Thursday, February 19, 2009

Poster Girl for Opposite-Sex Marriage

Move aside, Britney Spears. An Indiana woman is now the best reason to ask: Why, exactly, are wedded gay couples a threat to the sanctity of marriage?

UPI reports
that she has been married 23 times:

Linda Lou Taylor, 68, who holds a Guinness World Record as the most married woman in history, said two of her husbands turned out to be gay, two ended up homeless, a few cheated on her, one choked her and another padlocked the refrigerator shut, Gannett News Service reported Wednesday.
And the Indianapolis Star expands the story:
Now known as Mrs. Linda Wolfe, she is the most-married woman in history.

She is also the most-married person alive.

And she is alone.

Wolfe can't list her husbands in order. But she remembers things that matter.

The nicest was George Scott, her first and -- at seven years -- her longest marriage. He was 31 and fresh from a stint in the military. She was 16 and just out of eighth grade. "We used to sing that song, 'I'm only 15 and he's 21,'" Wolfe said. "But we'd go around saying, 'I'm only sixteen and he's thirty-one.'"

The best lover was Jack Gourley, who liked skinny dipping and impromptu trysts. She wed him three times.

The marriage to Fred Chadwick was the shortest: 36 hours. The love wasn't there.

The strangest exchange of vows took place at the Indiana Reformatory at Pendleton to a one-eyed inmate named Tom Stutzman, whom she said was wrongly convicted of rape.
Miss/Ms./Mrs. Taylor gives "serial monogamy" a new meaning -- more like "Fibonacci monogamy."

So again I ask: If Linda Lou Taylor can get married legally, why can't I?



Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!

7 comments:

CR UVa said...

I always wonder why divorcees are presented to people who disagree with gay marriage as though they do not believe them to be a threat to marriage. I do believe that women like this are a threat to marriage, just the same as allowing homosexual unions. Divorce has become to easy, but trying to suggest that divorce being common is a reason that gays should be allowed to marry is not a valid talking point, but a diversion, hoping that people will give in just as those who get divorces do.

James Young said...

Uh, Rick, if you insist upon holding up this woman as a prototypical example of the "sanctity of marriage," I assume you'll have no objection to me holding up "Sister Boom-Boom" as a prototypical example of a homosexual.

I'd expect better of you.

James Atticus Bowden said...

You can get married Rick. Check the Code of Virginia. You can marry a woman, who is over a certain age, not too close a blood relation, mentally competent - isn't that about it?

You can't marry 4 women, because this isn't a Muslim country yet.

You can't marry your sister or mother because we are a Judeo-Christian culture and the majority rules in setting the best standards for marriage for the compelling interests of the state.

Likewise, that is why you can't marry an animal or a group of persons.

You can't marry a man, because no government, from tiniest tribe to greatest civilization, ever confused homosexual sex with marriage and family until Liberal Human Secularists made it up - in Canada (?) and some silly, socialist - soon to be Islamist countries in Europe.

Rick Sincere said...

I didn't say that this woman is "prototypical" -- just that if she can marry a convicted rapist in prison, then why should law-abiding gay Americans be denied the right to marry?

And I'm always amazed that "defenders of marriage" (per JAB) suggest that gay men and lesbians should engage in sham marriages, as if that somehow protects the sanctity of the institution.

Anonymous said...

Rick, I'm sure JAB doesn't view those marriages as shams. And perhaps he has a sister or daughter he'd like to introduce you to, to love and to honor. . .

jk said...

I may have to agree that this example doesn't do a lot to promote your cause. I support allowing you to marry because I don't recognize government's right to define and proscribe marriage.

Libertymad said...

Good question. I guess some of her marriages may well be declared nulled invalid if there were not entered with a view to procreation. That's how the neo right wing socialists, who want to impose a kind of Napoleonic Code in the US, define marriage, isn't it?
By the way, I quite like your glasses. I wouldn't mind marrying you just for that reason. Linda too.