Stupid Liberals To 'Un-Marry' For Gay Rights

NewsBusters.org:

Romantic comedies and candlelight dinners are two common activities that couples like to engage in on Valentine’s Day, but Bill Talen is offering a rather, uhh, unique suggestion on February 14: un-marry your spouse for gay rights.

USA Today reported that Talen is inviting all couples to participate in the “unMarriage event,” taking place in New York City, which apparently isn’t anything new. Talen, who is also known as Rev. Billy, invites all to join in on this event on his website and writes, “Join hundreds of couples at the Bethesda Fountain in Central Park this Valentine’s Day for a mass ritual in support of all the rights of ALL people to marry whomever they wish.”

He continues to write, “Brides and Grooms will suspend their vows in a ritual officiated by Reverend Billy. Tragic and hopeful love songs will be sung. Participants will be issued an official unmarried certificate suitable for framing.” How romantic. Don’t fret if you aren’t married; “the unwed are also welcome to join the ritual as we declare a moratorium on all weddings until gay weddings are legalized and California Prop 8 is overturned.”

USA Today didn’t seem to find anything strange about the idea and wrote that, “The unMarry idea isn't original – Sarah Silverman made the same pledge on The View last week, saying getting married right now ‘is like joining a country club that wouldn't allow Blacks or Jews.’” Yep, that’s exactly right.

Always gotta insert the Blacks people into the cesspool, don't they? Either way, if they really believed that people should be able to marry "whomever they wish", then why isn't "Rev. Billy" (no doubt, he got his reverend card in the mail 3 to 5 days after filling up an application) and his flock standing up for the polygamists and/or polyamorous couples in this country who also can't marry legally? Don't they have the same 'rights' as the gays do to marry 'whomever they wish'? Why is it acceptable to remove 'discrimination' on the basis of 'sexual orientation,' but continue to permit and perpetuate in legislation and common law other forms of 'discrimination'? Either you eliminate all forms of 'discrimination' or you leave the current definition alone. Of course, they have little to say about that.