In Sickeness and In Health

I came across this article this morning while scanning the headlines on Google New: Pat Robertson Says Divorcing Spouse with Alzheimer's is OK.

Now, from the beginning, I should admit that I already have great dislike for this televangelist. He's way too focused on Armageddon. He condemns feminism, homosexuality, and liberal college professors. He describes feminism as a "socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." He states that acceptance of homosexuality could result in natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes and other threats like terrorist attacks. Apparently Robertson thinks Scotland is a "dark land overrun by homosexuals" (this cracks me up actually. I'm not even offended by this one, it's so ridiculous). Don't even get me started on what he said about the earthquake in Haiti. (I admit that I got most of this info from Wikipedia - from Pat Robertson and Pat Robertson controversies - but I still stand by the fact that Wikipedia has good source links. Besides, it's less biased than this post is going to be).

Now that I've admitted I'm biased while subtly trying to persuade you to side with me, back to the thing about Alzheimer's. First off, he does say that he would guilt trip people for doing this. But why say it's okay in the first place then? He states that Alzheimer's is a "kind of death."

This leaves me kind of speechless. Yes, Alzheimer's is a terrible disease. Yes, it is incredibly hard for spouses to go through. But it isn't the only terrible disease out there. Once you say it's okay to divorce someone with Alzheimer's, it it okay to divorce someone because they have have cancer? Because they have lupus? Because they have depression? After stating that one disease is grounds to divorce someone, how can you keep this from snowballing into something uncontrollable.

And Robertson, who condemns abortion, who seems like the sort who could condemn taking someone off of life support or any sort of assisted suicide, has blatantly labeled this disease as a form of death. How is this different from euthanasia? Yes, you're not actually killing the person but you're already labeling them as dead. I simply don't understand how this sort of cognitive dissonance can exist.

And all of this coming from a man who belongs to the front crying that if homosexuals were allowed to get married, the institution of marriage would be destroyed. However, I think Robertson completely misunderstands the institution of marriage overall. Especially the little bit "in sickness and in health." Marriage is supposed to overcome all obstacles - that's what strong, eternal love is supposed to do. Of course, this isn't always the case - sometimes divorce is better for both people. Everyone's relationships are different, after all. But I feel like there's extreme differences between both people wanting divorce for the betterment of each other or one person or a couple needing divorce because their relationship is unhealthy, and one person wanting to divorce their spouse because they don't want to deal with their sick partner. Aside from what God says on the topic (there's plenty and I'm not going to try to paraphrase it here) Robertson's words weakens marriage by implying it CAN'T overcome something like this. Really, Robertson, you won't let two men or two women who love each other let their relationship get legitimized but someone who doesn't want to deal with their sick spouse can get divorced? Maybe I have a totally romantic, idealist idea of love. But somehow, I feel like I'm right on this one. Sickness is terrible, love is not easy, life is hard - but life and love will endure. Isn't the idea of marriage itself proof of that?