to understand – and certainly impossible to judge – without wallowing around in the most intimate details, none of which are any of your business. That’s a very good reason not to try to sit in judgment and condemn from afar.

Yup.

The Decline of a 20,000-Year-Old Con

Despite the gay marriages happening everywhere you look, marriage in general appears to be in decline.

Don't panic; it's a good thing.
 

Fewer people are getting married for the same reason fewer people attend church or consider themselves religious:  A 20,000-year-old con game is falling apart.

It's no coincidence that religion and marriage appeared during the same stage of human development. They are both:

• methods of social control
• sold as social benefits
• to people who need them as social crutches

Now the need for social crutches is disappearing:

• science has answered virtually all of the natural mysteries that people used to attribute to a deity.
• rapid economic change has eliminated the old sex-and-child-rearing-in-exchange-for-financial-security contract that required marriage.

Women can support themselves financially and don't need to marry for money.

The sexual revolution and contraception made frequent, excellent sex available for both men and women without either marriage or religion.

The marks are waking up and rejecting the old lies.

Get Married By An Atheist

Just one of the many, many ways U.S. laws and cultural mores discriminate against those of us who are god-free and proud of it.

Ian Millhiser at Think Progress:

If you are religious, and you want to get married in Minnesota, the state will license the clergy of your faith to perform your ceremony. Minnesota law even contains special carve outs for individual faiths, such as Quakers, where weddings are not generally performed by ordained ministers. Yet, if a couple prefers a secular ceremony, their options are more limited. Couples who do not wish to be married by a “minister of any religious denomination” can only have their wedding performed by a short list of government officials — mostly judges, retired judges and court administrators. So religious couples can have a deeply personal ceremony at a venue of their choosing, performed by a religious official that they may already have a relationship with. Secular couples who prefer not to be married by a minister, by contrast, are likely to have fewer options unless they are personal friends with a judge.

A lawsuit filed by an atheist group and one of its members, however, could change this calculation. The suit makes several arguments claiming that “representatives of atheist organizations” should have the same right to solemnize marriages that ordained ministers have. Among other things, the suit relies on the Supreme Court’s 2005 holding in McCreary County v. ACLU that “the ‘First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.‘” It also quotes heavily from a recent federal appeals court decision “allowing certified secular humanist celebrants to solemnize marriages in Indiana.”

SNIP

Additionally, the atheist group acknowledges that “obscure or fake religions” such as “the Universal Life Church and the Church of the Latter Day Dude, a religion of the Big Lebowski” offer online ordinations that can be used to get around the Minnesota law. Nevertheless, the group says, “many atheists who want to be certified as marriage celebrants do not want to engage in the hypocrisy of pretending they are ministers of phony churches.”

The Last Despised Group: Single People

I remember reading several years ago a liberal argument against same-sex marriage that went something like this: civil unions benefit both gay people and straight people by allowing both to gain benefits like health insurance, hospital visitation and inheritance rights without having to get married. But if legalizing gay marriage means civil unions drop off the legislative menu, then the losers will be non-married couples both gay and straight.

Don't get me wrong: I'm adamantly in favor of same-sex marriage. And just as adamantly in favor of civil unions for everyone who doesn't want to get married. But I'm even more adamantly opposed to opportunistic politicians using same-sex marriage to stick it to single people.

From Firedoglake:

Now that same-sex marriage is the law of the state, Gov Martin O’Mally (D-MD) has notified MD state employees they “won’t be able to include domestic partners in their health insurance”.

The Washington Monthly, which ought to know better, has a way-too-close-up photo of O'Malley on its latest cover, with the question "Should This Man Be President?"

Single people of all sexual persuasion should answer "NO!"

Republican Marriage Envy

Remember how during the Clinton impeachment, we all suspected that what was really motivating the repugs' foam-at-the-mouth derangement was Fellatio Envy?

Now a piece at Huffington Post on the Obama's marriage makes we wonder if one thing driving John McCain's obvious anger at the Democratic nominee is envy of the strong, healthy relationship McCain himself has never had.

One of the greatest benefits of an Obama presidency is hidden in plain sight: the relationship between Michelle and Barack. They provide a great role model of a healthy relationship, at a time when such models are sorely needed.

SNIP

Michelle and Barack do something we've never seen before in a presidential couple: they actually look directly at each other when they're speaking to each other. They also laugh at each other's humor, and they allow their sexual attraction for each other to be visible. Contrast that with other presidential marriages, in which the sexual attraction to each other was not visible but their sexual attraction to others became highly visible ... Michelle and Barack talk openly about their feelings for each other. They're real.

SNIP

Over the last fifty years there's been a parade of not-so-great relationship models in the White House. They range from idol-worship (Nancy's perpetually-adoring glaze, oops we mean gaze, at Ronnie) to the sternly maternal façade of the first Mrs. Bush ... We've witnessed White House marriages strained to the breaking point by secrets.

SNIP

Have you ever seen the current occupant of the White House speak, much less listen, to his wife in public? For example, do we ever get to hear from the real Laura Bush, the one who disagrees completely with the far-right views of her husband on such matters as women's reproductive rights? No, because she's been muzzled, like most of her predecessors, and sealed off behind the glazed smile of the Perfect Presidential Wife.

It's high time we got to see an honest, loving, real relationship in the White House. If you're like us, you probably don't want to spend the next four years hearing how much the perfectly-coiffed Mrs. McCain has spent on her outfit, which of their nine houses they're weekending at or which of their thirteen cars they're wheeling around in.

SNIP

The question is: are we as a nation ready to end our national addiction to duplicity, phony adoration and Stepford wifedom in the White House? If not, we're going to get what we deserve.

The authors never say so explicitly, but isn't it obvious that the McCain marriage is about as far from role-model healthy as possible? Hard to imagine Barack offering up Michelle as a participant in a stripper contest the way John did Cindy, but even harder to imagine ever seeing a glimmer of genuine warmth between the McCains.

Read the whole thing.

Cross-posted at BlueGrassRoots.