January 07, 2011

D-Bag O' the Day (v.1.18)—Desperate Oregon Fan Seeks E-Mail Order Auburn Bride

OK, I suppose it's time to let Daniel Negreanu off the hook and bump him from the front page featured D-Bag position. It was a good run, sir, but it's time to move on.

Our new featured D-Bag is one Ryan Tharp, who came to my attention via Deadspin. Apparently, Mr. Tharp is a young Oregon football fan who—like Mr. Negreanu—loves those hilarious prop bets. From his post on Craigslist:

I, along with several buddies, will be celebrating the Duck victory in Vegas from January 11th-14th. During that extravaganza, I plan on taking in the entire Vegas experience, including marrying a stranger. If you are cute enough, spontaneous enough, and an all around cool chick....let's get hitched. Loser of the bet has to pay the annulment costs. So, if you are going to be in Vegas after the National Championship, believe in your Tigers, and want to have stories to tell your grandchildren (won't be mine) then shoot me an email...with a pic!

Auburn ladies, this could be your future ex-husband!

Now, I do have to give Mr. Tharp kudos for being the rare college student who can be a drunken lout and still put together a coherent, grammatically correct paragraph. Nonetheless the entire premise of his prop bet is offensive.

The sig other and I have been dating for over four years, and have been living together and sharing our lives for more than three of those years. In a year or so, we intend to get married, which prior to April 3, 2009, would have been impossible in Iowa. Three good judges just lost their jobs because they had the courage to, well, do their jobs and rule on an important constitutional issue the way they felt the law required. Even after our wedding, there will be many states which will not recognize our marital status, should we find ourselves relocating or even merely traveling through, potentially creating issues related to health care decisions and property rights, among hundreds of potential legal landmines.

Now, I know that there are strong feelings on both sides of the marriage equality debate, and I fully accept that folks of good will toward gays might nonetheless oppose marriage equality based on any of a number of strongly held beliefs. It's an issue worthy of rational discussion, and at the end of the day, we may simply have to agree to disagree on some fundamental underlying principles. But please, stop trying to tell me that letting gay couples who are in loving, committed relationships marry will somehow undermine or destroy the "sanctity of marriage".

Looking just at Vegas, Mr. Tharp has good company in Nicky Hilton and Todd Andrew Meister (marriage annulled after two months), Dennis Rodman and Carmen Electra (marriage annulled after nine days), Axl Rose and Erin Everly (divorced after three weeks), and perhaps most famously, Britney Spears and Jason Allen Alexander who got drunk, got married, and had it annulled, all in roughly 55 hours. Britney does know how to live it up in Vegas! Of course, let's also give a special "sanctity of marriage" award to Darva Conger and Rick Rockwell—Darva competed on the reality TV show "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" for the right to wed a guy just for his (financial) assets. Oh yeah, that marriage lasted less than a month before it was annulled.

There's no reason to fear us gay folks destroying the sanctity of marriage. You straight folks are doing a bang-up job all on your own.

10 comments:

  1. I believe that those opposed to gay marriage on the grounds that it violates the sanctity of the concept of marriage are hiding behind lofty-sounding excuses and just don't like gay people. Why shouldn't gays get married? "Because fuck them queers, anyway" is not going to be accepted as an answer in the well of the Senate or the Sunday morning shows. They need to have a ready answer that sounds like it was thought out.

    It's the worst type of hypocricy. BTW don't even get me started on the movement for a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage - as if the framers viewed the Constitution as a device that restricts rights, as opposed to bestowing and guaranteeing them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. As soon as the straight folk can get marriages to last, they can talk about the sanctity of the institution. With all the fighting they've done to get the right to do so (in the states where it can happen) the gay folk I know treasure marriage a lot more than people who take it for granted.

    I always find it amusing that the people who scream the loudest about the sanctity of marriage always seem to be on wife #2 or #3.

    BTW, I'm an ordained minister, so if you need an officiant for your wedding, just let me know.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have no idea why Marriage is even a legal thing. It should have stayed a religious thing and been defined by whatever your beliefs were.. People should have just been Legally Bound or something (bonus sounds kinky).

    ReplyDelete
  4. At the risk of offending my very conservative friends (who probably stopped reading your blog a long time ago . . . ), I don't know that the state's job was ever to recognize the "sanctity" of marriage in the moral sense that people want to use it. Given the examples you cite, the general ability for anyone and their dog (well, maybe not their dog), and other fine examples like Anna Nicole Smith and her ancient boy toy, etc., there is no inherent "qualitative" judgment in the state granting a marriage license. Merely a recognition of legal commitment/obligation/status that grants the holders certain civil and legal rights and privileges with respect to each other. I don't know God personally, but if you take common conceptions of his omnipotence, I'm certain he's not up there waiting for the state of Nevada to bless a union before he calls it holy.

    Good luck to the bonehead in LV - may you and yours demonstrate the commitment behind what the word "marriage" is supposed to mean.

    Best of luck - don't wear a powder blue tuxedo. Just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ Gary: You're likely right, at least with respect to many leaders of the anti-marriage equality movement. It's sort of sad that demagoguing hate against a minority group still has such political resonance in this day and age.

    @ John (a/k/a Falstaff): I would be honored to have you officiate my wedding. So honored I would organize a 1/2 PLG cash game for the reception.

    @ Waffles: I think a lot of controversy could be avoided if folks would separate civil marriage from religious marriage. Of course, the right wing fanatics want civil = religious ... and there you have it.

    @ The Wife: I'll wear whatever the fashionista sig other tells me to wear to my wedding. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting as always, I do have some thoughts though at least in reference to the post.

    There's nothing here that proves our sleeveless wearing friend is the type of hypocrite I believe you are nominating. (I'm guessing that some/many who oppose same sex marriage that claim sanctity would be in agreement that this is offensive).

    That doesn't mean he's not a dbag, or that his actions aren't offensive, I just thought that perhaps the reasoning for his nomination here was a bit off, as his direct actions didn't seem to be the reason he won.


    Is his post silly, stupid? Probably, but for a college student I'd be willing to cut him some slack here. I don't necessarily believe in the 'sanctity' of marriage though, so I probably view it a bit differently then most.

    Should those that believe two people that love each other be allowed to marry be nominated for dbag of the day? Absolutely

    Should he be nominated for the wardrobe choice? Possibly

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ Michael: Our D-Bag was nominated because he treats marriage like another just a funny prank to pull off. That attitude bothers me because I (and many other gay folks) take marriage very seriously, yet he--and other straight folks--get the privilege to marry frivolously if they like.

    I'm not saying that many straight folks take marriage lightly. But I'm offended that one reason given for denying gays the right to marry is that marriage is so special, letting the gays do it would destroy it. Actions like those of our D-Bag put the lie to that contention.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I definitely understand, he doesn't take it seriously and I can now see how it offended you from that position.

    And since the anti-same sex marriage groups do constantly harp on the 'sanctity' of it, I see it a little better from your eyes now. it's not that I didn't think you took marriage seriously, I just could not completely infer how seriously from the original post. I'd blame that on having something available to me that I take for granted essentially.

    I'm glad to hear though that Iowa about to recognize you and your partners commitment though and hope other states will follow suit sooner rather then later.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I read about this guy prior to reading your post Grange. Even though I thought he was a douche I didn't see it from your standpoint. After reading your post I agree with what you said and can completely understand why you'd be so offended.

    The only problem is the people that are going to be against gay marriage because it's against the sanctity of marriage will also be agree with you and they'll this guy is mocking the sanctity of marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @ Tic_Tac: See, there is common ground between both sides of the marriage equality debate!

    ReplyDelete