Tag Archives: vow

BlogFestivus: Past Christmas I Gave You My Heart – Wham!

This story is the second in a five-part series of 200-word stories for BlogFestivus, A Christmas Carol. Check out the links (at the bottom of this post) to all the participating “ghost” writers for this year’s challenge. I suspect you’re in for some dark, yet jolly, days ahead. -BD

happy-fill-in-the-blank blogfestivusPast Christmas I Gave You My Heart – Wham!
by Tom B. Taker

The ghost said gravely, “Come. We go now. To the what-once-was.” Scrooge resisted, in vain, as he watched himself dissolving and becoming translucent. His eyes blurred until he was blinded and, when he opened them again, he beheld that everything had changed.

He saw a small room completely made of stone. A doorway revealed a dirty street beyond. Before him a man and woman dressed in simple robe-like garments sat at a crude wooden table.

Scrooge backed away, stumbling and demanded, “Who the hell are you?”

“You are ghost to them,” his guide replied. “You are here, yet you cast no shadow. You make no sound. They cannot know you.”

It was early morning. The young couple appeared to be exchanging gifts, modest bowls of undigested bits of beef. The soft words they spoke were foreign yet somehow Scrooge understood.

“I love you, my wife,” the man said, “but I do not understand. When will you come to my bed?”

“I’m sorry, my love,” the woman replied. “You know of my vow to remain pure.”

“Is it me?”

“No, it’s me.”

“It’s that Gabriel fellow, isn’t it? I’ve seen you together. What plans are you two hatching?”

Click on the links below for more takes on A Christmas Carol from our other BlogFestivus bloggers:

Linda penning at linda vernon humor
Steve from Stevil
Maria-Christina blogging at MCWhispers
Dylan of Treatment of Visions
Sarah from Parent Your Business
Dawn blogging at Lingering Visions
K8edid from k8edid
Dave bringing it at 1pointperspective
Eileen from Not The Sword But The Pen
Lindsey at RewindRevise
Kandy of Kandy Talk
Sandra writing at In Love With Words
Natalie from So I Went Undercover
Jen at Blog It or Lose It
Amelie from In the Barberry
Cee Cee blogging at Cee Cee’s Blog
Ashley from LittleWonder2
BD writing Blogdramedy

Vows, marriage and slavery

When I saw the headline that Mitt Romney had refused to sign a “marriage vow” it immediately got my attention. Did this mean he was going to actually support gay marriage, or if not (and more likely) at least not stand opposed?

A group called “The Family Leader” produced and circulated a document called “The Marriage Vow” that they hoped presidential candidates would sign. In addition to many other things, it asks candidates to support a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as between one man and one woman throughout the United States.

Mitt Romney declined to sign the vow. So far, so has Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, Gary Johnson, and Jon Huntsman.

So who did sign? Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.

Perhaps if the document was limited solely to dealing with marriage issues more would have signed it.

Weirdly, it introduces the issue of race and slavery into the mix. As you might expect, that has created a shitstorm of controversy. What could slavery possibly have to do with a discussion about the definition of “marriage” here in the year 2011?

The original version of the document is quick to point out (in the very first bullet point) that “a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent-household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA’s first African-American President.”

One thing seems certain, at least to me. Some people sure seem to sit around and think a lot about race. An awful lot.

So, what’s their point? That has been the subject of much speculation since this document was released. (Note: The group has since published the “final” version of The Marriage Vow and the bullet point pertaining to slavery has mysteriously disappeared.)

Their factoid about slavery and 1860 may be true, but even if it is, what relevance does that have to a discussion about the definition of marriage in the here and now? It’s not like going back in time to 1860 is possible, right?

Also, it is intellectually dishonest to cherry-pick a single fact to prove that something was better than it is now. Only a complete viewpoint can do that. We have to ask ourselves: Were children born as slaves in 1860 better off than children born to unwed parents since 2008? If anyone answers “yes” to that question, I think it is fair to ask, just what in the name of hell are they advocating.

The fight against gay marriage can sure take some weird twists and turns.