The following is not a parody. It is an actual "party kit" sold by the anti-gay Ruth Institute (a NOM affiliate):
Same Sex Marriage Home Party Kit [Ruth Inst.]
Whoa, easy there tigers. With this much partying, someone's likely to break a lamp, window, or fair-minded reputation!
One man, one woman for life? If so does that mean any remarried/divorced friends can't come?
Posted by: Ron | Jul 14, 2009 12:33:45 PM
"One man, one woman for life? If so does that mean any remarried/divorced friends can't come?"
Which, interestingly enough, Ron, would exclude NOM's own Maggie Gallagher.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 14, 2009 12:34:53 PM
This is great... I know I love attending "parties" where we fear monger each other... what a blast!
Posted by: Ezra Horne | Jul 14, 2009 1:42:01 PM
Are you sure about Gallaher? I know that she was "a single mother" but I thought it was because she was a godless whorish slut, not because she defied Christ's commandments and is now living in a constant state of adultery.
But as for the party pack... for $100, how could I say "no". I mean we get ten whole bumperstickers (which only means about seven left over from the party) AND we get discounts to buy more of Dr. Morse's products.
Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Jul 14, 2009 2:38:36 PM
I wish public figures in the media would ask these haters why they aren't legislating against divorce. With almost half of all heterosexual marriages (or, as some bimbos put it "opposite marriage") winding up in divorce, what is the real threat? I'm all for it. Make "marriage" mean one man, one woman, and FOR LIFE. No divorces, no separations. Subject to criminal - or at least civil! - charges for "weakening the meaning of marriage" if you try to get out of it by running off.
Then we'll see how fast they want to "defend" marriage.
Posted by: Laura | Jul 14, 2009 2:47:33 PM
I almost threw up in my mouth finding out that this actually exists.
Posted by: RainbowPhoenix | Jul 14, 2009 3:10:46 PM
Um, am I missing something? The "Ruth" Institute pushing marriage as "one man, one woman, for life"???
In the Bible, Ruth marries Mahlon then Mahlon dies leaving Ruth a widow, so Boaz - being a close friend of the family - marries Ruth, as required by Levirate law - but there's first the matter of *another* male relative in line ahead of Boaz with dibs on Ruth's vajayjay. Levirate law, of course, doesn't give the woman the choice of whether she wants to marry her bro-in-law or not but luckily the other relative relinquishes his "I'd tap that" rights, and Ruth and Boaz get married.
Like sands through the hourglass ...
So WTF is up with the Ruth Institute as a foundation of marriage principles in 2009?
Posted by: Brad in Seattle | Jul 14, 2009 3:35:09 PM
@ Brad in Seattle: Also, the story of Ruth and Naomi is rather popular among Christian lesbians for a reason. I've heard it recited at a commitment ceremony for two women.
As for the "party kit"...ohmyGods! Not any party I'd go to, that's for damn sure. Not even a party that most straight people I know would go to.
*shudders to imagine these peoples' idea of a party*
Posted by: GreenEyedLilo | Jul 14, 2009 5:29:49 PM
Two words come to mind. "pyramid scheme"
Posted by: Daimeon | Jul 14, 2009 7:53:06 PM
Oddly enough, Revd. Fred Phelps also speaks out frequently against divorce. He claimed his disowned son Nate married "another man's wife", and the WBC made comments after Paul Newman died about how Joanne Woodward wasn't his wife.
Posted by: Celia | Jul 14, 2009 8:08:09 PMcomments powered by Disqus